About rape and responsibility

I've been meaning to share my views on the public reaction to the recent Hyderabad rape. While the crime itself was heinous, and we desperately need to do something to curb this rape menace, I didn't agree with the calls for public hanging, lynching etc. that I was hearing from so many, including prominent personalities and political leaders. Today, the 4 rapists were killed in a police encounter, and the wide positive reaction to it is deeply disturbing.

Let's think about a few other situations. We've heard about such encounters in Gujarat, UP, Kashmir and north-east etc. several times in the past - and I'd like to believe most educated people don't favor this sort of approach to justice. When it comes to mob lynchings in the last couple of years, especially when the victims are religious minorities and the reason given had something to do with beef - most educated people unequivocally condemned the phenomenon and criticized everyone involved, and even those not directly involved, like PM Modi. I don't often agree with the 'liberal, secular intellectual community' in India, but in this instance we're on the same page.

Why, then, are people supporting mob justice and extra-judicial killings in this case? This is also illegal, and therefore wrong.

One may argue that what these men did was a terrible crime, but eating beef is not. That is some people's opinion. In the gau-rakshak's opinion, killing and eating 'gau mata' is also a terrible crime, and the perpetrator deserves similar treatment. To say that one person's opinion matters and the gau-rakshak's doesn't is unfair and arrogant.

This is why we are governed by laws, not personal opinions, and equality before the law is one of the cornerstones of civilized society. People who commit crimes must be caught and punished - even hanged - but within the framework of the law. When people start over-riding the law and principles of justice, it is a slippery slope. You simply can't condone an illegal act in one situation and condemn it in the other. The message this sends is 'it is ok to break the law and do what you feel like' - and someone will soon use it to justify something you never intended to support, and it may well even harm you. The law is what protects you - you can't disregard it as and when you feel like.

I'm sure the next argument is that the law has failed to protect us. The problem isn't actually the laws - ours are as good as any in the world. The problem lies with their implementation, and the widespread, deeply ingrained corruption of everyone involved - the political class, the administrators, the judiciary, the police force and almost every single one of us.

Let's start with traffic rules - driving on the wrong side, driving under influence, jumping traffic lights, taking turns where not permitted, driving before attaining legal age or without a license & necessary paperwork. I'm sure almost every reader would have been guilty of at least one of these at some point. Many even refuse to wear helmets or seat-belts - which are mandated by law for your own protection. How do you blame anyone else, then?

I'm not trying to trivialize rape & murder by comparing it to jumping a red light. The point is simply this - everyone must respect all rules and laws at all times, and this is a culture change we all need to bring about, starting with ourselves. Once we start making concessions, and defending our own illegal acts, it becomes  difficult to draw a line, and someone will take it too far.

We know our public services, including law & order, are in a bad state. The people providing these services aren't from Mars - they're like us, part of the same society and they too need money to pay for their houses and their kids' schools. While the corruption we see is deplorable, it is not hard to understand the lack of motivation and sincerity among the lower tiers when one considers their salaries and working conditions.

If we want more, better public services, the government needs money to pay for these, and it collects this through taxes. But evading tax is not just acceptable in our society, for most people it is a matter of pride and an art form! Almost everyone I know fakes rent receipts and engages in cash-based transactions that aren't reported to the tax authorities. The honest person is considered a fool. We do this, and then blame the government, the police force and all for having failed us. Yes, they do a lot of wrong, but we all share some of the responsibility for contributing to these problems. Until we realize and accept this, and start doing what we can in our individual capacities, these problems can never be solved.
-----------------------------------------------------

All that said, the fact is that those 4 men are dead. A lot of people are happy that justice is done, and will get on with their lives. But the problem isn't solved AT ALL. I've been paying attention to news of rapes & murders since the Nirbhaya incident several years back. Almost every day, with depressing consistency, there is a terrible incident reported somewhere in the newspaper - infants, old bed-ridden women - all sorts get victimized. The acts are brutal, often followed by murder. This was the news, I think a day after the Hyderabad incident.

I read a stat that ~30,000 incidents of rape were reported in 2017. That's about 100 every day, and this is just the official stat - I'm sure the true count would be a large multiple of this. As bad as I feel for Hyderabad victim, that is but one case. It is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Over-the-top, knee-jerk reactions to the odd case, once every couple of years, are not going to solve the problem. We have to understand this problem, and need sustained, well thought-out action to try and solve it. Mob lynching and police encounters aren't the answer.

I'm not qualified or capable of coming up with the proper solution, but I'd like to share some thoughts to get the discussion started.

Why do these things happen? It's certainly not chow mein or jeans, as some idiots believe. There are two general reasons I can think of:
1. The perpetrator does not have a well developed sense of right and wrong
2. They know they will most likely get away it

The second is a problem with the police & legal system, and for sure there is massive room for improvement. However, this alone will not do. No 'system' is capable of preventing all crime. A few lakh or even crores of cops and judges can't mind the behavior of a billion plus people - it is logistically impossible. Even if it was possible, we wouldn't want to become a police state, with every action being watched and every misdemeanor being strictly punished. We want to live free of fear - not replace one kind of fear with another.

Which brings us to the sense of right and wrong. I have visited several 'developed', safer countries. In Japan, if you lose something, it will almost always be found and either returned to you or kept in a safe place for you to collect. In most of Europe, you can travel on the local train or bus without a ticket - it's not generally checked, and chances that you get caught in a random inspection are quite low. In these countries, there is a lot you could possibly get away with - but people trust each other to do the right thing. If you ever get caught riding without a ticket, there may be a small fine, but everyone will give you dirty looks, and may even pass a remark about 'poor upbringing' - and I've heard that people are more worried about this embarrassment than the fines. It doesn't take 'strict laws' and 'strong police' if the sense of right and wrong is well-developed among the people at large.

Closely tied to righteousness is the concept of common good. People in those countries respect queues, give pedestrians the right of way and are generally more trustful of and kind to each other, because everyone understands that society works better this way and knows they will receive the benefits when roles are reversed.

This is mostly missing in our society. Most people take shortcuts, seek and enjoy VIP treatment, cheat in exams - all with no sense of guilt, because they give zero fucks about the interests of others or the common good. This has to change, and we need to start doing whatever each of us can individually.

A Life worth living. Part Tr3s.

Lately, I've seen a lot of my friends share articles about work-life balance and the 'busy trap'. Everyone seems to agree that we're all too busy these days, and it isn't quite right. Most articles are written by people who devoted most of their younger years to work, and came to regret it later and now extol the importance of work-life balance. They tend to swing to the other extreme, and don't offer too many suggestions on how one should fix the issue. I'll attempt to do that here.

This post might appear a bit preachy, and I offer two arguments to defend that:
1. Most of this is things I've learnt by reading recognized experts, whose ideas appealed to me and many others too.
2. I have a better work-life balance than most and - more importantly - I'm happy with it. That's not something a lot of people can honestly say these days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of us have heard the story about how Sir Isaac Newton saw an apple fall from a tree and discovered gravity, and how this led to the birth of modern physics. But what was he doing at that moment? Enjoying a leisurely afternoon cuppa of tea in an orchard with a friend.

Penicillin is regarded as one of the greatest discoveries in the history of medicine. You may have read that it was discovered by accident - Sir Alexander Fleming had left an open petri-dish unattended for a while and a mould had grown on it. Why was it unattended for a while? He'd been away on vacation with family for a couple of weeks.

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar claims that the Sudarshan Kriya was revealed to him while he was observing 10 days of silent introspection alongside the Bhadra river. He's built the whole Art of Living empire around it.

NN Taleb, in his book Black Swan, contends that history moves forward in irregular leaps through serendipitous discoveries made by maverick thinkers, not the endless labours of busy suits and lab coats.

