Happy Athimber Day

While there are other high confidence indicators of retardedness, celebration of mother's day, father's day, friendship day and valentine's day is the probably the best  indicator. 

Every time I wonder how Sati, child marriage, un-touchability and so many other superstitions quickly became a fad and became injected into blood stream of society so quickly, I needn't look further than Mother's day. People will start doing any stupid thing as a ritual provided you package it to them with appropriate incentives and societal peer pressure. 

Athimber Day should be celebrated in honor of the sagacious Athimber who will dispels nonsense in any family gathering.

Surya

Vijay TV has begun to telecast NVOK in US starting this weekend. My first thought on watching it was that - actor Surya stands the risk of over exposing himself in the public media space. I have seen his books in Landmark where he has written his childhood stories of struggle and other miscellaneous stories. He also used to write a weekly article in a leading Tamil magazine on his personal stories and flashback. NVOK again contains too many personal stories about him. I also saw a special program/talk given by Sivakumar where he too delves into details of Surya's childhood.

There is a tact which some very successful public figures use where they don't give-up a lot of information about them. There is a charm and mystery in not revealing too much about yourself. In essence leaving a lot to the public imagination and speculation. It is a timeless art used by people who understand the ebbs and flows of public life.  This builds up an aura for a person and given them control on how to develop and sustain the aura. Surprisingly, Rajnikanth, Ilayaraja, ARR and Manirathnam employ it very well. I say surprisingly because I perceive Tamil people as having a more than average weakness (assuming any kind of person has some weakness for this) for over-the-top'ness and a penchant for "i want to tell my emotional story". Surya has chosen for some reason to live a very open-to-public life. I cant see a long-term upside for this. Especially his 'novelty' value. After a point people will get used-to or even fed-up of his personal story, he may lose the charm of discovery, and people may move on to the next new thing.

Also, the build-up given for Surya in most Vijay TV shows he appears (especially in the past 2 years) cant be good for him. Cant help thinking someone is not in control of moderating their presence on TV.

On Low Quality

Usually when people get low quality governance it means that the people themselves are poor quality people and so deserve what they get. I think our politicians, IAS officers, policemen, and more importantly Rajya Sabha MPs reflect the kind of poor quality people that the country is filled with. 

The cringe-worthiness of Gemini Ganesan's daughter and Sachin Tendulkar becoming Rajya Sabha MPs needs to balanced with the fact that the people of India truly deserve this sort of garbage. The other MPs in Rajya Sabha may not be popular enough for us to know that they are bad choices. This X Std fail and third rate glamour actress as choices are merely reflective of the kind of people the country is filled with.So in effect this is true representation. I am a low quality person. My countrymen set extremely poor standards. This appointment is well aligned.

Akshaya Tritiya

If one buys gold on Parasurama's birthday then jewel shop owners have found an inexhaustible Akshaya that keeps on giving them money. The Akshaya vessel is you.

If on the other hand if one decided to start writing an epic or a magnum opus on this day, Vishwaksenar will become the Akshaya vessel from which one can draw immense quantities of knowledge. Hayagreeva will remain on in his tongue and hand. One such person ended up writing Mahabharata, completed the separation of vedas into 4 components, and ended up writing the most important document of all - the Brahmasutras. He obtained knowledge from an Akshaya container and became one himself.

Not that I am recommending against financial investment. It is good, wise and important to do that. However the word  'Artha' means meaning and purpose. It also means wealth and gold. But there are fourth purusharthas that one can choose to pursue at various times and they need not be mutually exclusive. And gold is a small part of of one such Purushartha. As M.N. Nambiar says "the shaaaice is yuvars".  Learn something new, teach your kids something new and maybe if you have enough give jewelers more money.

p.s: I thought Sun @ 10 deg Aries = Akshaya Tritiya. But I learned that lunar Tithi determines this. 

When Prevention is not better than cure

After Delhi became the rape capital of India the government passed an ordinance that bars and pubs should not employ women after 8PM. While I believe most of the people in country would be in agreement with this move by the government, a majority of the twitter folks and other main stream media elites were aghast and expressed outrage. Their outrage stemmed from the fact that the government let rapists walk away free but penalize employment of women who are innocent. While the topic of why tweeters and "common man" have divergent opinions is an interesting topic by itself - lets set that aside for another day. This post is about why I think GoI is correct and why I disagree with feminists, many journalists, and most tweeters writing on this topic.

Allow me to express my disagreement via these five categories of elementary logic that many arguing on this topic don't seem to understand.

1. A person is a rapist only if he commits rape:  I generally assumed this to be common sense. Its as simple as saying only fruits that are mangoes can be branded as mangoes. But such is the sad state of affairs that this needs to be spelled out. If a person has already committed the act of raping someone, he is a criminal. It would be accurate to brand him a rapist. The police should be searching for him and work on arresting him. That is a separate topic. Not directly relevant to the topic of discussion here - which is preventing rape. From reading the news it appears that the police/government have identified that there are areas, time-of-day, situations where the probability of women getting raped is very high. This means that there is some evidence and statistical backing to conclude that in these situations the observed instances of rape is alarmingly greater than the mean. If a government is a sensible one - it is common sense to prevent exposure of women to that kind of probability. This preemption does not mean that government is letting rapists walk-away free. And you know why that is so? This is because in this instance the occurrence of rape has been prevented. By not letting women be in that dangerous situation, the act of rape did not happen. Unless there is a pre-existing threat by a specific person, you can't arrest arbitrary strangers who may have raped a woman if given an opportunity. Legally, they aren't rapists. therefore should walk free. You can only arrest people who have raped. So claiming that government let rapists walk away scott-free while punishing women is an inaccurate statement. There are no rapists in this situation.

2. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is: Pause and reflect on the previous phrase for a moment. This paragraph is based on this theme. My biggest accusation of tweeters, journalists and social media experts is that they are very theoretical about laws and constitutional provisions. I accuse them of being greatly out of touch with some practical reality. For example; I can leave the door of my house open and legally expect that no citizen will steal from my house. In theory this works. In practice this wont. If all citizens open their doors, they are entitled to expect that the police will prevent criminals from entering. In theory it is the responsibility of police to ensure this. In practice the size of police force will not scale up to match the crime rate increase in this situation. In theory and practice the people who steal in such situations are criminals and deserve jail sentence. But there aren't enough policemen in the force to arrest everyone. The only way the government can deal with this situation is make it illegal for you to leave the door open. Extend this to wearing a Rolex watch, wade of $1000 bills in your pocket and a Ferrari and go to a crime neighborhood. If you do this everyday - you will get robbed someday. Yes, the people who mug you are criminals. In theory you have the right to expect police to protect you at all times. In practice they can't. In theory the police shouldn't be judgmental on you and protect you. In practice, they will be and they won't. In theory you can go in a bikini to a pub, get slosh drunk, hitch a ride with complete strangers in an call-taxi and not expect to get raped. In theory the police force should assign 1 policeman with  a revolver to protect every single woman who exposes herself to such dangerous situations. In practice...

3. Human Beings can do more than 1 thing at a time.  This may sound surprising to many tweeters but human beings can do two things at the same time. I can watch TV and eat a muffin at the same time. Really, I can. I have seen many people do two things at the same time. Some comb their hair and whistle. Some talk on the phone and type on their computer. But many tweeters assume mutual exclusion when none exists. If you accuse a person of being careless because he left the door of his house open, these feminists assume you are forgiving the criminals who entered the house and burgled stuff. This is patently not true. Blaming someone does not mean "shifting the blame". It is not a zero sum game. I can accuse the victim of being careless and at the same time agree that the burglar is a criminal. You know why? because human beings can do two things at the same time. So if police has given explicit instruction to women citizens to not venture into dangerous areas beyond a particular time, consume alcohol and hitch-ride with strangers. And if a woman ends up doing all the above and gets raped. I.. (wait for it) (wait for it) will blame her for being careless and irresponsible. I will blame her for not putting a premium on her personal safety. This does not mean I condone and forgive the rapists. They are criminals and will need to be arrested. Punishing a criminal and calling someone careless isn't mutually exclusive. We can do both things. And we should be doing both.

4. Post-rape situation is different from preventing rape:  If policemen act indifferently to complaints of rape they are not discharging their duty and deserve reprimand. My personal view is that rapists deserve capital punishment. Eve-teasing deserves multiple years of jail sentence.There are no situations where a rapist can be condoned and the blame shifted to the victim. No girl ever "asks for it" because of the way she dresses or walks or drinks.  It is true that many times women lie about rape. It is also probably true that the instances where they are genuinely raped far outnumber the other instances where it is a cooked up lie. Once it is established that someone has been raped the police should not be biased by the other cases they have seen where women have lied. They should act in an unbiased manner to pursue justice. However, when it comes to preventing rape - the 'prevention' must be given maximum priority. If this comes at the cost of marginal economic opportunities for women then - so be it. If a government is forced to make a trade-off they should always trade-off economic opportunity to prevent rape.

5. It is not 'All or Nothing'. It rarely is: Sometimes RBI doesn't allow me to transfer  larger amounts of money across countries at the same time. I am inconvenienced but not dead. I can still transfer some money. I can't go tell the RBI that if they don't allow me to transfer $1 billion it means that they are a non-entity. It doesn't mean I live in stone age. It doesn't mean that I can't transfer $1 if I wanted to. I can still transfer some money. Some kind of jobs may not available in the place where I live. That could be my perfect dream job. But that is okay - I can find a job that is reasonably close to what I want that matches my skills. If  the government has failed in giving me employment that is 100% to my liking, it doesn't mean that they have killed all my hopes for employment. They haven't failed. Unless I have enormous sense of entitlement, the fact that I have employment means the govt is doing a good job. Theoretically they are supposed to help me. But needn't satisfy my every whim. So lets face it. The government has asked women who work in pubs after 8PM to not go to work. This doesn't mean we have regressed back to the Mughal era where women have to be covered head to toe and never venture out of their house. You guys need to get some perspective. Working in a 'saaraya kadai' doesn't require you to have 3 PhDs and embellish a 3-page resume. You probably have transferable skills to work somewhere else. It doesn't mean the government will completely stop women from working everywhere. This is not a slippery slope. It doesn't mean government will prevent women from working in a place/time/situation where 1 instance of rape happens. It is not "all or nothing". It is an equilibrium. It is  a trade-off or balance where reasonable employment opportunities are provided for reasonable costs/restrictions. You may ask "who decides what is reasonable". It is the elected government. Live with it. If you don't like it change the government. Any other questions on this will fall into one of these 5 categories.

