society

Voltaire Freedom of Speech Quote

Freedom of expression, at some level, symbolizes life itself. When we regulate and control, free speech is no longer free. Instead, it becomes tempered by fear of authority and ceases to be a right. This is how it is in India today. The topic of free speech raises a lot of questions, some more pertinent than others given that India is a multicultural, religious society.

  1. How much free speech should be allowed by law?
  2. Should there be legal bounds on free speech?
  3. Should hate speech be made unlawful?
  4. What constitutes offensive or hate speech? Who decides what is offensive or hurtful?
  5. Who should have free speech? Individuals? Corporations? Religious leaders? Media?
  6. What constitutes fair penalties for violations?
  7. Is it possible to define laws tightly that they will not be abused?

None of these questions can be easily answered. Which is why free speech is such a hard thing to regulate.

Here’s my take. In the conflict between free speech and morality, the former always should prevail. And exceptions should be made only when a person’s freedom of expression is violated in a manner that can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. In my book, anything goes. Well, nearly everything with the following exceptions:

  1. Sedition. This goes against the grain of  an organized society.
  2. Copying intellectual property is laziness. It’s not free speech. It violates the original author’s free speech rights.
  3. A call to violence (which is proven to incite murder) is not free speech. It’s intent to commit homicide.
  4. Making false claims is not free speech. You cannot lie to sell products.

Everything else is free speech. Like the following examples -

  1. Hate speech is distasteful, but cannot be outlawed. If you don’t like what you hear, feel free to tune out.
  2. Religious conversion and evangelism should be allowed under free speech laws. If you don’t like people being converted, that’s too bad. You’ll just have to learn to live with it.
  3. Media should receive special protection under free speech laws. The bar should be set high on slander and libel cases.
  4. Pornography is free speech too. Child pornography should be illegal as it violates the free speech rights of minors.
  5. Rap songs which have explicit or misogynist lyrics are made by jackasses. So, don’t buy them. Don’t outlaw them.

And so it goes. Each new social phenomenon will make us wonder about how much freedom an individual deserves. The answer as always should be, “all of it.”

Where do you stand on free speech? Take the poll!

Delhi Protests 2012

Unless we know why rapes happen, we cannot prevent them from happening. Rapes are prevalent in nearly all species of animals (especially primates). They happen in all cultures in every country in the world. And they have been happening for a very long time.

There is no country, as yet, that has managed to stop rapes from happening. Nothing has helped. Not even the death penalty has deterred rape.

Decades of research have brought us no closer to an answer that is fundamentally insightful enough to design prevention of rape. However, almost all research agrees on the following-

  1. That rape is not a sexual act. That it is an act of power. Of entitlement.
  2. That there may be other emotions involved, such as anger or mental depression.
  3. That the incidence of rape in a society or culture is a function of what’s commonly perceived to be a man’s ‘entitlement’ in that society and avenues it provides for discharge of the anger when such expectations are not met.

Which kind of leads me to the fact that women are physically weaker than men. That’s the way it’s always been. Why is that so?

I presume that at the beginning of the evolutionary cycle, there must have been females who were physically equal to or even stronger than males as well as females who were weaker than males. Now why did natural selection favor females who were weaker than males in almost all species that exist today? What was the evolutionary advantage of being a female who was physically weaker than a male?

Is it because weaker females were “preferred” in some way by males for reproduction? Are we humans a result of stronger, aggressive males systematically raping weaker females over millions of years? That’s a horrifying thought. Yet, that’s how far back in time we might need to travel in order to find where the demons lie hidden.

Is there such a thing as a ‘rapist’ gene? Do all males have it or is it just some? Can it be modified to change / eradicate this aggressive, entitlement behavior? Time will tell.

As scientists explore the “ultimate” reasons for rape from an evolutionary perspective, law makers and citizens must pay attention to the proximate causes for rape. In Indian cities and our society – there are many proximate causes, all of which are fairly obvious.

Imagine this. A group of young aggressive males, filled with an entitlement of superiority, encounter a single woman who’s more educated or successful than them. They feel emasculated. Rage erupts. One person suggests rape.  Group dynamics kick in. The others join in. And that may be how a gang rape results. This is not a justification. It’s an explanation. An explanation that does not provide solutions to preventing rape. But it provides some clues to women as to how they can safeguard themselves by spotting or avoiding signs of trouble.

The question is – why do men have a sense of entitlement? What do they feel entitled to? Can we medically or otherwise (mandatory therapy?) erase such notions from their minds? Research should hopefully shed some light on this.

As long as the law looks at crimes against women through the eyes of men, nothing will ever change.

Aam Aadmi India

To whomsoever it may concern.

They call me aam admi. For you babalog, that translates to “ordinary man.” Presumably women are included in there as well. That’s what they call me. I don’t know the first thing about supply side economics. I’ve never listened to Beethoven. I couldn’t tell an IIT from an ITI. There are many things I don’t know. But, I have a God given ability to detect bull shit. Now, if you don’t mind, I’d like to get a few things off my chest.

When we got our independence, I was ecstatic. I was one of the millions who lined up whenever the Mahatma gave us the word. Then, I heard that Pandit-ji had his reservations about me. He wasn’t sure if I would exercise the right to vote responsibly. Well, here’s the thing. Neither did I. Who knows what’s best for the country? Who do we trust? Pandit-ji and his friends came highly recommended by the Mahatma. They had studied at firangi universities, spoke English and rubbed shoulders with world leaders. Once again, I fell in line when the Mahatma asked me to support his protege. I had a job to find, a family to take care of and mouths to feed. I didn’t have time to think it through. So, without protest, I voted for Nehru, in the hope that he was our Messiah and that he would part the Red Sea and lead us to the Promised Land.

I shed tears when Chacha died. He was our Messiah. We hadn’t yet made it across the Red Sea. In fact, there was no sea. I found myself marooned on a desert with no friendly faces. Pandit-ji, in spite of his firangi degrees and polished accent, had blown it. The lone face that I recognized of Lal Bahadur was but a brief mirage. And that’s when the nightmares started.

