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

Monday, December 14, 2009

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.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

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.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

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