Man is a pest

[Acknowledgment: This article is inspired from Ranjan Malik's TEDx Talk, "Fool and his kind of innovation"]

Big Bang, as he was fondly called, once decided to make a time piece. A time piece - he would make just once and will run forever without any intervention. He designed the time-piece as self correcting as possible and vowed to not touch the system after it is made.

Being a connoisseur of art, he created several spherical objects and kept them such that the force between them kept them "stable" as well as in motion. They repeated their motions after specific periods. It was a pretty complex time-piece as it contained hundreds of particles - each with its own motion and time period.

Big Bang painted one object with utmost interest. He painted 70% of it blue and 30% of it green. He, then, added texture to the surface. There were areas that were higher and rocky while others that were plain.

Slowly and steadily the termites started increasing their colony on this most favorite object of Big Bang. They had their king and queen termites along with worker and soldier termites. Worker termites undertake the labors of foraging, food storage, brood and nest maintenance. The soldier caste has anatomical and behavioral specializations, providing strength and armor. Many soldiers have jaws so enlarged that they cannot feed themselves, but instead, are fed by the workers. [Source]

Soon, their nests started reaching above ground forming what is called mounds or anthills. In certain areas the mounds became very high. Then, there started a crazy competition among the different colonies of termites to create the tallest of mounds. The termites eventually forgot the purpose of creating mounds and started digging into the surface of the-once-upon-a-time-beautiful object. They started making the object weaker and weaker. A few, too few, worker termites realized that making such insanely high rise mounds is only going to bite them back. They tried convincing others. But the kings, the queens and the soldiers didn't listen to them. Other worker termites were too busy doing their daily chores to even think of long term repercussion of the high rise mounds.

Eventually, the object that Bing Bang had created with immense love and affection was dotted with high-rise mounds. The balance that the object was to maintained changed slightly - though not significant enough for the termites to perceive. The termites kept eating their own 'home'.

Big Bang helplessly watched his most favorite object in the time-piece rot.

Price Rationalization

When you buy something - anything - say an apple, what do you pay for? You pay for the cost incurred in procuring the raw material - seed, fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides. You pay for the services used - water, electricity, transportation, storage. You pay for the human resource at each point of the supply chain right from the wages of the farmer to the salary of the salesman. You pay for the taxes and the profits for each party involved.

Is that all you pay for? Given the inflation and the macro-economy, I wouldn't want to pay for any of these things! But then there are a few things we don't even consider we need to pay. But as the law of Karma goes, one has to pay for everything one has used.

Nothing is free.

Have you considered who pays to neutralize the pollution created by burning the  fuel used in transporting the apple from the field to the retailer? Who pays for the decomposition of the plastic bag that is give "free" along with the apple?

There are umpteen initiatives by the civil society to counter the climatic deterioration - plant trees, car pool, turn-lights-off-for-an-hour. These all are great initiatives and does help. However, to reduce the problem the pricing in the whole value chain needs to be rationalized.

Fortunately or unfortunately, we have started adding value to things based on the price (the converse,  however, should be true). So, if we really want people to stop using the plastic, the best solution, in my opinion, is to 'rationalize' its price. The moment we start adding the 'cost' of decomposition to the costs of the plastic considered currently, its price will go up and will automatically deter people form using it.

Basically, the idea is that people who does the crime pay for it. If someone is using more plastic or more fuel then he should pay for the treatment of the pollution he creates. Currently, everyone pays the price - either in terms of tax which is used in green initiative by the government or in terms of the diseases we gets because of the pollution.

It's analogous to going for an equal-contribution-lunch with a large group to a very expensive place. Each one in the group thinks of ordering the most expensive item as the value he gets by eating it is much less compared to price he pays (given, it is shared by a large number of people). When everyone starts thinking in that way - the overall bill becomes much higher and so does each person's share. However, if we change the system to - pay-for-what-you-eat instead of equal-contribution, then each person will only order things he likes and are within his budget. This reduces the personal bills and hence the overall bill.

But currently, everyone is paying.