In conclusion: This is a situation where a government has traded-off employment opportunities for women in pubs after 8PM to reduce their exposure to rape crimes. It is probably because of practical difficulties in ensuring safety for women in all bar/pubs across the country/city/state. It is not a kick back to stone age for women. Its a practical trade-off. Stop over-reacting. This leads to "grease the squeaky wheel" situation. The upper class elitist twits make such a big deal about careless women who get drunk, party and hang out with questionable strangers. And there is generally no noise about impacted women who dont fit into this class description.

The underprivileged voiceless women are used in an argument only as an embellishment. They are never the main topic. just a side act. And they are talked about only as a support act when some rich delhi girl gets raped when she's partying at 1AM. In this context the poverty ridden Ranganathan street cloth shop women are mentioned in passing to give the journalist a noble purpose. If these feminists and jounalists truly cared they would've protested against a specific (very very specific) element of injustice in that space. Its not like it never happens. It happens everyday but its never news.

On the other hand nonsense news such as kudigaara bar hopping reckless teenagers (and in the kolkata case: 37 yr old kudigaara mom-of-two was bar hopping and hitch-rided with strangers) getting raped is front and center news. This drains the resources and focus of the govt and makes them focus on unimportant issues. The fakeness of this issue makes an average guy cynical. which further contributes to poor response to real issues.

P.s: Some disclaimers to let you know of my personal biases. 

1. I don't like the alcohol industry-mafia and wish them bad things

2: I have low tolerance and sympathy for people who consume alcohol, let go of their senses and their personal security. Same disregard I have for drunken drivers who get into accidents. Given this I care a rats-ass if women get employed in bars or not.

3. Post is based on twitter discussions (& indirect contributions ) with Gaurav and IITG

That Crazy Old Man

I had a relative who was very strict and generally was known as Hitler in our family. My great grandmother used to say this about him "if he is the tree and the wind is blowing in one direction, he will not sway in the direction of the wind. He will sway in the opposite direction and will ask the wind to sway in his way". Reading this girl's post reminded me of something about him. He lived right behind Nilgiri's in Radhakrishnan Salai. Diagonally opposite to Vivekananda. His house was this massive bungalow and had a front yard with swings and stuff. It is hard to imagine that kind of a house in today's world in that location. I used to be awed every time I visited that place. And I was terrified of him.

He had a living room that was probably 3000 square feet and the ceiling was probably 20 foot tall (I was a kid so of course I exaggerate. But it was really really tall).  3 out of 4 sides of the walls were actually book shelves. These book shelves were long tall shelves and you needed big ladders to reach the top shelf - like the ones you saw in some historical libraries. The house was bursting at its seams - the walls were breaking. Yet this dude was holding on to every single book he had bought since his childhood. He had books in all genres; philosophy, science, religion, autobiographies, biographies and even cook books. Added to that he had Sports Star (all issues ever since it was launched,) all editions of Indian Cricket books, Manorama, and fat bound books in tamil. He also had random indrajal, chandamama and amar chithra katha comics. He had managed to hold on to his notebooks and textbooks from his childhood. No one else but him could touch his books. If they did he would bark at them and send them out of his house. He was very grumpy, eccentric and had idiosyncrasies that would take half those book shelf space to document. One day, while visiting his house, I pulled out a book from his shelf, he caught me, barked at me and complained to every single member of my extended family. I became branded as the "avan eppavume ippadi dhaan. Sonna kekkave maatan" boy. He was one of the reasons why I began to love reading books. He also re-enforced my dad's dislike for people  who read books other than what was required in school. My dad called such people "avan book padikaravan da. Loosu payal."  And then told me "neeyum kanda book'a padi, mental'a pogalam"

That old man was intelligent but not street smart. His idiosyncrasies made him believe that a grandfather's property belonged to his grandchildren. So sold his gigantic house, gave the money to his kids and became their dependent. His life then followed the Tuesday 7:30 PM doordarshan "amma inge ganeshu ange" type dramas.  His sons made him sell all his books because they frankly never ever read any sort of books (even their own school books), drunk their way through his money, moved into 500 Sq Ft houses, treated him like dirt and made him sleep on the floor in a verandah near the toilet. That was when he wrote his autobiography that traced back N-generations of his ancestors. No one read it. Not his sons. I don't think his wife could read. He spent his last savings printing 1000s of copies of the book and gifting it to arbitrary libraries and people. This gave many more people an opportunity to not read his book.  Until a few weeks before he died he still had the habit of folding 'The Hindu' just the way it was delivered in the morning. His wife gave him 7 tumblers of filter coffee every day and he had nasty comments about several cricket player's abilities. But he got as close to being 'the crazy old book thatha next door' as possible.

Btw  - this girl writes an awesome blog. Granted, I am a sucker for the most futile exercise of interpreting fight club movie in excruciating detail.

Vaali Vs Karna

Writing the previous post on the slaying of Vaali & Karna has made me realize that Vaali's conduct was more acceptable than that of Karna. Both had committed bucketful of sins - but Karna's brand of adharma seems slightly more 'worshtu-fellow ba'.

Prarabdha Karma

Suffering makes people ask 'why me'. A question that often leads us to look up our own upanishads, ithihasas and puranas.

 Two characters - Son of Indra and Son of Surya play pivotal roles in our epics. They are pitted against each other in the battlefield of life and they bring out the inter-connectedness of life events across births. It is intriguing and very humbling to note the similarity of their choices and the mirror-image nature of their eventual destiny. In the epics these two characters are very dear to the reader. This is because their actions cause great conflict of human emotions and ethics within the reader's/listener's mind. An average person does not necessarily think of either character as flawless or good. But we are disturbed by what happens to the flawed heroes. Maybe because a third person - some can call it fate but I will call it simply as 'someone else' - plays a bigger role in their life than anybody else's. Maybe these two characters thread the needle of what is ethical and what is not. The role they play in across the two births and two epic stories brings out the very essence of life. Of God.

