Sunday, December 12, 2010

Brief Notes on the Ontology of Purpose

Most of us have mulled over the purpose of existence at some point or other in our lives. I started down that path too, but at some point I decided to step back a bit, flip the argument around and look at something more fundamental: the existence of purpose. Does purpose exist per se (as in -- does it have its own "life") independent of human existence or does it exist because we humans say it should? I found that we must get past this question -- about the existence of purpose before we get to that question -- about the purpose of existence.

When we ask the profound metaphysical question: "Why", we tend to overlook the fact that the question itself presumes purpose. If one were to tease out the implicit premise contained within the quest for purpose, it would turn out to be based on an assumption that there "is" (or "must be") some sort of purpose. The question: "What is the purpose of existence?" is not as straightforward as it seems. It actually embeds a slightly complex argument that may be simplified as follows:
A. There is a purpose underlying all things
B. Existence is a 'thing'
C. Therefore, there is a purpose underlying existence
D. What is it?

From the perspective of Aristotle's four causes, it is always possible to show material cause, formal cause and efficient cause to existence (as indeed, the sciences endeavour to do in all earnestness, and are highly successful at), but not final cause (a.k.a."telos"). If asked to show final cause to existence, as per the above argument, I would question conclusion C, which in effect means questioning assumption A, given that B is merely statement of fact. I would say: first prove A, and then let's talk about D. Before we go about trying to determine final cause, we need to show that it exists.

This is where what causes us differs from what we cause, where the anthropological differs from the anthropogenic, where the individual differs from the institution: in the case of the former, existence is primordial and precedes purpose; in the case of the latter it is the other way around. The telos of an individual's existence (other than the genetic imperative of self-preservation and perpetuation through propagation, and strategies to be successful in fulfilling that imperative) is precisely what that individual makes it out to be, if anything. But as far as institutions are concerned, purpose precedes existence. Organizations, corporations, nations, governments, associations, schools, academies, marketplaces, societies, etc. are created by humans to serve specific purposes, and those specific purposes form their raison d'être. Not only are their reasons for existence defined before they are created, but those reasons in fact guide their design, functioning, growth and evolution. If those reasons did not exist, those institutions would not exist. And after those institutions have outlived their purpose, they should cease to exist.

Institutions would do well to clearly define, and at all times be in touch with, their raison d'être. Those that don't have one, or that have outlived the one they had, should liquidate their assets and release residual resources for deployment elsewhere.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Minor Observation #4

When people are being reasonable, it tells you a lot about how they think. When people are being unreasonable, it tells you a lot about who they really are.

Our irrationality reveals our character.

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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Nexus, Ties and the Radia Tapes

So where are all the strident, vociferous TV news anchors when you need them to do unto themselves as they've been doing to others?

Admittedly, they've been doing a great job of snooping around in the corridors of power and unearthing scam after scam, blowing the lid off scandal after scandal and exposing corruption and nepotism in high places. However, the absolute and total black-out of coverage (conspicuous by its sheer absence on what could have been prime-time news) on the nexus between certain media personalities, certain PR agents, certain businessmen and certain politicians over the last week or so is astonishing. Do we have to get our updates on this topic from the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and the Huffington Post and ... even Wikipedia?

Seems to me that India's free-thinking fourth estate has become an unreal estate -- a murky realm of toxic land-fills, where the truth about prominent news anchors and their shady ties with politicians and businessmen lies buried deep. As deep as the proverbial ostrich might bury its head in the sand when faced with adversity.

And we thought they were here to bring the truth to the people of India because we deserve to know the truth.

What a shame!


Monday, November 15, 2010

Probes and Probity: A Note to the Congress

Dear Congress,

Enough already! Your moves over the last week or so, to demonstrate your commitment to probity in the wake of the 3 recent scams, are way too sluggish and your lack of alacrity way too palpable to fool anybody but my 6 year old.

First, Suresh Kalmadi, for many years the chief spoiler of sports in India and more recently, head panjandrum of the Organising Committee that oversaw the preparation for the Commonwealth Games and overran the original budget by a factor of between 10 and 15. Do you really think you've done the nation a favour by getting him, stubborn as he was, to resign from his position as secretary of the Congress Parliamentary Party? What is the connection between this position with his role in the CWG scam? What difference did his resignation from this position make to anything or anybody? Where did all that money go?

Second, Ashok Chavan, shameless usurper of entitlements bestowed by the nation on bereaved families of soldiers killed in the Kargil war. Do you seriously think we're going to be satisfied with his resignation from the post of CM? How is his stepping down going to change anything? When will those families get their apartments back? Or get equivalent compensation? 

Third, A Raja, who imagined he was really a raja and so in his delusion, mistook the national treasury for his own personal till. Do you honestly believe you've achieved a lot by coaxing, cajoling and coercing his bosses to get him, stubborn as he was, to resign from his position as Cabinet Minister for Communications and IT? Isn't that futile, given that his bosses are still hanging on to the same portfolio, as though it was their birthright, and will in all likelihood merely replace the hands that have been milking the telecom cash cow up until now, with a fresh pair of hands? When will all that money be recovered and restored to the exchequer?

The order of magnitude of each of these scams is reportedly anywhere between, in US dollar terms, a hundred million to several billion. This is not small change we're talking here. And the people of the country have adequate reason to suspect that the individual made to resign in each case, corrupt as he himself may be, represents just the proverbial tip of this iceberg of corruption. 