Sadly, changes will not happen over-night. There are huge vested interests that believe in ordering the most expensive dish in an equal-contribution system. These influential people will obviously not allow the system to change to pay-for-what-you-eat. Perhaps, I'll explore in a later post the topic of how these 5% of the people make policies which are beneficial to themselves but still impose it on the 95%

As civil society, we should start thinking and discussing the rationalization of the prices in the value chain. There a host on intangibles involved and converting them into dollar/rupee value will be challenging. Convincing the powers that be to incorporate these challenges will be even more difficult. We have seen a glimpse of this brazen futility at Copenhagen in December 2009. However, it's only when we start debating and discussing about price rationalization and more so questioning the price of things that we buy, we'll be overwhelmed by the "irrational" prices. And as a society, we might want to pay in money than by deteriorating our health due to environmental issues.

I guess, i now understand the proverb better - There is nothing called a free lunch.

Zabaan Sambhal Ke

Ramesh is an ordinary middle class child with ordinary middle class values and ordinary middle class sensibilities. Ramesh goes to a local school and leads a very peaceful life with his parents. Ramesh’s parents are not educated and run a small shop that just saves them from falling into ‘lower’ income group.

Scene 1:

Ramesh gets an opportunity to visit a big IT MNC. Ramesh’s parents were always fascinated by the professional looking, fluent English speaking employees of such MNCs and wished that he gets a job in one of the MNCs when he grows up.

Ramesh enters the office and attends the guided tour. He is amazed at the infrastructure. He thinks he is ‘living’ the movies he saw on Doordarshan. He is awestruck at the fluency in which they spoke English. However, he gets separated from the group. He feels like being in a maze which looks similar in all directions. While trying to get his way out, he gets the slice of the lives of IT professionals.

He hears a man addressing his female colleague as a female dog. He hears a professionally dressed girl laughing and exclaiming at the coitus. As he makes his way through the maze, he sees a man near a coffee vending machine. His facial expression said that he was drinking some really bad tasting drink. However, Ramesh was surprised to hear him say that the coffee drank instead of he drinking the coffee. He sees the symbol of a staircase and walks towards it. On the way, he finds a suited employee asking his colleague to copulate off. He finally reaches the staircase where he finds his group.

Being a reserved person that Ramesh is, he didn’t share his experience in detail with his family.

In the night, after a long day's work, Ramesh’s father urges him to be like the IT professionals he visited that day

Scene 2:

It’s 7:00 am and the mercury reads 40. Ramesh’s father is dropping him to school. He is taking his usual route which passes through a slum. Ramesh sees two women fighting for a bucket of water. The communication which is in Hindi is decorated with expletives. The women did not forget to bring the relatives of the other in the conversation and gave creative adjectives to them. Ramesh was observing the fight with curiosity. Ramesh’s father pulled him and increased his speed. A few steps ahead, a group of children from the slum were playing cricket. While playing, what appeared out of camaraderie, the children referred (in Hindi) to things related to the biological process of reproduction. Ramesh was again listening to them.

Ramesh’s father briskly walks past the slum. He tells Ramesh that people from good families don’t talk in such a language. Only people from slums do so. He urges Ramesh to not be like them.

Ramesh is left confused.


PS: I wanted to write this post a couple of weeks back but was thinking of how to write it without using the actual expletives. Hope, I was able to convey the thought without the use of any 'such' words.

Aruna Shanbaug: It's my life

I am now qualified as a senior citizen. I would have got tax exemption on 2.5 lakh of my salary and concession in the railways as well. But then, things don't always work as planned. Like a lot of senior citizens, I don't earn anything to get any tax exemption. And I don't go anywhere. Nowhere. I have seen people living in the slums of Dharavi where each person gets about 20 sq ft of space to live. I live in almost equal space - the only difference is that I don't move. In fact, I can't move and haven't moved by myself for last 37 years. Some people call me soul. Some call me life. Some call me sub-conscious. A few techies these days even call me the software. I am the 'real person' within the body of the most popular living nurse in India, Aruna Shanbaug. I am the 'red' of the Aruna. I am the 'shaan' of the Shanbaug. I am the the real Aruna Shanbaug.

I was always amazed at the hegemony of the mankind. Man decides which animals to rear and which to kill. Man decides which plants to grow. Man not only decides the fate of plants and animals but also of other people. Today, it was my turn. My fate was to be decided. Whether I would live or die was to be decided by a few people. I didn't commit any crime. On the contrary, I am a victim. But still. They would decide whether I would live or die.

