Thank you Disney

Disney has decided to honor me this year.

Battle at Perth

"Boxing is all about respect: getting it for yourself, and taking it away from the other guy"

--- Million Dollar Baby

Well cricket seemed to be no different; not at least at Sydney and Perth in Jan 2008. What a terrific game, what an amazing test series spiced up with such high drama. The drama was almost as entertaining as the cricket itself. While the Australians took away the series, the Indians did what they do best --- captured the moral high ground in spite of Mr. Harbhajan.

The Australian feat of matching the world record of 16 consecutive test wins was probably the most uncelebrated world record ever. The world record was over shadowed by the way the Australian team achieved it --- by complete lack of integrity. Anil Kumble summed it up in one line

"Only one team played in the game's spirit".

What a clever line! Not original but very clear. Those sentiments were actually first expressed by Australian skipper Bill Woodfull when he said

"There are two teams out there, one is playing cricket. The other is making no attempt to do so."

after he was injured in the infamous 1932-33 Ashes series when the English team invented a dangerous bowling tactics which the English media called the fast leg theory. If those words do not ring a bell, its because the Australian media used a different term to describe it; they called it the bodyline. By paraphrasing the words of Woodfull, Anil Kumble probably struck a chord with the Australian media.

While the English invented the bodyline, the Australians invented and perfected the art of sledging. The Australian team commands respect and at the same time it invokes fear. Respect, because they play the game so well. Fear, because they play it rough. I would be exaggerating if I said they are the Mike Tyson of world cricket, but it makes for a good analogy. I love aggression and arrogance in sports. Consider this instance of an enjoyable arrogance. In 1999 world cup, after Herschelle Gibbs dropped Steve Waugh's catch in the semi-finals, Waugh is rumored to have said

"You've just dropped the World Cup, son.".

That line, topped with the condescending "son", is surely one of the greatest cricket prophecies. Theatrics can even make a game of chess enjoyable to watch. Quoting from the NewYorker :


"They sat hunched over the pieces for hours at a time, inches from each other, breathing the same overheated air, Karpov staring at his position, Kasparov staring at Karpov, or, at times, clawing at his hair, rolling his eyes, expressing his emotions with the eye-bulging theatricality of a silent-film star. In the balcony, nearly everyone was pro-Kasparov. They loved his anti-establishment glamour, his audacity at the board even when he lost."

Its when it gets abusive such things destroy the game -- remember Zidane's disgraceful exit from world cup soccer finals in 2006. France was so stunned by the act that the only words they could utter was "Pourqois ? pourqois ? ".

The Australian response to an abusive Indian team really pissed me off. It was like a bully complaining to my mom after I finally gathered courage to fight back and kicked him in the crotch.

Calling an abusive Indian team racist was pretty amusing. When was the last time an Indian used "Monkey" as an swear word, let alone a racial slur. Ever since a monkey army purportedly helped Lord Rama in his war against Lanka, monkeys have earned their respect in India; one of them called Hanumaan, is actually elevated to Godhood. Monkey is almost never used as a swear word in any part of India (maybe it is used so in Sri Lanka :)). The Times of India speculated that Harbhajan might have said "Maa-ki" ( a term I am not going to explain in this post, but "Maa" is a "Maa" in any language). For once, the Times of India seems to have got it right.

The media looks at these issues with colored ( pun intended ) glasses. When a player uses abusive language, its hardly an interesting story. Frame that as a racial slur, and it becomes front page news. Going by media reports, "maa-ki' is somehow more acceptable than a racial slur; in other words, Harbhajan abusing Simond's mom is more acceptable than Harbhajan abusing his race !!! Shouldn't the penalty be more severe in this case ?

Also, think of the numerous occasions Harbhajan got away with his verbal assault because the Australian media confused his words for "motherboard". Kidding!