They say that the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree. If that’s the case, I must fault Jawaharlal, the tree and not the fruit, Indira. But my gut tells me that that Jawaharlal was not the tree. He was just the guy who watered a tree called the Indian National Congress. This tree did not produce fruits. Rather, it sucked the life out of the ground it grew on, and gave shelter to reptiles and insects and rodents, which in turn preyed on me.

I wish I could write away the twenty years between 1970 and 1990 as a bad dream. Even now, I wake up in the middle of the night, sweating and anxious that the past may return to revive its hold on me. But trust me when I say that I have a short memory and am trying my best to move on.

The damage that Indira wrought was not to my stomach. It was to my psyche. She said, “Garibi Hatao.” I enthusiastically cheered, more in hope and despair simultaneously and not out of belief. As I said, my instincts told me that these were reptiles, rodents and insects. Hope turned to anger and slowly resignation. And then despair, when one of my own turned his back on us and assassinated our Prime Minister. I lost one more familiar face and that hurt me even though I didn’t trust Indira entirely. Her son was another fleeting mirage. I’m told that he did some good for the country, but am not entirely sure what he did for me.

They tell me that we were in a lot of trouble in 1991. And this man named Narasimha Rao bailed us out of this trouble. I didn’t know he was capable of this feat. I voted for him because he was part of this tree that I told you about. Turns out that he wasn’t entirely a reptile. Another fleeting vision as far as I’m concerned.

Things have been getting better in the last twenty years, I’ll happily admit. I’ve got a cell phone. I can see roads being laid. A lot of my friends have left for cities. I see shiny buildings when I visit them. But twenty years is a long time to wait when you have too little to show for it. There was a time I had resigned myself to my fate. Now, I am not being allowed to even do that. I’ve seen things that I now can’t put out of my mind. My aspirations are spinning out of control. My country has changed a lot. And it doesn’t stand by itself any more. The destinies of all countries are now inter linked, they say. I wouldn’t know too much about that. I have no idea what current account deficit means, and why we need foreign investment so we can have supermarkets and megastores. All I know is that there still aren’t enough jobs for my people and things need to get a lot better before we can afford to fritter time on ideological and political debates. I’ve been waiting for a long while. I wish these fellows would get on with the program so my children can have a better future.

What galls me is that, not only are they frittering away precious time but they are using that time to loot my house. There are thieves inside my house, emptying it as I speak and there are folks outside my house yelling “thief.” It’s like I’ve become invisible to both of them. Neither is helping me.

Anna Hazare, God bless him, says he wants to help me. But, I don’t have the time to make it to Jantar Mantar each time he asks. With due respect, he’s not the Mahatma. Those were different days. And they were different men back then. I trust Anna-ji. But he also wants to tie me to a tree and whip me if I try to drown my sorrows in cheap liquor. So I wonder if I should trust a guy who wants to whip me. Like I said, no one helps me anymore.

This chap, Kejriwal, seems to have his heart in the right place. But I don’t believe I’ve ever met him. I guess it’s hard to meet up when one of you feels the need to be in a city and on TV all the time. To Kejriwal, I tell you this. It’s not enough to start an Aam Aadmi party. It’s not even enough to be an Aam Aadmi yourself. You need to come out here and meet me. Don’t tell me about those reptiles. I know about them already. I’ve seen more than fifty years of reptiles. Help me. We’ve been waiting for a Messiah. We’re so jaded that we’ll give you too a chance. And we fear that you too will blow it.

You know what I don’t need? I don’t need sermonizing and moralizing. Don’t tell me things I know. Don’t tell me that I’m illiterate. I know that already. Don’t tell me that I suck because I vote for my religion and caste. I have good reasons for doing so. If anything, my religion and caste guys are the ones who’ve shown up in times of my need over thousands of years. I can’t abandon such instincts easily. Don’t tell me that we need a dictatorship because only dictators can control fools like me. I’m not the fool that I’m made out to be. In fact, quite the contrary. I’m the product of evolutionary intelligence that’s been gathering steam over millions of years. If I’ve come this far in the evolutionary game, I’m pretty sure that I can handle a few reptiles. So don’t tell me anything.  Just step aside and allow me to be. And help, if you can.

I’ve always dreamed of this Messiah in shining armor, who’ll swoop down from the skies and carry us all away into this land where there is freedom and dignity in life. And you know what? I don’t think that’s ever going to happen. I’ve come around to believing that I, and only I, have my fate in my hands. For that, I need to be responsible. I need to change my habits. And I need to stop making excuses and think things through. I know all of this. But it’s going to be a while before I get there. I wonder if we have the time for me to get there. I don’t think there’s another choice. Let’s see how this one plays out.

Until then, although you may call me an Aam Aadmi, keep in mind that I’m anything but ordinary.

Best regards.

Mango (wo)man.

2g scam

In recent times, there has been a spate of arguments from Congress and allies, which essentially boil down to “In 2012, the 2G license auction fetched only Rs. 9,600 Crores, with some sectors going unbid. Hence the CAG’s estimate of a loss of Rs. 1.76 Lakh Crores is inflated.” The detractors of CAG have even gone to the extent of alleging that the CAG is somehow colluding with the Opposition party, BJP, to discredit and smear the government. It is possible that Congress and allies are attempting to create an impression that no wrongdoing occurred at all in the allocation of 2G licenses.

Here’s a little note that might help you understand what this is about. If you’re not familiar with what the 2G scam is about, read this first.

What is the government being accused of?

It’s important to understand that the UPA government is under pressure on two counts: Corruption and incompetence.

Charges of corruption: Corruption is about doing things in an illegal and wrongful manner, which violates the laws of the land. Detractors allege that there was impropriety when the licenses were originally allocated in 2008. The government, in its wisdom, followed a First-Come-First-Served (FCFS) policy in allocating licenses at that time. It is alleged that the government manipulated the FCFS process to favor certain bidders. It is also alleged that these favored bidders may have provided kickbacks. Mr. A. Raja, then Telecom Minister, is under investigation. None of the allegations have been proven in court as yet.