Your Standard Operating Procedure, when faced with public outcry against corruption, is to announce that you will launch a probe. In fact, you launch many probes, trying to make it look like more probes means greater earnestness in getting to the bottom of things. You know fully well that more probes actually make the process inefficient, with different agencies bumping into one another at every step and fighting territorial wars among one another. Clearly, this is what you want then: for the truth to get lost in the chaos of multiple probes and jurisdiction issues.

In any case, you should understand that probes do not ensure probity. Especially if the probing agency's probity itself is in question. You should recognize that the public has lost its confidence in the integrity and/or efficiency of any investigating agency in the country that you may call in to conduct a probe. The need of the hour is a complete overhaul of a corrupt culture that has been carefully protected and nurtured over all these years by people in power. Clean that up now! Stem the rot!  Get all the guilty to book -- there are several culprits behind each of these three mega-scams of the season. And several more behind the scams that are not in the limelight at the moment. We want to see these fraudsters in prison, serving sentences that keep them away from civil society for a long, long time. Not merely removed from their incumbent posts for a few months, and then allowed to come back and continue to feed off the country's resources like vampires off their victim's blood. Frankly, given the nature, extent and significance of these offences, I think the guilty need to be charged with treason, not just fraud. These are crimes against the nation and its people, not just rounding-off errors in the GDP.

You know what you have to do if you want my vote. I am willing to set aside my concerns (though they run deep) over having a bigoted government run this country if only it promises to be cleaner than yours. The way I feel at this time, I'll take that chance.

Have a nice day.

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

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Haley's Comment

When Punjabi kudi Nimrata Kaur Randhawa, born in Bamberg, South Carolina to Sikh immigrants and raised in the Sikh tradition, married Bill Michael Haley, she converted to her husband's religion and became Nimrata Randhawa-Haley. And in 2004 when she changed her career (from running her mother's fashion business) to politics, she became Nikki Haley. Because (she commented to press reporters) the name Nimrata Randhawa-Haley wouldn't "fit on a yard sign" -- IMO a phrase which, other than meaning what it says, is also a euphemism for acknowledging that her original name is not American enough to win an election.

I chanced upon this factoid (and many others) as I browsed through the search results for "Nikki Haley" the other day, when news broke about her winning the South Carolina gubernatorial elections to become the first woman Governor of her state and the second Governor of Indian origin in the history of the United States. The first, of course, was Punjabi munda Piyush Amrit Jindal who, inspired by a character from The Brady Bunch, changed his name to Bobby when he was a kid, converted to Christianity and was elected Governor of Louisiana a couple of years ago. And may someday even become President

Indians rejoiced then, when Bobby Jindal won, as they did now when Nikki Haley won. And as they always do when someone from their gene pool makes it big, anywhere in the world, in any sphere of human endeavour, regardless of how far away from their roots those individuals have moved, or how far removed from Indian society those individuals were to begin with. What part India played in Haley's or Jindal's success story is anybody's guess, but for a lot of Indians, these are the sons and daughters who make India proud

Several comparisons have been made between this particular son and this particular daughter of India  -- both are in their late 30s, both are Republicans, both converted to Christianity before actively entering politics, both are second generation Americans whose parents migrated from Punjab, India ... and finally, both dropped the names they were born with and took names that "fit on yard signs". In many ways, this distancing of oneself from one's original name and religion marks the long journey from Ludhiana to Louisiana, in a manner of speaking. And some commentators have been quite openly sceptical about the motives behind these changes .

As I continued my research that day, what jumped out at me was the need to change one's cultural identity in order to be successful, and it had me wondering about many related things.

Like, if Nikki Haley's birth name was Ela Rai and her husband's family name was Krzywoszyja, then which name would she have picked to "fit on a yard sign"? My money says she would've entered politics as "Ella Ray" and thought up a clever explanation to it.

Like, why does Nikki Haley need a concealed weapons permit? The article in Washington Post lists 10 factoids about Nikki Haley and has a paragraph outlining the story behind each of them, except for this one about her concealed weapons permit. I find that quite intriguing, since it conceals more than it reveals.

Like, how come Barack Husain Obama did not change his name (to, say, Barry O'Bama) to make it "fit on a yard sign"? 

Like, why did Barack Obama have to clarify that he was a Christian and not a Muslim? Why did Nikki Haley have to clarify that she was a Christian and no longer a practising Sikh? Here's a line from a Newsweek article about her: 

"Haley’s religious background surfaced as an issue during the primary, forcing her to clarify that she’s raising her two kids Methodist, that the family regularly attends a Methodist church, and that she only occasionally visits a Sikh temple, when invited by her parents."

"Surfaced as an issue .... forcing her to clarify" -- sounds like a lot of pressure. "Only occasionally ... when invited by her parents" -- sounds like an apology, if not a plea for clemency. Such a pity! 

Why is it that in America -- the greatest of democracies, land of the free, home of the brave, a nation built by immigrants from all parts of the world, a nation that promises equal opportunity to all and prides itself on embracing ethnic and cultural diversity -- why is it that in such a nation it is necessary to be a Christian before aspiring to become Governor or President? Or to have a name that "fits on a yard sign"?

*

As an aside, I also wondered how come Christine O'Donnell didn't see the need to change her name to fit on a yard sign, and how come she didn't have to clarify that she is a Christian. But then I quickly reminded myself of the TV ad campaign that ran through most of last month. In her case, there was another doubt that need clarification: that she was not a witch

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

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Minor Observation #3

Is it just me or are most things these days shallow, hard, loud and cheap?