Indian Entrepreneurs

A recent study found that one in every four engineering startups in the United States was by immigrants. People born in India constituted the biggest chunk (26%) of those entrepreneurs followed by United Kingdom (11%), China (5%), Iran (4%), and France (4%).

One wonders why Indians living in India do not produce the success Indians abroad are able to achieve. Picking from the list of Indian entrepreneurs , the following people really made wealth from scratch -- Dhirubhai Ambani (Reliance), Dr. K. Anji Reddy (Dr. Reddy's Lab), Azim Premji (Wipro), Bhai Mohan Singh (Ranbaxy), B.M. Munjal (Hero Group), Ekta Kapoor (Balaji Films), Karsanbhai Patel (Nirma), Kiran Mazumdar Shaw (Biocon India), M.S. Oberoi (The Oberoi Group), Nandan Nilekani and Narayana Murthy (Infosys), Naresh Goyal (Jet Air), Dr. Pratap Reddy (Apollo Hospital), Ramalinga Raju (Satyam Computers), Raunaq Singh (Raunaq Group which owns Apollo tyres), Shiv Nadar (HCL), Subhash Chandra (Zee TV), Subroto Roy (Sahara Group), Sunil Mittal (Bharti Group) , Tulsi Tanti (Suzlon Energy Ltd), Verghese Kurien (Amul), and Gulshan Kumar (T-Series). These people have indeed done an admirable job given all the difficulties of starting a company in India, but it hurts to say that there are so few of them.

I think there are primarily three reasons that work against an Indian trying to start a business in India --

1. Access to Capital

It takes about the same time for a IIT, Kharagpur student to reach the railway station, as it would take a Stanford University student to reach Sand Hill Road -- a road with the highest concentration of Venture Capital (VC) firms in the world. Sometimes it is possible that by the time the IIT guy reaches Calcutta by train, the Stanford guy has got a VC interested. I was at Sand Hill Road raising money for my company a few months back, and it occurred to me that in a single building which housed a few VC firms, more venture money was being managed than the GDP of a small country like Nepal !!

The Google guys secured their first investment from Andy Bechtolsheim at the end of their very first meeting. Andy Bechtolsheim, of Sun Microsystem fame, who was in a hurry and wrote a check for $100k made out to Google Inc. The problem was that Sergei Brin and Larry Page had not incorporated their company yet, and "Google Inc." did not exist! Read Google's story if you are interested.

Such a story would be impossible in India.

2. Entrepreneurial Environment

Survival of the fittest

Companies started in a garage epitomize American entrepreneurial culture. If you are a musician, you start a rock band in a garage; if you are a geek, you start a company. It usually starts with two guys in a garage wanting to change the world (HP, Apple, Microsoft, Google ...). Some of them succeed, others die trying. But the spectacular success of those few keeps the culture alive.

Its an environment in which several people are trying and the best among them filter to the top. Any historical account of the personal computer revolution in the US would mention the Homebrew Computer Club. This was the place where 24 year old Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computers, would show his brilliant designs/demos for a personal computer (Apple I and Apple II) to impress his friends. Homebrew was an informal gathering of geeks, and it created an environment in which innovation was all about fun, and earning respect of your peers. Its not a surprise that other members of the Homebrew also started their own computer companies (Processor Technology, and Osborne Computers).

Homebrew was not an isolated phenomenon, and Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were not the only two guys in a garage wanting to change the world. The same year as Homebrew first started meeting (1975), two guys in Boston read in Popular Electronics that a company in Albuquerque, New Mexico had developed a new microcomputer called the Altair 8800. They called up the company and offered to demonstrate an implementation of the BASIC programming language for the system. They had neither an interpreter nor an Altair system, yet in the eight weeks before the demo they developed the interpreter. The interpreter worked at the demo and 19 year old Bill Gates left Harvard University to start Microsoft with Paul Allen.

I don't think India is missing a Bill Gates or a Steve Wozniak, but it is definitely missing the garage culture. It is simply unimaginable that an opportunity could be big enough for a student at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) to leave without completing his degree and start a business.

