Misplaced outrage

Thanks to the recent stream of Indian news that I have been getting via DirecTV I am hearing much more about the current 2G scam and shady conversations between Niira Radia and journalists than any other Indian news in the last 8 years.

The internet is full of blogs, comments and articles castigating Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi for their conversations with Radia that seem to border on the unethical. While all the criticism may be warranted, I am personally appalled at how misplaced it is! The whole episode may showstreaks of substandard journalism, but it pales in comparison to the actual scam and the focus of the tapes: the conversations and horsetrading of politicians.

So after a democratic election, one party tries to browbeat the other by demanding juicy portfolios for its kith and kin, many of which have been at least suspected of corruption before. The other party entertains this notion merely because it wishes to come to power. One might say "what's new in that, we always knew politicians were scum". Exactly! How can journalists evoke so much outrage while politicians are treated with an almost defeatist pithy!

Neither Niira Radia nor Barkha Dutt make utter fools out of us. We didn't elect them. We didn't elect their bosses. So we neither employ them, nor do we pay them. Nor do we trust them with our own money. One can be safely removed from one's everyday life, while the other can be easily switched off. So why so much outrage over someone else's employee when our own government employees are so inept, corrupt and incorrigible? What about these leeches--politicians? Such is their shamelessness that they will garner our votes on the names of such non-issues as caste, religion, community, or a simple claim that they are the least of all evils. And then they will loot our money (yes ours, we don't just print crores of rupees), in effect making us seem foolish, and then be right back to get our votes four years later (if we are lucky). Why no public outcry for them?

If Barkha Dutt is forced to resign, will we be satisfied or will we demand a possible ethical investigation against her? Since when is resigning from a plum post any punishment? Day in and day out politicians thump their chests and claim that while their party forced their chief ministers to resign, the opposition did no such thing. Since when is that punishment?

If Dutt and Sanghvi wish to clear their name, let them follow these politicians like hawks and refuse to kill this story with time. If it takes a year to finally file charges and prosecute, so be it. I fail to understand how there cannot be enough TV time with 24x7 news channels. There is plenty of room, if you're looking to fill it meaningfully. Please don't claim esoteric discussions in a cosy studio as the only contribution that you can make. You can do much more: you have important lobbyists and politicians talking to you. If they think you're that important, its time to capitalize it instead of protecting it. I promise them--that will satisfy their TRP hunger more than anything.

What can the public do? I really think we should shun elections once. There has to be a law about election quorum. We will lose crores of rupees in a wasted election, but that can be gained back by preventing a single scandal that any of our elected representatives will incorrigibly cause.

Us fragile souls

Comedy is no longer limited to the Shiv Sena. I used to find it hilarious that the Shiv Sena claimed at the drop of a hat that the sensibilities of the Marathi manoos (i.e. me) were hurt when anybody did anything that the Shiv Sena did not approve of. Then came the "Billu Barber" controversy that shockingly the courts approved of! Now it borders on the silly and frivolous:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Dhobi-community-sues-Aamirs-Dhobi-Ghat/articleshow/6611691.cms

This time sanity prevailed and the judge saw the PIL for what it was: a publicity stunt meant to get cheap attention. Political correctness has turned into reality TV, and it is not simply limited to India. Initially I thought frivolous lawsuits like these were a by-product of the American justice system that works so efficiently that it has the time and resources to devote to such claims. But I was wrong.

Let's humour this particular case. The petitioner claimed that the film "Dhobi Ghat" had nothing to do with a dhobi ghat. And according to an act of law, it is a punishable offence to call somebody by their caste name. Really? I'd like to see their politically correct caste certificate that is issued by the same Government that enacts this law. Once again, if the storyline were the autobiography of a dhobi, would it make this law moot? Apparently not, because Billu Barber was the story of a barber.

May be the clothes cleanliness provider will go to the hair maintenance expert for some advice! By the way, should the judge be called a judge? Its so judgmental!

Institutionalized bribery

We all know the extent of corruption in India. I was recently told about two such glowing examples:

1. When a friend of mine booked a flat in Mumbai, he was asked to pay a certain "booking" amount by the builder. The booking amount contained legitimate government fee and a set fee for bribing the corporation officials so that the deal goes through. The bribe was quoted as part of the booking amount!

2. Apparently one can get a passport in India without any verification. Agents quote a fee that is roughly double that of the normal amount. Half of it goes towards bribing the passport officer and the police so that there are no hassles. In a truly perverse reversal of roles, the applicant is supposed to visit the police station to verify that he is indeed who he says he is. The original intent of the police enquiry was that the police would be able to verify the permanent address claimed by the applicant.

The first instance is almost a case of social evolution. The main cause of bribery in India is inadequate pay. The first instance effectively increases the pay packet of these officials. A set bribe for a particular operation almost makes it detailed and deterministic enough for tax purposes! The second one is purely dangerous: think of who can get an Indian passport this way!

Where morals have failed, technology has succeeded. The only way to weed out these parasites is to make them obsolete. One can imagine how many bribes stopped changing their resident pockets when the Government of India allowed one laptop per international traveler entering India! The illegal railway touting business went out of business with the ability to book tickets online.

