Woods. And the Sound of a Tree Falling

Over the last week or so, much has been said and written about Tiger Woods and his recent 'transgressions'. The morally conservative have expressed outrage and disappointment over his infidelity. The more open-minded liberals, like my friend in his blog post, have taken a more tolerant view, drawing distinctions between his private / personal life and his sense of professionalism and commitment to the game, and questioning the sanctimoniousness of his critics. As for me, I do believe in the morality of not hurting people, but do not believe in the morality of sexual conservatism. I think it is OK to do pretty much whatever you like as long as you don't hurt people you care about by reneging on commitments that you've made to them. What that actually translates to in terms of degrees of sexual freedom (or constraints) is for you to work out with the said people in your life, whoever they may be. 


Agreed, a man's private life is nobody else's business, as my friend's post also opines. However, if the man is a celebrity who endorses big brands, who signs contracts that makes him accountable for his behaviour in some way or other, then it's a bit dumb to conduct his life in a cavalier fashion. Not immoral. Just plain dumb. Accenture summarily dropped Tiger Woods as their brand ambassador yesterday and this comes as no surprise. I mean .. duh .. what was he thinking?

In the course of letting myself get a little carried away with the spirit of word play (thanks to all the metaphors, puns and other figures of speech that bloggers like my friend have been spinning around 'woods' and 'trees'), I was reminded of the old zen-like ponderable: If a tree falls in the woods, would it make a sound if nobody is there to hear it? I think celebrities who endorse brands (especially those where 'integrity' is an important brand value) should conduct their lives with this question in mind. They should make sure that the tree doesn't fall, and if it just has to, then they should make sure that nobody is around to hear it. That's the only way to ensure that private lives remain so.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Minor Observation

When it comes to punctuation, the question mark seems to have become as much a victim of wrong usage as the much abused apostrophe.

For instance:

How to win friend's and influence people

is incorrect, because of the apostrophe (as may seem obvious). So is:

How to win friends and influence people?

because of the question mark (though I'm not sure how obvious that is). If you really wanted to find out how one may learn the art of winning friends and influencing people, you should ask:

How does one win friends and influence people?

If you wanted to phrase that as a request, instead of a question, you should say:

Please tell me how to win friends and influence people.

Clearly, we don't seem to be teaching the language with as much rigour as we used to. It may be OK for the hoi polloi to make these mistakes, but I really wince when I see such appalling neglect and decline in writing and editing standards, as brought home by the output of several copywriters, reporters, columnists, editors, authors and others who earn a living out of their (professed) proficiency with the written word.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

And The Prize Goes To ...

... Nobody!

That's right. According to news reports from Silicon India and DNA, the Infosys Science Foundation Prize in the 'Engineering and Computer Science' category for the year 2009 (the very first year of inception of this august institution) will not be awarded, since the jury for this category has determined that out of a list of 34 nominees not a single one fits the bill.

If that is indeed the case, then why do we see so much chest thumping by the Indian IT industry players about Indian software engineers being the most gifted at innovation? (A claim that has been endorsed by reputed consultants as well - something I've criticized in an earlier post.) 

And if that is not the case, then isn't it a bit surprising that Infosys can't get a jury together who can separate the wheat from the chaff in this category, considering that their juries in all other categories and sub-categories have been able to pick winners?

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

The Compulsion to Explain India

What's wrong with this picture? For one, the title of the talk is "Why nations should pursue 'soft' power" but the only nation being discussed is India (with just a passing reference to the US and other countries). Second, the talk was delivered in Mysore, Karnataka. TED held this event in India, presumably, because they wanted to bring TED to Indians in India (which I think was a great idea, by the way). But Indians already know stuff about their country, even if they had not already looked at it in precisely the same way as presented by Shashi Tharoor. This video is hardly an eye-opener, in that sense. In my opinion, this was a wasted opportunity - either Shashi Tharoor could have talked about something else, or they could've got some other speaker to talk about some other topic.

In contrast, this other talk at the same event at least offered some slightly more interesting insights (relatively speaking) into cultural diversity, to Indians who may not have figured it all out on their own. But again, it suffers from the same disease: the title is "East vs. West -- the myths that mystify" but the only "East" being discussed is India. And falls prey to the same temptation: the stereotyping of mystical yet modern India, on whose streets bullock carts jostle with BMWs, where 'Jugaad' is what makes it all work.

I fail to understand why speakers participating in an event held in India should explain India to a predominantly Indian audience. And if the audience was not predominantly Indian, then why take the trouble to hold such an event in India?

What TED should do is to get "standard" TED content and speakers to places like India, and invite speakers on all things Indian to their events in other locations (with strict instructions to stay away from cliche, no matter how innovatively packaged / eloquently presented). This would go a long way in facilitating cultural osmosis and in helping people all over the world embrace and celebrate diversity.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

26/11 - A Year Later

It has become fashionable to ask, critically and in the tone of angry righteous rhetoric, about what (or how much) has changed in the last one year. Just as it was fashionable, in the wake of the attacks on this day exactly one year ago, to ask in much the same tone, as to who was responsible for the lapses that allowed such an outrageous assault to take place, and what was being done about it.

As a Mumbaikar, as an Indian, and as a global citizen, all that I've done in the last one year (other than blogging about it a few days later) boils down to: (a) casting my vote diligently when elections were held, and (b) speaking to the local MLA once (at a meeting he had requested for, with members of the housing complex that I live in), about security in the post 26/11 world, and other issues that were specific to our neighbourhood and local community.

I have no moral right to criticize those who haven't done 'enough', and I have only words of appreciation and gratitude for those who've actually done something constructive about it, whatever that may be.

Of course, I continue to hope and pray for a world that chooses to eschew hatred and embrace love, eschew anger and embrace compassion. And in my own small humble sort of way, I spread soft and gentle messages of peace and harmony, where and when needed.

You do what you have to. 

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Hopenhagen: Woodstock Redux?

Earlier today, a tweet from one of the sources of sustainability related news that I follow through my work handle on twitter took me to their post on Cause Marketing.

As I read the post and browsed through some of the sites it pointed to, notably Hopenhagen (a play on the words 'hope' and 'cope', symbolizing the momentum of hope building around COP15, the UN conference on climate change scheduled for December 7-18 in Copenhagen, Denmark), Ogilvy Earth and the stirring Yes We Can video on YouTube, I experienced a feeling of frisson caused by what I can best describe as a memetic atavism of Woodstock, the music festival from back in 1969 that made history. Through sheer association, the song Woodstock (originally by Joni Mitchell though popularly known through the CSNY version) started playing in my mind and I was amazed by the relevance of its lyrics (particularly towards the end - the part that I reproduce below, from the Joni Mitchell original) to the current zeitgeist on climate change control. For a moment there it almost seemed to me like the song was written for COP15.

By the time we got to woodstock
We were half a million strong
And everywhere there was song and celebration
And I dreamed I saw the bombers
Riding shotgun in the sky
And they were turning into butterflies
Above our nation
We are stardust
Billion year old carbon
We are golden
Caught in the devils bargain
And weve got to get ourselves
Back to the garden

Yes indeed, we're caught in the devil's bargain, and we've got to get ourselves back to the garden!