Charges of incompetence: Incompetence is not about illegality or wrongdoing, but about inefficiency. By following FCFS policy, it is alleged that the government may have cost the exchequer a big pile of money.  If the licenses had been auctioned instead of FCFS, they would have fetched higher prices, goes the argument. There is no easy way to estimate such losses. However, the CAG has gone on record estimating the losses at 1.76 Lakh Crores. An auditor, RP Singh, who was part of the CAG’s office, has recently claimed that his estimate of Rs 2,645 Crores was not accepted and that he was coerced by the CAG into going with the higher estimate. Whatever be the case, it appears that the losses are somewhere between Rs. 2645 Cr and Rs. 1.76 Lakh Crores according to these gentlemen.

Here’s how to look at this situation

  1. Any losses, in this case, are notional. Which is to say that the government did not lose money out of pocket. However, notional losses are still losses for the reason that this money, if it had been realized, could have come into government coffers and could have been deployed to other national projects. Loss of revenue is, at the end of the day, a loss suffered by the government. Consider this: If you or I avoided paying income taxes to the government, the government would suffer a loss in tax revenue. If hauled to court, it is unlikely that we would get away by arguing that the government’s loss was notional. So, all losses have real impact, whether you call them notional or otherwise.
  2. It is simply not possible to estimate these losses accurately since there is guesswork and a judgmental aspect to the exercise. There are many ways to evaluate this, and they will yield wildly different results. Hence, it is surprising that the CAG wasted valuable tax payer money on this wild goose chase. If anything, they should have provided a range for their estimates in the interest of maintaining fairness and demonstrating lack of prejudice. It is equally ridiculous for Mr. Kapil Sibal to insist that there were *zero* losses. The fact is we simply don’t and won’t ever know.
  3. Even if it is somehow proved that the government suffered losses, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they have done the wrong thing. One could argue that by deliberately lowering prices of 2G licenses (and thus accepting losses), the government actually ensured that these services were sold at affordable rates to the common man and ensured mass adoption. These are philosophical differences in policy making, and do not imply incompetence or wrongdoing.
  4. On the charges of incompetence: We must give the benefit of doubt to the government. It is, at worst, not clear if the government’s policy of FCFS in 2008 has cost the country dearly. At best, it has worked very well given that 2G adoption in India has been spectacular over the last five years. One could argue that if we had followed the auction route in 2008, we might have obtained the same results. We will never know. Since we got a good result, perhaps we should not quibble with the past and let it go. However, the government’s decision to auction 2G licenses a month back can be questioned. One almost gets the feeling that the Telecom Minister, Mr. Sibal, went out of his way to ensure low prices to prove his earlier “zero loss” theory and may have caused losses to the government in the process. 2G as a technology is now obsolete. In 2012, it may have been the right decision to go with the FCFS method of procurement, instead of going the auction route, which surprised many industry observers.
  5.  On the charges of corruption: The Supreme Court has ruled that there seems to be preliminary evidence of wrongdoing. A Cabinet minister was remanded to custody for over a year. The ball is in the government’s court to prove that there was no corruption of the process followed to hand out licenses under the tenure of Mr. A. Raja. The lack of urgency on the government’s part to settle this matter only serves to fuel suspicion and misgiving.

Report Card

Congress: Fail. For failing to investigate allegations with seriousness and urgency, and for attempting to confuse the public by openly targeting a constitutional authority CAG on a largely irrelevant topic.

BJP – Fail. For failing to argue the case against the government and thus adding to confusion and incoherence in debate.

The argument against capital punishment: “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

Hanging a murderer is to seek retribution and to not attempt his reformation. Death penalty is not ethical since none of us have the right to demand or take another’s life. Death penalty is not an intelligent option as it simply erases the offender and leaves the root cause of the offence untouched. No matter how heinous the crime, it is the society who created the criminal. Hanging the convicted is to cop out of society’s responsibility to rehabilitate the criminal. It is to play an unforgiving God and exercising only the powers of destruction and protection and not the ones of creation. It is a step back in our evolutionary process by perpetuating a destructive ‘tit for tat’ cycle.

The argument for it: “To not punish is to sanction the un-sanctionable.” 

Premeditated murder is unpardonable. It reflects an incorrigible condition which neither time nor hardship can cure. When a human plans in cold blood to seek the extermination of fellow humans, he loses the right to society’s compassion. Not erasing the convicted offender would be to run the risk of repeat offences. Rehabilitating the offender costs money and effort which are better spent on higher priorities with better return on investment. To punish is to deter. To deter is to prevent. To not punish is to sanction the un-sanctionable and violates the trust of citizens. It is to create an environment where everything is viewed through the prism of self-flagellating tolerance.

Adding a new breed of criminal to the mix: The terrorist

The capital punishment debate is complicated as it is. Now add a new breed of criminal to the mix. The terrorist.

The terrorist is an individual who, for various reasons, has chosen to commit premeditated murder. What the terrorist does is definitely not an impersonal war. It is very personal. The terrorist provides no advance warning of the targets, location or time of attack. Several months of planning often go into an attack. It is hardly credible to view terrorists as passionate individuals who lost their heads over some petty provocation and indulged in an impulsive act, and thus ones to regret their actions later and reform. Terrorists represent the fringes of society where the possibility of rehabilitation is the faintest. They are the closest to a lost cause as we can find. Stopping the growth of terrorism is not a lost cause. Reforming terrorists might be. They combine the passion of a temporarily deranged murderer with the cold blooded-ness of a serial killer and the intelligence of an army. If not destroyed, they will destroy. It is us or them. As dramatic as it sounds, that’s the way it looks from the view point of an ordinary citizen.

The Dilemma: Dharmic Retribution or Gandhigiri?

The Supreme Court today upheld death sentence to Ajmal Kasab, who participated in the murder of innocent people during the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai. Should we hang Kasab in our lust for revenge? Or should the President pardon him? Will pardoning terrorists encourage more terrorism or will it stem the flow by winning their hearts and minds?

To pardon a terrorist is to break the inviolable social contract that we the citizens have made with our governments to serve the society and to be protected in return. To extinguish the life of a terrorist is to uphold Dharma on which depends the survival of our society as we know it. A Gandhian style of “blank check” tolerance, as history tells us, can make martyrs out of the tolerant. On the flip side, to forgive Kasab is to take the high road and demonstrate the divinity in us.