My limited experience with passports leads me to believe that the state of the passport authority is roughly what railways was about 2 decades ago before computerization. How else can one explain a renewal application finding its way to the office that issued the expiring passport? I simply fail to understand how the government of a country that is the object of envy of the world as an insane IT producer cannot embrace IT in all its branches. Maybe the politicians have long realized what I am realizing now: technology will strip the grease right off their palms!

An "easier" computer science

Contrary to the situation in India where everybody is dying to be a computer engineer whether they like it or not, the situation in the US is quite opposite. Computer science has been plagued with major recruitment problems, many factual and other mythical. Almost all universities struggle with student recruitment in the IT field, a scenario that was as amusing to me as somebody actually wanting to be darker than they are :-) As I have crossed over to the side of academia, I realize the seriousness of this problem and the solutions being proposed to address it. My take on the whole thing is that it is a largely perceptual problem, and at least some solutions, according to me, seem to address it by creating other erroneous perceptions.

The first major hurdle in convincing someone to take up computer science as a career is its difficulty. Indeed, subjects like operating systems, algorithms, system programming and even flat-out application programming are not for the faint-hearted. My take on the issue is: that is precisely what makes them so special. The reward of mastering something that is inherently difficult is great! The question is, how does one convince others of this?

There have been great efforts at making computer science more "fun" in the classroom, almost all of which I support. There is teaching algorithms through games, programming through commodity applications like multimedia, programming using the iPhone or Droid both of which are immensely popular among consumers, etc. All of these examples represent the "coming out" of computer science, from a field based in mathematics to a field that is responsible for all the digital fun in this world. The fact is that even the biggest bully on the block who would ridicule nerds cannot go one day without some digital gizmo. So why not make the connection between using it and creating it? I wish we had some of this when I was in college.

But efforts to portray computer science as "easy" or commodity defeats the purpose. Are we really sending the correct message by saying there is something that is simultaneously lucrative and easy? College education should be as much about personal prestige as it is about getting a job. It is a great feeling to hold a college degree: why would it be if "anybody" could do it? A college degree is and should be the result of consistent hard work and about mastering skills that are worthy of the money that they will bring in.

One of the subjects that is simplified and diluted to make it "easy" is programming. Programming is like what mathematics is in school: everybody says its important, but it just appears too difficult. In every programming class that I have taught or been a part of, there have been people who struggle throughout the semester (and many more after it), and others who snap their fingers on their way to an A grade. Many introductory programming courses start by taking a "word processing" approach to programming: click here, drag that and you have a running program. It does make it look easy, and there may very well be some who are attracted towards computer science because of it. But it portrays the field incorrectly, as these students realize in more advanced courses. Instead of portraying programming as "so easy even a caveman can do it", why not portray it as "its difficult, but look what you can do once you know it"? I think an honest introduction of the subject would be that it is tough, but always enjoyable. My personal experience has been that programming simply fortifies that age-old truth: "no gains without pains". You want to act smart and make money: you have to work hard. Isn't that true of all lucrative professions?

Another myth about computer science is the seeming dullness of those who adopt it. Nerdy bespectacled people working in their dark cubicles and talking to nothing but their monitors, seemingly without a life in general. Now I know all the computer scientists of today will readily debunk that scenario, but that is what the rest of the world really thinks about us! I have a two-pronged defense against this myth.

First, the seemingly sedentary nature of this job is also its strength. We are one of the few types of engineers who can work very hard in the comfort of a chair and a controlled indoor environment! It is what makes this field perhaps the only one to offer "remote" jobs: people working for a company in a setting of their choice. This has become an increasingly popular option both for companies and for employees.

Secondly, "so what"? In this day and age, can you honestly find even one person who has daily access to a computer (but is not an IT professional) and who does not spend hours on drivel like facebook, twitter or other social networks? How is that life any more exciting or adventurous than spending the same amount of time and actually earning money for it!

So for all you skeptics: computer science makes a great career! Yes it is difficult, but that is what makes it worth every hour you will spend struggling with it and every penny you will spend mastering it!

"We Indians"

As an Indian, how often do we use the phrase "We Indians are ...". Or more familiarly, the "desi" attitude towards things, etc. Upon introspection I find that "we indians" are experts at finger-pointing, mostly towards other Indians. If you are an Indian, choose a region. Now recall the word used to describe people of that region (legitimately, not in a derogatory manner). So for example I would be a Maharashtrian. Now remember the last phrase you heard that began with "Those XXX (Maharashtrians for me) are ...". Sound familiar?

Being away from our country has the strangely integrating effect of laying blame on "all indians" instead of a particular region (we all hear our share of those ones too, but more commonly it is the "desi" attitude). Recently I came across a forum on a website managed by local Indians in which an (allegedly) American was complaining about the commonly found obsession of tuition classes that Indian parents have, and how he had a problem with a particular person providing tuition classes outside of his job, and how tuitions were stressing the poor kids. If you have come across such fora online, you will be able to correctly guess the eventual outcome of this particular thread--the discussion became a rant on racism and jealousy.

