I Think

Car Wars

2010-10-10T22:59:00.000-07:00

Google is building an autonomous car. Is this the beginning of Car Wars ? A glimpse into the future --

Year 2015 : Google partners with Toyota to release Gooyota -- the smart car of the future! Google says that the software that controls the autonomous car is free for all car manufacturers to use and is supported by an active open source community. Google's CEO Eric Schmidt comments that search still remains the company's core business. The internet connectivity in Gooyota will provide people an opportunity to use Google search while commuting / traveling.

The news goes largely unnoticed.

Year 2016 : Apple introduces iCar -- a revolutionary autonomous car with an aerodynamic aluminum body, and no steering wheel, brakes or gas paddle. The autonomous car can be optionally controlled by your iPhone, iPad or a device called iSteer ( sold for an additional charge ). "iCar is un-be-lie-va-ble. It does not have a steering wheel, brakes or a gas paddle. It doesn't even have an engine!" says Steve Jobs to an ecstatic audience as he unveils the new car. "Pretty Cool. huh!".

Apple stocks jump an additional 200% on rumors that Apple is working on a new product -- The iHome.

Year 2020: Microsoft acknowledges it missed the bus ( err the car! ), but is feverishly working on a new autonomous car. "May the year 2020 be the year of better hindsight... err foresight" says Steve Balmer. The product has been unexpectedly delayed. Leaked designs reveal the car is made of cast iron, but is otherwise very similar to iCar. The leaked documents also mention that the iron body was necessary to handle frequent crashes.

Year 2025: Microsoft finally introduces its autonomous car -- The Interstate Explorer.

Thank you Disney

2009-01-21T02:21:00.000-08:00

Disney has decided to honor me this year.

Battle at Perth

2008-02-03T10:44:00.002-08:00

"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

2007-06-23T17:36:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-17T03:08:00.000-07:00

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 --

Love : "If you love me....". You can complete the line with any absurd request.
Fear: "God forbid, if you hit a bad phase in life; it is then you would stop questioning His existence".
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.
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.
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

2006-10-21T12:53:00.000-07:00

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!

2006-09-07T13:07:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-07T06:53:00.000-07:00

"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

2006-04-19T20:26:00.000-07:00

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 .........

AIDS: Acquired Intelligence Deficiency Syndrome

2005-12-02T11:55:00.000-08:00

BBC reports

Mr Bush said that extra funds for HIV/Aids relief would be channelled to "faith based" organisations.
Sanjay Nirupam, Indian politician, says "One always hears about Aids and how it's this big problem - I think it's just hype" .
Monica, Bombay sex worker says "If a customer refuses to use a condom we return his money and turn him away. "

I wonder if India would benefit if 2 and 3 exchanged their professions.
I wonder if the World would benefit if 1 and 3 exchanged their professions.

TOI-let Revisted

2005-11-17T09:27:00.000-08:00

Click to enlarge the picture.

You will see a tribute to the late president! Can't see ? See right below the Yuvraj Kaif headline. Yeah the font is about the same size as the text in the Yuvraj-Kaif story.

I hope that TOI-let paper does not reflect the priorities of my country.

The Song of Creation

2005-11-17T08:00:00.000-08:00

One of the meanings associated with the word "Design" is ( see Marriam-Webster )

"a deliberate undercover project or scheme : PLOT b plural : aggressive or evil intent"

No wonder the whole idea of Intelligent Design is an evil scheme to derail rationality.

I have wondered sometimes why this debate does not surface in India ; the premise being moronity is ubiquitous. While India is full of regilious dimwits ( like the rest of the world ), they somehow do not invoke the creationist ideas. My search led me to Hindu Song of Creation in Rig Veda; one of the four ancient religious texts in Hinduism. Although Rig Veda has many things terribly wrong, the song of creation truly represents the inner conflicts of an intelligent mind. A rough Hindi translation appeared as the title song of a very popular TV serial called "Bharat Ek Khoj" by Shyam Benegal . Here is the hindi text and it's english translation of the title song.