Through all these last 37 years, Pinki has been my best friend. She really cares for me. But one thing that hurts me the most is the pain Pinki is going through. Pinki is in pain because she can't see me suffering through the agony. She can't see me bearing the pain for 37 years. And she fights for a very noble cause - of giving me freedom from my sufferings. These days, while the children send their parents to old-age homes, Pinki has been by my side. I'll be indebted to her throughout my 'life' and beyond - if there's anything after life.

But I am brave. I am full of life. I believe in miracles, science and the divine power. I believe that I will see the light of the day. I'll eat the best of fish and listen to Aamir Khan's 'O palan hare' composed by A R Rahman and written by Javed Akhtar. I believe that the medical science will make enough progress that I would be treated. If not tomorrow, next year. If not next year - after ten years. I want to live.

We consider committing suicide a crime. A person cannot even attempt to take his own life even though he is suffering from insurmountable mental stress. But when it comes to my case - no one even bothered to know what I want - whether I want to live or die. But I can't blame them. How would they know what I want? I have no way to communicate to them that I want to live, that i want to go through this pain and hope that someday I can move by myself. After all, it's the hope that keeps everyone alive and motivates people to persevere. Didn't the "mentally slow, unsociable, and adrift forever in foolish dreams" boy who was expelled form school grow up to become Albert Einstein? It is hope. Hope - that made they kept going. I believe that medical science would make enough progress in the next few years that I'll recover. And despite what the doctors say - I have hope and faith that I shall be back. And my wish is that I want to live - live till I can possibly live.

Today a few supreme people on the bench decided my future. I shall live. I don't know if I need to thank them to give me something that is as much mine as anything can get - my life.  But, nevertheless, I'll thank them for not taking away what they could have. It's my life and let me and only me decide what's enough for me and how much I can bear. If I am not able to communicate it to you, please leave me to myself.

Please don't show mercy on me.

All the World's a Stage

Acting is an art - and a tough one at that. How many really good actors have you seen? Om Puri, Naseeruddin Shah. Nop, Salmaan Khan is a star and so is Uday Chopra. But, actors don't just work in films. Try looking a little 'local' - Was Pankaj's acting as a jaundice patient any less than Pallavi Joshi's? Wasn't the teacher and even you (despite knowing that he had gone on a holiday) fooled? Didn't Vishwanath act brilliantly in praising his mother-in-law for the food that she prepared which a cat would prefer to terminate all her nine lives to eating that food. Didn't Amin gave an IIFA winning performance when he pushed the bug under the carpet in front of the senior management? And how can we forget Siddhu's brilliant laughter in the Laughter Challenge?

Looking at all these performances day-in-and-day-out i wonder how these people manage to act so well. Acting, indeed, is a gift is blessed with. And what makes it worse is that acting cannot be easily learnt. I have seen people failing miserably to pretend. But, it's not all that gloomy.

With the advent of technology the way we communicate has changed. Communication has become more real-time and online. Imagine that the girl/guy, whom you loved (or had crush for) but never confessed/proposed to, decides to 'go around' with someone else and shares that news with you. In the larger-than-life world of the past you would not only need to be a good actor, but would also need the help of rain to hide your tears and Manpreet Akhtar singing Tujhe Yaad Na Meri Aayi. And only then would you been able to act and give fake emotions (refresh your memory by visiting the above embedded youtube link). But if it were now, things would have been difference. Rahul Khanna would have emailed Anjali Sharma:

Hi Anjali,

PFA my proposal letter to Tina. I had been loving her in the back burner. But looks like the time is right to propose her. Please review the love letter and let me know your comments

Thanks,

 Rahul Khanna

~ Rahul Khanna ladkiyon ke peechhe nahi bhaagta

 To which Anjali would reply back

Hi Rahul,

The proposal letter looks good. Please go ahead and mail it to her. I am sure she'll accept! All the best. I am happy for you :)


Cheers,
Anjali
~ Rahul is a cheater, he is a cheater.

