confessions of a hypocrite

Save my Soul

2008-05-22T11:33:00.000-07:00

Consider this hypothetical situation: you are in a boat big enough for two with plenty of supplies. A few metres away there is a woman drowning. Do you save her? And if you do save her do you share your surplus supplies with her?
To me, it seems a simple enough question to be answered with a resounding - of course I’d save her and subsequently offer her something to eat. I wouldn’t even think twice. After all it’s the obvious, civilized and decent thing to do!

Now consider another hypothetical situation. You are walking down the street and you see a starving beggar a few metres away. Do you walk up to the beggar and give her some money or food?
Hmmm. I’m not so sure this time.

But why this doubt? To my mind the analogy holds. Then what could be the reason for such a stark paradox in my actions?

On some introspection I reasoned that I was probably unwilling to lend a hand to the beggar as there was no guarantee that my ‘sacrifice’ of some hard earned money would ensure the beggars prolonged survival. She’d probably end up that way the next day as well.
But then is that reason enough to walk away and not to do anything? If someone had told me that the drowning woman was of a suicidal bent and had tried this several times -would that be reason enough for me to turn my back away and leave her to drown? Certainly not!
Thus the possibility of future survival did not solve this paradox.

Another possible reason for this behaviour could be that there are just too many starving people around. I can’t save them all can I?
But then by that logic if there were a hundred people drowning in the sea that day I would not save even the one I had space for because – I can’t save them all can I?
So once again the logic doesn’t hold up.

After similarly dismissing several plausible theories I was left to just one conclusion - I just don’t see the starving beggar any more. No doubt she is there, no doubt I have looked at her, but sure enough, I just fail to see her.
Years of seeing this woman at the corner of my street and at the corner of almost every street in this country has sensitized me to the very real and terrifying face of poverty. My defence mechanism simply disallows me from recognize this face anymore. For being the civilized, decent person that I am I would never leave a woman to drown; it would be unthinkable.

Hence, getting back to the boat analogy, would that mean that if I saw enough drowning women for enough time there would come a point when I would no longer lend that obvious civilized and decent hand?
Further extrapolating, that would mean that if I am exposed to certain actions, no matter how vile and deplorable, for some amount of time, I will no longer find it to be unacceptable and allow it to go on unhindered

Save my Soul indeed!

Everyones an expert

2008-05-13T12:57:00.000-07:00

Have you ever noticed how we as people grant an overwhelming importance and subsequently display an overriding dependence on so called expert opinions in our daily lives? In fact, even very fundamental aspects of our worldview such as developing nascent beliefs or even giving acquiesce to a particular object/action/person are largely moulded by the “experts” around us.

Take for instance the craze we exhibit for award shows, be it the Oscars/Filmfare, Grammies, Bookers, Miss World, Nobel prizes, the list is endless.

But the truth of the matter is that every single individual is biased. I am not alluding to a conspiracy theory of deceit and corruption but an underlying human fact. Every single individual’s outlook is heavily skewed and this is primarily because of the unique set of circumstances and stimuli he/she has been exposed to throughout their lives. This is a continuous process that results in a constantly evolving set of individual characteristics. This bias is not limited only to some of these fundamentals, but it is a fact that a particular individual if exposed a particular stimulus at different times of the day, under varying ambience or in different moods will display differing reactions to the stimulus. Thus, there is a multitude of factors that go in forming judgement about a particular stimulus.

The above mentioned award shows dole out honours on the recommendation of a panel basically consisting of a set of inherently biased individuals expressing a very personal (thus naturally biased) opinion, about highly subjective (thus open to biases) subject matter. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and a series of flaws in a system certainly do not make it correct, but in fact render the entire system and its outcome, essentially, meaningless.

If I have watched a movie which I have found to be the best I have ever seen but the “expert” panel at the Oscars deems it unfit to even qualify for an award, should that detract from my experience or opinion of that movie? Or, conversely must an Oscar wining movie about, say, a dysfunctional American family (American beauty) necessarily evoke a special interest in me?
Must my opinion of Eminem, whose lyrics I can barely understand let alone identify with or appreciate change when he wins several Grammys?
I couldn’t go past 30 pages of Orhan Pamuk’s Nobel winning piece of literature – “My name is Red,” even after two enthusiastic attempts. Does that mean I am an imbecile?

I have seen photographs of the Mona Lisa. At the risk of confirming my stupidity beyond all doubt, I will share with you my hitherto closely guarded secret – I really didn’t think much of it. In fact, with all due respect to Mr. da Vinci, I fail to see what all the fuss is about. But as it the best painting ever painted (I do not know who decided this) I am pretty certain that the next time I find myself in Paris I will join the over 6,000,000 annual visitors at the Louvre for a rendezvous with Ms. Lisa.