If you want to come up with the next big idea or great discovery, and leave your mark on history, you're much more likely to do so in times of idle introspection. That's when you find moments of inspiration and have epiphanies. Make time, and give life a chance to positively surprise you!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most people will counter that they just have to much to do. Their work and other things they have to do just fill up all their days. Stephen Covey, in 'The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People' tells us to always begin with an end in mind. Think about who you want to become and where you want to be in 5, 10, 20 years time. Define your main goals and figure out what will make you truly happy. Sort out your priorities. Then evaluate all the things you're doing today. Which ones are taking you in the desired direction, and which ones are simply drains on your time and energy? Identify the latter, start cutting your losses, and making more time for things that will matter in the long run.

It also helps to apply the 80/20 principle and the law of diminishing returns. Most people can accomplish most of their important targets with a few hours' work. Then there are activities that also deserve a good amount of time. Finally, there's the things that take up a lot of time and energy, but the pay-off simply isn't worth it. Find ways to cut these out.

The same applies to goal-setting. It's good to have ambitious targets at work that challenge you and provide you a considerable sense of achievement and pride, but one must be realistic and identify the point of diminishing returns. Hitting 50% of your target is usually a walk in the park. Exceeding it by a bit takes considerable time and effort. Trying to exceed it by more than 20% will usually sap the joy out of your life and badly affect all other aspects of it.

Covey also suggests a grid - with urgency as one axis and importance as the other. Most of us tend to deal with the urgent on a priority basis and it gives us a buzz. We tend to defer the things that are important but not so urgent. He was talking mainly about building professional capabilities in this quadrant, but the concept applies equally well to life in general.

To me, it is important to read about a variety of subjects and articulate my own thoughts on this blog. It is also important to read/watch something intelligent and witty everyday because it keeps me mentally sharp. These things make me happy and help me become better-informed and more versatile - which also greatly helps my productivity & success at work, and makes me better company. Everyone needs to find things like these to unwind, recharge and grow, and make time for them. We've all heard the saying 'All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy' early in our lives, but seem to have forgotten it along the way.

I'm going to talk a bit about relationships here - because they are very important and tend to be affected most directly and seriously by our time-allocation choices. We're designed to be social and our joy increases when we have special people in our lives to share them with. We also need support systems when things get tough. But meaningful relationships need time investment and nurture.

I don't have siblings and have been living on my own for almost 15 years now. I depend on a few close friends as my support system. Right now, one of them is going through a painful divorce, another one is evaluating investments offers for his business, and a third is coping with a new life in the USA. I'm happy to be there for them at these times, and they're there for me when I need them. You can't achieve this by scheduling them into the 3rd Saturday of every month, for a couple of hours in the afternoon. I don't have a family yet, but I'm sure being a good partner or parent works the same way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Urgency, on the other hand, is often artificial and created by ourselves by either trying to do too much, or having our purpose & priorities messed up. I lived that kind of life for a few years. My day started with paranoia about discovering a bomb in the inbox (an error in recently submitted analysis, or an unhappy client), followed by about 12 hours in the office, and ending with anxiety about the next day. There was always more to be done, fires to be fought and something to be frustrated with. It affected my lifestyle and started taking a toll on my health and general well-being. I took some time off and decided to draw some lines in the sand, and am much happier today.

Unfortunately, I see a lot of my peers already having trouble keeping their lives straight. Some have had serious health issues and surgeries, some have had their marriages break down, and some others have just become jaded and cynical pale shadows of their former selves. We're just one decade out of college, and have about 3 more to go, and responsibilities are only going to increase both at work and at home. It's way too early for people to start burning out.

Being busy is an unhealthy addiction. It gives you a buzz and makes you feel wanted and purposeful, but in most cases that is due to blinkered vision. Just think back 5 years. Most of what kept you busy then probably appeared crucial, but will likely seem almost trivial now. The same will probably be true when you look back 5 years from now.

Think about the managers you've had. Some must be busy bodies, always on their toes, always buzzing and usually quite successful. People respect them and admire their energy, but most wouldn't want to be them. On the other hand, there are the leaders who always have a calm demeanour, never get ruffled, are equally successful or more, and always leave the office in time to spend quality time with their families or pursuing other interests. These are the guys who really inspire others and get farther in life. Which one would you rather be?

We are designed to appreciate outcomes and rewards obtained by others, not their efforts. In college and at work, the hard-workers were pejoratively labelled 'fighters' and the lazy versatile geniuses were labelled 'studs'. It's because the latter found ways to achieve good results more efficiently - with lesser time and effort, and had time for a greater variety of activities and all-round development. Most people can do that by using some of the principles outlined earlier.

I feel American culture is partly to blame for the current state of affairs. Americans make their jobs their lives, and tend to equate what they do with who they are - and seem to be missing the bigger picture. We Asians are worse because we have it upside-down. Our cultures tend to measure and reward effort as much or more than outcomes. It's even a central tenet of Hindu philosophy! I personally admire European and Australian societies because of the emphasis on culture and sport respectively, and I feel that's a more holistic perspective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another negative effect of always being busy is people have little time to think. I work in the analytics industry and we bill our clients based on man-hours utilized for each project, so there is a perverse incentive to always try to do more. But our real job is not to present clients with more and more information, but to help them make better decisions. Whenever I'm involved in a project, I urge the team to try and find out what decisions our analyses will inform, and try and streamline the output to help our clients make better decisions. There is no point providing more information than needed, or analysis results that are confusing or inconclusive. We should always try and do less but do it right. And then go home, play video games, chat with friends or enjoy a cold beer. I'm sure the situation and challenges are similar in most professions. People are doing too much, but a lot of it is a waste of time. They need to do less, think more and make time to live happier lives.

This brings me to the subject of smartphones and instant email. Sure, the IT revolution has made our lives better in many ways, but most of these are outside of work and related to our personal/social lives. I'm not sure businesses in general have become much more successful or better at decision-making with the advent of instant messaging. It has made all of us a lot busier, but not much richer intellectually or epistemologically (Ha, really wanted to use that big word!)

Personally, I was thrilled when I got my first company-paid Blackberry device. It was a status symbol of sorts, and I felt I had arrived. But I soon realized it was an instrument of corporate slavery. The emails followed me wherever I went all the time, immediate responses were expected, and it wasn't such a good thing at all. I still use such devices, but I don't let them control my life any more. I only check email a few times outside the office, and I ask myself 'Do I have to answer this right now, or can it wait till tomorrow morning?' Usually, the answer is that it can wait, and I put the device down and return to the TV. Life is much better this way.

Yesterday & tomorrow...

When I was in school, life seemed tough. Getting up every morning, standing in murderous heat or cold fog for an hour during the assembly, attending hours of classes and preparing for exams for many years in succession. I was promised - just work hard now to get into an IIT and everything will be good. My future would be secure, college is more fun than school etc.

College was no joyride. The peer group was extremely competitive, courses rigorous and every exam was like writing JEE again. There were still hours of mind-numbing classes and labs - every longer than school, actually - and living conditions in the hostels were spartan. The promise then was - just get into a good PG course, or get a job - and you'll reap the benefits of the IIT tag.

IIM was crazier. The schedule was hectic as hell and getting good results was no easier. If anything, there was added pressure of placements and expectations. Just get a day one job during placements, and you will rule the world - was the promise.

The first job sucked. Unlike college, you couldn't bunk at all nor make mistakes. I felt like a small insignificant cog in the wheel whose presence didn't really make much of a difference either way - but I had to be there every day, 9 hours a day, fighting some issue or the other. And life in Bhopal wasn't exciting at all for a young bachelor. I thought let me just switch to a profession I can be passionate about, and make an impact - and I'll get a sense of satisfaction and purpose. Also, moving to a more 'happening' city will make life fun again.