Srushtee se pehle sat nahin thaa, asat bhi nahin
There was neither non-existence nor existence before creation

Antariksh bhi nahin, aakaash bhin nahin thaa
There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond,

chhipaa thaa kyaa kahaan, kisne dekhaa thaa us pal to agam, atal jal bhi kahaan thaa
Darkness was hidden by darkness in the begining, with no distinguishing sign all this was water

Shushtee kaa kaun hain kartaa, Kartaa hain yeh vaa akartaa
Who is the creator of this Universe? Or is there one?

Oonche aasmaan mein rahtaa Sadaaa adhyaksh banaa rahtaa
He who lives in Heaven as President

Wohin sach much mein jaantaa..Yaa nahin bhi jaanataa
does He know everything? Maybe He does not ?

Hain kisi ko nahin pataa Nahin pataa
no one has an aswer to this question

A translation of the Rig Veda available in "The Rig Vega" by Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty. Here is the song of creation copied from the book :

There was neither non-existence nor existence then; there was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond. What stirred? Where? In whose protection? Was there water, bottomless - deep?

There was neither death nor immortality then. There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day. That one breathed, windless, by its own impulse. Other than that there was nothing beyond.

Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning; with no distinguishing sign, all this was water. The life force that was covered with emptiness, that one arose through the power of heat.

Desire came upon that one in the beginning; that was the first seed of mind. Poets seeking in their heart with wisdom found the bond of existence in non-existence.

Their cord was extended across. Was there below? Was there above? There were seed-placers; there were powers. There was impulse beneath; there was giving-forth above.

Who really knows? Who will here proclaim it? Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation? The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe. Who then knows whence it has arisen?

Whence this creation has arisen perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not the one who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only he knows or perhaps he does not know.

These lines from the Veda were a refreshing change. The text in bold really captures my inquiries. As an agnostic ( tending towards aethist) I find it very difficult when most religious texts conviniently fail to address my concerns and fail to admit that what they are presenting is an opinion and there is a possibility that they could be wrong.

Morality and Convinience

2005-09-27T08:48:00.000-07:00

My friend: "Anyways, there's no point in me preaching. The moment of truth will dawn when you find your 14 year old daughter making out on the sofa"

Me: "Your views about the US families remains stereotypical ... People use the idea of *values* at their own convinience. Let me put it this way - I am not sure if my 14 yr old daughter making out on a sofa with her boyfriend would any more shameful than my 25 year old son visiting prostitutes."

That was definitely below the belt and in the heat of the moment I had indeed forgotten an important rule of a civil argument -- Do not make a personal attack.

We were having this standard discussion of whether or not to try and return to India after spending some time in the US. For the sake of brevity let me use the phrase "daughter argument" for my friend's argument. There are significant assumption made in the "daughter argument" --

There is a high likelyhood that kids raised in the US will lose the virginity at the age of 14.
When people in the US lose their virginity, it is usually at an inconvininet place symbolized by the sofa in this case.
The shame in the above act ( of an underage individual losing virginity ) is amplified if the person is a female.
values = morality in the sexual sense.

The first assumption is verifiable and found to be untrue

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KNI/is_12_8/ai_80233938

I could not find a study on the second assumtion. The third and the fourth assumption are mere opinions and I have a few counter-opinions.

Many times I have found people in India saying that the west might be richer but we have a higher spiritual heritage and values. Almost all discussion starting on these lines do not fail to point to the moral (read sexual ) corruption of the west and the "daughter arugment". Of course they also point to higher divorce rate in the west. In the end, they argue that the people in the west are now recognizing the spirituality of the east and traveling across the globe seeking it.

Words fail to describe the hipocrisy in the above arguments. Let's talk about morality. Why does morality always be equated to morality in the sexual sense ? Why does it have anything to do with the gender? Why is there no sense of shame when a person gives/takes dowry in his/her daughter's wedding ? In my opinion the dowry system is akin to extortion or male prostitution ( ok you need some really twisted argument for this one ) and it is an issue of much bigger concern than whether a person should be a virgin at the time of marriage. But such is the moral degradation of our people that dowry is not only socially acceptable , there is no shame associated with it. Similarly bribery has become a part of life and there is no shame associated with giving or taking bribes.