In the old days, things were deep, soft and rich -- because we liked them that way. These days, however, everything sounds, looks and feels like an ersatz clone of its older self. Strangely, however, the technology to produce and consume those things is vastly more sophisticated today than ever before.

Take music for instance. Sound engineering today is amazingly hi-tech but the quality of the sound sucks, inasmuch as it lacks in richness of texture, tone and timbre. And when it comes to the music, today's arrangements seem to lack in range of instruments as also in depth of harmony. The few times I hear an interesting sounding instrument, or a fragment with good counterpoint, the piece grabs my attention regardless of what I am doing -- that's how rare it has become.

The music producer's goal these days is to capture, even if ephemerally, the attention and wallet-share of a fickle attention-deficit audience that is constantly hankering after the next cool thing. And what they produce has to sound as good on a small electronic gizmo with earplugs that reproduce that sound with remarkable fidelity, as it would on a 5.1 home theatre system. Most of that music is intrinsically tinny. It has become that way simply because tinniness is what it got from how we listen to it. And there's the preponderance of heavily accentuated percussion that can really push your sub-woofers to their limit and overwhelm your eardrums -- it got that way because of how we listen to it.

Back in the old days we didn't have mp3 players and we didn't have sub-woofers. We didn't need them; we didn't need five point ones. Just a regular stereo system -- consisting of a turn-table an amp and two speakers -- was enough. Enough to be able to enjoy the beautifully orchestrated music they produced back then. Enough to recreate the deep and rich sound of an acoustic double-bass that would let you wallow indulgently in the booming resonance of its vibrancy as it filled the room and enveloped you, only to be broken by the rasp of the bow drawn sharply across the strings.

I'm not sure they even use acoustic instruments any longer. They have synthesized electronic sounds that mimic the original instrument. Sounds almost the same, they say. Almost. For me, almost doesn't quite cut it.

And before you start calling me old-fashioned or just plain old, let me remind you that this is about fine taste, not about age or about living in the past.

Monday, November 1, 2010

New Rules For Fools #1

Inspired by Bill Maher (yes, I'm a fan), a man who says funny things seriously and serious things funnily, I've decided to start a new segment on this blog. Let me inaugurate this segment with the following new rule:

Purpose of New Rule: This new rule is meant as a guide to people who are confused about when to change the ruler, when to change the rule and when to change the ruled.

Description of New Rule: If a rule has become obsolete and irrelevant and is inhibiting the growth and prosperity of society, then drop it. If parts of it are relevant and can be made to work with some modifications, then change it. However, if a good rule is being abused by a bad ruler, then change the ruler, not the rule. If you can't reform the ruler, then elect a new one. And if you fear that all prospective rulers are also going to abuse the rule, then either try to become the ruler yourself, or go live in another society, or reconcile to this reality. And if you can't change the rule, can't change the ruler, can't become the ruler, can't change your society and can't change your mind, then shut the fuck up!

Enough said. Now, back to work. Or Play. Or Playing the fool.

Sunday, October 31, 2010

More on Sedition Law: Say No Evil, Do No Evil

In the passionate arguments that have recently emerged around the related topics of freedom of expression, the Indian sedition law, etc. in the opinion cloud of cyberspace, I've often heard people voice the argument that speech, after all, is merely speech. Different from action.

The voice that argues so, says that people committing crimes as a result of instigation by an agent provocateur are fully and entirely responsible for those crimes, and those inciting them to commit those crimes carry no responsibility at all. Because all they have done is spoken, not acted. They argue that since actors are free agents unto themselves, they would only act on their own accord, not just on someone else's say so. You can take a horse to the water .. blah blah. So, says this voice, words are innocent, even if disagreeable. Only action is guilty.

Sigh.

The next time there is a terrorist attack (Heaven forbid) and there's an international manhunt for the "master mind" behind it, I would like this voice above to step up and say "Why hold the so-called master mind responsible? After all, that individual only spoke, but didn't *do* anything. There was already enough disaffection among those disenfranchised actors to commit those acts."

By the same token, we should not hold Osama bin Laden responsible for 9/11. Nor Hafiz Saeed for 26/11. Their minions did all the dirty work; all they did was to speak. And freedom of speech is an inalienable fundamental right. Right?

Taking the horse to the water is the cause. The horse drinking (or not) is the effect. If the horse does not drink then it is a failed cause. When the mission involves violence against the state and/or its people, do we want to wait till the horse reaches the water to find out whether it will or wont drink? Ergo, sedition law: if you see someone taking a horse to the water, stop them. This is why India is asking for Hafiz Saeed and other rabble-rousers in Pakistan to be incarcerated. In this case, sedition does not apply, since it is a different country, but the principle is the same -- prevention better than cure.

Let's recognize that we live in a world with horses, and men and women who can and do drink, but can't or don't think. That is, they can't or don't think about what they are being inspired/ motivated/ taught/ commanded/ cajoled/ goaded to do, overwhelmed as they are with anger and hatred.

A society where people by and large do not become horses that misanthropes can ride, certainly can - and certainly should - have unrestricted free speech. Ah! would I love that! But, unfortunately, that's not what we have, here (in this part of the world, at least) and now (in the present time, at least). We have misanthropes, we have horses and we have people who can't think beyond their anger and hatred. We have misanthropes who will always stay in the background and whip-up mob hysteria in their constituencies. We have misanthropes who will sacrifice their horses, but save themselves so that they can 'live to fight another day' i.e. continue to pursue their deadly mission of destruction. So they will only speak, never act.