P.S. Do sign the petition at hopenhagen.org and let's get to the half mill mark soon (though I bet it will be more, by December 7)

P.P.S. (added Nov 10, 2009) here's a video clip of Joni Mitchell singing Woodstock (at some other event)

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

The Paradoxes of Diversity

Quite a controversy these last couple of days, over the Deoband fatwa against the Vande Mataram. I always loved that song (and still do) and I sincerely hope they don't yield to political pressure and ban it just to appease the Deobandis! Much has been said, reported, blogged and tweeted on this topic, but one news report just caught my eye: http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article43180.ece

So here's a Muslim politician (Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi), who happens to be not just a member but a Veep of a hard-core Hindu right-wing political party (the BJP), criticizing the home minister (P Chidambaram), a Hindu Brahmin, for attending an event where a Muslim organization (Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind) adopted a resolution against the singing of a national song (Vande Mataram), calling it un-Islamic.

Several cultures across the world tolerate diversity, but a few seem to revel in it to the point of absurdity! THIS is why I love India. Show me one other country where you might find such contradictions and paradoxes. As much a source of levity as a cause for pride.

Vande Mataram!

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

The Effort IS The Attainment ...

... to paraphrase Marshall McLuhan.

And this message is addressed to all those who've been asking "But what has he actually DONE?" in response to Barack Obama being named for the Nobel Peace Prize 2009. The official statement on the decision was fairly clear. Yes, it came as a surprise, and yes, there just might have been better candidates for this year's Nobel Peace Prize. But that applies to the awards in other categories as well this year, and last year ... and so on. Are we going to question all those as well? And if not then why this one? What exactly are we questioning? The Committee's judgement? Or their integrity? I think both are unquestionable and above and beyond reproach (and these days, given that several institutions we've held in great respect over the years have crumbled to dust, that's saying a lot). If they've arrived at this decision, and we don't agree with it, surely, there's something we're not getting.

We live in times that are unmatched, in terms of complexity, tension and risk, in the history of the world. It is everywhere, not confined to a country or a region or continent. The entry of Barack Obama on the global stage is an encouraging sign and fills us with hope. His adversaries are mostly powerful lobbies, vested interest groups and others who have been benefiting from the status quo all these years, and who don't want anything to change. Naturally, they will not applaud him for this award (and I guess the media will carry the most rabid comments tomorrow, when the US wakes up and the hard right gets a hold on their megaphones and their cameras and their laptops). His supporters may have grown disappointed over time, but they need to remind themselves that change is not easy, as any change agent who has tried to bring about real change would know. And a change agent who wants to move ahead by consensus, in the true spirit of democracy, has an even more difficult task ahead.

However, this award is not about reforms in the US - it is about the kind of transformation Obama represents at a global level. De-escalation of conflict, easing of tension, renewed hope for peace. Is that a bad thing? Hasn't he been bold and gone where others have not had the guts to go before? It's easy to heckle, and what the heck, I'm quite a heckler myself. But I save it for the ones who are truly callow and devoid of substance, and yet aspire to stations of eminence. Give this man, and peace, a chance.

On the occasion of John Lennon's birthday, I'll leave you with this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b7qaSxuZUg

Have a great weekend! It's easy if you try!

Will all you chronic WTFers kindly STFU? Kthxbai

Seriously, it can get tiresome, and at times downright annoying, when every second or third tweet has a WTF and/or an STFU in it. Tweeple should realize that such messages inject negative energy that vitiates the 'tweetosphere', for want of a better word. And this is equally applicable outside the tweetosphere as well, in the real world. Which is why nobody enjoys the company of curmudgeons.

There's a whole bunch of good stuff going on out there too, in this great wide beautiful wonderful world. Those who don't see or can't see or won't see it, should just STFU. Vent your spleen somewhere private, please. I mean, WTF!

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Reconstructing the B.S., One Sacred Cow at a Time

I've been busy over the last day or two and so I missed all the on-line action on Shashi Tharoor's tweet and the aftermath (though I did catch an off-line glance at some headlines that gave me a general idea of what happened there). Being a Friday evening I thought I'd dig into all that B.S. a little and get to the root of it. Only to find that there is just too much silliness and stupidity in this world, and there's just no saying how many 'intelligent' people get trapped by it. And then there are the clever ones who try to get away with verbal prestidigitation.

It all started with a poor pun in a tweet by Shashi Tharoor about cattle class and holy cows, in the wake of announcements regarding austerity measures promulgated by Pranab Mukherjee, that advised MPs to travel by economy class. I don't follow Shashi Tharoor on twitter and I couldn't find the original tweet - guess he deleted it, but what I gathered this evening was that in response to a journalist's query on twitter, on whether he would be traveling "cattle class" on his next trip to Kerala, Shashi Tharoor had tweeted something like -

Of course! in cattle class out of solidarity with all our holy cows

Silly comment, that. Cattle / holy cow ... I didn't even find it funny, really (though I think my title for this post is hilarious - c'mon, admit it). I wouldn't make that comment if I were him. What was he thinking? That twitter is some exclusive club where nobody other than the cyberati elite get to know what one says? Silly comment, but also sarcastic in a very tongue-in-cheek way. Again, what was he thinking? That nobody in his audience (174,824 followers in Twitter at the time of writing this post) could get what he really meant?

Apparently someone found his seemingly opprobrious tweet (surprise! surprise!) and showed it to his bosses in the Congress Party, who promptly threw a fit. Ah the holier-than-thou Congress! Their outraged outcry was that this was a contemptible contumely. Why? Because it was egregious to economy class passengers. Silly, again, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the smarter ones in the Congress got what he really meant. And I think that's what pissed them off and had them frothing at their collective mouth as they called it out as unacceptable, across the media.

More news coverage, more TV discussions, more interviews, more panels, more expert opinions, more silliness followed (and I think there'll be even more B.S. about this over the weekend). Several personalities - politicians and journalists alike, unabashedly exposed their abysmal ignorance on a whole bunch of topics, including, of course, twitter / blogging / social media.

Then came the apologies and clarifications about the 'misunderstanding' (and of course, deletion of the terrible tweet that triggered this avalanche of silliness). In a subsequent tweet, Shashi Tharoor admitted it was a silly expression (and I am reproducing here below the tweets that followed, just in case they magically disappear by the time you read this post and click on the links to the respective tweets).

it's a silly expression but means no disrespect to economy travellers, only to airlines for herding us in like cattle. Many have misunderstd

A feeble attempt at back-pedaling, I'd say. And again, this is different from tweeting, for example, something like "it was silly of me to have tweeted that". Anyway. This was followed by :

i now realize i shldnt assume people will appreciate humour. &u shouldn't give those who wld wilfully distort yr words an opportnty to do so

Oh? NOW he realized that. And also that there are 'those' humorless people out there, waiting and watching, who'd grab any opportunity to distort his words. Tsk Tsk. Politics I tell you! Full of such evil people. Wish we'd known this before.

And then there was this edifying tweet - a gem of a clarification, presumably in response to a tweet from someone else:

@dilnawazpasha holy cows are NOT individuals but sacrosanct issues or principles that no one dares challenge. Wish critics wld look it up

Aha! Is that right, Mr Tharoor? So you're dealing with people who don't know the language, huh? OK. Let's do some nit-picking then. First of all, the mot juste is "sacred cow", if you meant "sacrosanct issues or principles that no one dares challenge". Secondly, the expression "holy cow" (actually, "Holy Cow!") signifies something else, FYI. True, sometimes people use it in the same sense as "sacred cow", but YOU can't get away with that - you, who are so good with words. And lastly, the word "solidarity" is meant to be used with respect to individuals, yes, individuals, and not ideas or issues or principles. One doesn't do things out of solidarity with an issue or principle: one does things out of solidarity with individuals that one identifies with or supports, such as one's colleagues or team members. "Wish U wld look it up" back at ya - the whole lot: sacred cow, holy cow, solidarity. Oh but what am I saying .. you know this stuff ... you were just trying to find an escape hatch. Sorry, didn't mean to sound so patronizing about your command over the language.