Thus I should opine that expert opinions and award shows are completely irrelevant to me and possibly this hypothesis will hold true across the multitudes. One size cannot possibly fit all no matter how much we try to make it so. And thus the opinion of another however highly decorated cannot take precedence over our own.
Yet the fact of the matter is that movie and record sales jump after winning an award, beauty queens become messiahs and Nobel laureates, legends. And the ironic part is that it is we the multitudes, for whom all this is irrelevant, confer this status upon them.

“It is not the medium, but the quality of perception and expression that determines the significance of art” – Bill Waterson

To Change or not to Change.. Is that the Question?

2007-08-09T11:19:00.000-07:00

One of the most feared and at the same time most revered words in the English dictionary. Dealing with inevitable change can be perceived as a strength, a weakness, an opportunity or even a threat.

“I pray to God for the Strength to change that which I can, the ability to accept that which I cannot, and (thirdly and probably most importantly), the capacity to tell the difference.”
These simple words, whose essence if well understood and whose significance once internalized can, I dare say, lead one a tad closer to that ultimate aim in life which despite being nearly impossible to achieve, is aspired to by the multitudes – Happiness. And I speak not of its momentary variant that so often misleads us into believing that we have reached our much sought after purpose, but what I speak of is its sustainable variant which we toil and bleed to achieve but which so seldom comes to hand.

Reaction to change differs from person to person. This occurs at an unconscious level but manifests itself in two principle ways. If the change is of an adverse nature, one way it is dealt with is to accept the changed situation or person and maintain a status quo internally i.e. to let things take their course and attempt to remain unaffected by them.
The other way is to react to this change and attempt to gain dominance over it i.e. to not accept adverse change but to fight it.

“The end justifies the means.”
These two opposite reactions to change are in fact different means to deal with the same perceived problem with a view to reach the same envisaged end i.e. sustainable happiness.

“The chief source of unhappiness in this entire world is in fact the pursuit of happiness itself.”
These prophetic words in effect turn the whole argument on its head. It claims that by striving for, what is essentially a near impossible goal; we in fact make ourselves miserable.
Thus what we must, by inference, really do is focus on the means by which we traverse our path through life, constantly moving towards our ultimate objective i.e. ensuring that the journey is never sacrificed at the altar of the destination.
A difficult task indeed.

“A good traveller is never intent on arriving” – Lao Tsu
This statement was originally written in the literal context of a traveller’s voyage. When applied to the larger entity of the journey of life, it reiterates that to have a life of satisfaction one must not constantly yearn for the ultimate goal set out, but must extract joy from every opportunity available along the way. Even if there is a danger of delay in arriving at the destination, it postulates that this will be well worth the wait.

Thus, if one then begins to accept that the achievement of a goal is truly subservient to the process of achieving that goal, then the original argument whose contention was that - one must avoid attempting to change that which we, though our cognitive faculty, believe cannot be changed, begins to falter. Because we have began to accept that it is in this inevitably futile attempt, doomed to probable failure that the key to happiness actually lays.

“Many times we are powerless to prevent great evil, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest” –Elie Wiesel
Often there is full knowledge that the actions we are undertaking or about to undertake will almost certainly never end in fruition, yet we go ahead with unhindered passion, with an urge to see the task through to its conclusion no matter what the odds and impending consequences.

“You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take”
A simple argument that is a possible explanation to the preceding phenomenon. Hope. It is in this most irrational yet enduring of human traits that one finds some explanation to the seemingly inexplicable intricacies of the functioning of the human mind. Hope has the ability to drive a man to attempt to achieve the impossible; subsequently, it can provide the solace by rationalising a failed venture and spurn him on to try again.

Thus the conundrum that I face in my battle against change with a view to achieve that fanciful goal of sustainable happiness, is one I am yet to get to grips with. To accept change and move on unaffected i.e. to give priority to the journey rather than the destination. The consequence of this could be to possibly miss out on a host of opportunities that life presents to me. The alternative, to fight change and attempt to mould it to my advantage. i.e. to accept the destination as taking precedence over the journey. This approach could possibly involve a substantial deal of effort with no real guarantee of a successful outcome.
Neither alternative seems very appealing so for the time being, until my dilemma is solved, I deal with change by pressing my faith in hope. Hope that tomorrow will be a better day irrespective of my actions today.