While I liked the new job, it was cruel. Waking up every day worried about a new bomb in the inbox (a recent mistake being caught), working thanklessly from 10am-10pm and yet not getting everything done perfectly, and returning home every night with a sullen face was hardly what I'd always dreamt of. The weekends presented their own questions - what to do, where to go, who can get us in (most places we wanted to visit only allowed couple on weekends, and we were 3 single guys sharing an apartment). Let me just struggle through these first few years, build my reputation and find good company - and all will be well, I thought.

A few years down the line, I'm well-settled in my job but the challenges are even bigger now. To successfully achieve the results I want, I have to depend on other people and factors that aren't all in my control and it's a long game that'll span across many years. I had great friends but most of them have moved out of Bangalore now and/or are married, so it feels rather lonely. Let me just find a good life partner and move into my new home (will be built by year-end) and things will get better, is what I'm telling myself now.

Does it ever really get easier and better? Do we ever feel like we're on top of everything, or does the promise of a happier future remain forever elusive?

The thing that makes it worse is nostalgia. Now when I think back to school days, all I remember is lots of friends, 2 hours of cricket/tennis/swimming every evening, discussing crushes with friends, and my parents taking care of all the big issues like household finances. When I think of college, I remember the bike rides for fried chicken in the city, watching the Shawshank Redemption in my room, night-outs on the hostel roof discussing the concept of 'God' with my best friends, and my first girlfriend. PG memories are all about enjoying every hour of sleep managed at weird times & locations, creating the success that was Manfest, nailing some presentation/assignment and feeling like a genius, all the kebab-paratha, late night AOE games and being happy with placements. When I think back to my early bachelor days, all I remember is the appreciation received after a big achievement at work, TT at home, the wild weekend parties, the trips to Goa, Singapore etc., witnessing some dear friends' love stories bloom into happy family lives, the lone-wolf British summer holiday and all the fun I had.

Nearly everyone I know misses the glorious days when they were younger and wish they could re-live those.

Is that how we're programmed? To romanticize the past memories, and hope for a better future, but remain forever frustrated with the present? Pretty lousy design, innit? The gurus always say 'Live in the present moment'. There are a few moments when one experiences bliss, not missing the past nor worrying about the future - but those are so, so rare. The present moment almost always seems to suck!

Is it just me, or does everyone relate to this? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below...

The Leap of Faith

(Credit: Central idea inspired by this article)

A short while back, I wrote about the spark early in a relationship, and how I thought it was not nearly as important as people usually believe. I did not mean to suggest that its presence is always misleading, or its absence completely immaterial. I just meant that one should give things time to become clearer and only then can they be sure whether or not something is meant to be.

The reverse problem is people waiting forever to be 'sure' and never quite getting there. In relationships, as in many other things in life, one can never be 100% sure they're making the right decision about the future because it is - and always will be - the great unknown. Getting to know another person is a life-long process and it can't be completed before you make a commitment. That's actually a good thing, because it leaves you a lot to look forward to later. But at some point, you just have to trust you know enough about the other person, and take a leap of faith!

While in college, I was in a great relationship with an extraordinary girl that lasted many years. When I graduated and had to leave for another city, we had known each other long enough and well enough to be as sure as was possible - that if we decided to be together, things would work out well. Unfortunately, we were both very young and just couldn't take that leap and commit to a future together. Things fizzled out, we moved on and grew up to become very different people. Today, I hope I will have a better future than I could have had, but the odds appear long.

After finishing B-School, I didn't like the first job I got. The company was great (both reputation and reality), the money was very good and I did fairly well, even achieving some records, but it was a manufacturing operations role which I just didn't enjoy and wanted to do something else. I resigned after ~10 months, without another job offer in hand. I was offered several tempting options by my manager who was desperate to retain me, and I wasn't having much luck with my first few job applications elsewhere. But I stuck to my decision, and took a leap of faith. Nearly 3 painful months later, I landed a job with a start-up in Bangalore and everything worked out brilliantly after that. I loved my new job, new company, new city, new life - everything!

It doesn't always work out, otherwise it'd be a walk in the park and not a leap. I recently took another one and ended up bruising my knees. That's a story for another time. But even when things don't work out, you just have to pick yourself up and motor on.

The simple truth is - if you want to achieve something great, you will at some point have to take some risks. Playing safe, having backup plans etc. can provide you security, but will also lull you into mediocrity and irrelevance.

To land on one's feet and not in the abyss, one must know the difference between irresponsible, mindless punts and well-informed, calculated risks. Faith must never be blind. This is the secret of successful businessmen like Richard Branson. They take many risks and not all of them pay off. What they ensure is that the potential downside of any risky venture is limited. When they fail, you don't really notice it because the loss is small. When they succeed, it makes the headlines. The mistake most unsuccessful gamblers make is getting carried away with the potential size of the bonanza, but not covering their backs for the scenario when things go wrong.

When you're standing at the edge of the cliff, you must be able to see where you want to land. You must have good reason to believe you can cross the chasm, preferably from your own history. When in doubt, it's often helpful to seek the opinion of a good friend who knows you well because it's easier for them to be objective in their assessment.

But there will come a point at which no more information will be available. You could be reasonably confident but not certain, and you'll find yourself standing at the edge with a choice. You could stand there forever and let life pass you by. Or you could turn away, and always keep wondering about what might have been. The best thing to do is to just jump and pray...

Marketics nostalgia

Yesterday, I left Marketics/WNS.

4 years, 7 months, 2 weeks. That is the longest I've EVER been in a single place. Also, the general pace of life - both professionally, and personally - had been quite high till early 2010. On the work front, I joined a small company, which had started up just a couple of years back, and wasn't fully settled - and saw it grow rapidly, get acquired by, and completely change character in just a couple of years. My own role also evolved a lot, as things changed around me.

Similarly, on the personal front - there was a lot going on. The house I live in now is the 5th I've occupied since I came to Bangalore. I've lived in HSR, Koramangala, Indiranagar and now Whitefield - and had 4 different guys as flat-mates at various times. I've made a lot of friends - at the office and outside - and also reconnected with some good old ones - and I've seen nearly ALL of them eventually leave Bangalore, in most cases also start their families.

But in the midst of all this, the one thing that hadn't changed was where I went to work (well, technically - the co. name changed and office address did shift - but it was still essentially the same workplace). For me, this job has been synonymous with living in Bangalore, and is inextricably linked with many, many memories. Even though it was my second job, I will always associate it with many firsts, which occurred during the same time. Listed below, in no particular order:

- First flat-sharing experience

- First F1 race viewed in a pub with friends. Learning that beer can - and should - be chugged.

- First F1 race LIVE with friends

- First Smirnoff/Tulleeho bartending workshop

- First party@home

- First professional crisis of confidence (thanks to Vinay CR - "Dude.... don't u know a set of percentages should add up to 100.0?". I cannot explain here.)

- First company offsite. Orange County. Director setting the pace of the party by throwing up a few hours into the trip!

- First double date (Opus. At one point, a friend-of-friend was singing and we were the ONLY four people dancing!)

- First visit to a disc, followed immediately by first midnight buffet

- First client delight

- First nap @ work

- First (and thankfully only) experience throwing-up-and-getting-carried-home-with-no-memory-next-morning at an office party! (the first Zero-G party - this is also the occasion that Neeraj, Aman and I really started being friends)

- First (and hopefully last) no-pants appearance at a party

- First Oktoberfest (OK, I'm referring to the lame Bangalore version, but still)

- First live rock concert

- First overseas trip (Hong Kong, for work, Nov 2007)

- First (and second) Goa trip. Candolim, Calangute, Paradiso, Britto's et al

- First Munakka night

- First 'sweater hatao' andolan (and several other antics by Tushar, which would be worthy of a whole, separate post!)