So then, Mr Tharoor, when you said "... out of solidarity with all our holy cows" in your own subtle sarcastic polished and oh-so-classy tongue-in-cheek style, who, really, were you expressing your so-called "solidarity" with? Mr Pranab Mukherjee? Heh. No wonder your party colleagues are so pissed off with you - you were poking fun at their austerity drive! They got it too, but they wouldn't call it out. How could they? We don't slaughter sacred cows in this country. So here's a word (or two) of advice from a well-meaning fella: Careful who you have a beef with. Do not yield to the temptation to rib, delicious as it may appear, for someone or other will have a bone to pick with you, and you have a lot at stake.

Good luck and have a nice weekend!

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

She moves in mysterious ways

A tweet from CNN that popped up in my twitter news account last night caught my eye. It said "Media shut out from Palin's Hong Kong speech". Curious, I clicked on the shortened URL which took me to the web page that had the story.

The more I read, the more I was intrigued. Sarah Palin is going to talk to investors? C'mon! Seriously? In China? You've gotta be kidding! I'd give a lot to watch that. But alas ... no media coverage of her speech. Why? Because she doesn't want to give the media access to her speech. And what is she going to talk about? Sorry, cannot be disclosed. So now, those who are not going to be in the room will never know what she said and how it was received. And all kinds of stories could be spun around that. How could anyone verify them? More mystery - nobody knows how much they're paying her for this, though it is speculated that it could well be in six figures. I guess she just loves getting involved in mysterious controversies like these. And getting paid for it!

If she's managing to create such an enigmatic aura around her, after palin' into insignificance (sorry, couldn't resist it), then imagine the kind of mystique she'd be wrapped up in after she wins the 2012 elections to become America's first woman President!

On a different note - I wonder if she is going to ask them if she could go Panda hunting over the weekend. They might even let her.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Are You Being Served?

I don't mean to carp over trivial matters, but I've had two really lousy customer experiences in the last couple of days, with two global majors - Max New York Life Insurance and Vodafone. And in the last month or so, I struggled with a prolonged issue with HSBC that only recently got resolved (thanks to the committed and diligent follow-up by my highly competent Relationship Manager, who must have put up quite a fight, I'm sure, with his back-office processing set-up). Will spare you the gory details of each case - for you, it would be most uninteresting, and for me, I don't wish to relive the annoyance and frustration. When I shared some of this on twitter yesterday, I got a lot of empathetic tweets from others who've had similar experiences with the same or similar brands. So I know the problem is not me :)

Why can't big brands like these get their act together in terms of design and execution of smoother customer experiences? In each case, the issues were at a simple transactional level, nothing complex. Handling such issues is not rocket science any more, and there is so much learning out there on how to do this cheaper, faster and better. I do realize that handling 'outliers' is not easy - for each business, no matter how big or small, there's always the question of how far do you go to satisfy the customer. Seth Godin makes the point rather eloquently, as he usually does, in his recent blog post. In my case, I am not an outlier and I am not expecting customer delight - just basic transactional efficiency. Why is that such a hard promise to deliver on? And if it is, then why make such a promise? One would think competition would solve these problems, but sadly, it hasn't. I can't even say "Screw you, I'm taking my business to the next guy" simply because I know that the next guy is going to be equally bad, if not worse. And I know this from previous experiences. It is almost as though they all collude and decide to remain inefficient and apathetic to customer needs.

As is my wont, when in a more relaxed frame of mind, I look for the silver lining in all my bad experiences and ask myself what's in it for me. And this was my (re)learning this week: when it comes to customer interactions, learn the art of listening and never undermine the 'importance of being earnest'. Nothing fancy, just a simple truth that we need to remind ourselves about, each time we're facing our customers. They can walk away. When they have a better alternative, they will. We don't have to wait till then - we have the opportunity to become the better alternative!

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

A week well spent

Achievements for this week (don't expect this to be a regular feature!)

• Got the RSS feed aggregator widgets working more or less the way I wanted them to - check them out here
• Successfully edited html in the Blogger template to get the formats I wanted at the feed widget site (looking at code after so many years felt weird!)
• Finally got down to some less frivolous blogging and would really like to take that debate to a wider platform
• Managed to get Disqus to work at Blogger, yet to try it out at WordPress - which I don't think will work since WP.com does not let you edit their html
• Attended PTA meetings for BOTH the brats :P
• Signed up on a new engagement! Am so excited about this one!

And now .. off to enjoy my well-deserved Glenlivet ... and maybe I'll have a Miles Davis evening. Be good, keep well and enjoy your weekend.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Leadership begins at home

I think its about time the BJP leadership decided to call it a day. Too bad for L K Advani if it means that he can never become PM. Yesterday, Arun Shourie launched a philippic (not unlike Demosthenes) against the BJP top brass, to which the BJP has sought a clarification (it is a clarification, they clarified later to the press, not a show-cause notice). I'm surprised they didn't sack him over a phone call. Then today we see more anger and defiance - this time from Vasundhara Raje. Soon there'll be others ...

So much for the strong leadership they boasted about during their election campaign, while deriding Manmohan Singh as a weakling. How could they aspire to lead a nation when the stewardship of their own party is such a challenge? They should quit now, bring this to an end quickly and let the rebuilding begin, so that there is a robust Opposition Party in place soon enough. That would be the best way in which they could serve the nation at this point.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Intolerance of Dissent II: Are the other guys any better?

A friend shared an op-ed from the Hindu on facebook this morning, comparing the situation regarding Jaswant's book on Jinnah with Shashi Tharoor's book "From Midnight to the Millennium and Beyond" (first published in 1997 and updated by Tharoor in 2007, according to the Hindu). The sub line of the Hindu op-ed says "A Jaswant-Tharoor comparison shows the Congress to be far more accommodating of internal criticism" and the article goes on to show how critical Tharoor's book was, about the Congress party and its dynastic leadership, and yet he was offered a Congress ticket in the 2009 general elections.

Call me a skeptic if you like, but frankly, does this really demonstrate maturity in terms of the ability to accommodate dissent, on the part of the Congress? When it comes to the art of the possible, anything is possible: convenience is key and opportunism rules. I criticized the BJP in my last post, but the Congress is not a party of saints either. As an Indian voter I follow a relative grading system and elect the lesser of the two evils (subject to change with every election, but tends to be the Congress more often than not, mostly by default), simply because I'd rather cast a valid vote than not. But as a global citizen or just another arb guy with a blog, I am free to evaluate these folks on an absolute basis.

So here was my comment to my friend's facebook post:

Interesting article, thanks for sharing. Two quick observations / points to ponder:

I think the Congress is only marginally more decent than the BJP ... if that. Tharoor wrote at a time when his future looked like he would be the UN Secy Gen, not an MP from Thiruvananthapuram on a Congress ticket. Its interesting to speculate over what might have happened if he wrote something like that now, in his current avatar. Would Sonia tolerate all that stuff he wrote about the Congress, about her husband Rajiv and her MIL Indira, if he wrote that now?

On an unrelated note - wonder why Vidya Subrahmaniam considers it necessary to translate the word 'toddywalla'. Or it might have been Tharoor in the original, just quoted verbatim in the article. In any case it is not an accurate translation: the word for toddy in English is .. guess what? Toddy! Not Liquor. Why do Indians tend to have an international audience in mind while writing in English?