Simple. Isn't it? The social networking and microblogging tools are not there to make your life difficult. It's not only about learning the new tools and jargon, or unlearning the old ones or re-learning the new versions. It's much more than that.

One fine morning on your Facebook you get an update from a friend informing you that your classmate who used to consistently get lower than fifty percent of your score has got a new job and is getting four times your salary. You immediately send him a 'congratulations!' message with dollops of exclamation marks and choicest of emoticons. Had the friend told it to you face-to-face, it would have been difficult to hide your feelings. Isn't it?

One of your friends applied to the same university you applied to. He manages to clear first few rounds while you beat Agarkar in who-gets-more-ducks game. But then, the friend somehow doesn't clear the final round. He tweets it. You reply back with, again, choicest of emoticons to express how sorry you were. Though, in your heart of hearts, you would be feeling very happy. Imagine if he had told this to you in person! How difficult would it have been to your elation! :(

So, the online tools has, essentially, made acting easy for us. They are giving learn-acting-in-20-days and acting-for-dummies books a tough competition - competition analogous to what CDs are giving to gramophone records. Not because they are easily available on the Internet but because no one really needs it. All a person needs to know to 'act' is the use of emoticons and exclamation marks.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the 'if-you-are-happy-and-you-know' song gets a new avatar to suit the next generation. It would 'sound' something like:

If you're happy and you know it, use ten bangs

If you're happy and you know it, use ten bangs 

If you're happy and you know it,

and you really want to it

If you're happy and you know it, use ten bangs 

 I would leave you with something we have grown up with - Gabbar Singh's laughter in Sholay [the laughter starts at 4:26].




How would have Gabbar said this on his social networking online tool? Simple. He would have said:

lol

 Yep. That's it. Check the following video out if you have any doubts.



Indeed, becoming actor was never so easy. You didn't necessarily have to change your father's name to Yash Chopra. With anyone and everyone becoming an actor, the world has, finally become a stage.

Shakespeare must have done well in futures stock!

Is Democracy The Best Policy?

[The below article is open to interpretations. You  may also find this article analogous to the Indian democracy. You may also want to read Jawahar Lal Nehru's speech: Tryst With Destiny]

Once upon a time a large group of children used to stay together in a house. Most of them were too young.  They were of such age when the parents decide what is good or bad for them – what they should eat, what they should read, what they should do.  One fine day, at the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, the children awoke and found that all their care-takers have left them alone. They decided to form a managing body to manage the activities and the house. Quite a few children wanted to manage the house. Who wouldn’t like to boss around the house? This created a kind of chaos and the children concluded on a convenient solution – to ‘elect’ the managing body. The idea was that whoever gets the maximum vote gets to be the Big Boss and he can choose his own team to manage the house. So far, so good.

Right from the dawn started the (almost) unending quest to win votes. Everyone tried to please the others.  Most of them got involved in other activities – like watching movies and playing cricket. They got tired of managing the house long before they actually started managing. Only a handful of them remained in the race to get votes.

Those in the race started trying all kinds of things to get votes.  Some promised personal television sets, while some promised increase in pocket money if/when they get to be the boss. Some offered aerated drinks to the others to ‘bribe’ them to vote for them.  Some tried partitioning the group depending on the hero they liked – so there was a pro-SRK group, there was a pro-Aamir group and there was a pro-UdayChopra group. The member s of these groups were great fans of their respective heroes to the extent that they worshiped them.  However, there was a group which was pro-allHeroes – the members of this group were free to worship any hero they wanted to.

The D-day came. The children went to vote.  Harry, being an SRK devotee, voted for proSRK group.  Ron, being an Aamir devotee, voted for proAamir group. Longbottom, who liked watching television a lot, voted for the person who promised TV. Draco by voting for the person who gave him aerated drinks paid it back. Hermoine, who was busy mugging ‘Twinkle Twinkle Little Stars’, thought it’s waste of time to vote and didn’t vote at all.

If on one of these criteria a manager is selected, you can only imagine what the condition of the house would be. Even after periodic repeatation of this process – the house was in total chaos. Fuelled by the vote-seekers, the proSRK, the proAamir and the proUdayChopra groups kept fighting among each othet for no real reason whatsoever. No proper management was provided: perhaps because that was never part of the agenda - perhaps, because the ‘voters’ never really asked for it.