- First home theatre. And gaming console.

- First overseas holiday with friends

- First lone-wolf overseas holiday. London.

- First IPL game live. (Was it a date?)

- First dedicated beverage fridge

- First-ever chopsticks dandiya

- First bar at home

- First biryani at 3am (Royal Orchid, with 2 female friends, who found a naked stranger in their bed when they got home - BTW I had abs nothing to do with the latter story)

- First conference call with a girlfriend, a mutual friend and a colleague of theirs who had a crush on girlfriend (they called form their office, and yes, it was BLOODY messed up)

- First recliner chair

- First car

- First road trip

- First T20 World Cup game, LIVE

- First hiring decision

- First firing decision

- First experience interviewing potential boss candidates

- First 'meeting a girl for matrimonial purpose'

- First 'meeting the parent' (and brother)

- First gym membership

There are many more - some of them not listed above coz they weren't firsts, and others coz they're private :)

I'd like to thank all the people who played their parts in creating the fantastic memories I have from these last 4+ years - I will always cherish them!

Anyhow, yesterday, a journey came to an end - and I've not yet completely come to terms with that fact. I hope I do soon - and figure out where to head off next...

Geeky nostalgia

To those who didn't know me when I was an active programmer, some of the stuff in this post - including its basic premise - will seem incredible, obnoxious, or both. But those who did know me back then, know it's completely honest.

I saw the movie 'the social network' last night. It was quite good. As I often do these days, I looked up Mark Zuckerberg on wikipedia to find out some more about him. On the page, I came across the following pieces:

"Zuckerberg began using computers and writing software as a child in middle school...

He enjoyed developing computer programs, especially communication tools and games. In one such program, since his father's dental practice was operated from their home, he built a software program he called "ZuckNet," which allowed all the computers between the house and dental office to communicate by pinging each other. It is considered a "primitive" version of AOL's Instant Messenger, which came out the following year.

According to writer Jose Antonio Vargas, "some kids played computer games. Mark created them."

Now, I do not mean to sound boastful or anything, but this reminded me of ME! I'll explain why.

I learnt programming in BASIC in class 8 and created my own version of the 'Bricks'. Then, I read that BASIC was for amateurs, and 'real' programmers used C. So, I went on to teach myself C & C++ by reading books. In class 9, I created my own version of 'paint' (for DOS - Windows hadn't become popular until then, so we didn't have MS-Paint. Or even mice, with most PCs.)

When I was in class 11, some of my friends played a game called 'gorilla', where u basically had to specify a speed and an angle to toss a stone to hit the other guy, avoiding obstacles in the path. I couldn't beat them at the game, so I created my own version for the class project! (I still couldn't beat them, though.)

My most ambitious 'game' program was a simulation of a game of football, which I created between the class 12 exams and 1st year of college. This was inspired by EA's FIFA RTWC '98, which we'd all enjoyed over the last few months. I still remember - when I 'ran' the first version of the algo, all 20 players converged on the ball in 1 second, and also the 2 goalkeepers 2 seconds later. Over the next few weeks, I'd improved the algo enough to make the game somewhat realistic and even fun!

In college, I heard Java was the next big thing. So I taught myself that next. My girlfriend at the time was quite fond of playing 'snake' on her Nokia. One jobless weekend, I created my own version called 'Happytrain' - for the PC. For this, I have proof! Below is a screenshot of my program.

The 'snake' is replaced with a chain of emoticons who look 'happier' as the chain grows. You try and pick up happy-lookin icons, and avoid sad-looking ones (make you shorter and less happy), especially the skull (instant kill).

(Updated on 2/18/13 - you can now download this game here. Just unzip the downloaded archive, and run the extracted file named 'HappyTrain.jar'. If it doesn't work, you probably need to install a JRE)

So, what else did Zuck develop? Ah yes, a messenger, and a social networking site. Well, I did too.

During my college days, we didn't have internet connectivity in our hostel rooms. We had to access the internet either from labs, or cyber cafes. Cyber cafes were expensive - too expensive if you wanted to chat with ur steady girlfriend everyday. (My parents once got worried that I'd picked up a drug habit, coz I kept asking them for more money!). And most labs had blocked Yahoo, MSN and other popular 'messenger' programs. So, I decided to create my own messenger application, which they wouldn't block coz they wouldn't know about it!

Not only did I create my own messenger program, I added features that none of the existing programs had at the time. The most important among these was the ability to set your 'visibility' level individually for each contact. At the time, MSN messenger didn't allow you to chat with anyone if you wanted to appear 'offline'. Yahoo messenger didn't have this stupid restriction, but you could either be visible to everyone (including annoying relatives), or invisible to everyone including your girlfriend (who was also invisible to avoid relatives, so you ended up not talking for 15 precious paid minutes, as both thought the other was running late). I fixed this in my program, a good 2 years before Yahoo introduced individual visibility settings.

There were no noteworthy 'social networks' back in 2001. Friendster was the first in 2002. Facebook and Orkut didn't happen until 2004.

In 2001, when I was designing my messenger, I also included concepts of 'community' and 'profile'. The 'signup' process for new users asked for some information to share with the 'community'. I was going to give users the option of specifying personal details including relationship status and selecting some of this info to share on their 'community member profile' page. Check out these screenshots:

Yes, I had done all this in 2001. The colors used in the above screenshots are evidence of my youth at the time :P

In 2002, I also won a 'special mention for a brilliant single-handed performance' during 'Java Jeopardy' at IITM's Shaastra (one of my proudest moments, because it was a contest between teams). Then I entered the final year of college. Time for placements. I knew that I was - and had even acknowledged by many - one of the best programmers on campus at the time (even though I was NOT enrolled in the Computer Science course). I assumed I'd get picked up by one of the many software cos. If they'd really been looking for the right talent, I would have. I didn't. And that was the death of a programmer. I went ahead and enrolled at a business school.

Anyway, cut to today. Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire, and worth ~ USD 25Bn at the age of 26. I'm a 28-year-old nobody, sipping vodka and blogging in Bangalore. Something went wrong somewhere.

A case for activism

Every now and then I hear about some clash between a pair of communities, or some random groups of people with causes that conflict with each other. Violence is not uncommon in these incidents. And no matter how commonplace these clashes become, I canot help being enveloped by a feeling of absolute despondency and frustration every time I hear such news. In stead of getting used to it, and developing the regressive but patently Indian attitude of 'chalta hai' or 'we are like this only', my feelings about are only getting stronger (That should be a good thing, right?)

Today, I shall try and pen down the issues and maybe a few solutions (or at least ideal scenarios) as I see them...

We are the 'yes, we can' generation of India. Till less than two decades back, just about any product of high quality you got in this country used to be imported. High quality consumer services didn't even exist. People with government jobs used to be considered financially and professionally secure and successful, and had little ambition and small aspirations. For a high quality of life (measured in material terms here), people used to dream about migrating to the West. Or even the Gulf. Even south-east Asian cities held great appeal. Anyone who had been abroad was a virtual celebrity, and the places they described sounded like Disneyland.

Cut to 2009. Most of the young, educated middle-class people live in multistorey apartments in cities. They wear Levi's jeans, with Adidas shoes, and Swatches. They drive Korean, Japanese, European or American designed cars, and own Korean-designed electronics. They use the same cosmetics as the Westerners. They watch movies in multiplexes where tickets cost Rs 300. And many of them have been overseas at least once, or will do so sometime in the next couple of years. Even our cricket team now displays attitude, belief and aggression like never before!

Now, I'm used to hearing a common refrain at just about this point. "You are only talking about an elite minority. Most people still live in conditions much worse..."