My personal interest in this particular discussion was the issue of a person providing tuitions clearly in violation of his visa status. Evidently this person is good at teaching--the kids seem to be doing very well thanks to the guidance. As an immensely law-fearing human being I find it impossible to relate to people who would do such a thing. Unfortunately this is more common that one might think. Students working beyond their allowed 20 hours, professionals earning extra (read cash and thus unreported) income by doing odd jobs (sometimes completely belying the status of their legal job), etc. As someone who has been a student and is currently a professional I can empathize with some of the reasons provided, all centering around money. Yes, it is an expensive country, often one has non-earning family members to provide for, or a loan to be paid back in India, etc. However these are excuses nonetheless. The most basic and crystal-clear truth is that doing such things may be illegal depending on your visa status. There will be very little to argue against legal action that will be taken if such activities are discovered.

Personally I am of the opinion that if you are in a country that is not your own, you have to live by the laws of the land, no matter how unjust they seem to you. Unless you were kidnapped, you chose to live and work in another country. If you do not agree with a particular law to such an extent that you seem to have no choice but to break it, you must seriously consider returning back to your country. Despite all the protection that a country would provide to its foreign workers, the fact remains that you being there is a privilege. Yes you pay their taxes, but you also draw an income. So nobody's really obliging anybody here. In this particular forum, the alleged wrongdoer holds an H1-B visa. That means he has a decently paying job, and is unlikely to be in need of money for survival.

So the question I find myself pondering upon is: why do it? Is it just a case of doing something because there is a decent chance you can get away with it? If so, is this attitude cultural--is this another characteristic of "we indians"? Or is it a subconscious training that all Indians are inevitably subject to thanks to the pervasive low-level corruption in India? The biggest question that I have is: will we be consistent and pardon someone else indulging in an illegal activity that is somehow detrimental to us, if there is a reasonable explanation for it? Or as with all illegal things in this world: it is alright so long as we are on the profiting side of the equation?

Can a reader help me to understand this better?

P.S.: This particular forum contained elements of another "we indians" characteristic. One individual immediately pointed out that lots of Americans also have undisclosed incomes and thus swindle the same tax authorities. In short, the "catch them first" argument. I think as a world of 4 billion people, we have comprehensively lost track of "who started it", no matter what the issue is. So again in my opinion, such arguments may contain vestiges of truth, but are totally useless and thus pointless.

The above is a hint to a potential reader who'd like to point out that immigrants of all origins indulge in such activities. Law, unlike democracy, cannot be a victim to the vagaries of a majority. Just because lots of others do it does not make it legal, nor morally correct.

My Name is Khan--the review

I know its a bit late, but I just saw the movie last week!

My Name is Khan is the journey of a Muslim man through Indian riots and American 9/11. It is the story of a man with Asperger's syndrome (which I am told is a form of autism) who is incapable of understanding unsaid things, and has several child-like mannerisms. He tells his own story through his life's struggles, especially those following his son's death in a hate-crime.

Nothing to take away from the scriptwriter because the story is for the most part original, but MNIK is inspired at a high-level from Forrest Gump. For it too is the story of a man with limited mental capabilities facing untold hardships while possessing uncanny luck. The subsequent comparison to Tom Hanks does not undermine SRK as he has performed quite well in the movie. Granted, the role invited a lot of histrionics, but SRK acts admirably and shockingly, manages to keep his hamming under check. His narration especially is quite effective. His body language too. I don't know how people with the actual disorder behave, so I cannot speak for the genuineness of his performance. But sincere it is.

The movie itself has many nice things about it. For one, it moves away (not completely) from the American stereotype and shows Americans of various hues and shades. The usual blatant racism exists, but hey, that's the subject of the movie! 9/11 provides a good backdrop to justify the injustices shown in the movie. Its the (surprisingly high) American content in an Indian movie about NRIs that struck me--usually such movies are about little Punjabi islands in foreign lands.

Alas, this movie's biggest liability is the same as other Karan Johar movies--Karan Johar's direction! He has the ability to stretch the simplest of scenes till they break, and beat you on the head with a hammer several times until you are tired of getting the point. Showing the loyalty of a Muslim man in the backdrop of Hurricane Katrina was a nice touch, but why the "we shall overcome" followed by immensely filmy rescue sequences and public outpour of help? The two dialogues between Rizwan and President Obama could not have been more contrived and to me were the mother of all anticlimaxes. Johar also manages to make Kajol's character overly dramatic. The whole justification of SRK trying to make it to the US president alone is just too filmy to fly. Kajol's presence in the movie was largely to showcase the SRK-Kajol jodi to attract more audiences.

Overall though, I recommend you give MNIK a chance if you haven't! The overall movie eventually feels okay once you have forgotten the intermittent scenes that refuse to end.

Paap se dharti phatee...

"Paap se dharti phatee, adharm se aasmaan,

atyachar se kaapi insaniyat, raaj kar rahe haiwaan.

Jiski hogi taakat apoorva, jiska hoga nishaana abhed,

Jo karenge inka sarvanaash, woh kehelaenge...Tridev."

Remember that opener from the 1980s blockbuster Tridev! It seems at least part of it was a prophecy! Apparently, the ground does really rupture due to sin, according to this enlightened soul.

So evidently women cause earth-shattering lust in the male mind. And since no moral codes exist for men, it may be presumed that no matter how lascivious men may be and behave, they simply do not evoke any interest from women! For if they did, women would go astray due to immoral men and cause earthquakes. What an indictment of the male ego!

The Ramayan provides an interesting contrast. During agni-pariksha, Sita begged mother earth to swallow her to end her humiliation and mother earth obliged. So is an earthquake an indictment of immoral women, or unjust men?