On the other hand, the same pre-condition prevailed in another house. The difference, however, was that most inmates of the house were educated adults. This house also followed the same process for management as the children’s house (described above). They brought to the table the issues that really concern them and their progress. The inmates of this house, after some time, had better quality of life, made good progress in their fields and were staying peacefully with each other. The same process, when applied to two different contexts gives completely different results.

The question remains - Is democracy the best policy?

Tri-Dev: Movies Mirror Society

Movies, like other art-forms, mirror the society. We’ve had movies like Do Bigha Zameen which mirrors the famine ridden and zamindars dominated Bengal of the early 1950s, A Wednesday, which depicts the terror ridden common man of the 2000s and his fantasies. The plot of these Bollywood movies mirrored the then society. This is one way to get a glimpse of the society the movie is depicting.

The treatment and the acceptance of a movie also throw light on the society. So, essentially, there are two variables - a. the supply side variable, which is the plot of the movie and b. the demand side variable, which is the treatment of the plot. I recently caught up with Bimal Roy’s Devdas. Having seen Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Devdas and Anurag Kashyap’s DevD, I could see the difference in the way the films were treated. I take the example of the three portrayals of Sharat Chandra Chattopadhyay’s Devdas to describe how the treatment of the film mirrors the society. Here, the basic plot, more or less, remaining the same, we can see the way the portrayals of Sharat Chandra Chattopadhyay’s Devdas vary with the audiences they are targeted to.

Devdas, the novel, was based in the early 1900s. Devdas, the son of a rich zamindar, was sent to Calcutta to study. In Bimal Roy’s version, which was released in 1955, Dilip Kumar was also sent to Calcutta. In 1950s, perhaps, studying in Calcutta was a ‘big’ thing which only the privileged few could afford. However, in the 2000s, when the city had long become Kolkata, studying there would no longer be considered by the audience as ‘privilege’. So, both Shahrukh Khan and Abhay Deol are sent to England. In the story, sending Devdas off to a distant land to study is used to hint at the financial and social differences between Paro’s and Devdas’ family. Obviously, going to England would underline the difference to an audience of the 2000s than going to Kolkata (or Calcutta) which would have satisfied an audience of the 1950s.

In the Chattopadhyay’s and Roy’s depiction, Paro’s family ‘silently’ decided to get her married to someone richer than Devdas. In the 50s, perhaps, it was not acceptable for the ‘lower class’ to go overtly against the zamindars. But to the audience of 2002, it made sense that Kirron Kher openly and loudly announce in the big gathering that she would get Paro married to a richer family. However, for the 2009 DevD, the multiplex audience wanted Paro’s faithfulness to be an issue rather than her financial condition.

Year 2000 saw a major change in the tastes of the audience with the outburst of saas-bahu saga – Kyunki Saas bhi kabhi Bahu Thi being a major contributor. The 2002 Devdas saw Devdas’ sister-in-law ‘brainwashing’ his mother against Paro. [Now, this may sound similar to Manthara and Kaikai episode in Ramayana – I would, however, attribute this sequence in the 2002 Devdas to the saas-bahu effect. And also, I never claimed that the saas bahu saga is original. Did I?] 1955 audience being unaware of the 5 generations of ’ Kyunki’ did not demand such a sequence. A class difference was enough for them. However, 2009 DevD did away with the saas-bahu thing – showing the decline in its ‘demand’. The hearsay about Paro’s faithfulness was enough.

The portrayal of the courtesan, Chandramukhi, was also different. In Roy’s, Chandramukhi never got a chance to ‘enter’ the mainstream. In Bhansali’s, Chandramukhi gets to dance with Paro during Durga Puja and she gets to speak about her profession, her helplessness and her exploitations by ‘zamindars of good families’ amidst a big gathering of ‘respectable people’. Kashyap’s Chanda [Chandramukhi, being too long for a 2009 audience] studies in ‘mainstream’ college. So, while 1955’s Chandramukhi didn’t have a voice, 2002’s Chandramukhu was vocal and 2009’s didn’t bother – she was part of the mainstream anyway.