Authoritarianism is not the prerogative of the BJP alone (just in case my last post suggested that I thought so), and in the history of Indian politics, several politicians have been sacked by their parties for dissent. In the more recent past, the former Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee was expelled from the CPI because he did not toe the party line vis-a-vis the confidence vote in July last year. It may be that the post Indira Gandhi Congress is afflicted by a milder strain of the virus of authoritarianism, but to make up for that, there's the fact that in their case, authoritarianism is patrimony -- inherited and passed down the generations as family legacy. Even their pet canary commands more authority than the common koyal that might have accidentally come to power, except perhaps that it only commands it and does not demand it. Not overtly, at least -- their canaries are too sophisticated for that.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Intolerance of Dissent: the Descent of Decency

The big news yesterday was Jaswant Singh's unceremonious ouster from his political party, the BJP, of which he has been a loyal member for 30 years, and in more recent times has been an integral part of its senior leadership. Apparently it was about a book he wrote (though no one called it out as such, and this might have well been the last straw in a series of acts of dissension on his part). The book, which was launched earlier this week, is about Mohammed Ali Jinnah who, according to the hard right-wing in India, was responsible for the partitioning of India. And apparently he was honest and sincere in his analysis of Jinnah, in the book -- several members of India's intellectual elite seem to think so (I haven't read the book, but am inclined to believe them). And so the BJP high command wasted no time, didn't even bother to wait to come back home from their off-site ideological brainstorming meetings, and gave him the Dear John message over a phone call. What a way to go!

To make matters worse, Narendra Modi banned the book in Gujarat, presumably because it did not show Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel in a very generous light. ("The book aims to tarnish the image of the architect of the country's unification and son of Gujarat. The state government has decided to ban the book in public interest" according to a press release issued by the state government -- source: ToI). Can this book be classified as porn? No. Was this book aimed at inciting people to commit acts of treason or violence or otherwise break the law? No. Then how different might banning the book make us, from Ahmadinijad's Iran or Kim Jong-Il's North Korea or the Taliban? Liquor is also banned in Gujarat, presumably because they don't trust its citizens to drink responsibly.

I guess Modi fears that citizens of Gujarat (a state over which he has absolute control, or so he'd like to think) will read Jaswant Singh's book and start admiring Jinnah and stop admiring Sardar Patel. If Modi had control over India, he might have banned the book across the whole nation, and if he had control over the whole world (what an orgasmic fantasy for hardcore megalomaniacs) he would expunge the book and make like it never even existed. I respect the citizens of Gujarat for their intelligence and their spirit of entrepreneurship (yet to understand how they tolerate Modi), but, man! am I glad I live in a state where I have the right to enjoy my single malts and to read a book on Jinnah by Jaswant Singh. And I hope and pray, really hard, that people like Modi and others of his ilk don't take control of this country.

At this time, it looks like the BJP is far from coming back to power at a national level, but one can never be too certain -- stranger things have happened. Which leads me to think about what I would do if this country were taken over by people who ban books and paintings (remember M F Hussain?) and other forms of intellectual and artistic expression. When they should actually be banning organized gangs of hooligans who molest women (remember the Mangalore pub incident?) and attack churches (Orissa, Karnataka and elsewhere). In a recent post at my 'main' blog, about a week before Independence Day, I wrote about how a leadership model based on fear might excommunicate dissenters -- an uncanny premonition perhaps, that this would happen to a man of Jaswant Singh's stature barely a week after Independence Day. Not that I am a big fan of his, but I am huge fan of freedom. As long as it comes with responsibility. Unfortunately, it seems the BJP considered Jaswant Singh's actions to be irresponsible, though several key BJP personalities went on air last night on various TV news channels, to admit that the book was 'intellectually honest'. But they hastened to add that it was not aligned with the party's ideology, and that he should have know better. Well, yes, he should have known better. He made a mistake alright -- in spite of 30 years of hanging with this crowd, he did not see the extent of their ideological fascism and their intolerance to dissent or diversity.

And so the BJP, in their wisdom and in their own spirit of freedom and democracy (zealously defended by their spokesperson in TV interviews last night), thought that they ought to be righting a wrong. But, sadly, have ended up wronging a right. A fundamental right. In the context of my last post here below, this represents yet another reason why I think that there just isn't enough sincerity in the voices that sing 'Sare Jahaan Se Achcha' these days.

Meanwhile, the controversy, which has erupted in all leading dailies today, will immensely increase demand for the book and its publishers will laugh all the way to the bank. Leaving a shocked and broken Jaswant Singh wondering what he did wrong.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Freedom and Responsibility

Yesterday was India's 63rd Independence Day. And a very special day, as it always is. But what I continue to find difficult to understand is why there's a sudden burst of patriotism in all and sundry only on that day (and, of course, on Republic Day). Why don't Indians (generally speaking) feel equally patriotic on other days? And if they do, why doesn't it show? And when it shows why is it mostly in the kind of patriotism that takes the form of 'Mera Bharat Mahan' written at the back of trucks (surreally juxtaposed with that other ubiquitous back-of-the-truck message -- 'Horn OK Please')? And when it is not that kind of patriotism then why is it of either the maudlin or the melodramatic kind?

Simple acts of responsible citizenship in everyday life represent a more credible expression of patriotism than mere sloganeering and flag-waving on two days in a year, and are a more mature manifestation of our love and respect for India. We won our freedom the hard way, and it looks like we need to inculcate in ourselves a sense of responsibility (that comes automatically with freedom) the hard way too.

My twitter message when I logged on yesterday, was "There's a fine line between patriotism and jingoism. Tread carefully, my beloved compatriots. Happy Independence Day!" and thats about what I could manage in 140 characters. But there's more that I wanted to say and here it is --

"Do your country, your fellow countrymen and yourself a big favour, and focus on the following key areas of improvement:

• Civic sense -- Keep your neighbourhood as clean as your home. Develop a better sense of personal hygiene. Restrain yourself from activities that result in air and noise pollution
• Compliance -- Follow the laws of the land, and in particular: obey traffic rules, pay your taxes, maintain queue discipline
• Integrity -- Do not cheat and do not indulge in corrupt practices. Help clean up the culture of corruption that is corroding our institutions at every level
• Tolerance -- Yes, we have 'unity in diversity', but also start practising 'equity in diversity'. Drop your prejudices and your false sense of communal pride and your regressive ideas regarding morality. We have always been an inclusive and a secular culture, and if you love your country for its culture, then walk the talk.
• Intolerance -- Drop the 'chalta hai' attitude. Don't 'adjust'. Oppose. Acceptance of things that ought to change only perpetuates the degeneration and decay."

Excuse me for pontificating, but it would be really nice to hear the ring of sincerity in the voices that sing "Sare Jahan se Achcha", otherwise we're just kidding ourselves. Martyrs laid down their lives fighting for independence during the freedom struggle. Martyrs continue to give up their lives for our country -- not just on the battlefront but all over, and these days this is happening with an alarming regularity. However, there are others among us who die a slow death every day, fighting an uphill battle towards progress. True patriots must do what they can to make life easier for their compatriots, and perhaps put a few more years of life back into their lives. A few more years of a better life.

Vande Mataram!

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

While I was away

My last preposterous post was a month (and a day) ago. And this is supposed to be my mini-blog, for shorter and more frequent posts. But there's a reason behind this and its not that I'm a slacker (which I may well be) ... I've just been busy putting together a web-site for my consulting services venture. No, not another blog -- a web-site: http://hemantputhli.com (though it does have a page for blog posts) which was quietly 'launched' i.e., opened for public access couple of days ago without any pomp and fanfare. So do go there and check it out and tell me what you think.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

"Winner announcement"

So it seems sustainability won - the debate I referred to in my previous post was officially closed today and the moderator's concluding remarks are here. I am not sure I agree with some of his observations. For instance, according to me, the issue of fossil fuels and energy sufficiency is an issue now, and will remain one till it is solved (assuming it is, at some point). However, the question of sustainability will continue to hang over our heads as long as we do not transform the way we think, feel, work, play, live and love. If it is not about fossil fuels and their effects on the environment, then it will be the availability of water, and if not that, then food, and if not that then other resources and opportunities, including access to health care and the means to earn a livelihood.