If you had the choice: would you choose the power to destroy an enemy? Or, would you choose the power to change his mind? Dharmic retribution or Gandhigiri? This is a tough call in a country which has taught us both.

There’s a fair amount of hand wringing every time an Olympics rolls around. Why does India, a nation of 1.2 Billion people, prove itself incapable of winning even a single gold medal? If there was a gold medal for not winning gold medals, we might not win even that, it seems. Why do we fare so poorly in the Olympics? Should we blame our sports bodies run by corrupt politicians? Do we blame our athletes? And for what? Here’s my very different take on why Indians have fared poorly in competitive sports.

Differences in mythologies

There is a famous tale in Greek mythology, which features prominently in Homer’s Illiad. It’s the tale of how Achilles, the brooding, flawed and yet the most celebrated of the Greek heros assembled on the shores of Troy to storm its walls, seeks to avenge the death of his friend, Patroclus. Blinded by anger, Achilles destroys the Trojan army and challenges Hector, the crown prince of Troy to combat. In this combat, Hector meets his end at the hands of Achilles. Homer’s description of  Hector’s valiant but vain heroics in this combat is one of the highlights of the Illiad.

Incidentally, this tale has a parallel in our own Mahabharata – when Arjuna swears revenge on Jayadratha, the King of Sindh (“Saindhava”) on hearing about the fall of his son, Abhimanyu, in battle. The anger of Achilles and Arjuna is said to have been so terrible that even “the Gods did not dare cross their paths and stood by.”

There are interesting similarities in the heroics of Arjuna, the son of Kunti, and Achilles, the son of Thetis (a sea goddess). There are distinct differences as well. In fact, there are similarities and differences between the Mahabharatha and the Illiad themselves, both stories of epic battles that defined generations to come.

The difference in the psyche

One of the differences might shed light on why we, Indians, have never really done well on the world stage in sports and athletics, especially in events such as the Olympic Games.

To illustrate this difference, let’s go back to what happens after Achilles and Arjuna satiate their lust for revenge.

That evening, Achilles sits brooding in his tent, unable to come to terms with the death of his dearly beloved Patroclus. The slain corpse of Hector, chained to his chariot, lies outside in the dirt. He slowly comes to his senses at the urging of the ghost of Patroclus, and relinquishes Hector’s body to his father, King Priam of Troy, who comes in the darkness of the night to plead for it. Now somewhat appeased, he decides to mourn his best friend in a manner only the Greeks can. He conducts the grandest of funeral games, which start with an invocation to Zeus, the King of Gods, who resides on Olympus. Warriors compete for the grandest of prizes in these games, which include chariot races, boxing, spear throwing and wrestling. Odysseus, the King of Ithaca, and Aias (“Ajax”), a cousin of Achilles, who are two of the greatest Greek heros, compete in boxing. Homer sings as euphorically of the exploits of the warriors in these games as he does of their heroics on the battlefield. It is said that the Trojans gathered and watched in awe as these great warriors competed.

In contrast, Arjuna, on fulfilling his vow of destroying Jayadratha before sunset, seeks refuge in his tent, where he’s consoled by Krishna, who reminds him of the ephemeral nature of life. The ancient Indians did not conduct games either in celebration or mourning.

We’ve shaped ourselves differently

The ancient Greeks took their games very seriously. To them, it symbolized “dominance.” The ancient Indians viewed soundness of the body as a stepping stone towards an ultimate goal of happiness. They took Yoga shaastra, which extols flexibility of body and mind and connects one with the other, very seriously. The ancient Indians emphasized “flexibility”, not competition. There is not a single (significant) example of a sporting event in the Indian mythology. As a side note, the flexibility of the Indian culture may have allowed it to survive, and the rigidity of the Greeks may have caused its dominance to dissipate.  I’m not being judgmental about either. This is how it seems it was.

The western world, first the Romans and then everyone else who came later, modeled itself after the ancient Greeks. Much as we like to describe them as a “celebration of human spirit”, the modern Olympic games are a reflection of the ancient Greek concept of dominance and physical superiority. We, in India, of course, carried on with the ancient Indian tradition of a “non-competitive, stepping stone” approach to physical fitness.

This may just be a clue to answering the question, “Why does a nation of 1.2 billion people struggle to win a medal in the Olympics?” The answer may lie in the way we’ve shaped ourselves from thousands of years back. We’ve never been competitive in sports. None of our mythologies bear any testimony to sporting feats. Why should it be any different in 2012? Why should it be different because we now have over a billion people?

Should we change?

Should we, like China, find a way to overcome our historical bias against competitive sports, and build sports factories which produce soul-less athletes? When it comes right down to it, what should the Olympic Games stand for? Should it continue to be an exercise in which one tribe or nation demonstrates its superiority over another? Or should it simply reflect the extraordinary human spirit?

If it is truly the latter, is there really a difference between an Indian winning a bronze in boxing, and a Botswanan winning a gold in 800m? Both exemplify human spirit, and should give us equal joy.

One of the fun moments I’ve had in recent times happened when driving through a Greek village in the Peloponnese. We stopped to ask for directions. As we conversed, the old Greek gentleman, with his ten day old white stubble and crooked teeth, smiled and said, “Aren’t you Indian? We Greeks and Indians are old friends.” Yes, sir, we are old friends with great traditions, I thought. And, we respect each other. But, we’ve shaped ourselves very differently.

I, for one, do not mourn our lack of medals in the Olympics. I, like a Trojan, prefer to watch in awe as the great warriors compete, even if they are Greeks. We Indians have a tradition in embracing greatness and truth wherever it is to be found. Let’s not lose sight of that in our angst to produce more “winners.”

I’m writing about something that happened a long time back. In fact, it was so long back that I was in 8th standard in school. My school was run by the Church of South India. The class was an eclectic mix of rich and not-so-rich, mostly Tamil, Malayali and Telugu speaking, Christian, Muslim and Hindu kids. The common ‘profiles’, as I recall, were the good old fashioned Tamil Brahmin kids, Malayali Christian kids, Tamil speaking Telugu kids who grew up in Chennai as well as those Tamil kids from other parts of Tamil Nadu like Salem, Madurai and Trichi. The last mentioned group of kids came from affluent families who owned vast areas of agrarian real estate and which had made their fortunes on the backs of farmers who tilled their ill gotten land, and now wanted their wards to enjoy a good ‘city’ education.