But women need not despair, for they are not the most harmed by this interpretation of earthquakes. It is God! For all the earth-shattering immoralities in this world can simply be reversed by prayer and repentance. It is a confirmed case of divine bribery. If only we could all agree on which God to beg to for forgiveness!

Thought-provoking philosophy

I can be occasionally found pondering on issues well beyond my realm of understanding or control. Although the title of my blog suggests so, I'm not a philosopher and neither have I read philosophy very much. But the following article featuring Amartya Sen's latest book is very thought-provoking:

http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/apr/13/slide-show-1-in-conversation-with-amartya-sen.htm

What struck me (I haven't read the actual book, but now want to) was his unending optimism regarding all the world problems that he talks about, and how the subject of his latest book seems to be the pooh-poohed approach of actually learning from history.

His opinion about the importance of public debate in democracy is particularly intriguing, and very relevant to India. Many if not most social problems in India seem intractable and impossible to solve because of our biggest curse: population. I can safely claim that a good part of my post-school life has been spent in wondering just how much fluff we were fed in school and how the world and indeed our own country is so much more complicated than that. This realization is the harbinger of halt, because every incidence, phenomenon and problem in India seems positively hopeless thereby discouraging any activity towards addressing it. How does one eliminate (or reduce) corruption, poverty and hunger in India?

Which makes his reference to Mahatma Gandhi eye-opening. Here was a man born in an era where technology was primitive, and its application was further hampered by foreign rule. Disease and famine ruled society. Forget email, even telephones or snail mail weren't readily accessible to the ordinary citizen. Virtually half the country was under princely rule (which means that the grand stories of our independence struggle largely covered only half the country). Indeed the Congress party was somewhat elitist until he walked in and made it a grassroots party. Granted that we were then at less than 33% of our current population, but the above challenges dwarf the "manageable" population. How did Gandhi manage a grassroots campaign (with the able help of many many others)? The parallels to me are striking! Given the daily struggles of poverty, hunger and untouchability, how would one make the common man care about an elite concept like independence of governance? Given the daily struggles of today's hectic life in urban and suburban India, and the poverty and backwardness of rural India, how would one make the common man care about concepts like good governance, social change and national security? Like then, once again the number of people killed in violent crimes (whether local or international) dwarf in comparison with deaths due to illness, malnutrition or just plain hunger!

The answer seems to somewhere within Sen's observations. The ability to empathize with others' suffering renders the proportion of population useless. And as a society we may be rightly accused of being callous (the infamous "chalta hai" attitude), but at a personal level we Indians are extremely good at empathizing and helping each other out. So at least part of the solution seems to be not creating a social revolution from scratch, but sharing our empathy with like-minded people to convert it to action. I guess that's what NGOs, social workers and doctors do :-)

The "Instant" Syndrome

It is said that the longer you work in a profession, the more it starts affecting your entire personality. A businessman thinks of personal relationships in terms of "profit-loss", "risk analysis", a doctor tries to diagnose, a research scientist looks for a cause-effect in everything, etc. As I sit here for the 12th straight year in front of a computer, I wonder how we computer scientists are affected by our profession. The more I ponder upon this question, the more convinced I am about something unique to me and my next generation: the "instant" syndrome.

We computer scientists (and others who use a computer for more than 3 hours a day) are so used to doing everything instantly with our fingers that sometimes we fail to understand the ways of the world. Over the years I have realized that my patience in some aspects has been dwindling. I attribute it to my "instant" syndrome.

1. Why does it take so much time to find out something? Every week I have an episode of frustration where I try to find out about something and "google" search does not give me the desired results. Sulking I have to make my way to the library. And of course I'd like to find out whether they have what I need without actually going there. So I use their "search" tool. And no, it is not nearly as good as Google. And then I wonder, how did my previous generation conduct any kind of research? The possibility of sitting in a library basement surrounded by actual manuscripts has haunted me many times when I was a PhD student!

2. The other day I had to send my car to the repair shop. The guy said he would call me when its ready, but it would take 2-3 days. I spent the next 2-3 days waiting for a call, waiting to get a "status" check. If I buy something from amazon or dell, it provides me with the ability to track in real-time the status of my order. Why doesn't the rest of the world work this way?

3. The other day I had to erase the whiteboard in my office to explain something to a student. Immediately after I erased it clean I remembered a piece of information that I had written on it that I needed! For a split second, I experienced frustration at not being able to "undo" it :-)

4. A new Aamir Khan movie? Music by A R Rahman? Great! Can't wait to hear it! Literally! As a child I used to see it on Chitrahaar (there weren't really promos on TV then). In my college days I saw promos on TV and posters on screen. Now that I'm away from India I listen to them on the radio. But most in my profession can't wait even that long: the DVDs of My Name is Khan are available in our Indian grocery store for pittance. The gut reaction of everybody nowadays is: sounds interesting, let's download it! Now why can't everything else be free and downloadable?

5. One of the funniest examples of the "instant" syndrome is email. Answer these seriously: how many times have you emailed a person who sits right next to you? How many times have you chatted with a person via messenger when he/she happens to be sitting in the next room? Even funnier, how many times have you emailed someone and then called them to verify that they received and read the email! I am unequivocally dismayed every time someone asks me to "fax" something to them, or submit "copies" of some documents.