There are other differences which are common across the board between movies made in different times – like costumes, dialogues, songs, etc. I admit that quite a lot of how a movie is presented depends on the director. Bimal Roy didn’t deviate much from the original novel. Sanjay Leela Bhansali has this huge expansive (and expensive) canvas. Anurag Kashyap has his realistic and crude strokes. Despite the difference in styles, we can clearly see the impact of the eras in which the films were made.

Hindi Hai Hum?

Kapil Sibal with his basket of reforms, whether good or not, has done one great thing. It has brought education back into the public debate. Though his proposed educational reforms were released a few months back, the discussion on We the People yesterday brought to forth different perspectives on the 'three language formula' proposed by Kapil Sibal. He has urged the state boards to follow the three language formula with the vernacular-Hindi-English subjects at the school level.

This has instigated the age old debate - the one that was started in the 1930s. The two viewpoints are - the Hindi speaking states in India think that Hindi should be the langua franca. While the non-Hindi speaking states (especially Tamil Nadu) do not agree to that point. The first such conflict was seen in 1937-38 when the Congress Government of Madras Presidency under Rajagopalachari tried to make Hindi a compulsory subject in schools. Anit-Hindi imposition protests, finally, led to withdrawal of compulsory teaching of Hindi in 1940

Take two. After the independence, in 1950, Hindi was chosen as the national language of India by constituent Assembly. But, again, because of the protests of the non-Hindi speaking states, the resolution was deferred for 15 years.

Take three. In 1965, protests from the DMK and other regional parties, led Lal Bahadur Shastri, the then Prime Minister, to give up the agenda of making Hindi as THE national language. [source]

Take four. It's Kapil Sibal now - who is, in a way, trying to reiterate 1938, 1959 and 1965. So, essentially, what Sibal is proposing is nothing new. We have seen this many times in the history. One of the arguments against Sibal's proposal is that why should only the South learn Hindi? Why shouldn't the North learn a South Indian language? Hindi is just another regional language just as Tamil, Telugu, or Bengali is. The 'hindiwalas' argue that since the majority of the population in India speak Hindi, the others should also learn the language.

While being jingoistic about the language, we are forgetting the purpose of having a language: to communicate our thoughts and ideas. Sure, there are very strong cultural connotations to it, but the basic function remains the same - to communicate.

Our school followed three language formula - even before Kapil sabil proposed it. So, I studied English and Hindi till class XII and Bengali for two years - VII and VIII. Despite two years of formal education in Bengali, i was not very fluent in it. This is because, apart from the 45 mins class, i never felt the necessity to communicate in Bengali. In Kolkata, one doesn't need to know Bengali. But, when i joined the university, there was suddenly a need to learn Bengali as most people around, especially the 'babus' spoke Bengali. And that was it. I picked up the language in the first few months itself. The point i am trying to make is that what i couldn't learn in two years, i learned in a few months because there was a necessity. Of course, my two years of formal education made it easy.

When I was in Hyderabad, where again, one doesn't need to know Telugu, I picked up a few words of Telugu. This was because of my social initiative, Vriddhi. We go to schools of the under-privileged and conduct various workshops. Now, these children do not know Hindi or English well. They know only Telugu. So, i learned a few frequently used words to get by. Again, the point i am trying to make is that i learned Telugu (though just to get by) to help me in my social initiative (Vriddhi).

The resident 'Hindiwalas' don't feel the need for learning a South Indian language and south Indians don't feel the need to learning Hindi. However, both feel the need of learning English. This is strange because, English was brought to us by the Britishers who made India their colony and were not particularly liked by the Indians. Nevertheless, we still learn English. This is because of the immense opportunity it brings in. We forget about our past experiences with the British and learn English. So, clearly, it's more about demand and supply than about culture. If there is a demand for a particular language, one would definitely learn it.

For the non-Hindi speaking states, it make sense to adopt the three language formula. There is no harm to learn one more language. And, if given a choice to select the third language, Hindi would have been the obvious answer as Hindi would empower a person from a non-Hindi speaking state to connect to more people than any other language would. Pranab Mukherjee said that he cannot become the Prime Minister because he cannot speak Hindi. Also, his broken Hindi, perhaps caused a rift between him and Laloo.