Needless to say, it made interesting conversation when Sushil Koshi Babukutten, Sanjay Rao (a Telugu kid from Chennai), Saravanan (Tamil Gounder kid from Madurai), Abdul Kader and moi sat down for our afternoon lunch. The conversation mostly centered around the various unflattering attributes of our teachers as usual. The collective innocence of our group was such that none of us had any idea of the schisms that existed between our communities. Yes, I had vaguely overheard conversations in family gatherings about ‘anti-brahmin’ activities in our state. Not having encountered any first hand evidence on this front, I paid little attention to such things. I was more interested in cricket, football, marks and getting homework done on time. And, I suspect, that was the case with the others too.

We were the distinguished denizens of the last row in the class. As to why we had been banished to the last row – there were many theories. I attributed it to my height. Unfortunately, the rest of the group did not have the ability to make such claims. We all suspected that we had been identified as ‘trouble makers’ and segregated in the last row where we could make the least possible trouble. And I also suspect that we all agreed with this assessment.

Abdul Kader was a classic trouble maker. Every school has a don. Abdul was ours. He was flamboyant. He was ruthless. And he set new standards in academic non-performance. His crowning accomplishment came in a quarterly exam when his total of 32 in all subjects failed to cross the passing grade of 35 for one subject. This achievement did not go unnoticed by Mr. Jayaraman, our maths teacher, who’d seen many Abduls come and go in his time. While handing out Abdul’s answer sheet he remarked, “You’ve attempted 3 out of 20 questions. To say that you’ve attempted them is going a bit too far given that you’ve got zero on 100.” Abdul smiled. Mr. Jayaraman was not a man to let such things so very easily. He was well aware of Abdul’s reputation as our don. Such things were mere trifle to him when it came to discussing competency in the Pythagorean method. “Abdul, tell me why you come to school. You’ve spent 2 years in each standard. At this rate, you’ll still be here when your friends have finished college.”  Abdul nonchalantly replied, “Sir, in that case, I’ll skip college and join my friends.” Keenly aware of his inability to influence Abdul, Mr. Jayaraman let go, knowing that he needed to hand out answer sheets to other kids who were by now on tenterhooks waiting for the verdict. He let go, and moved on. Abdul raised both hands in a winning pose like a boxer, and smiled again.

Abdul may have been our don. But, he was the don with the heart of gold. Once he came up to me and said, “You are a “padikarra payyan” (studious kid). If anyone gives you trouble, let me know. I’ll handle it.” Abdul’s reputation was legendary. For starters, he was well connected. His elder brother was the Don of 10th grade. Senior ‘goons’ from that grade would seek Abdul’s counsel. He was always accompanied by his posse wherever he went. He rode a motorbike to school, and generally his arrival or departure from a room or building was a much heralded event. There were also rumors of his ruthless ability to ‘straighten out’ those who did not adhere to his ‘laws’. He would bring us juicy tales of fights with bus conductors, roadside vendors and auto rickshaw drivers. The tales would always end with how he vanquished his enemies. The message was pretty simple and clear. “Don’t mess with me.”

Sushil’s parents lived in ‘the Gulf’. For the longest time, I had no idea what the ‘gulf’ was. I thought it was a town in Kerala. Occasionally, he’d tell us that his parents were coming down to Chennai. After every one of these visits, he’d always come back loaded with something ‘cool’ and ‘mysterious’. I remember that he once brought a Sony Walkman to class, which had headphones and we listened to the Beatles on it. He always dressed smartly, and set new fashion trends in school. He was always smiling. In fact, I do not remember ever seeing him upset or angry at anything. He would make light of the worst of predicaments and counseled us to do the same. In each group, you always have a kid who assumes the ‘elder brother’ role. Sushil was our elder brother. He was wise beyond his years, and always lent a willing ear to our problems. As the elder brother, he also felt obliged to be our group’s financier. He had chockfull of cash, and spent it liberally on ground nuts, grape juice or an occasional Gold Spot for his friends. In return for Sushil’s solutions to life’s problems, I coached him in mathematics. He had one of the worst phobias of numbers I’ve ever seen. Confronted with a simple and straightforward problem, he would freeze with furrowed brows and glazed eyes. After a few minutes, he’d look up and say, “I have no idea what to do.” It amazed me that such a wise man could not comprehend that ‘a*(b+c) =a*b +a*c’. My attempts to tune him into the magic world of numbers proved futile, as time would tell.

Sushil was our hero. He was smart, well dressed and articulate. We all jostled to be seen with him in public. He always had a few kids around him at any point, hanging on to his stories of foreign jaunts. Sushil had a ‘VCR’ at home, and he would come to school every day and tell us the tale of the movie he had watched the previous evening. He stayed with his indulgent grand parents, and made the most of it. He had covered major ground in travel and film watching at the ripe age of 12, and this added to his reputation of wisdom and maturity. Sushil’s most endearing quality was that he treated his friends well. He never had an unkind or sarcastic word for us. He would save us from embarrassment and take it upon himself. He was truly our elder brother who watched out for us. I cared for him so much that I nursed a deep concern about his deficiencies in the field of mathematical sciences. He usually dismissed such concerns with a sweeping “I’ll join my dad’s business in the gulf once this is over. All you need to do is to help me pass.” I swore that I’d do what was humanly possible to get that done.

Saravanan was a typical Tamil speaking Gounder kid, who resisted all attempts to speak to him in any language other than Tamil. His stoic silence to questions posed in other languages masked his lack of comprehension of them. He was medium height, dark with a longish face, and applied liberal amounts of oily substances to his hair. His hair was always neatly combed, with a curl down his forehead, which he guarded vigilantly. He was a boy of very few words. He spoke rarely, and on very few subjects. He was affiliated with another group of kids, who were commonly referred to as ‘hostel kids’. They were his fellow inmates of the school’s hostel, and his hostel network was far and wide. Saravanan was not the first ranker in class. But he was not known to do shabbily either. His consistency in staying in the middle ranks was admired by those in the lower ranks. Nothing perturbed him. No one perturbed him. He was a cactus, who survived on very little water, in the unfamiliar desert of a Chennai school. He was not the most sociable character. Occasionally, all one would get out him by way of response was a grunt. And that was generally well received when it happened.