Take for instance the events that unfold in one of their re-births. When Son of Indira - by devious means - gets the power that allows him to steal away the strength of his enemy during battle. A glaring violation of war rules where a fair fight between two adversaries is measured by the duel of their own strengths. When one steals the strength of another through improper means it becomes an unequal fight and therefore - adharma. Indra-putra could have won many great adversaries using his own strength. But he chose to be a coward and swindled his enemy's strength. In a battle field - he often fought the weaponless and the defenseless. He has a choice to fight fairly. But by constantly making a choice to fight unfairly - he removed his right for a fair fight even if he wanted one. It didn't stop there. The Son of Indira ruled a kingdom with great cruelty and does heinous crimes on his people. He steals the wife of the Son of Surya and keeps her for himself. He steals the kingdom of son of Surya. The sin of coveting and stealing another man's wife being worse than violating mere rules of battle. The death of Indra-putra came when he made his choices. It didn't come when he actually died - during the one-on-one battle with Surya-putra. It didn't come when the arrow hit his chest. That was merely symbolic. The Son of Surya befriended people of dharma. Fought for dharma. And things were darkest for him for a long long time. The good always seemed to be going through suffering. But like it happens to all good people he just had to point a finger and justice was restored as easily as it was taken away.

In another life, in another birth - it was the turn of the Son of Surya to make his choices. The choices presented to Surya-putra were more nuanced but choices nevertheless. And he did not make good choices. The sequence of events in his life seems to be exact mirror image of Indra-putra's previous life. Surya-Putra lies about his birth to deviously obtain the supreme weapon that could be used to kill anyone in battle. He befriended children of adharma. He went against the wishes of his mother to support evil men knowing fully well what he was doing. He trampled a subject of his kingdom - a brahmin child - with his chariot. He supports the insult of (and thereby insults) the modesty the wife of Son of Indra. He helps adharmic people steal the kingdom of Indra-putra. He kills Indra-putra's son in battle when the victim was unarmed. He died several times, much before his death actually arrived in the form of an arrow to his chest.

What is fascinating is how they meet their ends. Both are killed in a fashion that seem to violate the rules of battle. Struck by an arrow to the chest in battle field, during a one-on-one duel with each other. Killed when unarmed or when not looking. But their death is heroic. It also fits the choices they made in life. It fits them very well. What is even more fascinating is during both these events there was a third person. The same One.

Karnan

Re-released in many major theaters and apparently running to full-houses. This is one of my favorite movies of all time.

The Business Of Medicine

The intention of this post is not to put a negative spin on things or propagate a conspiracy theory. Think of it as a question I'd like to think out aloud. Like many dreamers who dream of a bright future - I often dream and look forward to developments in medical science that will bring about a cure for cancer and other deadly diseases. Then I wonder about reality.

Each project in any field needs some sort of business justification. This especially applies to the medical industry. Consider a patient getting admitted in a hospital for cancer treatment. Lets assume this hypothetical patient gets admitted to a mid-range hospital (not Apollo at the high end and not Adyar Cancer Institute at the low end).  We will also assume that a person will have at least a 2-3 year supplier-customer relationship with the hospital (The hospital is in the business of selling treatment and the patient is a customer who purchases the treatment). So - over a 3 year period the hospital stands to earn a revenue of around 10 lacs (Rs, 10, 00,000 or $20,000) from the patient. It could be more but lets assume subsidized rates and also include all the consulting fees (I actually think I am underestimating the cost. In 1989 my grandfather had brain tumor and we spent 2 lacs. Applying inflation means that today's cost would be around 16 lacs).

Now let us say some pharma company found a cure for cancer. I am the hypothetical managing director of a hypothetical Hospital ABC. I get 1000 cancer patients every year. This means my ongoing revenue is Rs 10 ^ 9 every three years. I have new medical equipment and specialists in chemotherapy that costs about Rs 10^4 every 3 years which means I make a profit of Rs 9000000 every 3 years.  What does the new cure for cancer mean to me? Consider the analogy of a Petrol Bank owner finding out one day that an alternative to petrol has been invented. What would he do? The 10 Petrol Banks he owns aren't entirely worthless. They are fuel distribution centers and so he can use the place to distribute the new form of fuel. He will have to exhaust his petrol stock and pay off loans on equipment that are petrol specific. But the key thing is: will the new fuel make him more money?

Let us set aside for a moment the notion that the medical industry is out there for a noble cause and they aim to create a 100% disease free world. Our disease is what keeps them alive. Let us assume they need to meet revenue targets, pay off loans on equipment, pay their staff etc. The first challenge for the MD of the hospital is that his existing equipment that is specific to the previous treatments for cancer is almost obsolete overnight. His non-doctor staff who are specialists in using that equipment could be put to other use. but he isn't sure. The key question that is on his mind is (a) can he use his hospital to sell the new drug? and (b) Can he charge Rs 10 lac/patient or more for administering the drug?. In effect after cutting out all costs associated with old treatment and accounting for new price of the new treatment - can he make a lot of money? If the answer to (a) and (b) is 'no' - what does he do?