I fully agree. The benefits of economic growth in the last 18 years have not reached every one in the country. So, shouldn't our TOP priority - as a nation - be to ensure that there is more economic growth, and more opportunities, encompassing more people? Makes sense, right?

But take a look around. What are the issues that the masses seem to care about, and the political leadership leverages? Is it growth & development? NO WAY! The 'burning' issues are religion, caste, community, language... In stead of moving together as a united nation, we seem more intent to oneupmanship. 'I want more reservation for my caste everywhere', 'They are disrespecting my religion', 'I want some special status for my language', 'These things are against Indian culture', 'Mumbai city belongs to Maharashtrians', 'No privatization of PSUs', 'These rules/laws are not in our interest and are only intended to fill the pockets of some people with authority' ... all extremely regressive and narrow-minded statements, but you can club nearly all that you hear under the above themes.

As a nation we have a large number of common challenges - terrorism, education, sanitation & healthcare, infrastructure, law enforcement, economic development, availability of public goods & services - are only a few of the really serious challenges in front of us, that affect every single citizen in this country. The need of the hour is for all of us to unite, and focus all our efforts in these directions. These issues can all be solved, and quite easily, but they never will be, until voters begin to demand the solutions from the administration, and the performance of politicans and admin authorities starts determining their fate. I have written about this earlier.

In stead, what I witness all around is an almost-total disregard and a lack of trust for other people, especially those who do not fall within narrow buckets of sub-identities like 'Maratha', 'Tamil' or 'Yadav'. We seem to be more concerned about 'preserving' our sub-identities and 'cultures', and even claiming special entitlements for them, at whatever cost, without any concern about the big picture of a nation...

London, Singapore and others have consciously worked towards becoming 'world cities' where anyone and everyone can feel at home. This is how they've encouraged capable people from around the world to come and live there, and drive the growth & development of these places - in economic as well as socio-cultural terms. We have Mumbai being claimed by Maharashtrians and Bangalore being claimed by Kannadigas, who seem to resent their fellow country-men as 'outsiders', inspite of all the diversity and development they bring to their adopted home-cities.

We have people who label wearing jeans and visiting a pub as being 'against Indian culture'. What is 'Indian culture'? Who defines it? And who has the right to hurt others in it's defense? In my humble opinion, it is not right to label some outdated and regressive socio-cultural standards as 'Indian culture', and impose it on everyone. Let people wear Jeans if they find them comfortable. Let people visit pubs if they seek to relax and be entertained there. Let every individual make choices that make them happy, as long as it doesn't hurt others. THIS is the hallmark of every 'developed' country. And Indian culture - if anything - has historically been one of tolerance, inclusion and respect. Since when did throwing acid at a woman wearing jeans become 'Indian culture'?

History shows that growth & development has rarely been a mass phenomenon. It has always been led by a few who questioned the status quo, had a vision of how things should be, worked towards that, and inspired others to follow their example. There is no dearth of people capable of doing this in our country today. They need to put their hands up and lead. Follow rules, vote for candidates with performance records, show respect for others and act in favor of the greater good - and most importantly - confront regressive mindsets and behaviours! DO NOT fall in the 'chalta hai' and 'we are like this only' traps.

'Corporate India' has a million amazing examples of what we can achieve if we aspire and act. 'Social India' needs the same medicine.

Anyone for forming an 'urban activist' group?

The long-overdue Gandhi vs. Hitler post

I had resolved to put down my views on this a long, long time back - even before I started blogging here. It's time to deliver.

I should warn you - the ideas in this post are going to be rather radical, and anything BUT politically correct. You may feel outraged. If you aren't sure you can handle that in a mature manner, don't read it.

Based on all that I've read/seen/heard/understood, my own sense of right-and-wrong, and the logic that works in my head, here's what I have to say.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

MK Gandhi was, for lack of a better word, a loser. His great, and in my opinion his only, achievement was to unify most of our population using religion. India, as we know it today, was never really a nation ruled by a single ruler, before the British. We had our own regional/linguistic/cultural sub-identities, that actually exist even today. The British united us as an administrative unit, and Gandhi united most of us as a people.

My first problem - is with the manner and philosophy with which he achieved this. India wasn't, isn't, and will probably never be a Hindu state. Religion is, in my opinion, one of the greatest destructive forces ever invented by man. Nearly all religion is based on faith, with no evidence available to prove the existence of 'God'. Even if there is such a force, there is no definite knowledge of it's form. There is no justification for the rules that the followers of a faith are forced to live by. Some faiths prohibit eating any meat, some prohibit only pork or beef, while others allow everything. Can anyone prove their way is 'right'? Secondly, no single faith can claim to be followed by an absolute majority of the world's population. Are all the people of any one faith much better off than all others, in this world? And I won't even bother questioning the concept of afterlife - that's blind faith in its worst form. Yet, people are ready to die, and to kill, in the name of religion. Wars are being fought. Landmarks being destroyed in a mindless way. All this - for what rational reason?

Gandhi based his work on the concept of Bhakti - total devotion to god and a lifestyle of self-denial. These regressive, counter-productive principles somehow appeared noble to a people who had been exploited over centuries and had come to expect no better. He basically told people to accept that their lives weren't meant to be happier, and take pride in their decision to waste their lives. Since no rational grounds could support such a philosophy, religion and faith were called into play. People were encouraged to derive happiness from 'being on moral high ground' in their own heads, and not through material comforts or real achievements that the rest of the world would admire. He gave them a sense of purpose, but no real purpose.

This has caused a lot of damage in the long-term. For one, we had partition - an inevitable fallout of Gandhi's basic Hindu philosophy. I know people will say there were a million other factors that led to partition. But in my opinion, the fundamental reason was Gandhi's choice of religion and Bhakti to unite the country. Obviously, it left many people out. What followed was inevitable.

The other terrible legacy is socialism. In the Gandhian system, productivity and ambition were equated with greed and deplored. Sacrifice and simplicity were extolled as righteous virtues. Bhakti means basic existence, with absolute insignificance of this life being the ultimate goal. There is no room for pursuit of economic development, as priorities are spiritual. As an example, take Satyagraha - fast unto death. It basically relies on sympathy of other people to get things done. You aren't directly doing anything, yourself, to achieve the changes you want to see in the world. You are prepared to just throw away everything you have - your own life, which ostensibly has no great value. But since someone else may not have the stomach to witness your senseless death, your objective might be achieved. What a pathetic method.

Unfortunately, these philosophies shaped the policies of the Indian state post-independence. Profit was a dirty word. Ambition and aspirations were throttled, since they went against the principle of simple living and nirvana. Competition was discouraged. The result - the shameful 'Hindu rate of growth', while our south-east Asian neighbours galloped ahead. History has proven something that seems so obvious now - happiness for all can only be achieved through creation of more wealth, and not by state distribution of limited wealth among the weak. Gandhi would rather have you not bothering with wealth at all, and wasting your life with Bhakti.

My second major problem is with the principles of non-violence and turning the other cheek. I just don't get it. Nature designed us to compete and ensure the survival of the fittest. That's how the world improves and moves forward. How can we, and why should we, turn away from that?

We were an oppressed people, but we were large in number. Civil disobedience and non-cooperation made it difficult for the British to administer us, but we could have made it a lot tougher by taking up arms. Sure, the British had great military resources, and may have exterminated our people in great numbers. But, there would've been a cost - financial as well as human - for the British in this case, and that would've got us our independence a lot more swiftly.