It is what it is. Deal with it. Arm yourself with the sedition law and use it justly. And if you don't trust your government to do that, then fix THAT problem. Don't remove the law! There's a time and place for it. And it is not here, and not now.

Friday, October 29, 2010

Rights and Wrongs, Freedoms and Responsibilities

Mukesh Ambani's new home on Altamount Road has been getting a lot of media coverage lately. And so has Arundhati Roy's speech in Srinagar. These two individuals live in diametrically different worlds (and probably despise each other's weltanschauung, approach to life, and lifestyles) and yet have one thing in common -- they've made it to Forbes' lists. Different lists, of course, for different reasons.

Mukesh Ambani topped the Forbes list of the richest Indians for the third year in a row, and is currently the 4th richest person in the world. And Arundhati Roy was ranked 3rd in Forbes' 30 most insipiring women in the world. Considering that the world population is rapidly approaching 7 billion, this makes both of them very special.

Several critics have been criticising, separately, Mr Ambani for erecting a monstrosity of a building they consider to be an outrageous display of wealth, and Ms Roy for making a speech they consider to be an outrageous display of hatred for India and its institutions. And several people have been criticising those critics, stridently defending the inalienable fundamental rights of those two objects of criticism -- respectively, Ambani's right to spend his money as he pleases (see reader comments) and Roy's right to say whatever she pleases.

How I wish those same critics of the critics would as stridently expostulate with those same objects of criticism whose freedom they defend, about their inalienable fundamental responsibilities as good citizens. How come they don't do that? How come their decibel level is always so high in defending the right of people to fuck-up but nary a whisper when it comes to the duty of the same people to NOT fuck-up?

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Sedition Law: Should India Repeal It?

I believe in free speech and I believe in free markets. After all, the best things in life are free. But I also believe that freedom brings along responsibility, and that it would a gross error to decouple the two.

Laws are not designed in a vacuum. Laws are designed keeping in mind the ideals and principles of civil and moral conduct on the one hand and on the other, the culture and level of maturity of the people who will be governed by those laws. So, while I believe in free speech and free markets, I am reconciled to the fact that they are only suited for a society of mature, civilised self-governing adults who don't need to be supervised and shepherded towards responsible behaviour.

If we are dealing with a society where immature, irresponsible behaviour is rampant, where people display poor civic sense, where people only argue for their rights but do not recognize their duties that come along with those rights, then we need a legal and regulatory framework that clearly defines specific pre-conditions which ensure that such freedoms are not abused. And we need clean, prompt and unbiased enforcement of that legal and regulatory framework. And we need an independent and efficient judiciary that will hear differences of opinion on each case where the nature and extent of enforcement is being challenged, and deliver justice. This is what democracies are supposed to be made up of. This is what we have, in India. And that includes freedom of expression which all of us enjoy, to the extent that we can shout out from our rooftops that we don't have freedom of expression in this country and not risk being thrown in jail.

And if things are not functioning the way they should, then they need to be corrected. Through peaceful means. If the legal and regulatory framework needs to be modified, for better alignment with changing times and changing behavioural patterns, then peaceful public discourse should be used to evolve the most suitable modifications. If the enforcement machinery needs to be corrected, to improve integrity, improve focus, commitment and execution capability, then appropriate reforms should be initiated by the government in office and if that government is not doing its job then the people who elected that government must push for change. Peacefully, through dialogue, debate and negotiation.

Why must people argue the case for unconditional free speech (or unregulated free markets, for that matter) when they can see all around them the tendency of citizens (and corporations, in the case of markets) to ignore responsibility and abuse freedom? Do these same champions of free speech also argue that the laws that govern driving under the influence of alcohol must be repealed? Why not? Why not assume that people are mature and responsible enough not to drink and drive?

To those who believe that India should repeal Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which defines the offence of sedition, I have a suggestion: let's get rid of all the drunk driving laws first, and see how we do with that. If it works, then it means we're dealing with a mature society. Then, let's repeal the Sedition Law!

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Minor Observation #2

There are those who take what they need and there are those who take whatever they can get. Regarding the latter, the compulsion to do so, in itself, defines their need in most cases.

This is yet another factor that distinguishes Man from Beast. And among humans, distinguishes those who are secure, living in a world of abundance created by others like them, from those who are insecure, living in a world of scarcity created by others like them.

You know who you are.

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

Monday, August 16, 2010

Philosophers and Littérateurs

I've observed that eminent thinkers are generally adept at using words to communicate their thoughts. I've also observed that renowned literary writers usually manifest a philosophical bent of mind in their writing. It appears to me, then, that philosophers and littérateurs have quite a bit in common inasmuch as they both draw on the combination of two key competencies: the power of ideation and command over language, in order to be successful. However, having pondered over this briefly, I see that there is at least one fundamental difference between those who are primarily thinkers and those who are primarily writers.

To philosophers, whose modus operandi typically involves engaging in discourse with other thinkers, language serves as a useful tool to explore ideas and examine concepts. To littérateurs, whose focus typically is on developing narrative that would engage readers, ideas and concepts serve as basic props that, when enriched by the embellishments of language, could tell a compelling story. The quintessential thinker is seized with the quest for sagacity in the process of contemplation, whereas the quintessential writer agonizes over the search for precision in the process of articulation. 

Philosophers delight in clarity of understanding, littérateurs in artistry of expression.