Having said that, which language should a 'hindiwala' learn? If i were in a position to influence, i would propose the following:

Map a Hindi speaking state to a non-Hindi speaking state. The mapping, of course, would not to one-to-one. Now, these states should help each other in various aspects - like in trade, education, governance, etc. It's like the 'buddy program' in various universities. The Hindi speaking state, then learns the language of the buddy non-Hindi speaking state. This will boost cultural exchange, trade and travel between the states - which in turn would aid in development of India.

Indian are comfortable with plurality. And this plurality, if not replaced by narrow jingoism, can help in making India not only a more developed country but also a model of others to learn from.

Think...

Hash Include

Hash Include

Inclusion seems to be the new buzzword. From financial inclusion (as mentioned by the Indian President Pratibha Patil on the eve of Independence Day) and sexual inclusion (by the amendment of section 377 of IPC) to inclusion (at least, by being a witness on national television) into the process of selecting a groom. Not to forget the evergreen first line of a C program.

However, this word was more popularly used in the context of education. It refers to a state where children with and without disabilities study together. As on everything else, there are people who support the notion and there are people who do not. While, as on everything else, most people don't really care. I am not going to discuss whether or not 'educational inclusion' should be practiced. The reason is that apart from the obvious cases we don't know who falls and who doesn't fall under 'retarded' category.

Though, in theory, we may be able to classify people in terms of those with and without disabilities, the fact remains (and as hinted by Pauli's exclusion principle) that every child is unique with his own learning curve. So, while the know-all work out whom to include in which category and fight for what level of 'inclusion' is optimal, there is one thing we can do without much controversy.

Let me explain. The process of children education has two end-points - the producers (teachers) who are the sources of knowledge and the consumers (children) who take in the knowledge. Of course, there is self learning and self exploration. But for children, it works the best if the source of knowledge is another person. So, instead of having all teacher-for-the-normals teaching to 'normal' schools, we should have some 'special teachers' also in the 'normal' schools.

There are cases where children who need special teachers are sent to 'normal' schools - probably, because they are not thought of as 'special'. These children, obviously (and by definition), don't do well in the school and are deemed 'slow learners'. This makes the matter worse. One way to address this is to have special teachers in all 'normal' schools. These teachers would help in identifying students with special needs. They would also make other teachers - who put a lot of unnecessary and virtual pressure (reminds you of your boss?) on the students - sensitive to the fact the every child is unique.

This is what i thought of when i (again) watched Taare Zameen Par. We need people to identify and deal with children with special needs. We need 'inclusion' among teachers. I am sure this is not something which will arouse a lot of debates. Nether would the serial-topper's mother be worried about her child slowing down in study because some of his classmates have special needs. This is one area where we not only lack inclusion but also lack debate on it.

Do share your views on the concept of inclusion applied to teachers.

Loss Booking

People who have tried their hands at the share market would know what booking loss is. It's basically part and parcel of optimal use of resources – money in this case. When the price of the share you purchased is going down and you sense that it may go further down and not going to go up in the timeframe you selected, it's best to sell it and book losses because there may be another stock which could be going up. It's best to release your resources from that 'losing' stock and put it on the 'gaining' stock. So, though you have encountered losses, you have saved yourself from bigger losses and given yourself a chance to make profits by investing the resources in a gaining scrip.

You must be wondering why am i talking about share market as what i mentioned is pure common sense and that i am no trade guru. This share market anecdote applies well to various activities we do in our lives. One example from the medical field which comes to mind is that of amputation. To prevent 'poison' from spreading to other parts of the body, we cut the affected part. It doesn't mean that we don't like/love the part we are cutting and that we don't feel the pain in cutting the leg that we pampered so delicately. It means that we are ready to trade it off for a larger benefit of our body.

Problems. This is one word every human being can associate with. A lot of people say that we should address problems heads on and that we should take them as challenges and resolve them. According to me this is partially true. Sometimes, the resources required to solve a problem may be huge and the gain by solving the problem may not be enough – in that case, an easier workaround and using the resources to serve better purposes may be better than trying to solve the problem completely. It's like you exit form the problem by booking losses and invest that money into some other scrip.