The Western mind does not readily grasp the economics of scarcity because it seldom needs to deal with it (though Great Depression II might have changed some of that). A large segment of the global population lives under conditions that barely support human life, where demand is overwhelming and supply scant and the means to match demand and supply fall short by a few orders of magnitude. This is a time-bomb for economies of abundance. At best, the West has been a benevolent patron of poverty and sickness, when it should have been an active partner in growth and development. (Obama said something to this effect, in the context of Africa, in his Ghana speech.) It should have been teaching people to fish, not just giving them fish for their next meal - to paraphrase an old adage. Not out of noblesse oblige, but out of the recognition that 'prosperity does not happen in a vacuum' (latter expression borrowed from Obama, again, though perhaps not verbatim).

As I pointed out in an old post (when my perspective was only just slightly different): it's the people stupid! A planet with finite resources populated by an exponentially growing mass of humans must worry about sustainability for as long as that mass of humans is growing exponentially - especially because the have-not's are growing much faster than the have's. We are already witnessing wars between as well as within regions and/or communities today. Most of these are exacerbated by socio-economic inequities involving scarcity of resources for daily sustenance and/or a healthy and secure life, and of opportunities for growth and development. While such conflicts may be triggered, on the face of it, by other differences (such as religion or ethnicity), they achieve momentum because one section of the population (of a certain religion or ethnicity) feels cheated out of their land or their water or other resources, by the other section. Religious or ethnic differences serve as good rallying-cries for leaders of hate-based militancy / extremism simply because it is easier to hate on an empty stomach, than it is to love. And easier to love when there is contentment, when there is no need for hate.

In atomic physics, we learn that too many protons in a nucleus make it unstable. Up to a certain point, adding neutrons 'keeps the peace', but beyond that point this strategy doesn't work - the atom becomes radioactive and then starts the process of exponential decay. The story of world population is similar. The glue of love that holds us together seems to be running out, and we might be teetering dangerously close to the tipping point, beyond which the population is just so huge that civilisation as we know it will collapse under the weight of its own hatred - all that is left then will be anarchy and utter chaos. And it won't be about fossil fuels or alternative energy sources (though if that problem is not solved by then, it will only fuel the flames of hate even more - please excuse the bad pun, this is too serious to be funny).

No, I'm not a doomsday pundit. This is real. Worry about it now. And act if you can. If you will.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Of paradoxes and oxymorons regarding sustainability

There's this debate on sustainable development going on, as I write this, at Economist.com's debate micro-site. Naturally, I have a thing or two to say about such matters. However, I tend not to favour media sites and blogs that require you to register and login just to leave a comment. I have an email address, a gravatar, an OpenId etc. and somehow manage to prove my humanness on Captcha challenges, usually. Why won't they accept any of these to make sure I'm a live human being and not a spam bot (assuming that's the concern)? In any case, they can moderate my comment just to make sure I'm not posting hate and libel. But no, they want me to register and login. Meh. So then I come back to my blog to air my views. Smaller readership as compared to The Economist, but what the heck. On the plus side, I can say pretty much what I want here, without having to be stodgy, keep a stiff upper lip and speak in euphemisms.

The motion: "This house believes that sustainable development is unsustainable". My comment: 

To being with, the motion, as articulated, is paradoxical. As a logician, I'd classify it along with other self-referential 'nonsense' statements such as the Eubulides paradox: "This statement is false" or the liar's paradox: "He is a liar - he said so himself". All very well in a lighter vein, in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way, but debates on topics such as sustainable development, should not become a forum for indulgence in frivolous footling. And after all, one does expect a quantum of gravitas in the content hosted by The Economist. No?

So here're a couple of alternative interpretations of (what to my mind are) the issues and concerns underlying the theme of sustainable development, which, according to me, make for good debate over a cuppa.

(Alternative interpretation no. 1) If what has been labelled "sustainable development" is turning out to be (or has already turned out to be) unsustainable, then the focus should be on the corrective action that needs to be taken to make it so. The debate should then centre around two questions: (a) Is the sustainable development initiative turning out not to be so sustainable after all, and if so, then (b) What can we do to set it back on its proper course. In this case, the motion should be re-articulated as "This house believes that the sustainable development initiative needs to correct its course, in order to meet its goals".

(Alternative interpretation no. 2) If the expression "sustainable development" is an oxymoron (as opposed to a paradox) - i.e., if the proposition is that all development is intrinsically, by definition, not sustainable - then the focus should be on evaluating other strategies to address global challenges that threaten the future of our planet and the nature and quality of life as we know it. The debate should then centre around two questions: (a) Are efforts to achieve sustainability (in development) in vain because the very nature of development carries within it the seeds that will make such efforts unsustainable, and if so, then (b) How must we address global issues that call for a sustainable approach. In this case, the motion should be re-articulated as "This house believes that the concept of development is unsustainable by definition and hence we need other solutions to global challenges and threats".

Of course "sustainable development" is sustainable! Moreover, sustainable development is not an option (as I have argued before and will continue to argue). Look around you -  we simply cannot go on like this! Governments, corporations, institutions, communities and people in general must all understand and embrace sustainable development if we are to have a fighting chance to survive and thrive.

P.S. On second thoughts, the moderator might just not have posted my comment. Harumph! 

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Seven habits of highly irritating 'twits'

And by twits I mean strangers who get onto your twitter timeline and display any or all of the following behavioural traits:

1. [General Irritants] Follow you, in the hope that you will be a nice guy and follow them back. They will lurk in the shadows till you follow them, and after that, do #2 or #3 below, depending on who they are.

2. [Commercial Bots] Do #1 above, and then spam you with links to their web-sites. Zero updates (or maybe one update), following lots of people but few followers. No, I don't want to see your naughty pics at http://tinyurl.porn 

3. [Arrogant Pompous Twits] Do #1 above, and then un-follow you. Such twits are collecting followers - they don't care about you or your tweets. This is like someone attempting to shake your hand and then withdrawing it just when you extend yours. 

4. [General Irritants] Use hash-tags and keywords liberally, hoping to get noticed at a topic search on a hot topic, so as to attract more followers. Their tweets make no sense and/or are of no relevance to you. #FAIL

5. [Hashtag Stalkers] Continuously monitor their hashtag searches and swoop on new members (who used a keyword of interest to the twit) and follow them (go to #1)

6. [Arrogant Pompous Twits] Broadcast their travel schedule and who they're meeting, when and where. Lots of name-dropping. Like I care who you're having breakfast with at the Grand Hyatt in Guangzhou tomorrow morning.

7. [Sports (Over)Enthusiasts] Tweet you a real-time stream of their expert comments on the state of play in the current hot sports event. Dude - if I gave a rat's ass, I would be watching it myself. (Note: Some of these could be your friends, in which case you should learn to use filters!)

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

No, Minister!

Not quite sure what, but something is causing Ministers in India to go crazy with power in the last couple of days. First, a Union Minister tries to "influence" a Madras High Court judge to grant anticipatory bail to a student in a forged mark sheet case. Then, an MP from AP (not playing with acronyms here, though it is tempting) gets pissed off with a bank manager and slaps him on the face a couple of times. The first case is a bit hush-hush - nobody has been named and there isn't much coverage on the TV news channels except for a mug-shot of the judge and a few quotes.