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

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Exercises in Sophistry: A Note to the BJP

Dear BJP,

I wish your party members (some of whom are eminent lawyers) would go attend a refresher course in logic. Perhaps that might teach them to steer clear of befuddling fallacies and bemusing absurdities. Such as, for example, the following line of reasoning, which ya'll have been shouting out from the rooftops over the last couple of days:

A. The CBI has been misused by the Congress to serve its own political agenda.
B. Sohrabuddin was a criminal and a terrorist.
C. Amit Shah is innocent of all crimes that he has been accused of.

A crash course in basic logic will tell you that premises A and B -- even if they're true (and I am not even challenging their veracity) -- are not sufficient grounds to derive conclusion C. So kindly do the nation a favour and let the investigation take its own course. And then take the CBI to court if you like. But till then, stop behaving like the Pakistani establishment. You remind me so much of the way they reacted on 26/11 and the way they've been brushing away the evidence against Hafiz Saeed et al. Same panic, same hysteria, same high-pitched rhetoric, same denial. But even so, the truth came out, didn't it?

And lastly, please don't waste the nation's time and money in Parliament today. Be a robust opposition and engage in good solid debate based on good solid reasoning, on all the issues that you need to be challenging the Congress-led UPA government on -- there are lots of them, and I fully support your demand for accountability on all those counts. Please, please, please do not stage a walk-out as you are wont to do, it achieves nothing.

Have a nice day!

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Effing the Ineffable

As this rather tumultuous week ends, it is heartening to see attempts at bringing the high and mighty to book:

Common thread: all 3 events occurred this week, and all 3 events involve individuals in commanding positions (in their own respective worlds) who could well have been abusing the meek and defenseless under their control -- the very people who looked up to them for protection and leadership. In each case, powerful friends and allies of the accused have tried (and are still trying, as we go into the next week) to suppress their (alleged) crimes and misdemeanours, obfuscate the core issue in each case and divert public scrutiny by hurling counter-accusations at plaintiffs and/or investigators. We can only hope that justice is done in each case. What happened this week was just the first step, in each of the 3 cases, in what may well turn out to be a thousand mile journey. As we all know, it is not easy to bring to book those who have friends in high places and consider themselves above the law

Alan Watts once said (albeit in a very different context): "I'm in the business of effing the ineffable." Let's hope the Indian justice system is in that business too. 

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

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

While on vacation ...

Vacations are about being, not about doing. Work is about doing. Play is about doing.

The soul needs some time to come abreast of all that the mind and the body have been doing, at work and at play. That's what vacations are for - vacant spaces for the soul to catch its breath.

Being, not doing.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Ceci n'est pas une pipe

Shashi Tharoor is no scam artist. He doesn't look like a scam artist, doesn't talk like a scam artist and doesn't walk like a scam artist. Scam artists are people like the boorishly crude Madhu Koda and the unctuously cunning Ramalinga Raju to name a few scamsters from recent times, and opportunistic stock market fraudsters like Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh from yesteryears. All from different walks of life, but hey -- you can never suppress true art in any sphere. The only thing Tharoor did that went horribly wrong was to try and help a friend of his get a sweet deal as a stock-holder in a business venture he was mentoring. Compare that with Raju, the founder of the IT giant he named Satyam, after the Sanskrit word for Truth, who overnight made it a one-word oxymoron by revealing the truth (or part of it) behind its financial position. A five thousand crore scam is a scam that people would consider to be of a respectable order of magnitude. Seventy something crores, that too in the form of 'paper money', and that too accruing over several years, is peanuts, even assuming that Tharoor was after the money (which I seriously doubt -- he is too much of what Bengalis call a 'bhadralok').

In any case, you may ask, what's wrong with trying to get a friend a sweet deal? Don't we all try to help our friends? The answer to that lies in a detailed analysis (which I am not going to get into in this post) of a scandal that has been dubbed Tharoorgate. In short, it started with him mentoring a bunch of entrepreneurs who won the bid for the Kochi franchise of the IPL, in the interests of promoting cricket in his home state of Kerala. And then Tharoor managed to squeeze in a plum position for his friend, with a sweet sweat equity deal in that enterprise. And so the friend, a lady friend as it happens, ended up with a pretty decent stake in the venture, with a great upside and almost no downside, in return for helping them with branding, marketing, event management and such. All of which said lady friend has proven expertise in and is well known for, we are told. (A bit ironic, if you ask me, that we need to be told that she's famous -- wouldn't we have heard of her already?)

And what a lady friend! The voluptuous MILF-like Sunanda Pushkar with her pouting lips and her coiffed hair qualifies to be the personification of Savita Bhabhi to any young Indian male or in fact any male. I can bet that if she were a frumpy blowsy matron, this scandal would've just blown over, assuming it took place at all. But then who are we kidding? Would she have been Tharoor's girlfriend if she were a fat, ugly, dowdy, curmudgeonly widow? Or if she were a man? Would Tharoor have worked his mentoring magic to do her (or him) a great big favor? These may be politically incorrect questions to raise, but you know the answers as well as I.

The media wasted no time in flashing pictures of Tharoor cavorting with Pushkar at art exhibitions and other social events, but the woman has remained mysteriously silent (except for issuing just a simple and short statement denying any wrong-doing and expressing outrage at being projected as a proxy for Tharoor on the board of the Kochi IPL franchisee). Either she doesn't have the balls to come out and face live news cameras, or the ever so gallant Mr Tharoor has played protector and ensured that she is shielded from such ignominy.

