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!