The second case, however, is hilarious in its WTFness. Video clips of the MP slapping the bank manager - not just once but multiple times, have been on the air since last night, while the MP's responses are quoted on the ticker at the bottom of the screen. I can't reproduce it verbatim, but this is the overall logic and flow of what he had to say at various times over last night and this morning:

1. I did not slap him at all, I did nothing.

2. I did not slap him, I only held him by the shoulder.

3. I did not slap him, I was trying to hold him and my hand slipped.

4. My hand accidentally touched his face

5. OK I slapped him lightly, just once, but he provoked me

6. OK I slapped him - he was being rude to me because I'm from a lower caste

7. "Can he speak to me in the language which he did? He was drunk heavily" (sic)

8. He's the one who should be punished.

So you can imagine watching the MP slap the manager again and again ad infinitum (which is what new channels do when all they have is just a short clip of the live action - gets bloody irritating after a while!) while his explanation of the moment appears at the bottom of the screen. Reminds me of my sons playing the "he started it" blame game when I catch them beating each other up, though I must say they're both far more imaginative and come up with some very bizarre but realistic-sounding explanations.

No, this won't do. This is not why I voted for Congress, and this is what I was worried about when the right and the left both started crumbling due to their respective internal hemorrhage. If we don't keep these guys in check, there will be slaps on the face of the electorate on far more critical issues. Are you listening, Ms Gandhi?

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

No subservience please, we're French

As of yesterday, Monsieur Sarkozy has prohibited the entry of suberservient women into France. Well, he didn't actually say that in so many words, but he said two things, and I quote a fragment from this news item (just to pick one of several news stories on this topic):

"The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience," he told members of both parliamentary houses gathered for his speech. He added: "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic."

When read together, that's what it means. No entry for subservient women. By extension, this should apply to all women, not just women in burka and/or of a particular faith. After all the French are a secular people, and their laws, I assume, are to be uniformly enforced across people of all religions. 

I am trying to imagine a scene at the passport control check point at the CDG, where a portly middle-aged French gendarme is trying to ascertain whether the woman before him is or is not subservient. How does he do this? He will have to issue a string of commands and if all of them are disobeyed, stamp the woman's passport for entry. Can get pretty challenging for the average Jacques. Same thing at work, same thing at home. Merde!

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Tolerating the intolerant

The overwhelming energy of the waves of protesters in Iran, over so many days, can only come from a long-standing deep-rooted sense of frustration and anger of an oppressed people. This goes beyond asking for a recount, beyond demanding a re-election, beyond supporting the opposition candidates. This is a sign that the Iranian people have had enough. 

Enough of several decades of the fascism of religion-based intolerance. This is a revolution against a revolution, not a revolution within a revolution. And that, I think, is what the guys at the top of this unholy mess are really, really afraid of. In my humble opinion.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

More on RSS: Feed owner wants to block subscriber

Barely a day after I wrote this, a 'senior ideologue' from the RSS says this. Obviously, they read my blog post and saw the wisdom in what I wrote here. (That should be a broad hint to you too, dear reader.)

OK don't choke on your beverage, I was just joking. But uncanny, no? Or is it just my 'keen eye for the obvious' as my former boss used to indulgently quip?

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Arguing with idiots

They say never argue with idiots - they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. I try to follow that as much as possible but sometimes I get tricked into debate with idiots disguised as savants. 

As I have been lamenting for a while now, we live in an age that confuses education with literacy, and higher education with information gathering and skills training. And so we encounter pundits who specialize in data collection (spun around as 'knowledge') but who have no insights into any of it whatsoever. They have information on all kinds of topics oozing out of their ears but are conceptually callow, unable to hold a line of reasoning, or even to follow it when it is put before them. They enjoy ephemeral moments of victory when they manage to stop your argument in its tracks by throwing arcane information at you (including facts, figures, quotes and whatnot) that you were either unaware of or did not consider germane to the point under discussion. By the time you recover your ground to point out a fallacy or the lack of relevance, they're already feeling smug in the belief that they've made their point. More often than not, this is the only weapon in their armory.

A lot of this has to do with the quiz culture - the race to prove that one's brain has a larger memory bank (coupled with a more efficient data archival and retrieval capability) than the next guy. No fault of theirs, really. This is just an extension of the evaluation methodology embedded in our 'education' system. Cram, cram, cram and 'give' your exam (as opposed to 'take'). I generalize, of course. I also know exceptional individuals who are conceptually sound, with sharp minds augmented by a vast storehouse of information, and with wisdom beyond their years. These are produced in spite of the system being what it is, and not because of it. So even more credit to them.

OK, back to being a snob. Here's my version of the old adage: never argue with voracious data-gatherers - they bring you down to their level and beat you with minutiae.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Nice shtick if you can make it stick

Several words that have entered common parlance - such as kosher, chutzpah, spiel, kvetch, glitch, etc. have their origins in Yiddish / German vernacular, and I acknowledge the contribution of Yiddish / German and other Americanisms in general, to the growth of the English language. However, there's this tendency among some people to liberally garnish their lexicon with expressions like 'oy vey' and 'shoel' borrowed from the colloquial NYC vocabulary, which I find a bit irksome, because one has to look up these words just to understand what is being said (which may not be much, after all). Other than Yiddish, there're also colloquialisms from Hispanic dialects, African-American slang and corporate cliches (all very different worlds), some of which just constitute bad English (e.g., the word 'dwelve', which was the topic of an earlier post), that such folks like to throw around. And on the other side of the Atlantic, there's the tendency to casually slip in classy-sounding French expressions - e.g., soi-disant, for self-styled.

This is particularly true, I've observed, with certain categories of Indians: Indians writing in English, Indians living in the US or UK and Indians from India who mingle with Indians of the former categories or who travel frequently. I guess there's a certain kind of cool associated with this - a certain kind of with-it-ness which these people like to feel as they mouth such words, relishing the way they roll off their tongues, announcing their arrival in (or belonging to) the world that matters, when they could as well say what they want to say in plain English. It is the same tendency that causes some of us to use big words and bombastic language, sometimes even at the risk of malapropism. In short, these are just pretensions designed to display sophistication, and I give them a wide berth eventually, having overcome the initial irritation. Of course, in humourous writing, a lot of this is done in jest and contributes to the risibility of the piece, and that's a different thing.

So in a lighter moment today, after having come upon the word 'schlocky' in something I was reading, I composed the following sentence, which is contrived in order to make a point: A schlemiel and a schnook schmoozed as they schlepped their schlocky stuff around, while a passing schmuck turned up his schnoz at their schmutzy schmutter. Go figure!

To aspiring Indian writers in English, a word of advice: nice shtick if you can make it stick, but its not literature. When you're writing, keep it as simple as possible. Focus on the art more than on the craft. By all means indulge in the rich beauty of the language as a means to express yourself, but lay off the affectations, don't show off your vocabulary. Its a fine line but in the discerning eyes of a mature reader, you drop a couple of notches with every instance of pretentiousness. Shalom!

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

To: The BJP Cc: The NDA Subject: Who moved your RSS feed?

Before I go on, a clarification about my politics: I believe in moderation and balance, in taking the best of many worlds and forging frameworks that promote growth and prosperity. The Left does not offer that, neither does the Right, because they are both extreme ideological positions at opposite ends of the spectrum. Economic policy apart, I am also not culturally in in tune with either of them. Definitely more so in the case of the BJP / NDA than the CPI / CPM et al. The Congress becomes my default vote simply because there are no other choices at the central position, though I find many things wrong with them, including their rule-by-dynasty culture, to say the least. In short, to me it is the lesser of the evils.