2007-01-25T09:52:00.000-08:00

“The Son of Man” a painting by Rene Magritte

This painting, hides, behind its innocuous facade the very fundamental contradictions in human perception and thought processes.

Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see, but it is impossible. Humans hide their secrets too well

The apple in the painting serves to hide the face of the man in the bowler hat. This happens constantly in real life. There is an innate curious interest that is aroused on seeing something hidden. This interest can take the form of a quite intense feeling, a sort of conflict, one might say, between the visible that is hidden and the visible that is present i.e. our mind struggles to leave a hidden image the way it is – hidden. The mind instead seeks to fill in the missing information with suppositions thereby satisfying our craving for completeness.

Experience has taught us to presume that there is a face behind the apple, so, in turn; we readily imagine a continuity to fill in the masked area. One must rethink the ease with which we unconsciously "fill in" what is hidden and the unquestioned faith that we place in our suppositions.

The demerits of merit (OBC reservation)

2006-05-26T10:25:00.000-07:00

The demerits of pure merit:

The whole concept of “merit”, that in the recent past has been made out to be this hapless ideal raped at the altar of politics, is in my opinion, not such a virtuous entity.

The relevance of pure merit in the current context rests on two basic pillars: least worst system and comparable opportunity.

Least worst system:
Merit in the form being referred to, as in entrance examinations such as the Common Admission Test (CAT) conducted by the IIMs, is not the ideal way to judge the potential or suitability of a candidate for a place in an educational institute, in fact, it is far from ideal. It is designed to indicate only a small fraction of the traits possessed by the candidate, not nearly enough to gauge his/her potential to be a good manager.
Is it justifiable to say that a person securing a 98 percentile is necessarily better suited for a program in an institute of learning than a person securing a 96, or for that matter an 86 percentile? Not with any degree of certainty.
Yet it is globally accepted, and more so in India, that given the huge scale, the skewed ratio of aspirants to seats, the resources on disposal, the ambiguous nature of quantifying otherwise unquantifiable qualities, standardization of assessment, etc. this is the preffered process for selection.
I do not seek to rant against our selection system but my attempt is to point out that the results we take to be the gospel truth as to the suitability or the potential of an individual is really only an indicator, at best, limited by very practical constraints.
The point in the context of this essay being that we mustn’t necessarily assume an individual with a lower entrance percentile will necessarily make a worse doctor or manager as is a common insinuation doing the rounds and has recently come to be the butt of many an SMS joke.

Opportunity:
But then the other issue crops up as to why should a person with a lower score get a leg up over a higher scoring aspirant?
Therein comes the other lacuna in the pure merit system

When one compares two people for a seat in an institute of learning, from an institute’s point of view it would be simpler to measure them with the same yardstick and pick a winner. But one must necessarily look at the situation from the point of view of all the affected parties.

I will resort to the much cliched comparison with sport. In boxing we do not have one single competition to decide the champion of the world. No one can even think of pitting a super heavy weight against a feather weight in a competitive bout. Neither do we race 500cc bikes against 250cc ones in a race.
It would be against all principles of fairness and moreover it would prove to be an exercise in futility.

Similarly, compare two individuals – one who hails from an affluent family of well educated pedigree, who has lived all his life in the city, got educated in the best private schools, joined a coaching class for the entrance exam. Essentially, one who was provided all the required tools of success at his disposal.
Contrast this to an individual who is the offspring of daily wage earners, studied in a govt. school in a village where the quality of education was pathetic, over which he is required to work to support his family.

Can u honestly and fairly compare these two individuals with the same yardstick?

I might be accused at this juncture of being overly dramatic with my comparison, but the point I am attempting to put across is that to compare every individual with the same yardstick is bound to result in a highly skewed selection, that is one favoring the more fortunate. And the fact that 35% of the population (upper castes) occupies 85% of the open seats in institutes of higher learning is testament to this.

So what is the alternative, get into the history and background of every candidate and see who’s the most deserving? No.
The logical solution would be to broadly group them in a manner which is an indicator of their opportunity quotient and then select the “best” of each group.
Which is nothing but reservations!

Now as to how this opportunity quotient is arrived at and on what basis is another issue all together, several methods of which have been put forward in the recent past. But the fact that such demarcations are a necessity in institutes is beyond doubt. Especially those setup by the Government of India, which we often tend to forget has a commitment to social justice and the long term development of the entire spectrum of society. Also, the fact that reservations achieve what they have been set up to do, to some degree at least is aptly demonstrated in Tamil Nadu that has seen cut-offs in the reserved list steadily closing the gap with the open category year after year.
Yes, there might be a dilution in the brand equity of an institute, as many a concerned anti-reservationists has cried hoarse about, but frankly that is of lesser concern to the government, and in my opinion rightly so.