The question becomes interesting - if 100 hospitals in a state begin to wonder the same thing. Then 1000 hospitals  in the country begin to wonder about this. And then 100,000 hospitals across the entire world wonder about this. Will they block  the new drug? In the 90s many eye doctors who weren't in the business of Lasic surgery were saying bad things about Lasic treatment.  Would they have said that if they stood to earn a lot from Lasic? The few eye doctors who started administering Lasic had great things to say about Lasic. So lets assume the doctor community has an incentive to block the cure if it doesn't bring them good business. Add to this the constraint that WTO imposes that newly invented drugs must be discounted by 97% for developing countries - which led to the Intellectual-Property-rights-quashing historical judgement against Bayer. This doesn't provide a lot of incentive for pharma companies to develop a 'eliminate-the-disease' kind of cure. What if the Pharma companies who are supposed to be doing research and inventing a cure for cancer are also in the business of supplying drugs for existing cancer treatment? What if they don't see a good business case that supports inventing the drug?

This brings me to my question. I am sure I am missing something here and I'd like to know what that is. In my lifetime I haven't heard of a life-threatening disease being cured by a newly invented pill. I actually haven't seen the big diseases getting knocked out by medical science related improvements. Doctors pretty much give the same answers today for brain tumor as they gave in my Grandfather's case 20 years ago. I assume cure for small pox, polio, MMR etc came before medical industry became a huge business. Is the research world really as incestual as I describe it to be (That the people who research on a new drug are funded by the same organization that produces existing drugs and the new drug will cannibalize revenue from existing drug)? Would the public ever find out if legitimate cure for cancer has been kept in abeyance because people haven't found a business solution yet? How would new breakthroughs in medical science find its way to the public? Is it purely by accident or is it caused by market forces where errors in the existing system get amplified over time causing the cure to slip through the cracks and into public domain?

2012 movies I look forward to watching this year

Prometheus


The Hobbit



Amazing Spiderman
The Avengers

DKR

Rahul Dravid

Purists. The amazing thing about this breed of people is that they are neither glamorous nor have superstar status. In fact they are downright unpopular among the masses. No cricket stadium would fill-up in anticipation because Rahul Dravid is coming out to bat. In fact - most times Dravid's dismissal has been received with a thundering roar of applause. That is mostly a testament to the batsman walking in next and not so much of an indictment on the batsman walking out. Yet for a connoisseur Dravid represents a kind of exclusivity that no one else offers. Sitting on the couch and watching Dravid construct an innings by patiently leaving ball after a ball is the ultimate snob's nirvana. You will always meet a degenrate who will come and ask you 'ennada dravai(d)' (a pun on his name and tamil word for boredom). A perfect opportunity to ask the person to go dance in an independence day bhangra dance party instead.

The purest pleasure of watching test cricket is seeing dot ball after dot ball elapse as the plot thickens like an invisible noose tightening around the neck. With Dravid the noose was visible and so enthralling. If it were a Tendulkar the superhuman aura of the batsman would have made us think the noose does not matter until it snaps the neck, and a second later we'd switch off the TV. With Dravid you saw someone battle the plot, the bowler and everyother dimension of cricket. Dravid embodies all that I had heard about test cricket prior to the emergence of the television era. He has probably listened to a lot of radio commentaries, read up on the history of cricket and as a result inherently embodies that vision accurately. In a way it is sad that Dravid played in the era of TV. In a different era where batsmen lived in the minds of public because of the way radio commentators described them - Dravid would have been a colossus.

If Dravid had played in an another era unoccupied by Tendulkar, Ganguly and Laxman - he would have been recognized as a Gavaskar 2.0 who figured out how to play ODIs. In this era however, he allowed himself to be contrasted with players who were as core to the team as Dravid. Players who are very different from Dravid. He was part of an ideal combination that could not have been planned for deliberately. It was more of a happenstance, a stroke of luck. The Ganguly - Dravid relationship to me is as close to James T. Kirk and Spock as it can get in the cricketing world. Ganguly representing the human condition in full cry with all its associated emotions and failings. Dravid on the other hand was a student of cold logic. A robot, a thinker, a calculator - a methodical operator. A captain and a first officer combination that ultimate cricket fantasies are made of.

I look forward to Dravid's autobiography. I am sure he will write it himself instead of someone like Bhogle vomitting all over the book in the name of ghost writing. I am curious to know what he thought of Greg Chappell. I have a bet going on that he was more in agreement with Greg and more in disagreement with the general public. But it has to wait for another day. Dravid's captaincy and the combination with Greg had so much potential. The combustion of Indian cricket in the Greg period and traditional confusion that exists in India over ODI performance Vs Test performance - nipped in the bud - an era where Dravid could have gone on to be a ruthless effecient captain along the lines of Waugh.

I don't know which memory of Dravid, I'll cherish the most. There aren't many innings of Dravid that I've not watched. I remember his first test century in Johanessburg like yesterday. He should have made that a 'century in both innings' but at least he ended up almost setting up a test match victory (his statemates couldnt get rid of the tail). That was the first time I saw the Indian team with a realistic chance of winning a test abroad. His first ODI century in Chepauk was great for its thrilling hunt and tragic end. The 78 in Bridgetown against Ambrose and Walsh was an unspoken masterpiece. The 4 consecutive centuries were an absolute joy. His 39 against Australia in 01 Mumbai was an excellent innings cut short by Warne. I almsot cried then. After the Slater incident we had to win it. That he became Warne's bunny again was tragic. Mostly Dravid will be remembered for being emotionless enough to be perceived as a second fiddle. He represented the purest emotion which dictates that you can achieve anything if you dont mind being outside the spotlight. People needed to be reminded that he hit centuries when Ganguly and Tendulkar hit 180+ in ODIs. His exit was as un-glamorous as it comes. A quiet quick goodbye that has the 'kanden seethaiyai' type opening sentence that Kamban would have been proud of.