Support System

The entrepreneurial environment in the US does a pretty good job of providing "free" support system to a fledgling startup. This is best explained by way of an example; my own example.

When me and my Ph.D. adviser decided to start our company, we approached the von Liebig center at the University of California, San Diego. They evaluated our application and awarded us with some seed capital, an excellent adviser (Mary Zoeller) who advised us on how to move the business forward, and a space to work. We were also able to hire a top notch Law firm and they readily agreed to defer payments until we received VC investment. In addition, people who have successful startups would readily provide advice, and get us in touch with potential investors. And most importantly, one of my lab mates introduced me to her brother Steve Branson, a brilliant programmer, who just wanted to learn some computer vision, and volunteered to help us build our prototype.

Now even if an Indian entrepreneur had the financial resources, he/she would not have the support system that makes life easier for a fledgling company.


3. Cultural Issues

Fear of the ocean

Indians did not cross the ocean then. Yes it was many centuries back, but the unwillingness of Indians to cross the ocean in the name of religion condemned several generations to mediocrity. In Europe, the desire to venture into the unknown oceans propelled the growth of both science and commerce. Of course most of those missions would be utter failures, but the few that succeeded changed the world map forever.

Not many Indian businesses cross the ocean even today. Few Indian business compete at the International level.

Higher risk

India is a land with scarce resources, and there are always many people competing for those resources. An Indian who walks away from a secured job is therefore taking a greater risk in starting a company than his American counterpart. Also, a typical Indian right out of college probably has more financial commitments to family and that reduces his/her ability to take risk. But this is a wonderful phenomenon, and if reduces our ability to succeed; so be it. Some things are simply too good to be changed, no matter how much hit personal successes takes.


Age is a barrier

Young people have two great gifts -- 1) Inexperience (which significantly increases their ability to take huge risks) and 2) Energy ( which significantly increases their chances of success). It is not surprising that many companies in the US including Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo etc. were started by people in their late teens on early twenties.Also, when young people are charged with responsibilities they can come up with amazing surprises because their thinking is fresh and not diluted by training. As an example, Warren Buffet -- the second richest man in the world -- sold newspapers as a boy. He filed his first tax return at the age of 13 and claimed $35 deduction for the bicycle he used to deliver newspapers.

As compared to most Industrialized nations, the younger generation in India is not respected as much as it should be, and consequently they do not take responsibilities and make decisions. Lets pick an unrelated manifestation of this issue -- Many (most ??) Indian marriages are arranged. Now I am not inviting a debate about arranged marriages versus love marriage (Personally I don't think one form of marriage is more successful/happier than the other). All I am saying is that the older generation thinks (and the younger generation submits to the thinking) that they can do a better job of finding a match for their son/daughter. Even though this mentality of letting your elders make decisions for you may have turned ok in case of arranging a marriage, it has the effect of severely diminishing the entrepreneurial spirit, if not killing it entirely.

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

I think a few VC firms are looking east, and there will be opportunities for Indian startups. I hope they aim so high that most of them fail spectacularly, but a few that succeed keep the entrepreneurial dream alive, and drag the country out of mediocrity.

" Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." -- Roosevelt.

Dissecting an argument

We had a very rich tradition of arguments during my graduate studies. We argued over research, politics, religion -- well just about anything that was worth arguing. Even on rare occasions when two people agreed, we would not let the argument die. One of us would play the devil's advocate to reveal holes in our argument.

So I developed a keen interest in observing people argue their case. This post is about the different ingredients people use/abuse to build their arguments around.