And that's how the luscious Ms Pushkar came to be Mr Tharoor's bete noire. For a mindset that requires men and women to sit in different sections of the hall in a wedding reception, the sex angle in this drama is a bit too much to take. She's an attractive young widow with a successful career and he's a dashing, much-accomplished man of the world, a Minister and member of the Indian parliament, twice married and now single and eligible. It's a bit imprudent of someone like him to gallivant with someone like her, and then use his good offices to promote her business, knowing what kind of a gallery of rogues he has walked into in his present job as minister and how thirsty they are for his blood. India's self-righteous right wing, already piqued by Tharoor's earlier misdemeanours and his ability to slip out of tight corners by leveraging his mastery over the art of nuanced articulation, pounced on the glib Mr Tharoor this time, grabbing him by the short and curly. The left joined in too, for good measure, looking for a good slug-fest and some more Congress-bashing.

The nation has other far more compelling issues before it at this time. Moreover when it comes to punishing the corrupt and the deviant, there are far bigger fish we should be frying than the soft-spoken, well-meaning Tharoor, whose biggest crime -- other than a few careless tweets he threw about in a cavalier fashion some time ago (which even a nobody like me has critically blogged about), is merely the fact that he's got a soft spot for attractive women and tries to help them out in their professional pursuits.

The only good thing this scandal has done is to blow open the lid on the Pandora's box that contains all the really murky goings-on behind the closed doors of the IPL, involving some real crooks. Hopefully, we will learn more as the various authorities proceed with their investigations. 

But Tharoor? Vraiment, ceci n'est pas une pipe!

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

The Truth About Cats And Dogs

I came across an interesting quote from Alfred North Whitehead a few days ago:

If a dog jumps in your lap, it is because he is fond of you; but if a cat does the same thing, it is because your lap is warmer. 

In the wake of the recent passage of the health-care reforms legislation architected by the Obama administration, I couldn't help likening the pattern and structure of this rather astute observation to the two different kinds of attitudes towards the subject of distribution of wealth -- If the conservatives believe in distribution of wealth, it is because they want to avoid being guillotined; if the liberals believe in it, it is because they find it difficult to live with the guilt of gross inequity.

And an observation on the side to go with that, as a corollary -- There are those who believe in reducing economic disparities because they hate the rich and there are those who believe in it because they feel for the poor.
Goes back to my view in an earlier post about how what really makes sense is to rise above the emotional and moral plane on which these arguments have typically been fought, and take the issue of distribution of wealth to a more transcendental level, where the only thing that matters is focusing on the goal of sustainability as a design goal for society.

Monday, March 8, 2010

Reservations About Reservations

At the time of writing this post, it seems unlikely that the Women's Bill will be passed into Law today, on International Women's Day. I have mixed feelings about this Bill, as I do about anything that involves social reform through the creation of quotas. This usually applies to the historically underprivileged / exploited / abused / oppressed sections of society, and we try and make it good by reversing the discrimination against them through discrimination for them, by law.

As a people we represent a rich social and cultural diversity, but we have not yet learned to embrace this diversity. Instead we have deepened the divisiveness, be it on the basis of caste, creed, ethnicity, race, gender, religion, language and even physical or mental ability. And sometimes we've set out to do good and ended-up making it worse. According to me, reservations and quotas are like that. My heart goes out to the oppressed but my head remains unmoved when it comes to special considerations for them. Here's my logic, laid out over 4 simple statements:
  1. I do not believe in discrimination of any kind
  2. Reservations and quotas, by their very definition, differentiate one group of humans from another
  3. They are therefore yet another form of discrimination
  4. That is why I do not believe in them
For once, I am not sure what I would wish for, as far as today's outcome in Parliament is concerned.

Happy Women's Day (though I have mixed feelings about that too, but maybe we'll talk about it in another post).

P.S. Here's an interesting analysis: http://blogs.reuters.com/india/2010/03/08/some-questions-on-the-womens-reservation-bill/


My Answer to the Teaser

First of all, a big thank you to all who've had the patience to read and comment on my previous post over the weekend. As promised, here's my answer to the teaser:

No, because (A) implies acceptance of what is perceived to be a perpetual truism while (B) challenges the status-quo, questions what seems to have been taken as fact so far, and implies that it is time for change.  
 
A question of the form "Why did (something) have to be (this way)?" is semantically equivalent to the statement "Granted, (something) has to be (this way)" followed by "But why?" which may either represent genuine curiosity regarding causation or a rhetorical question that makes (A) sound like an anguished lament on the state of things (as in "Why, Oh Why?")
 
A question of the form "Why does (something) have to be (this way)?" is semantically equivalent to the statement "Sorry, I reject the proposition that (something) has to be (this way)" followed by "And even if it is, or has been, are there any compelling reasons that require that it continues to remain (this way)?"

Most responses that came in through comments on the post appear to be more or less along similar lines. Not much of a brain teaser, then, and perhaps Flyweight might have been its more appropriate weight class, given its lack of intellectual heft. But do remember that the teaser was designed not just as a brain teaser but also a teaser-trailer, to whet your appetite for discourse on the larger issue. Which is a good segue into my next point.

Also as promised, I shall soon present my take on the topic of benevolent dictatorship being an oxymoron at my 'main' blog since it's a bit too long for this mini-blog. At the time of posting this, I'm still working on the draft. It will be there soon, I promise. Look for my updates on twitter and facebook -- the title of that post will be the question (B). My special friends who are not active on either will receive an email. Once it is up there, do feel free to jump into the debate and post your comments.