Let's face it - we got our independence for two reasons. One, WW2 depleted British resources and will to administer a large, non-cooperative colony. Two, the wide public opinion turned against imperialism. Both could have been expedited if we had taken the Bhagat Singh approach rather than Gandhi's. Metaphorically, the British grew tired of slapping us on one cheek after another. If we had fought back rather than turning the other cheek, this could have happened earlier. And the total cumulative damage suffered by India may well have been lower. If WW2 hadn't occured, I'm not sure just how long it would have taken for us to achieve Independence the Gandhian way. If ever. The legacy - we are still a 'soft' state.

This is why I have little respect for Gandhi. And I'm willing to debate...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the above piece didn't outrage you enough - take this. I have a lot of respect for Adolf Hitler. Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't consider him a role model for myself, nor would I condone the crimes he committed against humanity. But I do believe history has been very harsh on him, since he ended up on the losing side. He did some things right, and deserves some credit for those.

I was assigned a research project for a course during my time at IIT, Madras - 'Anti-semitism in pre-WW2  Germany', and at that time I had to look up 'semitism' in the dictionary. Most of this piece is based on what I learnt and understood during my study for that project, and even later.

Let's try and imagine ourselves in Germany during Hitler's rise. The nation had been blamed for WW1, and dealt very severe terms in the Treaty of Versailles. Their pride was hurt, and their economy shattered. A large part of the population was unemployed, while inflation skyrocketed. In this scenario, the Jews' power and affluence was conspicuous. I don't remember the stats very well, but it was something like - 10% of the population (Jews) owned/controlled 75% of the nation's wealth and resources. And they've never been known for benevolence or endearing behavior anyway. In fact, when the Nazi party came to power and started treating Jews badly - long before taking any hard, organized action, mind you - Jewish business leaders and bureaucrats around the world called for boycott of German exports. This further crippled the German economy. There was a widespread sense of resentment against the Jews, and coupled with a collapsing economy, what happened next was inevitable. Hitler just happened to be the man in charge. You and I may not like what happened, but there were reasons it did, and Hitler did an exceptionally effective and efficient job.

Just as Gandhi used religion to unite a nation opressed, Hitler used race. While Gandhi's methods were passive on one extreme, Hitler's were aggressive on the other extreme. Had Hitler won the war, history would have been written in a very different tone, and what is now termed 'crimes against humanity', may have been termed 'revolution' (in a positive sense).

Think about this. Gandhi needed decades, and favorable external circumstances, to achieve a fractured independence for India. Hitler needed just a decade to turn around a crippled country into a European empire. The achievement is awe-inspiring. The Axis powers lost the war mainly due to two mistakes:

1. Hitler's decision to advance the attack on the Soviet Union by a few months, so that the battle happened in the winter. The Reds, though inferior militarily, were in much better shape to deal with the climate and the terrain, and Hitler refused to back down in spite of early setbacks. If all his power and early successes hadn't fogged his judgment, Hitler would've, in all likelihood, conquered all of Europe.

2. Japan not 'finishing the job' at Pearl Harbor. They had the element of surprise, and caused substantial damage without facing any real resistance. If they had completed the attack as planned, and aimed to defeat the US in war, rather than merely discouraging their entry (the Japs only hit active battleships, and not the fuel storage, workshops or submarine facilities), WW2 may well have had an entirely different outcome.

For a moment, leave aside the concentration camps and the holocaust. Just consider what Hitler managed as the leader of his people - turning around an economy on crutches, restoration of national pride, and almost a conquest of the entire world. Sure, the man had his flaws. Sure, he did many deplorable things. But does he deserve no respect for what he managed to do as the leader of his people? 

Rants of an uncertain manager

My manager at P&G once said, "We all spend 9 hours, 5 days a week, in office. That is most of the time we are awake. We deserve to be happy during this time. As do all of our technicians" (the audience comprised of managers, and all techs reported to us). While my relationship with him turned very sour, very soon, this statement got etched in my head.

As a manager, I believe I have some responsibilities to my people. These include:

• Providing a cheerful environment. Pressure at work is inevitable, but it should be minimized as far as possible.
• Providing opportunities, and guidance, for them to learn and grow as much as they can, as quickly as possible.
• Being reasonable and transparent. I realize I have some 'power' over them, but I try to never abuse it, and always ensure they understand and agree with my decisions - even when the decisions might appear tough.
• Appreciating and rewarding good work and good behavior - with salaries, bonuses, promotions, position within the team - whatever means are at my disposal.

I always assure my people that their concern should only be to perform well, within the boundaries defined for their roles, meeting and exceeding expetatations that have been shared with them, and NOT worrying about things they can not control. I've always told them that it is my job to provide them the opportunities to perform, and that I would take care of their growth aspirations as long as they delivered results.

Till a short while back, I felt invincible professionally. The past week or two have been a humbling experience. For the first time, I was faced with problems to which there were no clear-cut solutions. Basically, our business doesn't look like its going to grow much in the next year, given the glum economic scenario, and we have people whose capabilities, experience and aspirations have grown - and will continue to grow. Clearly, some people are not going to get the opportunities they deserve, and are going to suffer for no fault of their own. I (and a few peers) have the unenviable task of allocating the pain.

We had a tough time working out a plan, that we thought would minimize the damage. What had been a few hours exercise in past years, took weeks this time. We knew there would be problems, but we thought we could manage them. Till we heard the first reaction from one of the people affected.

The reason I'm feeling very guilty right now - is that I am currently responsible for the person we got the first reaction from. This person has not only been a great performer in every way, they have been unconditionally devoted to their job, while we have pretty much made of mess of their role/job over the last year. Even if tough decisions need to be taken, this is one of the few people who definitely deserve better. We realized that. But, in the midst of all the chaos we were dealing with, we just failed to pay enough attention. I had made some promises to this person, but forgotten about it when faced with a big problem. After the reaction, I think we've fixed most of their problem, but I shouldn't have let them down in the first place. And I'm not the only one who should feel guilty about this.

While this problem may be solved for now, I know there are going to be others - and in some of those cases, I know solutions will not be possible. It's going to be a very tough few weeks ahead, and I'm sure I haven't yet realized just how tough they will be.

I don't know if I blogged about this, but I have been feeling for a while - that India's young working adults have been growing too fast. In my company, that is definitely the case. In good times, we may feel all smug and unstoppable. But now we are about to find out just how tough things can be for managers with no grey hair...

My 2 cents on the Mumbai Attack

Part 1

Last night, I was watching a discussion on Times Now. Though I do not think much of the Times Group's capabilities when it comes to serious news-reporting, and think even less of their Chief Editor Arnab Goswami, some of the guests they pulled in yesterday were quite interesting. In this particular discussion, they had a former ISI chief, a British journo, and some bureaucrat from Israel.

Arnab initiated the debate with the usual noises - Pak link, support from the international community for India etc. etc. ... The Israeli chappie had an interesting take on it all.

About the media - 'These people's aim is to strike terror in the hearts of ordinary citizens, and to spread their hateful propaganda. You guys are playing right into their hands by giving them so much of airtime. They have no other ways of doing it. And this is all for free' 

Clearly, he felt the terrorits had been successful in achieving what they wanted to, however perverse the end and the means. While one can't fault the media for covering all the events and keeping us informed, this is surely something to think about - are we playing right into the enemy's hands?

About the 'international community support' - 'The responsibility lies first on India and India's government. You must display a sense of purpose, a strong will, and act in a way that serves as a deterrent to your enemies - whatever it takes. The international community can support your efforts, but as long as you are not doing much yourselves, it is unreasonable to expect any more from the international community.' 