Yet another recurring arugment is what I call the gun-and-school argument. "Have you ever heard a 12 year old killing his friends in school in India". No I haven't , but please do not make the twisted argument that Americans are inherently cruel. Please blame it on the gun laws and the immaturity of the children. But who do I blame when I hear numerous stories of young brides being burnt to death because they did not bring enough dowry with them? Do I blame the subsidized kerosene in India ? Do I conclude that all Indians are inherently cruel ? After all these acts were not commited by immature children playing James Bond. Just in case you thought that I was talking about the India of the past, let me quote a report

"According to Government figures there were a total of 5,377 dowry deaths in 1993, an increase of 12% from 1992."

The source of the above quote is at http://www.indianchild.com/dowry_in_india.htm .

Finally my take on what many Indians would think is an indisputable fact --- The divorce rate in India is lower than the US. Yes it is and the demands/expectations from a marriage are also lower. There is stigma attached to divorce which again has a gender bais. More often than not, a divorce is blamed on the girl. I would not be surprised if someone came up with a study that an average Indian marriage is much more miserable than an average American marriage ( while they last ). Many marriages last just because the wife is not financially independent. So lets not use the word "value" in place of "desperation". My arguments notwithstanding, the divorce rate in the US is very scary

http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml

People should not assume a moral highground based on twisted logic. I once told my father that he makes me proud because he has never accepted a bribe and his simple reply was. " You should reserve your judgement. True that I have never accepted bribes. " and he then jokingly added " But I am not sure if I someone has ever tried to bribe me. In addition, I cannot assume moral highground because I have been forced to pay money to get simple things done."

In summary, I don't buy the values and morals argument for going back home. The one good reason for going back would be to change all this. And then one must ask -- Does one need reasons for going back HOME ?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

2005-08-16T10:42:00.000-07:00

1. Yes.
2. No.

Sometimes the question does not allow much choice. You can get an answer to suit your cause if you twist the question. Administrator of NASA, Michael Griffin, in Meet the Press was questioning the way the Mars mission question is posed and I completely agree.

The question can be posed in many ways --

1. Do you support a manned mission to mars which would cost the tax payer TWO HUNDERED BILLION dollars ?
2. Do you support a manned mission to mars which would cost the tax payer about 5% of the American defence budget ?
3. Do you support a manned mission to mars which would cost the tax payer less money than what has been already spent on the war on Iraq ?

We should question the questions that are asked before we answer them.

The good and the ugly

2005-08-02T01:21:00.000-07:00

I cannot resist a comparison between the two movies that I watched in the last couple of days -- "Hazaron Khwahishen Aisi" and "Sarkar". Both movies are about situations in which the political system fails and individuals rise against it. While HKA is a very well made movie about the disillusioned youth in the 1970s , Sarkar is a loud and pathetic ripoff of "The Godfather".

In both movies, you cannot miss the background score. The music by Shantanu Moitra in HKA works like magic. The songs are absolutely fantastic. Interestingly, most of the movie has a silent background but whenever used the background music blended in with the emotions with stunning brilliance. For example, there is a scene in which a member of the naxalite movement rushes in a bicycle to inform his comrades about a possible police raid. The beating of drums in the background , the body language of the rushing cyclist beautifully convey the sense of urgency. Similarly, in the last scene, one of the three main characters in the movie, Vikram ( Shiny Ahuja ), is brutally beaten up by two policemen. You can just hear the cries of Vikram and the shouting policemen. Yet, the scene sends shivers down your spine.

On the other hand,in Sarkar the loud background music grates on your senses. Should all emotions be conveyed using senseless music ? Give silence a chance for God's sake. The incessant chants of "Govinda Govinda Govinda" knocks your sanity out.

Then there is the acting part. The little Bachchan has one and only one facial expression -- one that of an angry young man; the lesser he talks, the better it is for his career. Kay Kay did act well in both movies. But I think Chitrangada Singh steals the show in HKA.