Facts

An argument is swift, and definitive when there is huge information asymmetry among the two parties involved in the argument. In other words, one knows way more than the other. The more knowledgeable person can simply throw facts at the other person, and the discussion ends with no real argument. Fact, therefore is the most manipulated ingredient of an argument. For an argument to be swift, the asymmetry in information may not even be real -- it can simply be perceived. This perception is regularly used by teachers and parents against kids to stop them from arguing -- the teacher must be right, she knows more. Or as mentioned in, Freakonomics, information asymmetry is routinely used by experts (real estate dealers, doctors etc) to overcharge their customers. The worst example of exploiting this perception is when a Govt. imposes an unnecessary war on its citizens based on manipulation of facts.

Logic

Logic a tool grounded in sound mathematics, but extremely dangerous in the hands of idiots and people with malicious intent. As in the case with facts, perception of logic is probably more important that the existence of it. A master manipulator would typically use a logical leap in the midst of a seemingly logical argument. One of the best examples of logical leap is to infer causation based on correlation. The BBC recently ran a story titled "High IQ link to being vegetarian". If you read the article, it says that scientists have discovered a correlation between having higher IQ and being vegetarian. Either in ignorance or in an effort to spice up the story, the journalist added his own interpretation of cause and effect in the headline. Shouldn't the headline read "People with higher IQ tend to be vegetarian" ? -- Of course that would not be sensational enough.

The other (il)logical tool regularly exploited is the concept of Induction (or generalization). As defined in Wikipedia, induction "is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it." In an inductive argument, a small number of observations is used to formulate a theory. For example, one can say -- Atkins diet worked for me, and therefore, it should work for everybody. Another example could be a racist who says "Indians are liars" where he should be saying "Some Indians I know are liars" or even "All Indians I know are liars".

Spin

When there is little room for manipulating facts, or logic , the weapon of choice is Spin. A spin is used to illuminate the proverbial "other side" of the argument. Consider these lines from an argument I had with a smart cousin (in-law) of mine a few months back --

Me: I think it is a balancing act. One has to consider trade-offs.
Her: You mean compromise ?

I was applying a positive spin by using the word trade-off ; I was trying to appear a reasonable man who can weigh different aspects of a situation and is flexible to consider trade-offs. On the other hand, she was applying a negative spin by using the word compromise; trying to make me appear as if I was not resolute enough. This argument is not about facts or logic, its about interpretation of facts. A spin is an intellectuals dream tool because it does not come with the ethical baggage of manipulating facts or bad logic that would be looked down upon by peers.

Emotions

Mixing emotions in an argument cuts through all barriers of facts, logic or spin. An emotional argument can make people do things they think are counter-intuitive or illogical. The use of emotions in an argument can be an article in itself, but here are a few examples of powerful use of emotions --

1. Love : "If you love me....". You can complete the line with any absurd request.
   
2. Fear: "God forbid, if you hit a bad phase in life; it is then you would stop questioning His existence".
   
3. Hope: The business of selling hope is a profitable one -- casinos in Las Vegas sell it ("You can be rich without real talent"), weight loss advertisements sell it, all the different get rich schemes sell it, God men sell it, miracle medicines sell it etc etc. Most people would embrace an argument based on hope fully understanding that the dream they are being sold is overstated. But there is a "what if" factor that interferes with logical thinking once hope has been implanted in some corner of your brain.
   
4. Faith: Surprising as it might seem, sometimes people respond to the explicit request of giving up logic. I happened to pick up a book titled "Eternal Celebration" by Osho once and on page 12 it says -- "The the mind is always wrong, and heart is always right". I could not read any further. But over years I have noticed that these very lines which piss me off inspire others.
   
5. Hate: History has repeatedly shown that hate is a very powerful argument, a great unifying force among people who have a common object of hatred.

Shifting the onus of proof

In academics a reference is a popular and acceptable form of argument. A lot of science is based on assumptions, and so while making any assumption you either need to provide a reference -- "Look I am not the first to use this assumption" -- or be prepared to provide rigorous empirical evidence in support of your assumption. Invoking reference as an argument is just as common in everyday life -- "he says so", "she says so", and "a religious book says so".