Look at world news to find all kinds of examples of the "instant" syndrome! 24x7 TV making the most mundane of activities seem like "breaking news" (its by far the slowest motion I have seen if something continues to be "breaking news" for 4-5 hours). People twittering about their daily errands, orkutting and facebooking about themselves (I once got an email from a person (not the website) informing me that he had added me as his friend on orkut and that I should respond!) No wonder I and my generation represent a section of the populace most frustrated with the governments of the world!

Digital medicine?

So here's my problem with the information age (yes, I do teach Information Technology myself!): it assumes that access to information leads people to make good decisions. I'm afraid that is a very robotic view of the human psyche. I do not think the human mind works by a set of rules without any other influence.

In contrast with India, the US "freely" allows pharmaceutical advertisements on TV about prescription drugs. They range from the specious-sounding "restless leg syndrome" all the way to heart, alzheimer's and depression medicine. They are complete with side effects (mostly for legal reasons according to me) and the euphemistic "talk to your doctor about xxx". I truly pity the doctors of this country: imagine the patient coming to them with a medicine in mind and wondering why the doctor is not prescribing it.

But I concede that most people will believe the doctor more than an advertisement. The much bigger evil is digital medicine. One can find many web sites, some even managed by medical professionals, that provide details on all kinds of ailments. They also mention possible treatment options that a doctor may follow and any side effects of that treatment. They are complete with pictures. In true web 2.0 style, they also offer ways for readers to leave comments on their own experience with these ailments! I'll assume that their intentions are utterly noble: the patient wants to be informed and needs a 24x7 source of information to understand better what is happening to him/her. Doctors can't be "on-call" for every patient, so maybe this reduces patient anxiety....

Here's the problem: the web sites are truthful when they list a vague list of symptoms for a particular ailment. Indeed a trained medical professional uses extra knowledge and judgment to determine whether a particular list of symptoms likely points to a particular ailment. But the world is full of people who think they are smarter than they actually are! So isn't it plausible that one reads about an ailment, the symptoms sound vague and after reading them once or twice, one starts to wonder if they have them? If you don't believe me, try this: did you get up last morning and feel light-headed? In India we get an "upset stomach" after eating food; we never think twice about it. What if you find entire articles on indigestion that mention it as a symptom of 10 complicated ailments (albeit with a disclaimer that most of the times it is just indigestion and only a doctor can tell if it means more)? In fact to an untrained eye, the worse the disease, the more vague the symptoms seem to get. Moreover I fail to understand the benefits of reading about someone else's experience with a particular disease unless I have been officially diagnosed with it myself. Many of these online fora end up being ranting grounds of patients complaining about the supposed inabilities of their doctors.

I've been told people who like to read about medicine as a hobby and come to their own conclusions aren't unique to our generation: they have existed all along. But here's the problem: the information wasn't nearly as accessible to them as it is now. How many of us would take the trouble of going to a library to read about something like this? How many of us are likely to open one more tab of our internet browser and "google" for it? I assume everybody who can read this blog is perfectly capable of doing this in a second.

To those who think there aren't many people who would do this, and would be swayed by whatever they read, here's a reminder. In India people vote for a politician in return for a pressure cooker or even hard cash. In the US people dump French wine down the drain and start calling things "Freedom fries" because some politician decided it would be a good way to show displeasure. There are still far too many people falling victim to phishing attacks or online viruses because they clicked on something out of charity, intrigue or human desire. Let's face it: as a human race gullibility is part of our sense of community. Very few of us make decisions on our own based on an objective analysis of facts that we alone have taken the pains to gather. Most of us are influenced by people and their versions of facts and opinion. So while I'm delighted to learn about the history of film-making, the El-Nino effect and a video demonstrating a chemistry experiment that bored me in school, some things are better kept within the confines of those qualified to understand and interpret them. Medicine is an esoteric field: only the brightest become doctors after years of training and experience. No amount of copious information available on the internet can replace that training and experience. It simply does not belong to the same category as all the other information that is out there, and its readers cannot be trusted to believe the disclaimers as much as the information itself. The risks of such information being so accessible to everybody far outweigh the benefits of "well-informedness".

Reservations on reservations

The noblest of intentions by Dr. Ambedkar have been turned into a devilish political game in India. Yes, I'm talking about reservations.

The idea of reservations seems very unscientific to me, especially since there are many instances where it clearly helps the wrong people. Now I admit that being a Brahmin boy I stand to lose the most out of every reservation that comes out of our Parliament. So if you view my views with suspicion, so be it. I reserve the right to have an opinion and argue for it.

The current reservation bill however, the women's reservation bill, is something I struggle to oppose. The corporate world has the diametrically opposite trend as the governments of the world. We see more and more female CEOs, entrepreneurs and businesspeople. On the other hand, women all over the world have been traditionally underrepresented in government and under-compensated in society, irrespective of social liberalism and any measure of economic growth. If I claim that USA, one of the most forward-looking societies in the world, has not had a woman at a very powerful governmental post, there aren't many arguments against it (except for Nancy Pelosi who is the current speaker and a handful of senators). Try that argument in many Asian countries like India, and pat come the examples of Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Jayalalitha, Mayawati, etc. who were either at the helm of affairs, or packed enough power to topple those at the helm of affairs. What's more, the names are followed by how these women in fact did not prove to be the benevolent saints that advocates of women's rights would envision (incidentally similar arguments seemed to work against Hillary Clinton and are starting to work against Pelosi). So again while it may seem that reservations will breed more power-hungry politicians albeit of a different gender, women's reservations can be more faithfully audited and monitored for efficacy. The roles and positions of women politicians can be measured with their male counterparts to see if they toe the same lines on most issues, or do indeed bring a different, fresh and radical perspective to our government. Why audit only for women you ask? I agree! Current politicians should be audited as well! It would statistically prove what everybody always knew: how our politicians make mind-boggling U-turns on issues.