Something must be said about the choice of characters in the two movies. In HKA all the characters are some shade of gray. The handling of the characters and situations is extremely mature. There is Siddharthh (Kay Kay), a rich kid who joins the naxal movement to fight the system. In the end, he gives up and like other rich kids goes to England to study medicine. Geeta ( Chitrangada Singh ) is initially a confused individual but gradually finds out what she wants to do in her life. But her character too is gray. In the time of need she asks for favor from Vikram who is caught in a one sided love for her. She cheats on her husband (yet another man); but the director does not give her the a moral high ground by portraying her husband as a cruel individual. The third character is Vikram, a middle class boy who wants to earn money; a lot of money. He is the one who wants to get into the system not out of it. He is a smooth talker who plays many tricks to make money. But he is not a bad guy; just a shade of gray like most people.

On the Other hand in Sarkar is a Bushist movie : you are either a bad guy or a good guy. Sarkar is a bad movie in the absolute; but if you insist on a comparison with "The Godfather", Sarkar is plain UGLY.

I also had a personal problem with Sarkar; it is slighly difficult for me to differentiate between three fat south indians who were all BAD guys.

The TOI - let paper

2005-07-22T23:54:00.000-07:00

Not an original title but here is my argument on why Times of India should indeed be called "The TOI - let paper " . Here is the original source of the title ( an interesting read )

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~mahim/toi/

The author Mahim argues why the analogy between a toilet paper and the TOI-let paper is imperfect. The only problem with the argument is that he compares a clean toilet paper with the TOI-let paper. If on the other hand a dirty one is compared, the analogy is perfect ; both papers are full of shit.

There is nothing more to say once you read the above link. So I am simply putting today's headlines on TOI --

1. If chased by goons, don't call the police
2. Explosions rock Egyptian resort
3. A cabbie's love for bhajans
4. Prisoner sues over finger in meal
5. Suspected bomber shot in UK
6. PM hits right note in the US
7. Modi's Gujarat worships Hitler
8. Indians tough: Chappell, really?
9. Review: Viruddh moves you
10. Lookalikes create porn storms

Since I don't have a TOI-let paper to flush down a toilet , I usually clear my browser cache after visiting TOI website to pay my symbolic tribute.

The Sinking Ship

2005-04-03T11:47:00.000-07:00

We rubbed our eyes in disbelief , as we sat on a rock by the shores of the New World. Unsure of our emotions, we were both triumphant and shaken. Triumphant because we had managed to ditch the old ship and out swim others on our way to the New World. Shaken by the disbelief that the ship had survived the storm.

I was born on the old ship and had the company of a billion others. The billion people on the deck cut a poor picture of despair and hopelessness. Tradition had taught them to wait for a divine intervention when in trouble. It was God who brought storms and it was onto Him to fix the damages. I had always thought that the ship would sink under it's own weight. Or the corruption of the men in the cabin, who would cut out wood from the ship to fuel their barbecue. Or we would be destroyed by the pirates in the neighborhood. Or we will kill each other in rows designed by the men in the cabin. So I thought I should swim to the New World to begin a new life.

Today I stand in silent admiration to the fact that the ship has survived; inspite of the billion on the deck, the few men in the cabin, the attacks by the pirates and the rows designed by the men in the cabin. I took out my binoculars to see what has changed. On the surface nothing has. There were still a billion desperate people on the deck cursing God. There were still men it the cabin quite oblivious to the storm outside. The best people were still trying to swim to the New World. For a moment I felt a sense of satisfaction. "I was not an escapist but a survivor", I thought. Then suddenly my eyes fell on a few people at the stern of the ship, fixing it's rudder. They were not mere survivors of a storm; they were the savior of a billion people. It became obvious that it was not a miracle that the ship had survived and that I was indeed an escapist. I was perhaps better in ability as compared to the desperate men on the deck but no better in attitude.

I bow to the men who fixed the rudder. Should I swim back now? Ironically, I am aware that they would hail me as a hero who decided to return and not a coward who had escaped. I think someday I will return. But not to be part of a sinking ship but to be part of the effort to save it, steer it.