Majority

A reference is just one way to shift the onus of proof to a third party. In the book "The Future of Freedom", Fareed Zakaria points out how a US politician would use sentences like "The American people want to know" when in fact it might be just the politician who wants to know. Somehow the human race has come to the conclusion that the majority is always right and hence the argument "everybody thinks so" is a very acceptable. If the majority were indeed right all the time the world would be flat with the sun revolving around it. I read in a few different places recently that a majority of people think they look better than average and have better than average intelligence -- a statistical impossibility!!

High ground

In my opinion, half the argument is won if you have successfully claimed a high ground. Anti-abortion groups in the US call themselves -- pro-lifers. Not only does the word "pro-life" apply a positive spin to the negative sounding word "anti-abortion", it attempts to claim a moral high ground. (How can being in favor of life not be a good things ?) . Of course the pro-abortion groups aren't yielding any ground --- they call themselves "pro-choice".

The highest moral ground ever claimed in the history of mankind was probably by M. K. Gandhi. After he climbed the mount everest of moral high ground, the world saw him lecturing the British. A defining moment in the movie "Gandhi" was when Martin Sheen, in the role of an American journalist reports over phone the moral high ground Indians captured in a spectacular display of non-violent resistance at Dharasana Salt Works, May 21, 1930. He yells over phone "Whatever moral ascendancy the West held was lost today. India is free -- for she has taken all that steel and cruelty can give, and she has neither cringed or retreated."

Well Left

The phrase is derived from Test Cricket. A good test batsman knows that not every ball is playable, and does not offer a shot to tricky deliveries . Thats when a commentator would say "Well left". Sometimes it is better to not offer any opinion on a subject.

A few months back, Daily Show host Jon Stewart pretty much ruined Tucker Carlson (the host of Crossfire on CNN)

Carlson: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're talking to Jon Stewart, who was just lecturing us on our moral inferiority. Jon, you're bumming us out. Tell us, what do you think about the Bill O'Reilly vibrator story?

Stewart: I'm sorry. I don't.

In a desperate attempt to save his behind, Carlson wanted to change the subject and move on with the other hot story of the day. Stewart offered no comments and continued to annihilate his opponents. Sure enough, CNN canceled Crossfire a few days later.

Shifting the central issue

If you are adept in the art of arguing, and you know that your position cannot be defended, you can simply change the central issue of the argument. The movie "Thank you for smoking" beautifully illustrates this point --

Joey: But... you didn't prove that vanilla's the best.
Nick: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong and if you're wrong, I'm right.

Audience

Finally, its important to know who the audience of an argument are. Often a politician would use blatantly absurd arguments, and you think he is a moron. While the fact is that you may not be the audience he wants to reach. Again, quoting from "Thank you for smoking"

Joey: But you still didn't convince me.
Nick: Because I'm not after you. I'm after them.

There are more ingredients to arguments, but this post is already long, and I am tired :)

We Hate India

Recently two friends of mine forwarded me an email pointing to the existence of a hate community called "We Hate India" in Orkut. They wanted me to join a campaign calling for shutting down the community. My first reaction was that of intense curiosity; I logged onto Orkut and found the group. It contained a profile picture of a burning Indian flag and had (only) 86 registered members at that time. It was moderated by one Miraslov Stankovic from the Russian Federation.

Several different emotions swamped me. I started thinking about the power of hate, and its destructive potential. It baffles me that the dark side of human beings is so easy to evoke, and how it is so easy to marshal men and resources to fuel a machinery of hate, while it is so difficult to get people to donate money or time for a good cause. As I was thinking, my eyes fell on the number 86. Just 86! With millions of users in Orkut, that number would be less than the total number of new members registered in Orkut in 15 seconds. That raised another question in my mind -- "If hate is indeed as powerful as I think, why is the membership so small ?". Slightly baffled, I read the introductory page ( or the profile page ) of the community, and all my doubts were wiped out. The followers of an ideology based on hate usually lack the intellect to think (these people are usually designed to march behind symbols (the burning Indian flag in this case), not think), and look upon a leader to give voice and reason to their "movement". As with most enterprises, even hate requires a charismatic leader who the followers can look upon.