He exits the game when he is still the among top 2 batsman in the team with no viable replacement in sight. Gavaskar's was the last such retirement. I guess when he says he leaves the game with sadness he means not being able to win a test series in South Africa and Australia. Surely a dissapointing blot for an ambitous cricket such as he. When he says he is proud - I guess he is referring to the fact that he is the only captain after Wadekar to win an away series against WI and Eng in an identical back-to-back fashion. Or to the fact that he went where no man had gone before (this includes Lara) in that one-man-show that was the 2003 Adelaide test.

I wonder if Waugh will write the foreword of his autobiography. Because Dravid wrote the foreword of Waugh's. It had a statement that reflected Dravid's own identity: "Steve’s legacy is hard to define, but I will remember him because he gave grit a good name. He proved that it is not only the pretty player who can capture the imagination, but also the tough and determined. Suddenly these qualities became as vital, as spoken about, as silken grace and sublime timing. He was leathery tough, played the game aggressively, and would do whatever it took within the rules to win. He built a team that has achieved legendary status, raised the level of young cricketers who played under him, and also embraced the traditions of the game and highlighted their importance. His ruthless style, combined with a passion for the game, has won him a staggering, almost unrivalled, following in India".

Lastly. Ilayaraja's music is often remembered for a nuanced silence he introduces to the unsuspecting listener. Yes, that subtle silence between interludes. You may not notice it. But the song wouldn't be the same if not for those moments. Do you remember what Dravid retorted when Donald snarled at him during that magnificent innings of 83 in the ODI tri-series finals? You don't. Because it doesn't exist. I don't think Dravid played a better ODI innings than that one. Dravid will be remembered for the strokes he refused to play, the words he refused to say and the actions he did not do. You might've missed those moments of silence. But without it Dravid's magnum opus career would have looked less elegant. And from walking away on his own after feathering that Chris Lewis ball at Lords to his retirement speech. Dravid was all elegance.

Netroo

I want to know the origin of this word. It is so commonly used that I actually thought it could be an English word. Then I grew up a realized it is probably a thanglish word that means "mug-up". And when I think about it mug-up needs an origin explanation as well. I am guessing downing the contents of the mug by totally holding the mug upside down on your mouth without bothering to chew, savor or enjoy led to the phrase mug-up.

But Netroo?

Freedom of Expression

On the issue of GoI banning content in Internet sites - I am seeing quite a bit of criticism against the ban. All of which is written on the internet. A good chunk of the criticism is clearly written by idiots who have mistakenly assumed themselves to be proponents of free speech. I am sensing a pattern of ignoring details that is now abnormally common among people who'd like to classify themselves as 'liberals' in Facebook. One can make a good case for an unilateral ban on free speech that targets these so called free speech proponents.

Let us examine 2 cases.

Case 1: Person A of religious persuasion 1 goes and arbitrarily slaps/beats up person B. He does so because person B belongs to religious persuasion 2. Person B's reputation does not suffer as a result of being beaten up since no one else is aware of it except persons A & B. When pulled up in court person A says that he hated the fact that person B's religious views did not align to his own views. Person A says he has freedom to disagree with person B and as a means of expressing his disagreement he chose to beat up person B. Person A's argument is that since he has freedom of expression he should not be pulled up in court. He further states that if person B disagrees then person B has three options (a) he can feel free to disagree with being beaten up (b) choose to ignore the fact that he was beaten up. Being beaten up is like a TV channel. He can choose not to see a channel if he doesn't like it. No one else knows about the fact that person B was beaten up. So its really up to person B to ignore this fact. (c) Person B can choose to repay in kind and beat up Person A if he so desires. Overall person A's point is the judiciary need not interfere as it is a matter that can be settled between the two parties.

Case 2: Person A of religious persuasion 1 goes and arbitrarily insults humiliates ridicules person B. He does so because person B belongs to religious persuasion 2. Person A does this act both in internet, in person and in mainstream media. Many many people become aware of Person B's humiliation and in their interactions with Person B they use this fact against person B either directly or indirectly. That person B has been humiliated is a fact and has done irreparable harm to his reputation regardless of whether person B chooses to see/hear the insult in the webpage/media or not. When pulled up in court person A says that he hated the fact that person B's religious views did not align to his own views. Person A says he has freedom to disagree with person B and as a means of expressing his disagreement he chose to insult and humiliate person B. Person A's argument is that since he has freedom of expression he should not be pulled up in court. He further states that if person B disagrees then person B has three options (a) he can feel free to disagree with being humiliated (b) choose to ignore the fact that he was humiliated. Being insulted in TV/Media/Internet up is like a program in a TV channel. He can choose not to see a channel if he doesn't like it. (c) Person B can choose to repay in kind and humiliate Person A if he so desires. Overall person A's point is the judiciary need not interfere as it is a matter that can be settled betwene the two parties.