The Divine Classification

2005-03-23T21:23:00.000-08:00

I think every thinking individual is troubled with existential questions about God, creation, life, death etc in some point of time in his/her (political correctness comes with it's share of pains) life. No I am not about to answer the BIG question "Does God exist?". That is an interesting question which does have interesting answerS. The plurality is the cause of all trouble. So let me indulge in a smaller problem,

What are the different types of Gods available to mankind.

The very basic form of divine classification is based on the number of Gods. Much like the the audio systems ; mono, stereo and surround sound. But there are indeed fundamental differences between Gods and audio systems; the mono is the popular God system. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all monotheist systems. The holy stereo system is less popular but important nonetheless. They believe in the existence of duals. If Bush were to form a holy system, it would be a stereo; "You are either with us or against us". Zoroastrianism is one such system. I don't completely understand why Christianity, Judaism and Islam do not belong to this category. They do have the concept of Satan. Trinity is the third form: left, right and sub-woofer. Both Christianity and Hinduism have the concept of trinity. Till we remain in the domain of finitely many Gods, Hinduism beats them all with 330, 000,000 Gods ; it is a truly surround sound experience. The Greeks and the Romans had only a few hundreds each.

The other classification is based on gender:

Male
Female
All of the above
None of the above.

In the divine world, the gender bias is negligible. There are almost as many number of Goddess as there are Gods. The "All of the above" case is interesting. The Greeks thought of Athena (the Goddess of many things including war ) and Zeus (Ruler of Gods) as the same force in feminine and masculine forms. In hinduism, Shiva (God of destruction) is considered Ardhnari ( half woman ) and is worshiped as a linga ( phallus ) inside a yoni ( vagina ). However, "None of the above" seems to be the popular form of God.
The more educated seem to have their owns notions about God. Here is another classification:

a) The traditional God.
b) The abstract God.

The traditional God is usually the one attached to a religion. The abstract God transcends religious boundaries; its the nature, the universe, the inexplicable, the collective consciousness. While traditional God is for the masses, the abstract God is for the intellectuals. The abstract God is explained by "scientific reasoning". The abstract God doesn't lean on the Bible, the Quran, the Torah or the Gita for support, it finds answers in quantum mechanics (science) , the human genome (life) and ofcourse the black hole ( ah! Mystery! ).

I should give myself a chance to speak now. I think that fundamentally there are two kinds of Gods:

One who saves your ass when in trouble.
One who does not save your ass when in trouble.

Lets be hopeful and assume God exists and is of the first kind. Then the question to ask is,

Is it reasonable to think that God would save your ass only when you believe in Him/Her/It and pray?

It becomes easy to answer profound existential questions if they are posed as simply as above.

Modilemma

2005-03-20T14:39:00.000-08:00

Ever since I heard about US refusing visa to Mr. Modi, my opinion on the subject has been pretty osciallatory; oscillating between a confused sense of national pride and a not-so-confused sense of morality.

Adolf Hilter, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Idi Amin, Narendra Modi --- this line reads without hurting my sentiments.

Germany, Cambodia, Iraq, Bosnia, Uganda, India --- this line suddenly throws me into an emotional turbulence.

There is little doubt that Narendra Modi was the chief architect of the biggest Indian genocide. Is defending Narendra Modi's case for a US visa, a matter of national pride or national shame ? Isn't it time to rise above national pride (read prejudice ) and condemn a mass murderer ? That he is a free man today should be a matter of shame for every Indian. That Advani had the balls to make a comparison between the current case and the Mahatma's salt march, is reason enough to not let that pair hanging there.

Returning to the original question: Should US have granted Modi a visa? I think it should have. Why? Rejection has made a martyr out of him. He got the much needed publicity. Now that US did what it did, Should Indian Govt. have made an official protest? The answer is NO. It should have ignored the rejection because Modi was not going on an official visit. Indian Govt's protest only served to give Modi the attention he seeks.

The bottomline is that I would be very happy if he is legally hanged to death. But if that doesn't happen, I would pray that he is NOT assasinated. That would make a martyr out of a mass murderer.