That said, about a month ago, when the election results were out, I was not as happy that the Congress won as I was relieved that the BJP lost. After all that bumptious belligerence, that supercilious sneering, those invidious invectives and those ad hominem abuses hurled at Dr. Manmohan Singh (which formed the plank of their campaign, from what one could see), they were stunned into silence. Apparently they were just not in touch with the ground reality of the Indian electorate. As is now evident, there was a lot happening behind the scenes over the last few weeks. Some ideologues spoke out bravely, and the cookie started crumbling in public view. And today we are seeing the extent of their ideological bankruptcy. Read about it here and here and elsewhere - it is breaking news at this time (sadly, the word 'breaking' is quite literally applicable here).

This is not good news, simply because we don't want a weak opposition sitting in Parliament. A fragmented Left and a confused Right are bad for democracy, period. This is what lets the Congress get away with stuff that won't be good for the country.

Get your act together, guys - do your job. You can introspect all you like and beat each other up, but do it in private. Don't forget your responsibilities: your country needs you to serve on the opposition benches. And, going forward, cut out your RSS feed - there is more to free market capitalism than the pursuit of Hindutva, whatever that may mean.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Bill Maher on Sonia Sotomayor

Quotes on Sonia Sotomayor from 'Real Time with Bill Maher' - May 29, 2009

Sonia Sotomayor, her background, wow, graduated first in her class at Princeton, Yale Law School, a prosecutor, a sitting judge for the last 18 years. Or as conservatives call it, "unqualified." 

Here’s a woman who was raised in the Bronx, tough neighborhood, without a father. And that's how you know America is a great melting country - when your Supreme Court justice has the same back-story as your lap dancer.

There were other good ones (including an ad hominem one at Rush Limbaugh) but these were the best.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

[Title intentionally left blank]

The world is divided into two kinds of people - those who know how to use the 'Subject:' line in an email and those who don't. The latter category consists of two sub-categories - those who leave it blank, and those who fit their entire message into the subject line (I guess such people are most comfortable with texting and tweeting), and enter nothing whatsoever in the main body of their email. I wonder what stops people from writing a succinct line that sums up what the mail is about and then writing out a brief message in the main body. Or in reverse order, if that works better for them. Perhaps some people just lack the ability to abstract the essence out of something, even if that something is a message they themselves have composed. 

In the world of telephony, these tendencies play out almost exactly the same way, "translating" the inability to define a subject from text to speech, as it were. There are those who know how to leave a crisp voice mail message, and those who don't. Under the latter, again, two sub-categories - those who get to the voice mail beep, say nothing (sometimes you can hear them wheeze or breathe heavily under the tension of having to say or do something) and then hang up, and those who, after a pause, manage to overcome their "speaker's block" with a hesitant "er... er.... hi this is so-and-so, I wanted to talk to you about something, please call back". Talk to you about something. No clues as to whether it is urgent or can wait till the next day or the next week. No clue as to whether its something about you or something about them or someone else. No clues as to whether its good news or bad news. No clues as to whether they want to give or to take. Go figure!

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

More on being non-judgmental

When people take positions in favour of being non-judgmental, don't they realize that that very act is judgmental in nature? It is tantamount to saying - being judgmental is bad, being non-judgmental is good. We make judgments all the time, as we spend most of our lives choosing (what we call) good over (what we call) bad, and this is part of being human.

Perhaps what they really mean is moral righteousness and if that is so, I am inclined to agree. I have no place for imperious self-righteousness in my scheme of things and am more than likely to avoid people who ride a moral high-horse - perhaps at times rather indelicately. Especially so when it is the kind of morality that is founded on principles that do not support a progressive and sustainable approach to modern life, and instead represents a clinging on to rigid ideologies or anachronistic religious teachings (many of which are actually invidious in today's context) or a kind of morality that arises from just plain old bigotry and intolerance. And yes, I'm saying that that is bad, in my personal, humble, highly subjective opinion. I just made a value judgment on a certain attitude or behavioural trait, but I am not condemning it to damnation.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Literature Uncut

There's this blog called 'India Uncut' by a guy called Amit Varma, that I have been following for a while now. Which means I go there every once in a few days and read up some of his more interesting posts. He's a pretty good blogger, and some of his posts are just great. I like his sharp wit and quite readily relate to his attitude and approach to things in general. Or so I thought, till I came upon this particular post.

Apparently he's written a book called "My Friend Sancho", and in this post he shares his perspective on various topics relating to journalism, blogging, writing a novel, etc. in the form of an FAQ to questions that, presumably, he is being asked these days by various people whose copies of MFS he is signing. Now Amit's blog does not have a comments section, so you can't comment on any of his posts. A rather inconspicuous 'contact me' button at the top right corner of his blog is a reader's only hope to get across to Amit if you have something to say. A few weeks ago (before MFS), I wrote to him wondering why he did not allow comments on his page. I'm still waiting for his response. I guess he's busy launching his first book and becoming an acknowledged novelist in the literary world. Good luck, Amit, I wish you the very best!

So here's the bit (in his post) that I wanted to comment on, and would have if he had enabled comments:

On why I gave up journalism

I felt that writing a novel needed me to devote myself to the fictional world I was creating, and weekly deadlines for columns and suchlike got in the way. I had to make a choice, and so I chose to give up journalism. The process of writing MFS confirmed to me that writing fiction was my natural domain, and I don’t intend to return to journalism now.

Also, writing columns and op-eds require a different mindset from tackling literature. In opinion pieces, one is expected to pass judgments on things, to paint the world in black and white. Literature gives us more scope to acknowledge the real world’s complexities, and to explore its ambiguities. I rather prefer the latter—you won’t find me passing judgement on any of my characters in MFS, or in future books. No matter who the character is, there but for the grace of the FSM go we.

On why my blogging and journalistic concerns are not reflected in my novel

I blog a lot about economics and politics, and my columns were also on those subjects. But you will not find me talking about these subjects in MFS. Indeed, reading MFS will tell you nothing about my ideology or my political leanings, which is as it should be. Literature is about human beings, and, to use a much-abused phrase with a pomposity alert, the human condition. A book that pushes an ideology is, in my view, not literature but propaganda. You won’t find any of that coming from me.

And my comment would have been:

Amit - I am not so sure that a piece of writing, to earn the right to be called literature, must necessarily abstain from any kind of ideological exposition. Agreed, there's (what you seem to call) propaganda (e.g., Das Kapital), and there's (what is generally called) literature (e.g., Pride and Prejudice) but there's also a whole lot in between these two apparent extremes. Just to illustrate, there's a whole bunch of existentialist writing - from Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Kafka to Sartre and Camus. Perhaps even Hemingway. Of these, Sartre's work comes closest to being an ideological articulation and formal definition of existentialism. Per your definition that would be propaganda. But the others? They've all produced some great literature (including Sartre), though the existentialist ideology shines through clearly, in their writings.

For someone who does not want to pass judgment on things (when writing 'literature') and does not want to paint the world in black and white (when writing 'literature'), you just did that, with these two neat boxes - propaganda and literature: never the twain shall meet. Moreover, I think I detect the faint but distinct whiff of moral righteousness here ... as though (what you call) propaganda type of writing is a 'bad' thing, and literature must stay away from it to be 'good'. Au contraire, I am tempted to argue that good literature always carries a fairly clear message and makes a statement about things. It may not be an ideology, it could just be a personal philosophy or approach or attitude. Just like your blogs. There's usually a quantum of social and/or political commentary embedded in good writing. While this element is not a necessary condition for literature to be good, its presence does not make it bad literature either. I hope to read MFS at some point, but I can bet that your next novel will be much better if you were to set aside this notion of propaganda and let your opinions and views reflect in your writing.