Sanjay was the kid with whom I related more than others, though he came from a more affluent background than mine. He came from a higher-than-middle class, but not-quite-rich family. His dad was a teacher in our school, and made a fortune from teaching mathematics ‘tuition’ to the rich 12th standard students in our school. Sanjay was seen speaking Telugu to some kids, and Tamil to us, which I found very impressive at that impressionable age. Sanjay tried very hard to create his own niche in the school, but struggled till the end to find that spot in the sun. Otherwise, he was well regarded by his peers, and was known to be Sushil’s right-hand man and confidante.

The year was 1980. We had just returned from summer vacation to start eighth grade. And, that’s when things changed. For starters, our seating arrangements had been re-shuffled to our nasty surprise. Instead of Sushil and Sanjay, I had Saravanan and another kid on my sides. I took it in my stride, although I knew that neither of my neighbors could be placed in the eloquently social category. To my surprise, Saravanan appeared more talkative than usual. He doled out tales of family gatherings during the summer, trips to far flung villages and attendance at what appeared to be political meetings. Slowly, I gathered that Saravanan’s father enjoyed the company of politicians, and made liberal donations to such causes. He mentioned prominent names, and would casually slip out details of their having had ‘tiffen’ or tea at his house. All this was fine but boring. Patiently, I nodded my head way through his ramblings. To me, Anbazhagan’s appearance in Saravanan’s house was not very exciting stuff. And then, one fine day, Saravanan mentioned Periyaar.

It’s probably pertinent to pause here and examine what I knew about Periyaar at that point. Amidst my indifference to politics and political talk, I had, by then, ingested some details on Periyaar. I knew that he was part of some movement which didn’t relish the sight of Brahmins in the state. I’d also heard stories about how Periyaar didn’t believe in God, and how he had once garlanded a deity in a temple with footwear. These stories didn’t endear Periyaar to me. I was also aware of the fact that I was brahmin. So, I made the simple inference that if Periyaar hated Brahmins and if I was a brahmin, then Periyaar and I would not get along well. That I wouldn’t get along with Periyaar didn’t bother me. I had more on my mind in those days, and did not ponder this issue deeply. In essence, I knew who Periyaar was, and where he stood in my book.

So, when Saravanan mentioned Periyaar, I listened. He talked about what his dad had told him about Periyaar. He talked about the things Periyaar had done for the people. At this point, Saravanan made an important mistake. He loudly proclaimed (so loud that others could hear clearly) that Periyaar had once said, “If you see a snake and a Brahmin, kill the Brahmin first,” and he laughed. By now, the rest of the class had heard this and there was pin drop silence in the room. Even our class teacher who was grading papers stopped and looked up when he heard the silence. He, however, had not heard what Saravanan had said. I could feel fifty pairs of eyes on me. I could see Saravanan’s mocking smile looking back at me to sense my reaction. Slowly he drawled, “So, what do you think about Periyaar and what I said?” I was livid, not at Periyaar but at Saravanan. And I knew I looked livid. “Why don’t you try saying it one more time and I’ll tell you what I think,” the threat was obvious in my voice and I stood up.

By this time, our class teacher, Mr. Rufus Jeyakumar, got up from his chair and had started walking towards us. Saravanan stood up and repeated the statement about snakes and Brahmins. He didn’t get to finish his sentence. The next thing I remember was throwing a punch straight into his mouth, and blood trickling from it. Saravanan swung his arm back, and I was ready by now. I had him pinned under my armpit, and we both collapsed on the table with books and pencils and paper flying around. Mr. Rufus just stood by and watched, as I was told later. That afternoon, Saravanan got the beating of his life. When it was over and I got up, Mr. Rufus looked at me calmly and said, “Are you done? He asked for it. And, you gave it to him. If it happens again, I’ll give it to both of you.” And he walked away.

I’ve remembered this incident all these days, because this was my first direct encounter with bigotry and communal hatred. I didn’t know enough to comprehend why it was there. Nor was I wise enough then to walk away in dignity. But, I learnt that the bigotry was there. I could see it in Saravanan’s eyes. I found it confusing that, only a few months back, the hatred was not there and we’d been just a couple of kids horsing around. In many ways, that was the beginning of the end of our innocence.

This was originally written by me in June 2006. Reproduced in-toto in 2012. If you’re a Madras Christian College school alum who remembers those days, do get in touch. 

Self Awareness - You might not like what you see!

There are inconsiderate human beings that occupy this planet in every village, town, city and country. Even so, I wouldn’t be straying far from the truth when I say that we Indians occupy a special place in the pantheon of insensitivity. We are a nation of uncaring, indifferent boors, whose lives are only occasionally punctuated by those (increasingly rare) Satyameva Jayate moments, when we sit down and pretend to care about our fellow citizens.

The Inconsiderate Indian

Our indifference manifests in countless exotic ways. It could take the form of spit impelled out of a window of a moving bus or car. It showcases itself in how we drive on the other side of the road, passing those who wait patiently for the light to turn green. Our selfishness blossoms when presented with a long line in front of a small counter with a harassed clerk, and plots clever ways to cut through and get around the indignity of waiting. Mindless road/traffic planners, rude hospital staff, robotically insensitive school principals, gossiping colleagues, uncaring airport staff.. The list goes on. So, it should come as no surprise when our leaders display the same inconsideration that we have so carefully cultivated amongst ourselves. Yet, it surprises us when we hear that our ministers have been pilfering from us, promoting their sons and daughters and circumventing the laws of the land to suit their purposes.