Which brings me to my favourite and somewhat utopian form of reservation: based on economic conditions. While it is easy to forge IT documents, there is at least a measure of efficacy. How does one audit caste, or the more immeasurable effect of reservation on social conditions without considering economic conditions? One can indeed verify if one is living beyond one's "claimed means", but how does one verify whether one is living in contrast to one's caste or whatever other measure on which reservation was claimed? If indeed socially backward equals economically so, why not reserve based on economic conditions? In one swoop it would include all poor sections of society irrespective of caste or religion. If socially backward does not equal economically backward, that says something about the state of the current reservations. After all, aren't all the social ills of the underprivileged the direct cause of their economic states which is what causes all the practical misery in this world? What are reservations supposed to remedy, academic social status or practical economic status? I assume the latter, since everything that is "reserved" leads directly or eventually to economic status: education, job and promotion.

The badshah-samrat feud

In one of the biggest Bollywoodian ironies, our hero Shah Rukh Khan finds himself in a new "circus" very different from his TV serial, with a "sena" very different the army he played fauji for once on his way to stardom!

On the face of it, SRK's first comment on the IPL bidding process was an objective comment based on logic and the inescapable peacenik attitude that no Indian can deny. Except: SRK is one of the league owners! So either he is responding to a misrepresentation of the IPL league owners' attitude, or he is admitting that even in the face of this noblest of reasons he chose not to bid on Pakistani players, thereby leading credence to the perceived attitude of the IPL league owners!

Now let's turn to the other party: the Shiv Sena. Thousands of minds were once again "saddened" (as they do ever so often), and SRK was asked to apologize. Thus started the baadshah-samrat feud! Deftly weaving this controversy with their Maharashtra plank, they have swung into action protesting any SRK endeavour. Like the comic sidekick who cannot help but insert himself into a scene, our CM takes a side to ensure the release of a movie rather than control a law and order situation. Give it a few days: like a couple fighting, soon nobody will remember what the original controvery was.

There's something nostalgically filmy about all this. Remember the scene from Sholay where Veeru is chained, Basanti is in the clutches of Gabbar Singh on a hot afternoon in the Chambal Ghaati? Gabbar says "naach! Jab tak tu naachegi, iski saans chalegi!" (Dance! So long as you dance, he'll breathe). Basanti obliges until Jai comes to the rescue.

So to teach Shah Rukh a lesson, the Shiv Sena decide to stop the screening of his film by storming into cinema theaters who are planning to show it and tearing off posters. Who's being punished: the cinema theaters and the producer Karan Johar, and the public who once again will see his movie not with the intention of paying SRK but for their entertainment! This is masochistic patriotism: destroying your own property and threatening your own fellow citizens to show loyalty towards your own country!

So how will this movie end? Will an apology from SRK magically nullify all his seemingly unpatriotic utterances? Will an apology make him patriotic and fit to live in Mumbai once more? What will be remembered: the original controversy or that a political party that won the "people's agitation"? Meanwhile it has been reported that a certain Pakistani player went on Pakistani TV and spewed venom against India whose antidote is once again: money! Bid on us to prevent hearing nonsense from us.

The sunny optimistic person that I am, I have a solution for this controversy. Rename the movie "My Name is Khanzode". Suddenly its not an autistic Muslim fighting for justice, it is apla marathi manoos! No Sena will boycott that movie!

Doctor doctor where art thou?

My dad sent me this anecdotal article of an American's experience in the Indian healthcare system. For someone who has been in the US for the last 8 years and has seen more than his share of doctors, the healthcare system and people's attitude towards it does amuse me sometime! Here are a few gems:

1. Proponents decry any form of government-funded healthcare as vile because it "adds bureaucracy", "government coming between you and the doctor", etc. Here is a typical experience at a doctor's clinic:

I get a fever. I call in my doctor, who by the way I have to select as my Primary Care Physician. I cannot go to any other doctor without informing my insurance company first. Anyway, the earliest appointment they have is two weeks away (if by then my fever does not go away I might have to visit a hospital).

During one particular lucky fever I was able to get an appointment within the fever's life time. I walk into the clinic, check myself in with the receptionist. After a 5-10 minute wait the nurse calls me in. After checking my vitals, she asks me about my symptoms. I tell her everything. She takes copious notes, and then leaves. About 15 minutes pass. Then the doctor arrives. Asks me what happened. I repeat everything I told the nurse. A few questions, an exam. The doctor decides to prescribe me something. He asks me which pharmacy I'd prefer (people who don't know this will find it even more amusing that a lot of insurance companies mandate which pharmacies you can or cannot go to, to receive "full coverage"!). Call me naive, but a doctor hiding behind two levels of nurses....bureaucracy anyone? Anyway in a particularly impressive stroke of "unbureaucracy" he manages to electronically send my prescription to the pharmacy of my choice, so that I can pick it up on my way home.