The most vociferous argument put forward by the anti-reservationists is that reservation is not the solution and that the need of the hour is to upgrade primary, secondary and higher education across all sections of society throughout the length and breadth of this country.
On this point I am in complete agreement with them, in fact no one can argue that this is not the best possible way forward to level the playing field thus making pure merit relevant.
But what happens till then? Should we just deprive the less fortunate until the country gets its act together with respect to education, which by even the most optimistic estimates is two decades away.

Reservation doesn’t seek to be a permanent solution to a very real and very complex problem. It is at best a stop gap measure until the conditions are ripe for it to have outlived its relevance thus rendering itself redundant. It attempts to give a ray of hope to a people who have historically always been looked down upon and treated like second grade citizens in their own country. It is a small crack in the door of opportunity that has the potential to galvanize an entire section of the populace to realistically aspire to a brighter future for themselves as well as for the generations to come.

The hypocrisy of corruption

2006-05-04T00:02:00.000-07:00

The dirty politician has today become a symbol of all that’s gone wrong in this country. He is the very bane of our existence; he is to blame for everything….

Or is he? It seems like an extremely convenient arrangement…. We have found our ever-present fall guy. But may be, just may be there is a little more to this, but realizing it means opening Pandora’s box. Something that most of us I am sure will be unable to handle.

Politicians are in my opinion nothing more than an extension of their people, they reflect all the good and the evil of a society, the same moralities or lack of them, the same prejudices, greed, ambitions, ruthlessness that we as a society exhibit. They are the sum and whole, the mean, they are they epitome of society.

How many would not think twice before stepping over a co-worker if it means a promotion? How many would pay a cop the whole fine instead of getting away with a “settlement”? How many would pay a clerk in an office to get their work done quicker?

Unfortunately too many.

To expect politicians to be immune to the temptations that we ourselves succumb to, to expect them not to lie, deceive, coerce to save their necks on being caught, to expect them to be the moral puritans that we fall so woefully short of being is hypocritical to say the least.

We as a society need to lift our standards of morality and put an end to these double standards. Corruption and dishonesty runs in the very fiber that is India. It is a shame, but it is reality. We have to work to remove this terminal disease and it is only then, from our newly acquire moral high ground, that we will have the purgative, nay the right to demand that honesty from our leaders,

Who is your hero?!?

2006-04-10T20:06:00.000-07:00

Who is your hero?

THIS is not a question to be trifled with. It is by no means an inane query that is the exclusive domain of a beauty pageant.

It is in fact a question that merits deep introspection, because behind its innocuous facade, it hides, to some degree, the answer to that eternal question ‘who am I?’ It is the embodiment of what we are, of what we want to be.

A hero – someone admired, adulated, revered, emulated. If one could be close to what his hero is at some point in his life, he’d reckon, he’d done a rather good job in the one shot at that roller coaster ride that we call life.

More often than not, it is not the person, but a particular trait or facet that allures us, that stands out, that to us maketh the man. And that, more than anything else is indicative of what we truly treasure, the personification of what we have grown to value.

So next time someone asks you this question, beware the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

I was asked this question once, to which I honestly answered I’d have to think about it. Thus started my search.

It was something I read about a year ago that rudely interrupted this incessant quest, that made me sit up and take notice. When I read of it, it struck a deep chord.

RECAP – A while back there was this story of a man called Gopichand (I confess his first name eludes me at the moment) who had been offered an undisclosed, but I gather a rather large sum of money to advertise for a cola. (He had just won a very important badminton tournament) it went on to say that he politely turned them down, citing something about it being harmful to kids.

I had found my hero.

Here is a man, who in this day and age when people would sell their souls, even their mothers, for the right price. Here is a man who refused to do a 30-second spot with a bottle of cola in his hand for a sum, which I dare say, would probably amount to a large fraction of his career earnings. All for something he believed in, for some principles he stood by. Who does that!!?

This man was either incredibly stupid or, deserving of that word that gets trashed around all the time- Great. Great in every sense. I settled on the latter (no one could be that stupid!!)

This man is truly a diamond in the rough, a beacon. He has, in his own unassuming way become an inspiration, a testament to the fact that the most difficult of feats is not impossible to achieve.

A man who refuses to be solicited, who lets no man put a price on that most valuable of assets – ones integrity.

May his tribe increase.