The tiny membership of "We hate India" is easily explained by the lack of leadership. Miraslov, the moderator of this group, is hardly able to organize his thoughts; much less communicate them. As I read through the profile of "We hate India", it left me intellectually disgusted. It wasn't the message (or the lack of it) that disgusted me, it was the quality of diction; it was a sort of incoherent verbal diarrhea. No wonder, not many people would want to be associated with such a group or such a "leader".

The second thought I had was about the power of online publishing and its consequences. The Internet has empowered people with tools to publish their opinions. This comes at a price -- a lot of stuff on the internet is copied, cached, or backed up. It is almost never deleted. The 86 members of "We hate India" run the risk of being branded as perpetrators of hate forever. Having a different political view is one thing; being part of a hate group is an entirely different ball game. This naively created community might have already come under the radar of secret services of a few countries. I can say without exaggeration that if one member of such a group commits a hate crime or is involved in a terrorist activity, other members of this group run the risk of being declared guilty by association. Just being part of this group can hurt their careers, and even their friends and families in the long run. Did these 86 people think about these consequences before openly declaring their participation in a hate group?

I did not join my friends in shutting down this hate community because I think every group has the right to freedom of speech (and its consequences). I may not agree with what they say, but I would defend their right to say what they want to say. I also think that as Indians we should stop being offended by trivial issues like burning of the National flag; as long as those burning the flag import the fabric and matchsticks from India, the parents of a few children in India would be earning money (in the textile and matchstick industry) to send them to school.

Flush!

Click on the image on the side. There are two headlines highlighted using red ellipses. Thats TOI-let
paper today. If headlines are arranged by priorities, someone does not have a sense of priorities.


Flush flush!.

Vande Mataram

"So what do you think about the controversy?" , I was asked. "I don't."

This is exactly the kind of controversy you should stay away from if you want to see your country progress. This is the stuff dirty politics is made of -- drumming up arguments around things that do not matter, and building controversies around matters that are irrelevant. Most Indians (like me) do not even understand Vande Mataram which is in Sanskritized Bengali (Thanks to Deepa for pointing out that the song is not in Sanskrit). Many of them, however, would readily have a strong opinion on the subject.

I believe that for the first time in decades India has something to look forward to. We are moving fast and people who look back would fall. So instead of spending time debating the controversy, an average Indian should be debating the best way, he/she can catch up with the average Chinese. Why show the kids of India the past, when you can show them a glimpse of the future ?

When I was a kid, I read in those history books that we had a glorious past. "Really!!", I thought to myself, "How did we screw up so bad?" , I asked my teacher. "Because of the English", she said . That was 15 years back and it took me while to figure out that she was wrong .

If my kid asks me that question, I would say "Sorry, we did that to ourselves". If he/she asks me whether to sing Vande Mataram, I would say, "You see that Chinese kid running with determined concentration, you need to outrun him. After you outrun him, you will find the Europeans and the Americans. They are not running, they are driving. So sing Vande Mataram if you must, but don't go out of breath, because the Africans are not far behind. "

Reserving a place in mediocrity

The Govt. of India is trying to reserve 49.5% of jobs and positions in all organizations, including educational institutes, and private businesses. The previous Govt. divided the nation on the basis of religion, and this Govt. is going to divide it on the basis of caste.

One wonders which one them is better. Well, I think that both Govts. have raped Bharat Mata (Mother India). But, the fine state of Gujrat voted Narendra Modi back to power proving that the sex was consesual. Who knows, this Govt. could make electoral gains by reserving seats, and that would indeed prove that Bharat Mata is a .........