A lot of 'intelligent' people have this ego problem - “how is it that i can't solve this problem”? This is really grave. Haven't you seen it screw up that very important board/competitive exam? The time (resource) ran out while you were busy solving a 5 marks problem and in turn left 50 marks unanswered. Don't you 'pass' (or guess the answer to) the question in the rapid fire round in a quiz competition?

The trick is to estimate the effort required to solve a problem and whether it is worth putting in that effort. For this principle to work, the goal you are working toward should be clear – else the “worth” of the effort may not be correctly estimated. It's best not to honor our ego, book losses and come out and do something worth the time.


Think...

Live to die

If we all know that we are to die one day, then why do we live? This is a basic question which has its manifestations throughout the history of mankind where time and again we do things which comes back to us in the negative way. This reminds me of the negative-feedback systems I learnt in my undergraduate. I wondered, why on earth, do we have negative feedback system given the fact that it reduces the output. The answer mentioned in the standard text-books was that negative feedback gives stability to the system. It corrects the un-reined growth of the output. If positive feedback is given to the system, it starts oscillating with its output going out of bound. This same principle applies in a lot of contexts.


The concept of outsourcing is very old – though it was not known by that name. The East India Company for decades had not brought in English language with them. They had kept the language to themselves and hence kept all the higher-echelon-work with themselves. But, around 1828, with the Company’s finances looking bleak they resorted to, what is now a buzzword, cost cutting. They "outsourced" the government posts to Indians. To make the Indians capable of doing the job, they committed the biggest mistake – they brought in English education. The English language brought with it the access to English press. Indians became aware of European Nationalism, the protests the other colonies were doing and the scientific advancement. Apart from the tyranny, if there was any one thing which led the Indians to drive the British out of India, it was English. English, which the Company brought in for their own profit turned out to be their biggest enemy. BTW, are you thinking about English as a negative feedback?


The USA is said to have backed Al Queda as a means to counter Russia. In the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the USA provided support to the Afghan Mujahideens (Al Qaeda) through Pakistan’s Intelligence service to outdo Soviet in the Cold War. USA thus outsourced a part of its "Cold War Business" to the mujahideens. But little did the US knew that the same Al Qaeda, which it used against the Soviets, would carve one of the biggest “man-made” catastrophes in the USA.

The same principle goes for outsourcing. The western companies outsourced their work to India primarily because it was cheaper. However, the Indians (and other Asians) developed their skills to the extent they they started getting preferred. Their western counterparts fear loss of job to the same people they trained. A saying goes that westerner, in the mid 20th century used to tell their kids to eat their food else Indians would have it - Now they are telling their kids to do their homework else Indians would steal their jobs!

Nuclear weapons are another example. We are making nuclear weapons, basically, to defend ourselves from our "enemies". With these deadly weapons,we may be able to bargain our lives today but the same nuclear weapon are, sooner or later, going to kill. They are made to kill.

Doesn't the same go with Recession? As the companies compete to lay people off, more and more people's buying power decreases. So, the demand decreases which in-turn leads to further down size of companies. The vicious cycle,thus, continues. Companies lay people off to save cost today. This then becomes, as they say, a necessary evil.

Meri billi mujh se hi miyao miyao
Ulta Chor Kotwaal ko daante

These are a few proverbs which come to my mind right now. If your “billi” is going to mew against you then why have a billi? In some cases it’s necessary evil and in other cases it can be avoided. The Britishers could not but outsource their work to Indians if they had to maintain their hold on India. If they wouldn’t have taught Indians English, they would have had to quit a century too earlier. Similarly, if the Western companies wouldn’t have outsourced they wouldn’t have attained the kind of productivity they did. In these cases, “outsourcing” was a necessity. But was it also a necessity in other cases? I don’t think so – nor do I think, the proponents would have thought that it would take such a shape. However, there are certain things you know are going to come back to you – but still you do it. This is negative feedback - sometimes it becomes so large as to stall the system, sometimes it brings balance to it.

Do we, then, live to die? Did the British bring in English education to get driven out of India and be jobless a century later? Did the US fund the Al Qaeda to get hit where it hurts the most? I ask again, do we, then, live to die?

- Think ...

PS: I know there are tons of other ways to explain the above. I have chosen this one to draw parallels