There is one potentially redeeming aspect of the Inconsiderate Indian, which suggests that this condition might not, in fact, be incorrigible. Our strain of inconsideration largely stems from indifference and mindlessness, and is less insidious than its cousin variety that breeds on malice and ill-will. We’re not a malicious people, by and large. But, we, surely, are dim witted. Mindlessness and indifference are progeny of foolishness. In fact, that may be the best piece of information we have at our disposal. That we are mere fools and not evil monsters like what the chinese system has perpetrated. Of course, the worry remains that our behavior is not really borne of our idiocy and it reflects our true selves. In any case, idiocy, in my book, is a far lesser crime compared to malice and leaves room for hope that we may yet overcome this failing someday.

Why are we a nation of dimwitted fools?

Never mind Viswanathan Anand. Never mind that Silicon Valley genius engineer, who invented that clever thing that lets us search the internet. Never mind Homi Bhabha. Never mind J.C. Bose and C. V. Raman. Never mind that ours is the land of Buddha and the Vedas. Never mind the nostalgia from having invented zero. Make no mistake about it. We are a nation of fools. There’s no dearth of evidence or fools, to support this hypothesis, in our otherwise lovely nation.

So, what’s the solution?

This is the tricky part. There are two reasons why this is tricky.

The first part of the trickiness has to do with the possibility that there may exist no solution. There is no magic wand to wave or potion you could force down throats that could rid us of our insufferable mindlessness. I like to think that if there was one, we, in spite of our stupidity, would have found it by now. These sort of things, especially those that involve senselessness, take time to work through. The process of working through stuff is called evolution. Unfortunately, the way evolution seems to be working at the moment, it appears to be favoring the fools. One hopes that this trend will correct itself. If not, we will extinguish ourselves and the problem will solve itself.

Second, I cannot, in good conscience, issue a clarion call to corrective action to you, my reader. For, it would somehow imply that you, the reader, are part of this clan of fools, a notion which seems at odds with the fact that you are a What Ho! reader. What Ho! readers may be misguided. But, they are erudite. They like the finer things in life like What Ho!. They may be many things. But, they are no fools. I say this with sincerest respect and in the fondest hope of retaining your patronage.

Seriously, why are we a nation of fools?

Even a tiny North African country with 10 million people and nothing more than sandy deserts, has found a way to build roads, run hospitals, operate shiny airports and promote civility. I think, the truth is that we, at some fundamental level, seem to revel in our foolishness. We call it jugaad. We call it ‘street smarts’. Our brains work overtime to figure out detours. We are a nation of arrogant, self-centered people which believes that its brand of perverted intelligence is somehow superior because it helps beat the odds. We are a society of fools that celebrates the most ‘jugaadi’ fools. I, for one, take no pride in our jugaad. To me, jugaad is a symptom of how low we have fallen. It is a sign that evolution is favoring the energetic fools amongst us.

The smart thing is to take the straight roads and drive faster. Somewhere along the line, we have forgotten this inconvenient truth. How about more sense and less jugaad?

I’m unable to recall how I came across The Thought Pad, a blog written by Tanya Singhal. But, I’m glad I did. And I’ve been a regular reader for a while now. Ms. Singhal is a Ph.D. student now in Europe, after finishing her master’s program in the United States. She writes about a lot of things, but mostly chronicles life as a graduate student. It might be just a ‘teeny weeny blog’ as she describes it. But, there’s some high quality writing on there. I have a pretty good feeling that we’re seeing an author in the making. Check out The Thought Pad, subscribe or follow or whatever it is that you normally do when you find a great blog. I asked Tanya if she’d write a piece for What Ho! and she did. And, here it is. A guest post from Tanya Singhal on the impracticality of a Utopian fantasy.

Is a perfect society possible?

Can a perfect society exist? Is the existence of a flawless society of humans possible? Well, I ain’t got any frikkin’ ideah.

So after reading some of the works of 20th century on such political matters (Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 451), all of them being set in a futuristic ‘deemed-to-be-perfect’ societies, I wondered and wondered and wondered at every page I turned. Not only did they remind me of Swift’s Gulliver Travels (the work which I think is the true daddy of them all in this aspect), they made me ask myself the question that I very obscenely pasted into the title of this post.

My answer, to that, would prolly begin by asking the definition of “perfect”. Does perfect mean that the happiness index is highest? Or does it mean that the rate of progress in science or art is highest? Because, my humble and idle reader, you must clearly see, that “meanings” of “perfect” are quite contrary to other in terms of parallel sustenance. ‘Perfect’ being a very mean word on its own. When we’re all happy, nobody would bother progressing, and when we’re progressive, all of us won’t be equally happy. There.

But what I just said, is nothing new. We all know that and also that, that I merely dodged the question (that I myself posed in the first place) in the most hideous and pedantic manner. To answer now, I’d say, it’s really hard to have a perfect society. At least the kind of society in which perfect means the way I see it. And the way I see it, “perfect” means so much and encompasses that very much, that by logic, it defeats perfection itself, reaches a state beyond perfection, which I call the perfect-perfection, and so it becomes unattainable, in fact, rather unthinkable.

On our road to perfection, we might begin by dissolving differences, by diluting the variations of color, caste, creed, language – which I believe are foremost in requirements (if there were any) but then how formless or bland that society would be? How plaintive would be the morphology of such a society which has no differences or shades or nuances? But then, in our pursuit of those differences, we pose the risk of losing equality. And even if we do manage to bring everything to equality, can we really control conditioning (or bringing up of a human) so flawlessly that it achieves our set standards and goals? And if we do, where are we headed? To a brave new world? Oh Lord! Oh Ford!

And so I’d stop the rant, and recommend Thomas More’s Utopia for further reading if you really cared and didn’t hit the little cross on the top right hand corner so far. For, Utopia is a perfect place and a place that, literally, doesn’t exist.

The author, Tanya Singhal, is a Ph.D. student in Science, and blogs at The Thought Pad

Post image for Everything you’ve wanted to know about the 2G scam

There’s a storm brewing in this country, in the form of the alleged 2G scam, which has the potential to unseat the government. Given the complexity of this case, and our own lack of time to comprehend what’s being reported, not to mention who to believe about what, I figured I’d put together a simple dossary of facts and observations on this. Here’s everything you’ve always wanted to know about the 2G scam but were too afraid to ask.