The idiots who think they are proponents of free speech, consider case 1 and case 2 to be different. Judging by the arguments expressed in the internet - if these liberals were a judge in that court - then 9 times out of 10 they'd rule Case 1 against Person A and case 2 against person B. Mostly because they consider verbal abuse as an optional intrusion of one's fundamental rights. Specifically, in case 2 - they believe Person B could continue to exercise his fundamental rights if he personally chose to ignore visiting the websites that insult him or choose not to watch the TV channels which humiliate him. Let us say - you tweak case 2 slightly and say - no one else was aware of Person B's humiliation. And that it was person B's personal and private angst, mental torture and humiliation. Then 10/10 liberals would rule case 2 against person B. The logic here is that person A's actions independently have no meaning. It is person A's opinion of how much person B suffered that matters the most.

People who understand 'free speech' and relationship between an individual and organized religion/institutions may not always see this way.

P.s: To make things simple - one can also assume Persuasion 1 = atheism and persuasion 2 = whatever form of relationship with god that the Dalai Lama preaches.

On Child Abuse and Parenting

Child abuse or molesting minor children is slowly becoming a popular topic. More so in the internet. However, it is not a well-advertised topic to people who aren't plugged into the internet. In news reports it is often dramatized to the point where it resembles an airplane accident or a ferrari crashing into 7 star hotel. A common man ends up thinking 'it happens to other people. Not me'. If an average news reader thinks this then I blame poor presentation of news items on this topic as the reason why people relate to it poorly.

An effective presentation of this news item must make any parent think that there is a high probability that their children can get molested or that they have already been molested. Once they see a news item on child abuse/molestation - parents should be able to clearly identify the amount of situations they have left open that is conducive for someone to molest their own children. A child molestor rarely creates opportunities to go after children. Mostly because he does not have to. Parents give their children to him on a platter. He just takes advantage of the situation. And most parents help him do so all the time. The amount of child molestation that surface up to parent's knowledge is probably 1/1000th of what actually happens. And those that surface to the news is 1/1000th of what actually gets to parent level awareness.

Good parents who are aware of this 'angle' have a growing list of potential suspects. They are conscious of people who can potentially get the privacy and opportunity to molest their children. In Madras, during 80s and 90s it was common to send children via rickshaws (not autos) to school. Parents rely on rickshawman to pick up the child from school and bring them home. Many schools have classes that end at different times (for e.g. 3rd standard ends at 3PM whereas 5th standard ends at 3:45). The first child that rickshaw man picks up could have had their school day end at 3PM. The last child that the rickshawman picks up could have their school day ending at 3;45 PM. That is a solid 45 mins of time spent with a child in a rickshaw in a private space under pretext of parking rickshaw in the shade of a tree. This is the 'exclusive time' that the parent has gifted to the rickshawman. And like most molestors, I am sure he looked very trustworthy in the eyes of the parents. Today parents trust a van driver, autorickshaw driver, their own car driver with at least 45 minutes - 1 hour of private time with children. They hand over their children on a platter like father of the bride setting up a wedding night bed. Why? because these parents trust that such things will never happen to them.

This is just the beginning. Good parents also will never leave their children in a relative's house, an uncle house, or a friend's house. Essentially any place where a person - who is 3 years or more older than the child - can have private time with the child. This could be anyone. Most commonly, I suspect the person who gets most private time is the 'anna upstairs'. The college going or Xth standard boy who is your house owner's kid or is the 'trust worthy boy' who lives downstairs. Your child wanders out from your house and is frequently seen going to neighboring door in same apartment floor. Sometimes the child wanders and goes near the gate of the apartment where the watchman is playing with it. Ofcourse, the neighbor's boy or your watchman has a trustable face. You have never seen him mastrubate or fantasise about other aunties. So obviously he has to be trustworthy. And while this boy who lives downstairs or watchman is 'taking care' of your child - you could get valuable housework done. Your child is not around to cry and nag you. So you were able to cook, clean the house, and arrange that furniture. Chores that would have taken 2 hours actually got done in 1 hour. Yay!

That the 1 hour you saved got tranfered as 1 hour of 'private time' for the watchman in the parking garage with your child or for the downstairs boy in his empty house never crosses your mind. Because such things never happen to you. You would have obviously seen some signs if it did. I suspect most child molestation instances is never known to the child themselves. A memory formed when a child is 3-6 years old is rarely a persistent one. Unless via some fluke it resides in subconcious and it comes out at a later stage - it is silent evidence. Dead and buried.

I had an opportunity to meet some good parents during this trip to India. They would never allow their driver to pick their daughter up alone. No matter how tired they were or how much office work or household work they had to do. No matter how personally they knew their driver or friend's father - they'd never let anyone else pick up their kid. They'd go in the car or drive in 2-wheeler to pick up the kid themselves. Parents and grandparents are the only trustworthy people around a kid. Until the child is 17 they should never for a moment be out of their own supervision. They'd never let kids stay in someone else's house. Even if it was an emergency. They kept a constant vigil. It was almost paranoid and unrelenting.

I also saw some parents who said "adhellam summa newsla varuudhu. You cant be doing this all the time. If you look at it with this angle you will never have peace of mind. You just need to have some trust in life. If you are good only good things will happen to you". The casual ones. Ones who took life as it comes and ones who didnt take life too seriously. The happy-go-lucky kind. I saw them handing their children over to complete strangers for close to 2 hours of 'private time'. I suppose nothing bad will happen to the child. The stranger's face had that trustworthy look. I suppose that is enough, no?

Lightning Strikes Everyday - X

Just for the record: I am the only guy in this planet to have bought Apple stock at $80 an Amazon at $48 in 2008 and still made a loss.