The moral of the story according to me: there IS already someone between me and the doctor.

2. Anything more than a fever or a simple wound, and you can be assured of a "referral" to a specialist. I've had the unfortunate privilege several times. The specialist's wait time is even more hilarious: in weeks. My germs pitied me and surrendered after just hearing the waiting time. Even they couldn't wait for the medicine that long!

3. I moved a couple of years ago. I had to transfer my medical records to the new place. I went in, and they told me I had to sign a release form in order to send the medical records. Fair enough. But here's the catch: "Send the medical records" meant that they would print it out for me and I would physically carry a file. Again, no worries. But why did I have to sign a release form to release MY OWN medical records TO ME? Apparently the right to medical privacy applies to my internal organs as well.

4. This truly is the country of personal choice. Doctors give you treatment options and ask you to choose. Amongst much of the knowledge that I gained when we were having our first baby that I could've lived all my life without, came the debate about epidurals or not. Apparently the doctor explains you the pros and cons of taking it, and then leaves the choice to you. Muster the courage to ask the doctor "what do you think I should do" and you're assured of a gem of an escapist reply. But no, the doctors are more than competent. They simply fear the judicial system in case the patient sues them later on.

5. Pharmaceutical companies are free to advertise their prescription medicines on TV. Every ad has the following gems: "Talk to your doctor about XYZ" (I pity the doctor who has to answer these sentences), "side effects include..." (for some medicines, this includes heart attack, blood clots and stroke :-) ), etc. The best ad that I saw (that was subsequently questioned by medical journals in the UK) was for a medicine for "restless leg syndrome". The ad was so wonderfully vague that anybody getting up after sitting on the couch for an hour may mistake the funny feeling in his/her legs for the "restless leg syndrome". The ad came on so many times, it may have been another mutation of the flu!

5. Pharmacists have very important jobs. I don't deny it. Why they take about 20 minutes to dispense medicine is beyond me. "Too many customers" is particularly unimpressive for a guy coming from India...I was once given some cream in a tablet bottle!

I'm sure there are perfectly valid reasons for each one of the above, but hearing about the health care debate on the news hardly helps. Upon being carried to the hospital and treated promptly in Hawaii when he was on vacation, a smug Rush Limbaugh commented "...based on my experience here I don't think there is anything wrong with the healthcare system in this country". This from a very famous radio talk show host who is rich enough to contemplate buying a professional football team. That's like Amitabh Bachchan saying "based on my life there is no poverty in India" :-)

Am I a Mumbaikar?

I would like to ask this question to the Thackerays (which one, it doesn't matter. They all speak the same language). Of course I would be wearing a helmet, knee pads and a guard, and would have signed my will by then. Because who knows what reaction this innocent question invites!

Mr. Thackeray is at it again. This time he chose to spew venom at Mukesh Ambani. It was Sachin Tendulkar before that. So I humbly apply for "Mumbaikarship", based on the following:

1. I was born in Mumbai. To allay possible domestic disputes over whether Bandra is mainland Mumbai and Borivali is at the fringe, I was born in Dadar. To accurately use the new metric of measuring Mumbaikarness as proportional to your proximity with the Shiv Sena, I happened to be born in a hospital that is right opposite the Shiv Sena Bhavan in Dadar. So unless there was a hospital inside the Shiv Sena Bhavan, I am the "closest born" Mumbaikar there is.

2. I studied for four years in Mumbai, travelled by BEST buses, local trains, consumed Mumbai food and used Mumbai toilets. In fact I developed the habit of reading Marathi newspapers and at one point was able to solve about 20% of a Marathi crossword puzzle! That makes me leaps and bounds ahead in Mumbaikarness (allegedly) than many of the taxi drivers who know and see Mumbai much more than I do. I also learned Marathi lingo and can construct perfect sentences peppered with the words "aaila", "chaila", etc.

3. I speak Marathi, and will be the first one to admit that knowing Marathi provides a distinct advantage in Mumbai that has nothing to do with being spared from the various armies' (Senas) wraths.

4. I have successfully walked through the waters of the Mumbai monsoon, literally. This wasn't for pure fun; I was on my way to college to meet recruiters!

5. I have not taken any job away from Maharashtrians (as I am one of them).

6. I have successfully looked the other way when political parties announced bandhs or "bahishkars", have threatened someone and claimed to spoil my everyday life that already has no time. And yet I have quietly digested the claims that all this is to preserve something about me. An unfortunate hallmark of all Mumbaikars!

7. My heart has been ripped to pieces and independently claimed. For there is a "samrat" for every aspect of my heart!

8. There have been times when my sheer desperation to get through one day has been hailed as resilience, and then has been used against me to test it further.

We may all agree from time to time on what you have to say, but please do not claim public property as yours and then have the temerity to claim it is for the public's own good!

