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/

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

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

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!

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

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!

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

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?

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