Oh and meanwhile, if you disagree with my answer to the teaser as outlined here above, I'd love to know why. So please comment right here below!

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

Saturday, March 6, 2010

A Bantamweight Teaser Around One Word

Here's a bantamweight teaser, for bright minds that are very bored on a Saturday afternoon.

Articulated below are two questions that are almost identical, except for one word. If you think they both mean the same thing, respond with a "Yes" in the comment box, else respond with a "No, because ___<state your reason here>__". I must hasten to add that I am not looking for what my MA 201 course instructor in IIT used to call a "trivial" resolution, such as: (A) is in the past tense and (B) in the present tense. Let's go a step beyond that and look at the big picture.

(A) Why did benevolent dictatorship have to be an oxymoron?

(B) Why does benevolent dictatorship have to be an oxymoron?


Remember to focus on the teaser here -- the main question, which is: Do (A) and (B) mean the same thing or do they mean different things? In this post, I am not soliciting your opinion on whether or not you think benevolent dictatorship is an oxymoron. We will have that discussion in the next post, which will open with my own answer to this teaser, and then present my take on the oxymoron in question, inspired by an interesting comment thread that unfolded on my facebook page over the last day or two.

OK! Go for it!

Monday, February 22, 2010

The Lighter Side of (Anti)Social Enterprise

These days one hears a lot of talk about innovation and social entrepreneurship. A passing glance at recent activity in this sector brings out several interesting models that combine creative ingenuity with the spirit of enterprise. But I would never have imagined that something like stone pelting can be a serious business. Surprise Surprise. According to some sources, stone pelting is already fast becoming an industry. (Since social enterprise doesn't seem appropriate, though it qualifies on several grounds, let's call it antisocial enterprise.)

This news item could well have qualified for a "in more WTF news" kind of tweet on twitter, but I thought it deserved better treatment than just "tweetment", so this post marks my humble debut in political satire. When I saw the news-flash that the stone pelting king-pin was apprehended, in my mind's eye I had already started envisioning a fictitious TV interview of the CEO of "Rapid Lapidators Pvt. Ltd." (with the tag line "We lapidate to liquidate"), a Srinagar-based start-up that has already got its first round of funding from an Af-Pak based foreign director investor. It goes something like this ...

[Headline: Your TV Channel now brings you exclusive Antisocial Media coverage of the birth of the stone pelting industry, the first of its kind in Antisocial Entrepreneurship]

[On one side of the screen there's a 5 second clip of a mob pelting stones at policemen, in an infinite loop. A watermark bearing the TV Channel's name followed by the words "Exclusive Footage" is running as a continuous ticker tape across the screen]

TV Channel: Sir, this is the first time you are being interviewed by any TV channel, so we are honoured that you chose to give an exclusive interview to just our channel. Could you tell us a little bit about your business?

CEO: Sure. First of all, let me clarify that stone pelting is not as easy as it looks. Our roads these days are always littered with stones, thanks to all the maintenance activity that is perennially going on on our roads. So on one hand it seems like any old Patharphekar can pick up a stone and throw it. But to do a really good job, you have to realize that this is an art by itself. One has to be a trained stone pelter and one has to have the knack for stone pelting, to be able to make a career out of it. Everything is important right from the selection of stones to the technique of throwing to the actual harvesting and recycling of thrown stones.

TVC: What about yourself? How did you get started?

CEO: Since childhood, I was fascinated by the act of throwing a stone at some symbol of the establishment. I threw my first stone when I was just 4 years old and it hit its target - the windscreen of the then district collector's white ambassador. My uncle complimented me and said - nephew, you will one day become a great stone pelter. As I grew older I developed my skill and started winning trophies at local stone pelting competitions. Those days it was just a hobby for all of us, because we just enjoyed throwing stones. Then one day I said to a couple of my friends - Yaar, why not we make this a business, yaar? This can become a lucrative business in the valley yaar. After all, we could always hop across the border to a hostile neighbouring country and get some unfriendly neighbourhood GO (state actors) or NGO (non-state actors) to fund us and LeT us launch this antisocial enterprise. And we did, and since then there's been no looking back. This has become yet another outsourcing innovation for our country, with our vast resources of unemployed youth. A little bit of research in your own news archives will tell you that there's huge demand for stone pelting outsourcing.

TVC: That's interesting! Could you give us an industry overview? What about competition? What are your differentiators?

CEO: As an industry sector, stone pelting is positioned carefully above the Shiv Sena brand of hooliganism but below Maoist insurgence. To those who are looking for the right degree of violence that is not so lethal as to provoke extreme reaction from the establishment, but yet causes enough damage to life and property, we offer the right solution. As a company, we are aware that there is considerable interest in this business in other parts of the country, such as the state of Andhra Pradesh. But we have a far superior offering than the pro-Telangana activists, and our pricing models are also very attractive. We have recently introduced a pay-as-we-pelt model and a outcome-linked model, as opposed to just FTE-linked charge-out rates. Our deliverables are highly visible, thanks to your channel, so transparency is never a problem. Our approach underscores our commitment to results and the fact that we're not just exploiting wage arbitrage opportunities, though all we hire are unemployed youth. We've invested heavily in R&D and have institutionalized the process of innovation - every pelter in our stable is an innovative pelter. We take special care in recruiting and training our staff and we go out of our way to keep the morale high. This is a resource-intensive business and a lot depends on the motivation levels of even our most junior team member. For example, we have an in-depth induction programme for new hires, which includes SPLC training ...

TVC: Er .. what's that?