On Scholarly Debates with Roommates

While studying in grad school, roommates tend to spend extraordinary amount of time discussing and arguing about the vettiest of topics. These arguments tended to be very intense, created so much tension and anger causing the said roommates to not speak to each other for days together. And the topic of discussion was usually the most worthless topic on the planet.

I was reminded of one such discussion that happened 12 years ago. This was around the time the movie Alaipayuthey got released. In our apartmment corridor there were 3 houses packed close to each other. There were a total of 16-17 people in this little thamizh ghetto. And the discussion started the way such discussions usually start - innocuously at about 8PM or so.

My roommate Xinu (nicknamed after the Operating System) observed that the site of Shalini accident was mentioned as Nelson Manickkam Road. But we could all clearly see Cozee restaurant in the background. Manirathnam had obviously shot the scene in Beasant Nagar. Xinu was totally pissed off at that goof-up. According to him that flaw killed the entire credibility of the scene. Leading him to believe that the critical accident scene in the movie was completely destroyed thereby significantly weakening the movie's believability.

One the other hand :-) I felt some other aspect of the accident scene was what killed the believability. My criticism went thus. Madhavan was supposed to receive shalini in the railway station. That is why he comes directly to the railway station, waits in the stairs for sometime and then goes straight to the railway platform and waits for shalini there. This meant that Shalini was used to Madhavan picking her up everyday inside the railway station. But if you remember the way that scene played out; Shalini comes to station by train, gets off and goes straight to Nelson Manickkam road without waiting for Madhavan. And she walks arbitrarily/purposelessly on the side of the road (This is where she gets pleasantly surprised to meet her sister Swarnamalya who happens to be dating the Hyundai company works manager Raghuraman. And then she crosses the road lost in thought and meets with car accident). There is no reason offered as to why she did not wait for Madhavan inside the train station.

Now why would she not wait for Madhavan in the railway station? The accident would have never happened had she waited. It goes completely against the plot of the situation. She knows he is coming to pick her up. Yet in order to contrive this accident scene Manirathnam ignores that assumption and deliberately shows her walking outside on the road. This is a critical logal flaw. Cozee restaurant being in Nelson Manickam road is easily explained. Its a fictional place in a fictional movie. Cozee isn't known to people outside of Chennai. In this fictional story Manirathnam could've easily claimed that the Cozee sardar opened another branch in Nelson Manickam road. But having Shalini walk out of the station goes against the self-created logic of the movie.

I felt that my criticism was more valid and wanted the group of friends assembled to firmly establish the fact that this flaw was what made the scene less believable. Xinu on the other hand was clearly trying his best to make a case that Cozee restaurant must be held as the reason why that scene was less credible. And we argued for 7 straight hours. Late into the night. Tempers flared. Insults exchanged. And we were stuck on this topic for the next few days until we were distracted by the next huge fight on whether a roommate called ChisBeer was run out or not.

The beauty of pointlessness in having pointless discussions and trying to bring out tightly woven analogies with nuanced logic was what defined a vetti boy. I miss those days.

Dagalti

An interesting phenomena on duping that happens in Madras in Bangalore was pointed out to me by a family member. And then I started observing it with alarming regularity.

Lets say you go to a petrol bank and put fuel for Rs 100. You give the guy Rs 500 and you see him counting four 100 rupee notes to give back to you. He counts four 100s. He makes sure you see him count four 100s. He gives you the money. You think you've got Rs 400 back. In reality he has given you only three 100s. The other one by some sleight of hand is still with him. He relies on the trust he has established with you by counting so clearly in front of you to make you not double check the note count. If you trust him and put the money in your pocket without counting and leave - the guy pockets Rs 100. If you don't trust him and he sees you counting the money again and you reach the third hundred and give the confused look, he will be waiting hand outstretched with the fourth Rs 100. He pretends that he is giving you the last 100 separately. Like it was unintentional and matter-of-fact absent mindedness.

I noticed that this happened both in Bangalore and Madras quite consistently.

That leads us to an interesting story, which can only happen to the likes of me. There is a petrol bank in the intersection of Venkat Narayana road and Mt. Road. Its on Mt Round right before you take a left into V. Narayana road. My cousin and I were driving two separate scooters and we both put petrol for Rs 100 each. So total cost is Rs 200. I hand out Rs 500 and see the guy counting three 100 rupees. He hands over the money to me. I start counting it. There are only two 100s. I smile as I see him stretching out his hand a giving me another 100.

After we reach home I gloat about this to my cousin. Tell him how easily observable this ruse is. He looks a bit curious and asks me, "why did you pay Rs 200, I thought you only put petrol for Rs 100". And then I told him "thats because I paid for you as well". He then shouts at me angrily " you idiot! don't you have to tell me that. I paid Rs 100 as well"

Senthamarai

Last week same time I ordered 1 Ghee Roast masala Dosai and 1 Mixed Vegetable Parotta in HSB.

Now, standing in front of Subway counter and ordering veggie max. Feels like erstwhile villain Senthamarai took a huge thick leather belt and is slapping me with it in a panchayat punishment.

The NRI conundrum

They try to be a local in a foreign land. Speak the accent, use the slang, eat the burger, wear the Abercrombie, be street smart, navigate the culture, get deals in planes and be the roman in rome.

They try to be the foreigner in their home land. Use it as a shopping destination. Refuse to drive scooter or car. Travel in taxi. Stay inside. Speak like a tourist. Act dumb like a tourist. No Street smartness. Cant navigate the culture. Be a dependent on other locals for travelling bargaining and generally moving around.