Every night before I sleep, I pray to god. I ask him for two things, the second of which is to help me be a better person tomorrow. And if I, someday find myself standing at a fork, as Mr. Gopichand once did, and I choose to walk down that hallowed path that he chose, that path so few have ever tread, ill know that my prayers were answered.

I shall be telling this with a sigh,
Somewhere ages and ages hence,
Two roads diverged in a wood and,
I took the one less traversed by,
And that has made all the difference.

- Robert Frost

Reservations for OBCs in educational institutes

2006-04-09T21:39:00.000-07:00

In the very recent past a lot of furore has been in evidence due to the reservation hike in certain educational institutes.

In the opinion of a middle class, 'general quota youth', who stands to be largely affected by this piece of legislation – 2 important issues arise from his:

1) The merit Vs quota argument (as reams of space has been dedicated to this issue, I will desist from adding to it at this point)
2) Why this piece of legislation has come about.

I strongly believe that the proponents, in fact even the beneficiaries of the hike will be hard pressed to suitably justify a 50% reservation, 25 – 30% one can live with, albeit uncomfortably, but 50%! Then why one must consider have the representatives of the people, the legally appointed voices of you and me, approved a step that could have potentially catastrophic consequences (Read, for you and me).

Yes, one mustn’t forget in our fit of rage, in our incessant quest for a scapegoat, that the Parliament of India has okayed this move, and with an overwhelming majority I might add. Thus the ultimate responsibility, most inconveniently, rests with us - the voting public.

Just the other day I received, along with the majority of the mobile phone totting student population of Delhi - a frantic call to arms, an appeal to join the people of India (read affected parties), in protesting, at Jawaharlal Nehru stadium this most vile and contemptible breach of public trust and morality.

It is heartening to see this Rang de Basantian attitude towards our lives and the people and events that affect it. As Elie Wiesel famously remarked – “There are times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.”

Having said that, it is my belief that the proposed instrument of protest is incorrect.

Many times we see the writing on the wall, but we just assume it is addressed to someone else. –
Our current situation is a classic example of this prophetic statement.

The writing on the wall:

VOTER TURNOUT: 55%
MIDDLE CLASS URBAN VOTER TURNOUT: 30%
SC/ST/OBC VOTER TURNOUT: 70%

(All figs. are approximate, source from the Tribune)

And believe me when I say, it is addressed to us.
Today you and me are a non-entity, it is for this reason, and this reason alone, that this sorry situation has come to pass.

The solution:
In my humble opinion, if there is one thing good that can be said about the powers that be – it is that you can safely bet your house that they will do that which is in their interests. a.k.a. ‘kursi bachana’ (this generalization in no way seeks to malign an often unfairly maligned group of legislators, but is more a reflection of society today)

Yet it is in this most simple of certainties that lies the path to empowerment and ‘making that difference’.

Which brings me to my premise:
All the rallies, petitions, media frenzy, debates, ‘big fights’ self immolations or whatever other form of protest being employed are at best a poor substitute for that most powerful of weapons – an ink mark on your finger.

All the protests are meaningless if the powers that be are confident that come election day you will be enjoying your holiday in the company of the latest blockbuster rather than queuing up to exercise your franchise.

It is this one act that makes us significant, that gives us the power to make a difference. Yet that very cynical but still popular response to voting continues to be “their all crooks.”

To that I say, so be it, still vote for the least successful louse of the lot. If you can’t take the effort to read the manifesto, calculate socio-economic considerations, scrutinize declarations, analyze past records and personal information – Don’t!

Use “inky pinky ponky” when you reach the booth, but for heavens sake press that button, any button. This may sound like a grotesque travesty of our fundamental duty, undoubtedly, it is. But in no way does it compare to the enormous disservice we do our country (read ourselves) by not getting our name on that list. Because when you push that button, you cease to become a non-entity, you no longer are a faceless citizen who does not demand and therefore does not deserve. You by this most seemingly insignificant of actions transform into a person to be revered, one who cannot be trifled with or taken for granted.

They say you can get a horse to do the tango, all you need is a cattle prod to his rear. We have been given just that by our constitution, yet we have failed miserably to use it. And those who have realized the importance of this instrument have utilized it to the fullest and are the ones today who are reaping its benefits.

We have to admit we are a selfish people, and until something is bound to affect us, “chalta hai,” the very edifice on which this great country survives, and I dare say prospers, will continue to be our mantra. This perceived injustice has given us a reason be indignant, to feel cheated and betrayed, let this galvanize us to act proactively and thus effectively make that difference.