CEO: Oh sorry - SPLC is a jargones (sic) for Stone Pelting Life-Cycle training. 

TVC: You mean jargon ...

CEO: Hahn, bus wohi ... You see, once you start studying this industry a little more closely you'll become better acquainted with our jargones (sic) because you see, us lapidators are technical people and technical people tend to invent a lot of jargones (sic). It means that we pay attention to every detail. Like I was telling you, it is important to select the right kind of stones. Some stones crumble easily, others have too smooth a surface - they are actually paybbuls (sic). We need stones that are hard but do not crumble easily, and they should have sharp edges also. In fact, our supply chain specialists have perfect the art of sourcing stones from the best pelting-grade stone suppliers in the industry. Thats another differentiator, by the way. Also, we have a highly scalable model since we have access to vast pools of resources that are only too willing to get trained and get a job with us. Lastly, we are very environment conscious and after I returned from COP15 I've initiated a recycling initiative - we pay street urchins to harvest the stones we pelt, after the stone pelting incident. This has also resulted in considerable cost saving, which we pass on to our esteemed customers.

TVC: Mr CEO, you seem very passionate about your business and I'm sure you would love to talk about it a lot more. But we won't keep you from your tight schedule any longer. Thank you very much for your precious time and for sharing your insights on stone pelting. We wish you the very best for the future.

CEO: Thanks for having me and giving coverage to our exciting new business. Though our mission statement is "Everybody must get stoned" - a line we stole from the famous lyricist and Music Director Babu Dhillon, as a token gesture, if someone hires us to pelt stones at your TV station, we will humbly decline the offer. If they offer to pay us a heck of a lot more, then we will give you enough warning and wait till you leave the building before pelting. And we'll pass on some of that premium to you. We're professionals after all.

TVC: Oh that would be wonderful! Your gesture is much appreciated!

CEO: (beams all around) My pleasure entirely!

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Friends Like These ...

My gut reaction to the Pune blast last night was a sense that it was somehow linked with the Shiv Sena protests against the release of Shah Rukh Khan's latest film. I first got the news through a couple of concerned messages from friends I am connected with on social media, checking on people they knew in Pune. I was a bit preoccupied with the blog post I was just finishing (which, uncannily, was about love and hate, among other things) at that time. I vaguely remembered catching the news earlier in the day that most cinema halls in Pune had chosen not to screen the controversial movie, out of fear of incurring the Sena's wrath, notwithstanding the security arrangements and the strong police deployment by the local authorities. But I did not expect things to get so bad so fast. So I hastily put my blog post aside and began investigating this breaking news story.

As it turned out, this was a bomb blast, a planned attack by terrorists (suspected to be the LeT and/or IM). It wasn't a mob of hooligans on a "spontaneous" rampage (a specialty of the Shiv Sena modus operandi these days -- they've become very good at organizing spontaneous acts of vandalism). And so it wasn't something the Sena activists did, after all. They would not plant bombs and kill people. Not in Pune, for sure. But I could still see a clear connection all the same: my initial gut reaction was not altogether wrong. Quite simply, the Pune police force was too busy with the security bandobast around the many cinema halls where the movie was originally scheduled to show, and the enemy saw this as an opportune moment to strike somewhere else, at a location they had most likely been targeting all along. All they seemed to have been waiting for was the timing.

Call it bizarre if you like, but it was almost as though the actors at two opposing ends of this horrific drama were colluding to act in concert. Almost as though these terrorists had partners in India whose task it was to create a big enough diversion that the entire law and order machinery would be compelled to focus their time, attention and energies on, exposing the soft underbelly of the city open to attack. I'm not trying to suggest that the Sena was colluding with the terrorists. But hey, with friends like these, who needs enemies?

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Attacks on Indians in Australia - A Project for Shashi Tharoor

Is it so difficult to figure out whether there is a racial dimension to what appears to be a sudden surge in the attacks on Indians in Australia over the last year or so?

Here's a thought (no rocket science involved): The governments of the two countries constitute a panel of sociologists and behavioural scientists (criminal psychologists / cultural anthropologists / ethnographers / urbanologists / whatever other types of relevant experts there might be) from both countries, and direct them to carry out a detailed study of all the reported cases of verbal abuse and/or physical assault and battery on people of Indian origin in Australia over the last few years. This should put an end to the speculation, claims, accusations, allegations and all kinds of name-calling that's been flying around in both directions. 

If it turns out that racial / ethnic prejudice is the root cause of these attacks, then the Australian governance establishment should acknowledge it and try to fix the root cause instead of staunchly denying racial motivation. Conversely if it turns out that these are just regular instances of urban crime, averagely distributed over a normal cross-section of the population and not skewed in the direction of any specific race or ethnicity, then the Indian media should stop trying to whip-up public outrage by playing the race card every time they broadcast breaking news of a fresh attack.

I wonder if Shashi Tharoor - arguably the most open-minded, level-headed, rational, sensible and sincere politician in the ruling party - might consider taking this up as a project, instead of getting himself into and out of inane controversies. Especially given the fact that his portfolio of responsibilities requires him to be directly concerned with matters that constitute 'external affairs', rather than with exploring how social media could be leveraged to air his own opinions on policy matters among the twitterati.

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

Abstractionism on a Saturday afternoon

Quizzers compulsively obsessing over data in a world of facts and figures
Reporters persistently poring over information in a world of happenstance 
Researchers relentlessly seeking knowledge in a world of explanations
Philosophers inexorably aspiring for wisdom in a world of possibilities

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