Perfectly valid point. Our government always points fingers across the borders, and whines about lack of support from America and others. Are we expecting others to come in, and set our house in order, while we sit on our bums and bicker over caste, religion, language? Do we want to be the next Iraq? Or would we like to be more like Israel - a small nation surrounded by rich and hostile neighbors, yet tough enough to hold it's own? It's time to decide.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 2

We've heard a lot, in the past, about the 'spirit of Mumbai', and Indians' resilience. I, for one, always believed it was all a load of crap. 'Resilience', in this case, is nothing more than a euphemism for indifference, and in some cases, a feeling of helplessness. I mean - people going to work and carrying on with their lives as if nothing happened - a day after scores of people died in bomb blasts - was NOT a symbolic display of strong will, or steely resolve to remain undeterred - and NOT something to be proud of - not in the present Indian context, at least. It was a shameless statement that 'we don't really care'. At best, you could say people were 'resigned to their fate' and carried on with their lives because they felt there was nothing else to do - which, again, is shameful. So, let's not fool ourselves.

That's the grim reality. Bombs went off in some places. Some people died. Others didn't really care. It was just a case of some other people being in the wrong place at a certain hour. Yes, they offered helping hands, and the usual platitudes were said and heard. But the next day, nobody really cared enough to try changing anything.

That might just be the one good thing to come out of this whole episode. Our thick skins may finally have been penetrated. We might actually acknowledge the seriousness of the threats we all face, and might make a united, concerted effort to change some things for the better, even at a personal cost. It's about time. And it's sad that it took a terrible, 60-hour-long siege of Bombay 'town' for us to finally get the message.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 3

Why are we so indifferent to all this? Terror attacks, loss of lives, the Singur shutdown caused by one mindless politican, goonda-giri in UP, hit-and-run accidents, molestation of women outside 5-star hotels on New years' eve, scams, lynchings, epidemics, bad roads, teacher absenteeism, appaling quality, or total absence, of public goods and services... nothing seems to bother us unless we are personally affected. We have no sense of being a nation, no faith in the political establishment, little respect for the law, no sense of 'larger public interest'. With so much to achieve, and such eminent external threats, we continue fighting petty battles among ourselves, and continue voting for parties to form state/central governments (rather than a competent, local representative) that promise to cater to the interests of our own small groups vs. the rest of the population. Why?

There's a philosophy often used by business organizations during their strategic planning process. 'An organization is perfectly designed for the results it is achieving'. If you want better results, you need to identify and overhaul the parts of the system that are preventing them. Realities might sometimes be difficult to accept, but the rationale here is irrefutible.

So, drawing parallels, our society and establishment - are perfectly designed today - to keep us in the mess we are in. And here are, parhaps, some of the overhauls we need:

- As a people, we need to shift focus from petty disputes to greater issues that affect everyone. This means there is NO PLACE for vote-bank politics. NO PLACE for reservations. NO PLACE for communalism or linguism.

- We have to start demanding better laws and effective administration from our elected leaders. NOT parties. NOT just central/state governments. But the very chaps we vote in as our reps on the local municipal council, local bodies, state assemblies, as well as the parliament. Accountability MUST be established at the grass-root level, and built from the ground up. THIS is how things work in more developed countries, and it makes sense.

- We need to stop complaining about the quality of politicians. If they fail to deliver, some of us need to stand up and take on the responsibility ourselves. India is one of the greatest sources of 'talent' for organizations world-wide. Some CEOs of Fortune 100 companies, today, are Indian. Our domestic private sector companies boast of high quality leadership and managerial talent. Some of these 'talented leaders' need to take charge of governance and administration also. I know this will be difficult in the current party-based, government-focused election system. But, if the people vote for local reps on merit (as discussed in the previous point), quality leaders would be encouraged to come forth.

For a change, the terrorists targeted the upper classes this time. The class that, presumably, has the intelligence, education, information and resources - to change things if it really wants to. The people who know enough to form educated opinions, and disseminate them. People who are socially and financially secure enough to ask tough questions of the establishment, and take matters in their own hands if need be. I hope they respond to the call.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 4

No commentary on this episode can be complete, without a tribute to the brave men - the Fire brigade, the Police, the ATS, the Army, the NSG, the Navy - and even the staff of the hotels, especially the Taj Mahal - who selflessly flung themselves in harm's way - to save people like us, and give these terrorists the treatment they deserve. I was watching the funerals of Maj. Sandeep Unnikrishnan, Gajendra Singh and Hemant Karkare on TV earlier this morning, and could not bear to watch it beyond a point - I think it was a visual of Sandeep's mother crying next to his body, in a wheelchair herself. Having grown up in an Army environment, I relate to these situations, people and emotions more strongly and personally than most of you would.

Needless to say, we owe these people a lot. But a grand show of respect at funerals, and tributes through the media, are NOT enough. It is NOT enough to harp on about the lack of training, equipment and resources that limit the effectiveness of these few, courageous men. We must not stop screaming about these issues, till these men get all the support they need to do their jobs as well as they want to, and without having to compensate for lack of resources or support with their courage and their lives.

More importantly, we need to stop passing on all the responsibility for maintenance of law, order and harmony to these few men. Their selfless devotion can not, and should not, be the balancing force for our own recklessness and indifference. The feeling I'm trying to communicate, was well-described by someone through a message to CNN-IBN:

'Where is Raj Thackeray today? Someone please ask him to note - it is Commandos from all over the country - including a North Indian Gajendra singh, and a South Indian Maj. Sandeep from the Bihar Regiment - who have saved Mumbai and the Marathi Manoos today'

If we are to become the great nation we can be, we need to shut out people like Raj Thackeray, and learn a lesson from the Indian Army - which is Indian, and not divided among Hindus or Mulsims, North Indians or South Indians.

Jai Hind!

Tough. 5.

Hota hai. Chalta hai. Duniya hai.

I can do MUCH better than this.

Remember, remember 

The Sixteenth of November

The efforts put in

On premises so thin

Learn your lessons

A better future beckons

An argument against marriage...

I don't wanna ruffle any feathers and get into unnecessary arguments, so here's a bunch of caveats:

1. This is just ONE argument. A good decision requires all relevant arguments to be taken into consideration and weighed against each other. So, this argument alone does not conclusively answer the marriage question.

2. There are a lot of tacit assumptions in the philosophy proposed, and they may not apply to everyone. E.g., priorities in life are not the same for everyone. So, even as I write a piece that sounds like it is generally and broadly applicable to everyone, I realize it isn't really.

Now, go on - read it. If you wanna argue even after taking the caveats into account, I'm not one to ever shy away :)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 1 - Regression to mediocrity

Let's first understand a phenomenon called 'regression to mediocrity'. Lots of research has been done on measurables like height, income etc., and has usually compared across generations. I'm interpreting it a little differently.

When you begin your life, the possibilities are virtually limitless. As you progress through the years, the possibilities - what you could achieve in this lifetime - begin to shrink. We, by nature, seek security and comfort. We do not seek to take on challenges which we do not believe we will overcome. We do not like to take risks where the potential downside is as bad or worse than the likely upside. Through the choices we make, which are usually the easier ones, we eliminate some possibilities for ourselves - possibilities which may be grand, but are perceived to be remote.

As the years go by, external responsibilities increase. Past failures make us increasingly wary and risk-averse. We get increasingly fortified within our comfort zones. All this is natural, and has become 'the way of the world' over centuries. And nearly everyone around us, and everything around us, reinforces our risk-averse, comfort-seeking tendencies.

While all this is good, and leaves everyone happy for the most part - this is not how great things are achieved, or great progress is fuelled. That, is usually accomplished by a few great men who go against the tide. The ones who question conventional wisdom. The ones who challenge constraints. The ones take great risks. The ones who dare to dream big, settling not for the 'good' and 'comfortable', but going after the 'possible'.