Apple's iPad: the big brother of Apple's iPod

So its finally here! Apple today unveiled its highly anticipated Tablet device, christened iPad. The iPad promises to revolutionize its market. Normally I don't actively follow Steve Jobs's presentations, so I don't know if he sounds so unbelievably optimistic in each of his "unveiling ceremonies". But then again, I have heard other CEOs talk sweet about their new fares too and its almost never as good as they claim. Personally I think the same fate awaits the iPad. Here's why:

1. To be fair its not really a "tablet" in the conventional sense since most other tablets only work with a stylus. Its really a big touchscreen device and is thus destined to compete other similar touch screen devices. Don't get me wrong: working with fingers is actually better!

So its a monstrous touch screen device that runs the iTunes store, a web browser, has 3G capability and all iPhone applications without any compatibility issues. That to me is a gigantic iPod/iPhone. Now iPhone has a great interface, so the iPad is already ahead of devices like Amazon Kindle in terms of the sheer interface. But is it to its market what iPhone was to the smartphone market? I don't think so.

e-Readers tend to have an eclectic market for one reason: price. The idea looks very cool, but unfortunately not worth its price for most. Why? It's greatest use is to use like a handheld monitor, capable of storing far more than a book in a very small and light package. But how many people do I see carry it around? I'm afraid I have seen only 2 Kindles till now at public places like airports. The iPad also falls within the netbook market, but I have my doubts about how popular those things are going to be. The reason again is price. One can get a 12-inch laptop for $450 these days. While one cannot use it like a tablet or a touchscreen, it is capable of doing everything a laptop is, and is incredibly light. So why buy a cooler device that is capable of doing much less at virtually the same price? There's the bridge between being extremely cool and being affordable/worth its price that I doubt the iPad will be able to cross. I'm unfazed by the Apple brand that loosens the purse strings of most Apple aficionados, so maybe this seems like an overly bad deal to me.

2. Its not as revolutionary as a tablet PC was when it came out in 2001. The tablet PC offers everything a laptop does, plus a screen you can write on. It kinda fizzled out eventually because nobody redid the applications. Everything was merely "inkable". Again, its cool to be able to write into a Word document or an email, but how many would use it everyday? Is there a suite of everyday applications that one simply could not use before the tablet PC? No!

The iPad didn't seem to have the capability of writing into a document, perhaps with a finger. So its borrows most of its interface innovations from iPhone, and does not present a radically different way of interacting.

3. The third problem is its size. At 0.5 inches thick its a hardware wonder and tempts with its ultralight 1.5 pounds body. But its 10 inches tall. And that's a wonderful thing for those like me who hate reading something on our smartphone screens. But its no iPhone: you cannot carry it in your pocket. Personally, if I have to carry it in a case separately, I'd rather carry a laptop that a couple inches thicker and a pound heavier. Why, even a MacBook Air qualifies! The iPhone packs everything: a touchscreen, an impressive interface and cool application support in a pocket-size frame. That's why its successful.

Frankly a MacBook Air with a touch screen would've been more compelling! But maybe Apple will pull off what Microsoft couldn't: maybe they can finally re-invent applications for the iPad instead of just making them "touchable".

What will it take?

Normally I reserve my "serious" opinions to myself, but this was too much to keep within.

Look at the plight of the poor parents of the children who died in the Gujarat earthquake. I don't blame the Chief Minister and the state ministers as much as I blame the local leaders. What in the world are they doing if not social work like this? Forget lofty words like "social work", "duty", etc., where is their basic humanity? I'm sorry to say this, but even a stray dog shows loyalty towards the beggar who spares a few crumbs. These people come begging for our votes, and for whatever illogical reason they get them. But how can a human's accountability be less than the loyalty of an animal!

I honestly cannot understand what brainwashing their jobs involves that people in power become so desensitized. A politician, no matter how small a position he/she is holding, cannot have any of the grievances that most of us ordinary mortals do.

1. Unemployment: What a politician has to do to get a job has nothing to do with the job. It is the only profession that does not require any sort of education or training.

2. Job security: Again this is a unique job. You actually declare what your job responsibilities will be during your job interview (the elections), and then you fail to do those! How incompetent can one be?

3. Job satisfaction/being appreciated: My most fond memories of childhood were winning contests. Politicians with power win elections! They are given the job by people who know they are not going to perform, are completely incompetent and will rob them silly! If that is not a satisfying victory (with seemingly unlimited chances to repeat it), what is?

4. Pay: Now one may argue that politicians don't get paid (officially) matching what they have to do. But look around, the same is true for many other professions. For example, high-school teachers who arguably perform the most critical of social duties, public transport officials, even the official who works for politicians and who actually does all the work! And they do it knowing fully well that there is no scope for any "fringe benefits" unlike politicians.

Exactly which aspect of their job desensitizes these people? Any law enforcement official or army officer will tell you that having to physically harm another individual as part of your job ends up making you even more human. So I struggle to think of even one barbaric aspect of the politicians's job that desensitizes them so much. And again I'm not talking about bigwig chief ministers and union ministers. I'm talking about the local leaders--the corporators, the Zilla Parishad chiefs, etc. True, they have their jobs probably because of endless pandering that they may be forced to indulge in. But still, how does that make you incapable of understanding basic human emotions!

The simple truth that I have failed to mention may be that politician or not, power corrupts all. I take that to mean a sense of entitlement that power gives a person makes them act simply to show their superiority. So am I to believe that people will display this level of insensitivity only because they can ,and they can get away with it? Is it just me or many of us simply cannot relate to such behaviour of a fellow human?