Pertinent Facts 

1. 2G is a technology used to provide voice and data services by operators such as Vodafone, Airtel, BSNL, etc

2. Offering voice and data services requires something called spectrum – a band of frequency specifically allocated for this purpose – which is allocated to qualified operators.

3. Spectrum is scarce because it is limited to a specific band of frequencies.

4. To the seller, spectrum is free. There is no cost to creating spectrum since it’s simply the right to use air waves. This complicates things when you try to price it. If something cost Rs. 100, you could add a profit and arrive at a price for it. When a good does not have any intrinsic cost, pricing is subjective and purely driven by demand.

5. In countries all over the world including India, spectrum is treated as a national asset very much like land owned by the government, and sold by governments to buyers in the form of licenses.

6. To the buyer, spectrum is not free since there are limits to availability, and further because governments would like to derive income from the sale, just as they would if they sold a public sector company to private sector

7. The price paid for spectrum by operators affects the tariffs offered by them. As the price goes higher, so will the tariffs since operators have to recover their costs and make profits on the services offered

8. If the prices offered by operators are too high, the common man may not able to afford the services. So, it is not surprising that a government could deliberately set a low price for licenses so as to enable telecom services to reach the masses.

9. If the government deliberately under-prices spectrum, it need not necessarily be misconstrued as “losses to the exchequer”. In any case, any and all “losses” are notional since the government is not losing money out of its pocket. They are “lost” revenue (what could have been).

10. Hence it is the responsibility of governments to devise a proper mechanism so A. operators have a free and fair shot at winning spectrum bids. This creates a conducive business environment and promotes competition in the country which in turn benefits the customer. B. ultimately the needs of common people (consumers) are met, in the form of reasonable tariffs at adequate quality

11. There are several methods to selling a national asset. A couple are 1. Auctions – there are many types of auctions. Highest bid auction is the most well known. 2. First Come First Served (FCFS) – typically used to sell a distressed asset for which there are few takers

12. For something like 2G licenses which are in great demand and have high value and counterbalanced by the need to promote telecom services to the masses, selecting the procurement method is not simple and straightforward.

What happened

1. The NDA govt mooted the idea of First Come First Served. It was never made into policy or ratified by the PMO/Cabinet at that time.

2. The UPA govt which followed continued the FCFS line of thinking and converted it into policy. This was led by Dayanidhi Maran first and executed by A. Raja who followed him. Apparently, the PMO had objections, although I’m not sure exactly what and how forcefully they made them. Net of the story is that FCFS came to be the policy

3. The Telecom Minister A. Raja led the process of procurement – in which it is alleged that favoritism was exhibited in the FCFS process. In other words, some companies were prevented from coming in first, others were favored and another lot of them decided to stay out of the fray not fancying their chances.

4. A number of winners came out of this process – a good number of which turned out to be companies unconnected to Telecom. Some of them were clearly real estate companies and entered the fray for the sole purpose of not creating a telecom business but to re-sell their licenses to an operator for a profit. Think of them as touts and blackmarketeers who buy movie tickets in bulk in advance and sell to movie watchers for a profit. However, there is nothing illegal about a real estate company buying a telecom license, especially if the govt considered them “qualified buyers” when they bought them.

5.  Some of the companies who ended up as “winners” of 2G licenses, promptly turned around and sold their licenses to foreign operators for a hefty profit. The questions that this raises are: A. Did the govt have the right policy in place? B. Did they implement the policy fairly? C. Was the process of bidding subverted in favor of a few, friendly buyers? D. Couldn’t the profit made by these fly-by-night operators (adds upto to Rs. 20K crores+) have been made by the govt instead? E. Were there any individuals or companies who benefited illegally from this? In short, this looked and smelled like a scam when these details came out four years back.

A landmark Supreme Court judgement earlier this week

Earlier in the week, SC quashed 122 licenses granted by the government and asked for these licenses to be re-bid. The court did not place culpability or guilt on any specific person. Instead, it commented on the inherent unfairness of the FCFS buying policy as it pertained to sale of 2G licenses and also on the shoddy way it was implemented by the govt.

It also asked a Trial Court to decide if there should be a probe into the role of Home Minister, P. Chidambaram, who was Finance Minister during the period the licenses were awarded.

Observations

To even the most naive and under-informed observer, it is clear that there’s something rotten in Denmark. This smells like a scam. The reluctance of the govt to act/correct for four long years adds fuel to the speculative fire. This has gone on long enough. Our Prime Minister needs to speak up.

The UPA govt and the Congress party are trying to put lipstick on a pig when they blame the NDA govt. Blaming the NDA govt for FCFS is like Dhoni blaming Sourav Ganguly for losing in Australia. They are barking up the wrong tree. The Govt should stop patronizing the people of India and come right out and admit if there were mistakes, and penalize those who committed them. Their reluctance makes one wonder how deep this rot goes.

The BJP has done a poor job of holding people’s attention to pertinent details of this scam. The usual cry of the BJP to call for the resignation of the PM or Chidambaram is likely to fall on deaf ears as the party has 1. done nothing to expose the corruption 2. done nothing to merit their status as an opposition party. In fact, every statement made by BJP may actually weaken the case against the govt. Nothing works worse than a bad argument for a good cause.

Does the SC judgement mean that our cell phone tariffs are going to go up? Well, the telecom companies whose licenses are cancelled cover only 5% of the subscribers. It’s unlikely that prices will go up because of this judgement. The prices may go up for other reasons like  prices have gone far too low for operators to make profits in this market.

There are a few free-spirited individuals like Subramanian Swamy and Prashant Bhushan who have used a simple weapon called the “Public Interest Litigation” to carry the torch. It’s these folks we have to thank. May their tribe increase.

Update: The trial court has dismissed the petition from Subramanian Swamy to initiate a probe against P. Chidambaram. Subramanian Swamy has the option to appeal this judgement in the High Court and then the Supreme Court. Interestingly, Swamy’s petition to quash licenses was first rejected by the High Court before the Supreme Court upheld it. This legal battle is far from over.

There are some details which I’ve skipped to keep this readable. Do write back with your observations. And yes, do share with folks who might be interested in knowing more. Cheers.