Consider this. Barack Obama was one of many kids born in the US in a certain period. There were many who had comparable or better means available to them, and Barack had the disadvantage of being black. He became the most powerful man in the world. I'm sure he was outnumbered by those who peddled crack and died on the street. The others had regressed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 2 - Breaking the Regression tendency - the who, what and how

The above principle suggests that humans would naturally do as little as possible - just enough to obtain certain levels of income, satisfaction with life and comfort. But all of us achieve more than the bare minimum, don't we? Let's examine why that happens.

From an early age, we are challenged by external expectations, and motivated to each by external influences. Parents teach you langauage, manners, physical function etc. Then teachers make you learn stuff you may not be too interested in. Your peers set standards, and you compete with them. Anyone who doesn't compete and chills - ends up being ignored, humiliated, or punished. Achievements are rewarded. All of this serves to stimulate your growth, and prevent you from settling in a comfort zone.

Even on the job, later in life - you may not really care how many cartons of biscuits are sold in Thakeshwar town. But your boss sets expectations, and your peers define standards. The possibility of being shown up as incompetent or insincere, motivates you to achieve those targets.

The point is basically  this - throughout our lives, it is mainly standards set by others, that motivate us to go out of our way to achieve and learn.

Beyond a certain age, these agents become fewer in number, and also limited in influence. You no longer have teachers. Parents leave you mostly to yourself, beyond a certain age. It's mainly your peers, who set challenges later in life. Peers at work - will only set challenges within the career path you've already defined. Friends are typically people who like you for who you are, and unlikely to set great challenges. Family - similar argument as friends. They want to see you happy and comfortable, and not suffering in your chase of impossible dreams.

There is one source of challenge that sticks, though...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 3 - Linkin' it to marriage

That 'source' is the opposite sex. Nature has designed us to feel attracted to the opposite sex. And chances are - every now and then - you will feel attracted to, and consequently desire the love and respect of someone of the opposite sex. This person, however, may not care a hell of a lot for your past achievements and the trophies you already have in your cabinet. Even if they do, they will probably want to see something that you don't have yet. This is the biggest motivation, to grow as a person later in life. And these are the people who'll shake you out of your comfort zone, and motivate you to change direction from 'mediocrity' to 'maximum'.

To prove the point, I'll take up my own case :)

I was born into a middle-class Army family. Because of my dad's frequent transfers, I kept getting shaken out of my comfort zone every couple of years, and competed with different people at different schools everywhere. An Army life also equips you to deal with social and inter-personal situations quite well, since the environemnt around you is not only very dynamic, but also very strict. Anyway, by class 11, I'd become this fairly well-behaved, independent, and extremely geeky teen. The parents were proud, and the teachers and other students were almost intimidated. I was the guy who'd announce the answer to a tough physics problem, without putting pen to paper, even before the teacher had finished reading the question out to the class.

Then, I went through the first of several life-changing experiences, courtesy a girl in class I had a massive crush on. I'd written a 3-page long letter, to tell her how I felt, just as she was about to leave for another city. Then, I found out, through a common friend, that she didn't like me at all. While she respected my acad abilities, she thought I was a one-dimensional person with little 'life'. She liked, of all people my best friend at the time, who was much more popular with many more people, because he used to participate in a much wider range of activities, and had far superior social skills. I was shattered, and did a lot of soul-searching over the next couple of weeks. And decided, thereon, to focus less on acads, and more on my relationships with people and image.

(Incidentally, I got in touch with her nearly a decade later, and we are good friends today. In fact, I'm fairly sure she's gonna read this - and realize for the first time how big a role she once played in my life. To Miss N - You know I'm talking about you. Please don't try and deny it. And thank you very much!)

Then, in the 2nd year at IITM, I made my first girlfriend. Before meeting her, I'd developed a high degree of confidence dealing with the male-kind, but none whatsoever in dealing with the fairer sex. For a year - I watched her. Watched her cry, and then get over her ex. Then, watched her fall for a dude-types at her comp class. Watched her realize she actually liked me, dump him, and wait for 3 months, sitting 3 feet away on the beach, while I gathered the courage to take a little step. Of course, there's been no looking back since that first step, though the cast has kept changing with increasing frequency ;)

She challenged my value system and priorities in life. What's wrong with a little social drinking? What's wrong with holding hands in a place where others can see? What's wrong with doing what you want to, and feel 'right' about, even if it goes against traditions? Is being the best in one field and making a lot of money, enough to be really happy with life? Who's going to cry at your funeral, and what will they say about you, when you leave this world decades later? If people with ability don't try and change the world, how will it become a better place? How can they look themselves in the mirror and feel proud, when so much more could have been done?

There were also situations I wasn't equipped to deal with. Here's a snapshot

Me: Where are you?

She:  I'm with Niyanta at the hospital.

Me: Oh.

She: You wanna talk to her? (NOT in a questioning tone, but as if she was repeating what I said)

Me: (hang on, when did I suggest that?! I don't even know her! Your friend - you talk to her! I mean, I feel bad and all - but why should I talk to her) No.

(Pause, as she's passing her phone to Niyanta. I quickly realize it was not a question for me to answer, but just a little drama she was playing out for her friend. And I had the responsibility to keep it up)

Niyanta: Hell-yoo...

Me: Hi. How're you feeling now?

I'm sure you get the picture. Call me thick - but it took me time to realize that people are supposed to behave this way. My then-girlfriend taught me the first lesson, and I picked it up from there. She is possibly the only reason that this blog, today, is NOT about some obscure server-authentication java code, and you are reading it!

(That relationship ended in 2006. We kept in touch, but not for long. The way it ended, and the fact that we aren't friends today, is a major regret for me. I wish we were still in touch, and she would read this - but it wasn't to be.)

There's nothing specific to share between then and now, but I think I've had another defining-moment sort of experience recently, with someone I was calling Ritegal in a few posts published here.

Since early this year, I'd been feeling very comfortable, almost smug, about how my life was going, especially on the professional front. I thought my whole 'bachelor wishlist' had been ticked off, and I wanted to get married. And I thought I'd get anyone I selected. I mean, I didn't think I could get Katrina Kaif. But I thought anyone I felt was 'right' for me - anyone who met all my (ambitious, but realistic) criteria - would gladly agree to settle down with me. The illusion was shattered on the 16th of November.

'All my friends are in the fashion or film industries.'

'I know 60-70% of the people in Bangalore. (clarification: people her age, people who matter)'

'I don't hang with such people (about an acquaintance of mine, whose stories I found amusing. He isn't one of my favorite people. But, well, I do 'hang' with him. And, no dirty jokes about the last line, pliss)'

And the shattering of the illusion was re-affirmed through an e-mail a couple of days later.

'We're very separate people... I don't think we'd gel... let's not waste each other's time... let's not fool ourselves... that's all I have to say. Ciao'

I don't think this whole episode was 'fair treatment', but it did happen to me, didn't it? Comfort zone vaporized. New challenges to be answered. Time for change. Positive change!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 4 - In case you didn't get it...

Marriage is a major facilitator of regression to mediocrity. You no longer need to accept challenges and grow to impress women (or men, whichever way you swing!).

Of course, your spouse would also challenge you and spur you on to achievements. If you find the 'right' person, marriage could be the right choice. But it's far more likely that your spouse will NOT be your greatest critic and challenger. Even if they want to be, practical constraints - like EMI's, relatives, social norms, children - will hinder some of your growth as an individual.

So, if you do want to achieve a helluva lot in this lifetime (refer my posts titled 'A life worth living', linked on the left, to understand how I see it), and chase dreams that most consider impossible, marriage would certainly be a trepidation.

Most of us will get married, anyway. And should too - because there are a lot of lessons to be learnt in the course of that journey. But it is still important to delay it till you are ready, and crucial to find someone who will challenge you and help you grow - rather than someone who will assist you in regressing towards mediocrity!

Opinions welcome!