Having your own blog space lets you comment on other's posts even if they don't have space on their blogs to accommodate your comments. Thats a good thing about this whole medium. A great thing indeed!

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Perspective

A friend sent me this link earlier today and at first I was not so tempted to go there (OK, mural mosaics, seen that before). Later, as I went there and browsed through the site, I was impressed by the detail and the combination of detail in perspective. I found many other mural mosaics at the site, and was amazed not only by the work of each individual artist but the eye behind each mosaic. Worthy of special mention is Le Cadeau du Cheval especially if you like horses as a subject or theme for painting or sculpture - or even just like horses per se. I was reminded, once again, as to how big pictures can be formed by smaller ones that don't, at first glance, seem to fit. 

Try this out - click on each individual tile, to be surprised by what the stand-alone painting depicts and how, seen from a distance, it provides the visual element that is needed in the jigsaw at that spot. You need a special kind of vision to create such mosaics - the ability to look at something that is complete in itself from afar and see it differently, as part of a bigger whole. A lesson worth re-learning every time you come across something like this.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Summer Holiday

OK, back from a great holiday with family - we went to Singapore, Pattaya and Bangkok with the kids. The itinerary was mostly kids-centric and involved visits to nature parks, zoos, aquariums etc. with some other general sight-seeing thrown in. Stayed off-line as much as possible but couldn't help logging on for an hour or so every 3 or 4 days just to check important messages. Pictures are at my Facebook page. The Night Safari, the Jurong Bird Park and Sentosa island in Singapore, the Elephant show in Noong Nooch village (near Pattaya), and the Safari Park in Bangkok are 'must dos' if you're visiting those places with kids. Highly recommended. Also, time your visit in seasons other than summer, to avoid crowds and the summer heat.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Sense and Sustainability

In the light of the 3 great global crises we are facing at the current time - the global economic crisis, the global environmental crisis and the global security crisis, I propose that we introduce a new set of values and principles that will govern our natural impulses (which we have come to value). In this post, I am putting forward a rough draft - we need to evolve this further and set this as a foundation for a better life. While they may seem obvious and self-evident in a casual read, it should be borne in mind that while that might be so (nothing new is new is being said here, frankly), our educational systems - particularly in B-schools, do not impart these values to students.

The following principles, presented in the format "(x) over (y)", are to be read as "Value and prioritize (x) over (y)" and "Let (x) govern (y)". It does not mean that per se (y) is bad and undesirable, but that there is a higher good over (y) and that is (x), and that (y) should not be pursued at the cost of (x). Business schools today are mostly focused on encouraging (y) and seldom, if at all, mention (x) as a priority. And never as a governing principle over (y).

• Responsibility over Opportunity - exploit opportunity, but do so responsibly
  
• Assimilation over Growth - pursue growth, but assimilate as you grow
  
• Pace over Expediency - find the right speed for doing things, do not chase speed at the cost of other parameters
  
• Sustainability over Efficiency - look for the larger good in improvement, not just a short-term cheaper faster better approach
  
• Quality over Quantity - what cannot be measured is a bigger challenge for management, learn to deal with it
  
• Synthesis over Analysis - pursue analytical rigor but give due importance to other and more creative competencies
  
• Contribution over Achievement - ask what you have given, not just what you have achieved
  
• Wisdom over Knowledge & Intelligence - if knowledge is power and power corrupts, have the wisdom to not fall into this trap
  

I've posted elaborate explanations for each, under the same title at my other blog. Here, I decided to keep it short and skip the explanations. And as I said earlier, this is a rough draft. I would love to know what you think. 

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

What part of left don't you understand?

One of my fav bloggers and humorists, Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy - in case you don't immediately recall the name), posted this yesterday. (You might want to go over to his post and read it first, to get the context to this post.) Scott has his own unique style and his own unique and special way of making his point. I respect his work immensely and sometimes try to emulate his writing style. I really liked what he had to say in this post, especially about 'confusopolies'. Of course, the debate on healthcare is pretty intense in the US, and for all the right reasons. It is a serious issue and Scott's approach, while in an only slightly lighter vein, accords due gravitas to it. His last para opens with the line "Before you call me a socialist, I don't have an informed opinion on national healthcare" and that somehow to me was like waving a red flag (pun intended) to a bull. Especially after having watched the run-up to the Obama election closely last year, and having winced every time I heard the word 'socialist' being hurled at him like an abuse.

And so I could not help commenting (to Scott):

Your "Before you call me a socialist ...." had me wondering why socialism, in America, is dreaded more than leprosy. Are socialists lepers?

In Indian politics, which is multi-partisan, we have a left, a right and a center (speaking in very broad terms). The bi-partisan US polity only has a right and a center. Well - some call it a left sometimes, but it is really a center. Why don't you have a 'real' left? Or does the concept of freedom have an exception (as in "embrace any ideology you like as long as it is not socialist")? I ask, with much interest, as a curious external observer.

Over the last 12 hours several readers have commented on Scott's original post - and the intense debate on healthcare nationalisation versus privatisation continues in its unabated fury. I scanned over 4 pages of reader comments this morning to check if there was any response to my comment, in particular. The only response I saw was:

@hyperactivex

What? The US has no real left? The US has ONLY left. We have a broken system that provides 2 parties. The parties of far left, and center left.
The US is supposed to be a republic (states rights), which is right of center. A good percentage of people in the US mistakenly think we are a democracy (center). While others want to push us toward socialism (way left)

Our founders created a republic for a reason. Less government, more freedom/liberty. More government brings less freedom.

So, since socialism is complete government control, it goes against everything this country was founded on. The founders viewed socialism as a fate worse than death. To quote John Henry, "Give me libery, or give me death"

So this is the view from the inside. OK. Sorry I asked!

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Let's call the whole thing off

Ever since I heard that Zardari and Karzai were scheduled to meet with Obama, it's been at the back of my mind to catch the news update on what happens in that meeting. Not that I thought that they would have an epiphany and solve global hunger or something, but to my rather simple and average mind it seemed like an important meeting (for the whole world, actually), which should have taken place long ago, but which for some inexplicable reason has never happened! 

So finally the meeting took place today (US time, which was last night India time) and this morning I read this report from CNN and this report from BBC .... which pretty much told me more or less the same things - that they all agreed to unite to fight and defeat the enemy, defined as al-Qaeda + the Taleban. Somehow, I expected more that very obvious outcome, though I'm not sure what that more was. Or is. 

On the other hand, I thought to myself, let's be kind to these gentlemen. Three different leaders with three different perspectives converging on the same topic ... are bound to need some time to agree on a common language first, before they can agree on a common problem definition using that common language. Which they need to do before they agree on a common solution to that common problem. 

Noting that CNN says 'Taliban' while BBC says 'Taleban', and one hyphenates al-Qaeda and the other doesn't, I am hoping that this initiative doesn't go the way of the line in the song by Louis Armstrong - "...tomato, tomahto, potato, potahto, let's call the whole thing off". It's OK if the news agencies don't agree on the spelling as long as the leaders agree in spirit, if not in letter.

P.S. CNN deserves a rap on the knuckles for using the word 'waiver' when they meant 'waver', while quoting Obama. One doesn't expect such malapropisms from CNN. Maybe they should get reporter who wrote that to take the TOEFL!

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts