Argumentation Crisis and other Short Stories

2009-06-21T01:55:00.004-04:00

There is only a finite amount of time before a choice is made. Choices made are only satisficing, which is natural. People make conscious choices. You chose one thing over others. I chose something else. When you advise me to settle down in the US, or when I ask you to move to India, we are talking the same amount of sense. Or nonsense. A choice might lead to more success than projected; or one might grow to regret the choice. Consequences are known a posteriori. That is also pointless. What really matters is that one has/had choices, and one makes a conscious choice by taking time, thinking hard, discussing with people that matter, seeking divine intervention, whatever else. You made yours that way. I made mine that way. When that is the case, let's not bother about comparing our choices. Choice. That's that.

One does not create/organize/make priorities. One does not prioritize. One simply has priorities. As David Allen says in GTD, and I agree, "you don't manage priorities—you have them." Making a lot of money might not be mine, taking risks might not be yours. Let's not start questioning each other's priorities. It's stupid.

Some steps to improve the quality of life in cities

2009-05-03T16:01:00.009-04:00

These are based on Bangalore, but can be generalized to other cities in India. Some of these are simpler to implement than the others. You may want to add more in the comments section.

Remove bus-stops after signals. This is one of the stupidest things that you will see. You just start making a move as the signal turns green only to get stuck behind a couple of busses that make a stop at the bus-stop immediately after the signal!
Move bus-stops to service lanes and get rid of them wherever possible. Maintain a minimum distance between bus-stops (whatever is the standard). Push bus-stops to the service lane, if there is one. At least, push them as much away from roads as possible.
Get rid of "service lanes". Make them part of an extended road.
Do not give permission to any building that does not have self-sufficient parking space. Probably rules exist regarding this. But they really need to be followed. If you ever had the misfortune of going to Manipal hospital, you'll be amazed at the near total lack of a parking space. How could anyone have commissioned a hospital whose plan does not include parking space corresponding to its size? This rule should be strictly applied to establishments of all sizes.
Do not let people embezzle real estate for god's sake! The simplest way to embezzle public land anywhere in India is to do so in the name of god. I've seen this in every place I've been to. Once you confer divinity on a tree or a stone, nobody can do anything about it. Even if such gods are very close to roads (or may be right in the middle of the road). On the one hand, trees are cut indiscriminately in Electronic city (the absence of trees there only gives an appearance of the road being wide; the road is really not any wider without those trees), and on the other hand, large trees are allowed to grow in the middle of roads until they become a nuisance. Do not let people grow trees and gods on roads.
Either build a wide footpath or don't build one. Don't build an excuse for a footpath inviting pedestrians into danger. Wherever there are no wide footpaths, put enough warning signs for pedestrians asking them to avoid the main road, and take an internal road instead.
Put garbage bins generously. Many people don't want to litter. But if the cost of that is to look for a garbage bin and walk several hundred metres up to it, people grow indifferent. Reduce this cost by planting garbage bins conspicuously.
If there are any public rest rooms that allow access free of cost, (and hence free from maintenance,) get rid of them.
Mandate sensor based automated flushing in all public rest rooms. The long term benefits will outweigh costs. If people have an option of not flushing, they will exercise it, increasingly so if the place already stinks. And this is true outside of India also, okay? A lot of people are conscientious about being the first ones to dirty a clean place.

2009-05-02T11:25:00.002-04:00

India is an odd country. Cattle run riot on roads. (Elephants have stopped doing that since too many IT people started driving too many cars on the narrow roads.) Babas and gooroos are found droning in every street corner. Most dogs are homeless (like most people) and roam the streets nakes in the sun and the rains. And customer support is available 24 X 7.

There's hardly anything peculiar about the US. It's only the peculiar people like I that find some of the things peculiar. All services such as the Internet, cable etc. are organized, are run by corporations, have customer support centres, websites, and the works. And it takes only a few weeks to get anything done despite that. Nothing odd really, except that I am used to thinking how much time it takes in India to catch hold of the neighbourhood cable guy, who doesn't even have a fixed office, yell a bit, and fix the damned thing. May be 3-4 days.

Let's say you come across the following instruction outside banks and other such places: "Shirt and shoes required. Pets not allowed." Should you find it funny? Of course, not. I somehow find it funny though. Would you be envious of dogs with colourful sweaters and caps barking at you from inside luxury cars? No. I am not either. But I keep wondering. Had dogs evolved to grow better brains than those of humans, would they have treated me as well? Odd question, isn't it?

Punjabi-isation of India? Not really.

2009-04-27T18:52:00.010-04:00

Vir Sanghvi writes about "Punjabi-isation of India". He's partly right, but generally wrong. His premisses that Hindi cinema is influencing pop culture in a significant way, and that Hindi cinema by and large depicts Punjabi stereotypes, are valid. But his conclusion that India has become "Punjabi-ised" (as a result), does not hold. Naturally, there's nothing right or wrong about the said Punjabi (or any other) melting pot, (though I do have my personal views about such a thing). Except that it does not exist.

Interim Thoughts has a good post on this which makes some of the points I had in mind. For example, the pervasiveness of Idli and Uddina Vade. Further, although it's true that Punjabi food has made a major impact in big cities in the South, more in dinner than in lunch, Andhra meals is also quite formidable. Even if we give it to Punjabi food, it is not clear to me how much it has got to do with movies or TV. I would imagine drinking espresso based coffees or eating pizza to be more direct effects of movies or TV.

The prevalence of Punjabi food in tourist locations in Kerala or anywhere else can be explained without the so called Punjabi-isation. It is not significantly different from the non-usage of coconut oil for cooking in those places.

Hindi movies are terribly popular, but that's not all. It's amazing how popular Telugu movies are in a place like Dharwad. Telugu movies run for 100s of days regularly. Even in Belgaum, the bigger Telugu hits run for a long time!

Karva chauth or whatever it is called might be the most brilliant motif in Hindi cinema since "duniya ki koyi bhi taaqat use nahi bacha sakta", but unlike Sanghvi, I am not sure if women everywhere have started observing it suddenly. Moreover, I know of at least one ritual -- Bheemana amavaasye -- which is quite similar to Karva chauth, observed in Karnataka. Similar rituals might exist elsewhere. With respect to other festivals also, I don't think there's any significant change due either to Punjabi culture and/or movies. Probably indoor rituals and customs have reduced a bit, and outdoor activities have increased, due to the changing times.

Salwar kameez is probably the most popular dress, but saris do return during ceremonies. On the other hand, trousers stay.

All that aside, one of the more direct influences of Hindi movies that I have seen in (some parts of) the South is the taking in of Hindi words for relationships. The increasing usage of funny words such as "bhabhi", "devar", "jeeju" etc. in lieu of age old local equivalents is definitely a direct effect of Hindi movies. However, this is more likely a 'Barajatya effect' than a 'Johar-Chopra' Punjabi effect. This is significant because this has extended beyond big cities, and it has invaded households. This is unlike most other effects which can be seen mostly in big cities and outside of the family. You can find young men and women in a place like Gokak inserting these terms quite naturally in their otherwise unadulterated Kannada.

The point is that memes are running along in all directions. Even the trivial, and pretty annoying ones like the Kannada verb maaDi, (ex: enjoy maaDi, relax maaDi), being used by Hindi speaking folks all over Bangalore.

While it is quite annoying to see the Raj Malhotras and the Rahul Singhanias of the world singing, dancing, oye-hoying and generally making merry all the time, I am sure there is much more to Punjabi pop culture than that, let alone Indian pop culture.

Regional Language TV vs National TV

2009-03-17T20:38:00.004-04:00

I have always thought the regional language channels that serve general entertainment (non-sports, non-news) are much better than national TV (Z, Star, Sony etc.), in terms of the variety as well as the quality of programming. Why is the difference so stark? (If you disagree, do comment.) I believe regional language TV are doing quite well commercially too, despite covering programmes on literature, classical music, agriculture, dialects, warnings to fishermen, political debates, in depth interviews with non-celebrities, along with the usual serials, film based programmes, and possibly 'reality' shows. How is this feasible?

Handling routine deterrents

2009-03-14T12:47:00.005-04:00

(Somewhat related to this post by sri)

Some of us are easily put off by many things in the routine that many others barely notice. In some sense, we are in 'our own world', generally preoccupied by our thoughts, with a feeling of being in control; and suddenly something comes up that we struggle to cope with. We can associate with many of the things described in that post, such as not being good at handling routine things, being uncomfortable in social interactions etc..

For me, it can be the simplest of things, such as reaching the lab in the morning. I am ready to take the bus when I suddenly realise that I don't have change for the bus. (You need exact change, otherwise you can't ride.) Or may be I don't even have cash. Then the process starts. I have to walk up to the ATM, withdraw cash; then walk to some place where I can buy something unnecessary, because I wont get change otherwise in most places. Finally when I come back to take a bus, (by then I would usually have missed one or two busses), all these errands in the cold here leave me numb in more than one way. It takes quite some time after that to get back to work.

Or it could be about dealing with work related issues such as running behind sysadmins trying to convince them to grant admin privileges on a lab machine so that you can install certain software or host a webserver for a project. It's stressful, time consuming and even almost impossible at times.

Of course, it is stupid to get upset by things such as these and make our work suffer. But that's the thing. Some of us are not good at handling such things. Of course, we should be careful in that case, by being well-prepared. But possibly we don't value these things enough, and therefore they soon hit us back.

We are also easily affected by reading or hearing very strong opinions in the media and blogs. Especially blogs, since such posts attract strong comments, and posts in response, further posts, and so on. Even though we may not get directly involved in these, they disturb us suffieiently enough to take our focus off work.

There are many such deterrents, but there are also a few things I have figured for myself which help me in dealing with these better than before. One of the things I do is to quickly try and do a cost-benefit analysis of 'routine tasks' that I face. For example, in the getting the change for the bus case, I check if there is any cost involved in not going to the lab (like missing a meeting), and if I can get the work done from home. And instead of running behind the admins, it might be better to consider getting most things done on your laptop. Or it might be better to find out if there is any machine in the lab that is not managed by the sysadmins.

In order not to get affected by opinions, I tend to simply avoid listening to or reading an opinion if I sense that it is too strong for me. The opinion might well have very good points, but unless they are presented in a calm and dispassionate manner, it is not for me. Even in cases when I do read a strong post or comment, I resist reacting through comments. Because, as I said, some of us don't like it too hot. Similarly, I try not to post opinionated posts on my blog or get into arguments about fine points.

None of these are foolproof, nor have I given systematic thought to them. Also, I don't always follow them. But when I do, generally they help in reducing some of the unwanted stress.

The University

2009-03-11T12:23:00.006-04:00

Yesterday I happened to overhear a part of a chat between two guys in the lab here. I guess they were discussing the state of their respective theses (all PhD theses at all times and places are in a bad state, naturally), and somehow the chat seems to have moved on to PhD students in general. One of them suggested that nobody does a PhD in IITs. And the other one agreed and further said that even the ones that do are not up to scratch, and they probably do PhD in IITs because they don't have any other option. Actually, he used Hindi equivalents of words such as "leftovers" and "otiose". But anyway, that's not the thing.

Forget these desis who have apparently escaped the below par IITs (the very havens to reach which they doubtless spent several months in Kota, Rajasthan, only a few years before that). A labmate of mine, a fellow PhD student of mine, in fact, used to proclaim repeatedly, the following line - "BTech's are the products of IITs, MTech's the byproducts and PhD's the waste products."

The cleverness of such things notwithstanding, we can point to several leftovers and waste products that are, well, being very productive. But that is also not the point. I hear such things so often that it's neither offensive nor amusing. Surely the IITs, or the higher education in India in general, for that matter, has a very long way to go. That low quality students join IITs (or other institutes in India) for PhDs or that IITs produce low quality PhDs is probably (circularly) true in general. While I don't have a problem with the generalization, I only find statements such as the ones I cited ironic.

When you state such truisms, you are either reinforcing a stereotype or being a party to a self-fulfilling prophecy or both. Let's say you are one of the few bright people in India, and you go elsewhere and state that bright people don't stay in India, I don't think that would come to me as a fascinating realisation.

Please make no mistake. I am not at all suggesting that people, bright or otherwise, should stay in India just because they are born here. It's an individual's choice. It's true that opportunities are not abound here. Especially the brightest people find great opportunities abroad, and it might well be foolish on their part to miss them. There are also strong points in favour of the argument - 'the best people should get the best opportunities and conditions.' I agree with that too. But the only clause that might be useful if we add it is - provided some of them come back and reproduce the kind of opportunities and conditions that they had the privilege of experiencing.

The US was, and continues to be, built by people from all over. It's the people who create the opportunities and nurture conditions that attract more people. After all, it is the people who make an institute or a country great, and not the other way round. So, unless the whole world can migrate to the US (or Western Europe), there is a dire need to create opportunities and nurture conditions elsewhere, on the way to making them also attractive and great.

One of the most important steps, if not the most important step, in this direction is the university. That's what made Europe and the US great. That's what we need to build if we want to see a better India.

There's also another incentive that the university provides in terms of preserving/developing our culture. Build high quality, big and real universities. Not just new IITs, but places that facilitate teaching and, more importantly, research in all disciplines -- arts, history, linguistics, basic sciences, engineering, culture etc.. Build places where ideas can flow freely, ideologies can clash in a constructive way. Let people discuss sciences, culture, languages and arts; let people innovate. Then we will see cultures being preserved in a real sense.

'Because I just came back from Iraq'

2009-03-07T01:44:00.004-05:00

[An experience I had several months ago.]

I had swallowed half a beer when he came in. Someone had inserted a few coins into the jukebox. It was some new pop song. 'Why would someone pay to listen to a stupid song,' I wondered smugly. He seemed diffident. He sat on a chair against the counter, not far away form where I was sitting. He was introducing himself to everyone around and shaking hands. But his conduct was not that of a leisurely socialising. Rather, he seemed to yearn for reassurance.

'Are you okay?' I was surprised by that question that came toward me. I hesitated a bit and said, 'I am okay. Just enjoying the song.' He continued, as though he did not hear me, 'I am asking because I want to be sure that you are okay over here. You know, I just came back from Iraq.' Everything seemed clearer at once. I turned attentive. 'You are from India, right? I like people from India. Uh.. let me say something in your language. Uh.. naamaste!' I smiled and asked him, 'Why had you been to Iraq? On some business?' I felt stupid as soon as I finished asking the question. Why would he have gone to Iraq? 'Yup, US army.' 'I am sorry, that was a stupid question. It should have been obvious,' I said. 'No, no! You are doing good. Anyway, tell me about yourself. You are so far away from home. You do call your folks everyday, right? Because I know how tough it is to stay away from home. I was in Iraq for the last 18 months.' I didn't know what to say. It's true I am away from home. But that's where the similarity ends. I am not living in my country, but is there any comparison between living a free life in a free country and living in a warzone like Iraq?

He went on, 'Now don't bullshit me. Tell me if you are okay here or not. Because people who come from other countries should be happy here. They should feel they are welcome here.' 'Don't worry about that. This is very much a peaceful country like mine.' He looked a bit satisfied to hear that. 'I am glad to hear what you say. Still, if anybody says anything, or you face any discrimination, don't hesitate to report it. In your university or somewhere... there are people who take care of these things.' 'Well, I haven't really experienced any such thing. And I am sure I wont. Don't worry.' 'That's good. But be careful. You guys are a bit mild. And there are quite a few assholes around... well, you know... there are asshole everywhere.' I laughed and said, 'Oh, don't bother about that. We have them too. In fact, I am sure we have many more assholes in India, simply because we have many more people!'

He was looking much better after all this talk. But it was evident he was totally shaken. I don't know what he had experienced, but surely he had not come out of it still. He asked about my family. Asked if I was married. Although he didn't say anything about it, I sensed a dislocation in his personal/family life. I found myself sitting next to him feeling rather heavy. 'I am still shaken up,' he repeated. He was unsure of everything; was apologetic. He happened to burp, and apologiesed profusely about that. He added, 'Because I came back from Iraq only the other day.' to everything he said. 'Don't worry about that. You are back home,' someone said. But somehow nobody was really interested in him. I don't know why I felt empathy. I too tried to console him that he has come back to his own country. It was odd, though.

He left after a while. As he was leaving, he beckoned the bartender and the people around us, and said, 'Make sure he's okay,' pointing to me repeatedly. They all looked blank. A few even shared a smirk or two. I quickly signalled to them that everything is allright. 'Make sure he's okay, because I just came back from Iraq,' he walked away slowly as he said that.

Of academic dreams

2009-02-28T17:36:00.002-05:00

Increasingly I am dreaming dreams that are "academic", for want of a better word. The motifs are: research group meetings, meetings with adviser and informal (research kind of) discussions with fellow research students; "developing" algorithms or "finding answers"/ "convincing arguments" to research questions. Once in a while, I am not a part of of the cast, but a remote spectator to a small set of people (I think only two) engaged in a dialectic on a variety of topics. Sometimes in English, sometimes in Kannada. To be sure, in a conscious state I have none of the range, depth, vocabulary or fluency that characterise these dreams.

What is startling is not just the frequency, but also the lucidity of these dreamy or dream-like states. Unlike the other (non-academic) dreams, I can remember at least the broader details for a long time. A few weeks ago, I had a discussion, not with one of the usual suspects, but a close cousin of mine, about my thesis work! Specifically, about a paper which deals with work similar to mine; he was giving me advice based on the details in that paper. Alas! I only remember to the extent of the name of the paper, and not the advice :) Another time I had "figured out" that the results that I have got in a experiment are the best for the model that I am using. Again, while both the results and the model are real, the link has gone missing. More than a few times I leave the bed trying hard to remember the algorithm/model that I had "developed" for a problem I am working on.

Why, even this morning I broke away from an interesting discussion on publications etc. with two of my labmates (in Bangalore) ;) We were discussing how there are not enough conferences in a particular field of research, and how a lot of important work in that area is published in a seemingly unrelated (but important) journal. Anyway, these dreams constantly leave a nagging feeling behind -- "Did we actually discuss something substantive?", "Did I actually develop some useful ideas?" Though all this must be illusory, the possibility, however narrow, of making progress by sheer fluke is too attractive to completely rule out!

I have a few reasons that possibly explain why this happens: (1) I always start working late in the day, and most of (the very little) focussed work that I do, occurs during the wee hours. There is no gap between stopping working and hitting the bed. So, when I go to bed eventually, the work "continues" in the subconscious. (2) I spend a lot more time thinking about doing the work (and imagining how I am going to do it and the consequence of its completion) than actually doing the work! (3) I almost never complete things. Not on time, anyway. So, I never go to bed with a relaxed feeling; I sleep on the incomplete things. Probably, the subconscious projects a temporary illusion of having achieved something through the medium of dreams, thus putting the mind to rest. (4) This is especially true on days when I don't do much work (and there are more than a few). On those days, the guilty mind starts "doing research" and produces such a dream, just to make sure I can sleep a bit. ;)

Lest anyone misconstrue, let me make it clear again that none of this implies that I do a lot of research work. Quite on the contrary, they indicate that I need to (1) do a lot more work, than thinking about doing it, (2) regularly, and at regular hours, (3) towards completing things on time. This problem is fairly well defined. Now, I should see if I can actually solve it in reality.

Small ideas

2009-02-20T15:21:00.005-05:00

It's amazing how small ideas can improve the quality of one's life. A small change, a small adaptation, a single flip bit in the stream of your daily routine can potentially take you to a new level of optimality. The small change can potentially help you (re)discover a part of yourself. Say a software tool that you come across, that rekindles an old flame in you, and you get hooked on. Or an old idea that you suddenly decide to pick up again and work on. These small changes can indeed remove you from a state of stagnation; remove from a state of over-brooding, listless, stressful local minimum. They can take your focus off yourself, off your all but insignificant survival, and refocus it on your ideas, your work, your creativity. That is the key: taking the focus off you; it removes stress, makes you more productive and happier. The small change you made has a larger effect on your personal and work life and those of the people around you.

If the quality of your life is great, good for you. But always be on the lookout for the small ideas. Never underestimate the power of the occasional small change. It's always an odd mutation that causes a leap in the scheme of things.

On culture preservation

2009-02-16T15:38:00.009-05:00

[Warning: Long post.]

All cultures at all times have been characterized by certain levels of fluidity. Cultures get formed, evolve, meet other cultures in constructive and destructive ways; some of them erode and die. But all these are gradual processes. It's not typically the case that there is a culture flourishing at some point, and dies a sudden death some years later.

If newer generations of Indians are increasingly growing culturally unaware [1], distant or westernized, or are perceived as such, there are more reasons to that than meet the eye. Let us list some:

Increasingly exclusive definitions of culture
Intolerance, Coercion and/or self-righteousness of sections of society, in various forms
The general indifference of society as a whole in building/preserving an inclusive cultural context for its own and the future generations
A general difficult in accessing the various elements of culture for people
A tendency to ignore new forms and ways in which culture gets fostered

More often than not, when there is big talk and action about preserving culture, it has got to do with either religion or customs (dress habits, lifestyle etc.). Sometimes, language too. These are the elements of culture that people generally want to preserve. There is, for example, not much hue and cry that youth does not care much for books (regional language or IWE or anything); or for classical music [2], despite that being such a rich and widely revered form; folk arts, anyone? Non. At least, not to the extent of pulling together morchas or beating up people. Attachment to religion too is about the routine physical customs and rituals. The general unawareness about mythology, metaphysics, vedanta, again, respected all over the world, is not something that seems to concern many. They are part of our culture? Aren't they? Further, we had a fairly good tradition of mathematics. How about that now? Why is it that science in general is not part of any debate on culture? We do need a scientific culture. A culture of innovation and discovery. Don't we?

By the prevalent narrow definitions, many people like me are probably culturally unaware because we don't care much about religions and customs, and have a somewhat, well, unacceptable lifestyle. This despite the fact that we know quite a bit about things like Indian literature, music, and contribute in our limited ways to science and technology. But in the presence of such exclusive, squeezed up definitions, is it any wonder that a lot of people grow averse to "culture"?

The family and the society is generally intolerant to deviations from perceived normality. It is very hard to have meaningful debates. (Pseudo) Stereotypes are created quickly and dealt with severely. Sections of societies are coercive and violent, and there is no chance of rational debate with them. On the other hand, there are sections of the society, consisting of learned people, that have embraced an inclusive culture, are open to civil debate, yet are too self-righteous for one. They too don't take too long to proclaim depravity on the part of people who happen to have a different view. For example, some writer friends of my family who come down hard upon me, whenever I talk in support of free trade; or when I say that we cannot impose a particular language upon people, however much it pains us to see its usage going down. Again, these are huge deterrents that can easily put off the less passionate.

While the lack of rational debates in the family and the society is a big problem, the general apathy of the family and the society towards elements of (inclusive) culture is equally dangerous. Like I said, it's not that people suddenly stopped being aware of their culture. Family and societal conditioning play a part in the development of a person. Here, I want to take the examples of two of my nephews. (Just to make a point; no judgements intended.) There is this nephew of mine, about 10-12, who's your average kid: doing homework, getting marks, playing video games, watching TV, being stubborn and demanding, and being.. er.. largely listless. Not that the kid is dull, he's quite good at school. I've never seen him invent a game (he'd rather get his parents to buy a toy), never seen him read a book, play an outdoor game, talk about a story in Panchatantra, or do anything creative. What I do see is his parents running behind him to do his homework and score well. (Last year, the kid started a "falling suddenly and fainting" routine to ward off their pressure, much to our dismay!) I've not seen a single book in their house. Never seen the parents taking the kid to any culture related activity like a play (there are a lot of plays targeting kids too), or a concert. His access to culture is limited.

There's this other nephew of mine, 3 or 4, and the kid is a riot! It doesn't take much to get him involved. You start a story and he develops it himself just be observing the things around him. He can make a toy of anything that he gets in the fashion of Kung Fu masters. He's constantly prodded by his parents and grandparents. With enthusiasm and patience, new stories are told, new things are shown. Among the kids in my close circles, this one stands out. If I have to bet my money on which one will potentially grow to be culturally aware (in the broadest sense), I'd chose this kid.

To be sure, I am not theorizing anything. I am not implying definite causalities. There are numerous factors that determine a person's development including the traits one is born with. I am only suggesting that conditioning helps. I am also unhappy with the trends in general. We complain that our kids watch TV and play video games. But we don't care enough to include parks, open spaces, playgrounds and trees in our urban plans, along with malls. (And then shout that malls spoil our culture!) We don't care to make the outdoors safe to children. Is it odd that the newer localities in Bangalore are less green and er.. less cultural, in a manner of speaking? No. Because we cannot afford to save space for parks, public libraries or open-air auditoriums. The opportunity cost of investing in culture is just too high!

Due to all these reasons and more, there's a difficulty in accessing -- in a general sense -- elements of our culture. It's far easier to access "western culture" in many ways. Some of my friends who have good taste in cinema, and know a lot about world cinema, don't know much about good Indian cinema of old. Part of the reason for this is that it is easier to access the former, especially in this age where a major source of information for many is the Internet. The same applies to books, encyclopedic articles and so on.

While the virtues of visiting a pub are easy to access and verify, those of going to a concert might not be. The news has not reached me, or it is too far from where I live, and anyway no one will come with me if I go there. Again, this is just another way of looking at things. There are a lot of people who go out of their way to practice one, other or both lifestyles.

Finally, culture finds new ways and forms. Things are not as bleak as they appears. The Internet, for example, is facilitating immense new possibilities. Getting local information is becoming increasingly easier. Although there is nothing substantial to base this on, I think there is a revival of interest in Indian classical music because of the sheer ease of access on the Internet. Similarly, many Kannada language blogs (surely, other language blogs too) get added every day. Indeed there is a great amount of quality writing on the Internet by ordinary folks. Although we are still not good at public discussions, we seem to be doing that well on the Internet. A lot more people are more actively involved in expressing themselves, which is also a form of cultural revival. Social activism -- not only the undergarment type, but also, say, the use bicycles propaganda type. But this aspect is often ignored in the big talks of saving culture.
***

[1] This post is based on the premise that newer generations of Indians are culturally unaware etc..
[2] Again, whether one should or should not care for these elements of culture is not my concern. Only that if we are talking about culture, I'd like it to be about an all inclusive culture.

Zen and the Art of Doing Nothing

2009-02-10T15:16:00.004-05:00

Long ago when we were in Madikeri, there was this friend of mine, whose house I used to frequent to play shuttle badminton. Soon after the exchange of pleasantries, he used to ask me the dreaded question, "What were you doing?" My answer, as always, would be, "Nothing." This puzzled him endlessly.
"What do you mean 'nothing'. You must have been doing something!"
"No, nothing really. Nothing in particular."
"Were you studying? Or helping your Mom?"
"No."
"Playing?"
"No, I just came here to play. Didn't I?"
"Watching TV, then!"
"No, I hardly watch TV."
"Well, what were you doing?"
"Nothing, I told you."
"How can anyone not be doing anything!?"

Yes, I had mastered the art of doing nothing at an early age. I generally did not have anything exciting to offer to people. No doubt why I've hardly retained old friends. Or new friends. Although, instances of the above conversation hardly take place these days, it is still a difficult question for me. Or rather, the question is not difficult for me at all, it is my answer that others find difficult.

With the diffusion of the Internet, this has become the central inquiry of mankind, what with people over emails, IMs, numerous social networking tools, buzzing constantly, demanding to know what one is doing, one did during the week, or one plans to do over the weekend. As if everyone has to be doing something at all times. Some of the newer tools press the issue further: what are you doing right now?

Why not spend part of your time doing nothing? I am sure it will not matter too much. In fact, most of you might cause less harm to yourself and the world by doing nothing than you might by doing anything else that you plan to do. If you think how can anyone survive by not doing anything at all, think again. I have. I am even doing mildly well.

Of routine stereotypes and arbitray simplifications

2009-01-30T20:10:00.008-05:00

The US is a vast and self contained country. As a result, probably Americans don't need to look outside for most things such as education, career, opportunities, a good life and pop culture. A common American's day to day life need not involve gaining any amount of understanding of the rest of the world. (While this is true for any person anywhere, it is more so in the US.) When a situation arises wherein (s)he needs to understand or evaluate its significance, arguably, (s)he needs to look at the situation with an Americanised (or at most, a westernised) worldview. Drawing analogies and equivalences help.

So, while it is alright that American analysts and media talks about 'India's 9/11' or 'India's Enron', it's amusing to me when Indians or even NRIs for that matter need such analogies. If an European wants to evaluate and come to terms with the Himalayas as the 'Alps of the East', that's fine. But if I am told how the Kodagu district of Karnataka (or Coorg) is the 'Scotland of India', what meaningful information can I gain in addition to what I already might or might not know? And, yes, I have been told this (by an NRI)! I can definitely locate Scotland on the map; but I've lived in Kodagu for about 4 years. When I think about the Satyam fraud, I feel cheated, but I can hardly relate to Enron. Similarly, if I get told that Amitabh Bachan is the Tom Cruise (or whoever else) of India, the only thing I might learn is that Tom Cruise is a super star. I had read somewhere that Barkha Dutt is India's Christiane Amanpour or Geraldo Rivera. Who are they? And what am I? India's what?

The other thing about the US, the melting pot that it is, is that most of the things here have been simplified and/or standardised: routine social/economic interactions; customs; processes; games and sports, etc.. At least, I find them to be so. I can't even begin to compare baseball and cricket for example. Or the social rituals such as marriages. Probably Americans have simple notions about most things, because they don't need to deal with complexity on a routine basis. It might very well be the case that, analogies, stereotypes and reductions work for them. I see words like typical 'southerner', 'New Yorker', 'midwestern' and so many other phrases being used regularly. Although I can't convince myself that any entity can be that monolithic, I don't know much about America, so I can't judge one way or the other.

But I have no doubts stereotypes and arbitrary simplifications don't work in India. Complexity is the name of the game over here. For good or for bad, we deal it with complexity in our homes, workplaces, traffic, social interactions, what have you. We are adept at dealing with complexity. Why then do we still resort to arbitrary simplifications is something I don't understand. There is nothing typical about South India or North India or particular cities and towns. Recently I was in a salon where the hairdresser asked me if I was from the upper part or the lower part of India, and added, "Because I know that the people from the upper part have lighter skin." Again, if an American needs these simplified distinctions, that's fine. But we see the same simplification being used in India all the time!

Appearances may be deceptive but are still simple things. What about entities such as culture? People talk enthusiastically about 'Indian culture', 'Western culture'. Perhaps 'Kannada culture'. Even 'pub culture'. Where do I find the descriptions? Why do we talk about them as though they are monolithic entities? Or people arguing vehemently if a particular movie depicts the 'Real India' or not. Where is the real India? Is there a way of knowing if I belong to that? There are these and so many phrases in the recent times (even 'Indian Obama') that I don't understand -- that's why this post -- but they just continue to be used on and on. Not just by ill-informed people or upholders of culture, but on TV, in blogs and elsewhere.

Happy New Year with Books

2009-01-01T11:03:00.007-05:00

Let me first wish my readers a very happy new year -- 2008 was a bad year in so many ways that 2009 can only be better. Then, as several bloggers do at the end of the year (or at the beginning of the next one), let me inflict upon my readers a list of books I read last year. Unlike those several other bloggers, my list is both small and, possibly, dated. But there it is anyway. I also am hoping to get some book recommendations from the readers to add to my list for this year.

maraLi maNNige (Kannada - ಮರಳಿ ಮಣ್ಣಿಗೆ): The only Kannada book I read this year, largely because I am away from home, is a classic novel by Shivaram Karanth. An excellent novel with very strong characters. Add to that an easy flowing realistic narration.
The Selfish Gene: I cannot have much new to say about Richard Dawkins' classic. Except perhaps that I did not find either the style or the substance to be as radical or confrontational as it is often made out to be. (Possibly because I read it years/decades too late.) And I mean this as a good thing: Dawkins explains carefully and in full detail, every premise and every hypothesis; there is hardly any room for a (logical) contrarian view.
My Name is Red: A novel that deals with politics; history; conflicts of east and west; religious fanatism; love; and above all, art! Set in the 16th century Ottoman Istanbul, the novel contemplates, at its own pace, all these and more, through multiple narrators. You can find a review at The Middle Stage.
The Music of Primes: A very interesting book by Marcus du Sautoy for a general audience about number theory with focus on prime numbers. It offers biographical sketches of some of the greatest mathematicians and their work toward revealing the mysteries of prime numbers.
Prime Obsession: John Derbyshire's book is a more focussed approach toward explaining the Reimann Hypothesis. The book develops most of the background mathematics needed to undestand the Reimann Hypothesis before presenting the hypothesis itself. A very good book. I rate it better than The Music of Primes.
Istanbul: Memories of a City: Orhan Pamuk's memoir on his city. It gave me a very useful word 'huzun', Turkish for melancholy. I feel it is not just Istanbul that is in a constant state of huzun. The book is an interesting read by and large, but at times the prose becomes lengthy and tedious.
The Evolution of Cooperation: Very informative book about game theory with focus on cooperation. I have talked a bit on about this in another post - The Big Why Question. Highly recommended for anyone interested in societies, networks and India in general.
Snow: The year 2008 is a Pamuk year for me. This is an exceptional novel. I rate it higher than My Name is Red (which is not an easy thing to do). As always, Pamuk's canvas is big. The motifs are similar: east and west; religion; poetry; politics; et al. A meditative novel, yet one that comes across more as a dark comedy. (I had written a review (in Kannada) here.)
No Longer at Ease: Disappointing, given that Chinua Achebe is a favourite writer of mine. I have written about it in the post - No Longer at Ease.
If on a winter's night a traveler: I don't think I am capable of saying much meaningful about this novel by Italo Calvino. If anything, I can say that it's not a novel but a meta-novel: a novel about novels; and about the nature of reading and writing. I am not even sure whether or how much I like it. A difficult read but enchanting at many places. I haven't been able complete it, not sure if I will be able to.

That's more or less it, though I did want to read more. I attempted to read The Fifth Discipline, but could not go beyond the first couple of chapters. I wish to read more this year (by cutting down on watching movies), and want to read more non-fiction. Especially books that are close to my (research) interests. So, I ask my readers to recommend me some books. Here are some impromptu tags based on the combinations of which you may want to recommend: game theory, rationality, society, India, computer science, research lifestyle, mathematics, uncertainty, graphs, complex networks, nature inspired solutions, optimization, multi-agent systems. Or anything else that you think is interesting. If you want to recommend a good fiction, that is welcome as well.

A bug, not a feature.

2008-12-24T17:36:00.005-05:00

Many a time, the significance of a piece of art is not self evident. Art-criticism and interpretation help establish/enhance the significance of the work. Similarly, adapting to a different form also sometimes helps the original work.

Anyway, the reason I am pontificating about stuff that I don't know much about is, well, somewhat humorous, at best. This is what happened. I found the painting below drawn by S in her laptop. Nothing fascinating about the painting; she keeps drawing such things in MS-Paint for passing time.

Except that, I was in a art-critic mode. "Not at all bad," I thought, "Seems to hold some significance. Interesting use of the walls (of tradition/society) that a dancing girl is trying to break. She's using the power of her talent, of her expression to get out of the walls. The wall will eventually crumble!" The cynic in me took a slightly different path, "Or perhaps it signifies that despite continued efforts from the girl, all that has been achieved is a little space around her. The wall is still strong. Will she ever be able to break out of it completely?"

So, later on I tell S that I find this one pretty okay. She says, "There is a bug in MS-Paint." "What bug?" I ask. She says, "Don't know, it is something with the 'fill colour' option. See, in this one it has not filled properly." "Interesting!" I say. So, all the walls tradition women emancipation and the other crapola I had come up with and felt smug about is just an innocent bug! "I didn't think about all that. But from now on I'll ask you 'interpret' what I draw!" she concluded.

Hazaron Khwahishen Aisi

2008-12-18T11:31:00.006-05:00

Hazaron Khwahishen Aisi is exceptional cinema. It truly is. There are not many movies that offer a glimpse of the historical context of this huge and complex beast called India. You don't often come across a movie in India that tries to capture the ethos of a time, a place or a people. Not in the modern times anyway, when cinema is by and large unambitious.

The 60's and 70's were important periods of time world over. It is that period that the movie sets out to talk about eventually reaching the mega event called Indian Emergency. In a sense, the movie is a tribute to the ideologies, lifestyle, dreams, successes and failures, of that period. And, of course, the inevitabilities of India.

I had heard about it a few times, but saw it only a few days ago. More power to Sudhir Mishra and his ilk. More power to the artists, especially Shiney Ahuja and Chitrangada Singh. If you haven't seen the movie, I highly recommend it.

Please let me fail!

2008-12-14T13:24:00.014-05:00

[Warning: What follows is a rant]

If there is one thing that hinders innovation in India, it is the societal intolerance to failures. People around you are unforgiving if you "fail", especially if you failed in something that is unconventional. Say for your engineering undergraduation you chose a stream that "does not have scope", you are doing something that is dangerously unconventional! And perchance if you fail to get a well paying job at the end of it, god help you! Mind you, you need not have failed because you chose an unconventional path. But you failed allright.

That parents (and family) expect their kids to be safe, settled and successful is justified. What is not justified, however, is that the measures of success et al. are predefined and immutable. I see so many times people worrying that their kids are not getting anywhere (meaning, they don't earn as much as their friends; don't yet have a plot of land unlike the others etc..), whereas the said kids are thoroughly enjoying their life learning new skills and working hard. Let alone the family, even others assume a right to measure a person's success! Just because they have access to the measures!

If one is a PhD student, especially is India, one has to deal with this on a regular basis. If there is some career choice in India that is totally absolutely "out of syllabus", it is chosing to do a PhD in Computer Science, in India! (Add to it, "not from one of the most reputed institutes", if you will.) Imagine doing a PhD in CS, when "software has a huge scope" in the Indian industry! One must be crazy to waste 5-6 years doing a PhD. One gets asked questions such as the following on a regular basis: why PhD; why in India; why not in [great country|institute]; what is the scope for PhDs in India; what is the range of the starting salary for PhDs.

Sometimes, if the people are in good form, the questions are nastier: how good is [the institute where you are pursuing a PhD] for a PhD; how good are the advisors here (if they were good, they would be in the US or Europe, naturally!); when will you graduate, hasn't it been more than 3 years already; can you get a job in India; may be you should try for a job in the US, I don't think you can get a job in India; why don't you plan to settle in the US.

I am not making any of this up. I get to deal with them so regularly, sometimes from family, sometimes from strangers, that I have got used to them. But sometimes the annoyance accumulates so much that it gets to your nerves. This rant is a possibly a result of that. So, I have one thing to ask: people, please don't bother. I promise to never to pry and never to judge your life. I never do.

Please let me fail! Please let us fail. People who fail matter too, you know. In fact, if you check the history of the world, it is the people who risked failure that mattered the most. When one is exploring something new, failure is the norm! But if such a person even succeeds marginally, it potentially has a happy effect on several others. If I want to find a job in India, it is my prerogative. When a person is doing research work, there cannot be guarantees on time. If I fail to complete my PhD in 3 years, it's alright with me. I prefer failing on my terms to succeeding on yours! I do crave success as much as you do. I do want a well paying job, a cozy home, an LCD TV, and subscriptions to lifestyle magazines. But on my own terms; at my own pace.

I am happy, however unlikely or unreasonable it may appear to you. Happy that I am learning new things. Getting awestruck by the beauty of things. Generating ideas and implementing some. Contributing in my own little way. I am proud of what I am doing. I don't carry any illusions that whatever I do is going to make a difference to anyone. But again, the history of the world is a story of the synergy of countless tiny ideas coming together over time. Unless you allow people to risk going out of established paths, innovation cannot and will not happen. I am sure you mean well when you expect me to be settled and satisfied. But what if I want to be unsettled? Look at the world around you. How can a creative and sensitive person not be unsettled by what he observes and experiences?

And please understand that such aversion or anxiety towards failure is unwarranted. Things have changed quite a bit. People can afford a little bit of failure these days. It's alright if a kid tries something and fails. He has the time and resources to recover from his failures. If someone takes a break from her job to learn fencing or photography (or even just to relax!), it's alright, all is not over for her. I am sure there are more than a just few ways to live a good life. I am not sorry if all this sounds lofty or highhanded, because when you pry on me with condescending questions, you are not exactly being humble.

Is it stupidity really?

2008-12-05T12:38:00.007-05:00

Do not ascribe malice to that which can be sufficiently explained by stupidity, they say. But at times it is difficult to get convinced that stupidity suffices. What Simi Garewal exhibited on the NDTV show We the People, recently can perhaps be explained away as stupidity. But what about the habit of the electronic media to disseminate the opinions of celebrities on every matter of national interest as if they are expert opinions? Is that stupidity too, when it is done despite repeated flogging and ridicule?

Barkha Dutt has written an article defending the media with regard to their coverage of the Bombay attacks. She talks about how a lot of the venom spewed against them is a "convenient transference of responsibility". Then she makes a series of points trying to answer some of the big questions that were asked, which she seems to be doing using the Open World Assumption (OWA) - everything is permitted unless explicitly forbidden!

On the allegation that the media was too close to the site of operation, she has the following defence:

[...] we would have been happy to stand at a distance much further away from the encounter sites, had anyone, anyone at all, asked us to move. In the 72 hours that we stood on reporting duty, not once were we asked to move further away. [...]

Similarly, on telecasting live images and information that could compromise the ongoing operation, she says nobody asked them to switch off their cameras. They did so sometimes based on their own assessment; nobody briefed them, no do's and don'ts were provided.

She asserts further that while she welcomes a code of conduct for emergency situations, in the absence of such a code, the media did not break any rules! Such efforts to absolve oneself amaze me. Barkha Dutt and co. have been around for a long while now, have covered several emergency and developing situations, including a war. Sure, the authorities haven't given them a code of conduct. But what about learning from previous mistakes? What about taking the initiative to frame the rules? After all, the media has a stake in such situations. Emergencies are big business. How's that for a "convenient transference of responsibility"?

Perhaps the armed forces and politicians who complimented the media are suddenly changing their tunes, as she suggests. But some of them are also losing their jobs. Had anyone, anyone at all, told Vilasrao Deshmukh that visiting Taj hotel with Ram Gopal Varma is not on, he would still be the CM!

Barkha Dutt clarifies that certain allegations against her during the Kargil war are not true. It's possible that her coverage did not do anything to compromise the Indian army. At the same time, it's not hard to imagine that a real time broadcast of sensitive operational information could do harm. On the one hand, it will definitely increase the viewership by several thousands; on the other, it might compromise just a few lives. It's the responsibility of the media to take the call. And when they keep calling wrongly, it becomes difficult to get convinced that they are doing so out of information asymmetry or stupidity or some such thing.

Normative interactions, zombie processes et al.

2008-11-24T12:38:00.004-05:00

One of the things that I have observed in industrialized societies is that most of their routine business interactions are in the normative realm, as opposed to interactions in India which are in the declarative realm. (Of course, this is based on my limited amount of experience in just a couple of industrialized countries; hence not a theory.) The routine interactions are driven by standard processes; the people involved in the interactions become part of the work flow seamlessly. Except when the people involved are like me who are either ignorant of the process or don't care enough about it.

As a result, the work flow gets disturbed, causing embarrassment to one and all. In fact, I have observed that it is quite simple to embarrass people or to get embarrassed over here. I am not saying that this is a great news. But it keeps happening to me inadvertently. In fast food joints, malls, or while dealing with customer support personnel. By and large everyone is courteous. However, as soon as they start sensing a deviation in the standard procedure, they start feeling uncomfortable; a lot of times they grow uncomfortable to the extent of taking offence.

But the real fun in the matter is that each place has its own process and you are expected to know it a priori! For example, if I call the customer care of the domestic gas provider, I should start by mentioning my address. If I start by giving my name, the tone changes. If I call the electricity provider, I should first give the name. Coffee cup sizes can be small, medium, large; or tall, grande etc.. And I think it's better if all the restaurants and pubs supply glossaries to the customers along with menus because the names of food and drinks make no sense. (I am not talking about exotic food or drinks; the usual ones are called by different names at different places.)

Fast food joints are places that make me feel like I am attending an interview. You ask for a veg sandwich, and the series of questions begins: size of the sandwich; type of bread; type of cheese; type of dressing; which vegetables; type of sauce; and so on. And every time I fumble because I have no idea about the options that I have, the chap's sense of disbelief increases. By the time I finish this gruesome combinatorial exercise, I have no appetite for the sandwich. At the same time, the annoyance on the fast food chap's face is visible. (I had once read a similar experience on a blog regarding this sandwich process. It was something like this - my mother didn't ask me so many questions when I told her I have girlfriend and I will marry her.)

This is not an one off experience. In fast food joints, you are expected to know their menu and go through their rapid fire round competently. And to my great surprise almost everyone seems to be more than competent! The only places where my incompetence is gladly tolerated, and where the employees even explain the things to me good-naturedly are very close to the campus. I figure their tolerance comes from their experience of dealing with international students daily. They probably understand that someone like me is not out to embarrass them.

I cannot form a theory based on a bunch of examples, but all these do indicate certain patterns. As I said, most interactions in India are declarative. I go to a darshini and ask for a masale dose, or may be even a nice and crispy masale dose. Once I have delegated that job, I wouldn't bother myself by micro-managing the process of making a masale dose. It's true that our restaurants are much more crowded and there is no place for individual choices. Further, most of our food does not follow a component based architecture. But I don't think these factors make a huge difference. Another question I have is, does this process of letting the customer making choices at every stage necessarily lead to a superior product or experience? I am not sure. Let's even concede that it does. But then, one of the things about eating out is delegating your work. If I have to micro-manage the process of eating out, I would rather cook for myself. For me, it removes the relief of delegation. I can't imagine myself going to a darshini and spending time answering questions or giving instructions instead of chatting with friends.

The bigger concern for me, of course, is this whole madness of methods. The very idea of tirelessly executing a process day in and day out scares me. It's natural that machines are left clueless when there is a deviation from a standard procedure that they execute. But how about humans? Perhaps, processes bring in efficiency. But I sometimes feel this is achieved at the cost of making humans behave like machines.

We live in interesting times indeed. On the one hand, we are trying to impose as many processes as possible, thus making ourselves behave more and more like machines; on the other hand we are trying to build intelligent machines that can behave and 'think' like humans, while fantasizing possible takeovers by super-intelligent machines!

Small Things

2008-11-18T14:16:00.005-05:00

One question that keeps haunting me constantly is the following: why do we Indians punish ourselves with unbridled enthusiasm? We are both perpetrators and victims of what can be aptly called as quality of life crimes. We enthusiastically participate in them thus reducing the quality of life collectively. Examples of such crimes are: habitual honking, jumping lanes, driving with the head lights on high beam constantly; spitting tobacco without a care (from within moving vehicles!), littering; and so on.

What are the reasons for this? A lot of times, there is a tendency to sweep away such problems by assigning them to bigger classes of problems such as population, poverty or illiteracy. It's true that our urban population has to face grave competition for resources constantly. But that hardly explains away the problem. There does not seem to be a strong motive -- right or wrong -- for our quality of life crimes, except for shortsightedness and, ahem, downright stupidity. Consider for example, zooming through traffic dangerously only to stop abruptly at the next traffic signal ¹. Or worse, jumping on to a virtually empty lane only to realise a few seconds later that the lane was lying unused for a reason! Isn't it obvious that an empty lane in a peak hour traffic can only mean that the lane is blocked somewhere ahead for some reason like an accident. But commuter after commuter follows the same path, ending up at a barricade, and then struggling to come back to the other lane, thus completing a deadlock.

What is the cause for this? The inefficiency of governments? Or because corporates make immense amounts of money? Is it because we have thousands of castes and languages? Or is it because we ape the west? Perhaps it is because Amitabh Bachan's latest movie flopped or because the TV soaps are not good anymore? I can see that my questions above are increasingly moving towards the absurd. But certainly they are not as absurd as the situations we create for ourselves.

Another common issue is that, there is a huge disconnect between organizations and the community. (In many cases, there is no community even; it's just individuals.) There does not seem to be a sense of belongingness. Each considers the other an opponent! We use buses, but we don't feel a part of it. The staff in the bus and the passengers are cut-throat competitors! Similarly, government offices, banks, parks, restaurants, what have you. The organizations and its staff is one group; the rest of the community is in another group. There is a relentless fight. A park, for example, exists so that a community can make use of it. It is the responsibility of the organization to keep it clean and attractive. At the same time, it is the responsibility of individuals and the community to cooperate by not littering and not disturbing the order. However, the mistrust between the two is so complete that neither cares. It's amazing that nobody even gives a thought to being the first one to cooperate! It should be fairly obvious that people are more reluctant to litter a clean place than one that is already heavily littered; similarly, there is not much incentive to maintain a place that gets littered again as soon as its cleaned.
***

That's a load of rant. So, can anything be done at all? I definitely think so. Even in the absence of a strong sense of belongingness to an organization, community or a city, individuals themselves, motivated by self-interest alone, can make a difference however slight be it. Let me again take a traffic situation as an example. How often do you see people people continuing to dash ahead when a green light turns red? Everyone thinks, 'It's just me, I'll cross quickly and people behind me will stop. It's okay.' This continues till a cop starts whistling or a good soul stops voluntarily.

Every time you find yourself at the helm of the traffic and there is a red light imminent, just stop. Don't move until the light turns green despite annoyed honks directed at you from behind. It works. Similarly, don't jump lanes just because the person behind you is in a hurry. What I do when I hear a lot of honking behind me, a lot of times, instead is slow down my bike, sometimes even halt completely, turn back and stare. It works. (Of course, one has to be thick skinned enough to be not bothered about one-off reactions and swearing.)

A few individuals acting independently may not solve problems; but it definitely helps. We operate under tremendous negative feedback: individual insecurities feed on to each other and spiral up instantaneously. We can observe the amount of disruption an individual car causes by jumping lanes. Similarly, if an individual maintains traffic discipline, at least the small region around his car has lesser chaos than the rest of the traffic.

I think a lot of such small things can be done, which I can't understand why we don't. Littering can be controlled to a great extent by making garbage bins easily accessible to people. I see so many times people who normally don't want to litter do so because there simply is no garbage bin nearby. Installing a lot of garbage bins not only controls littering, it also is more economical in the longer run.

A lot of times, it is not clear to individuals whether there is an incentive for acting in a certain way, or what is the incentive if there is one. As a first step, I think it might even help if people start thinking that, at the least, there is no disincentive to do a certain thing. For example, it's not hard for say a small shopkeeper to understand that there is no harm in keeping a couple of garbage bins outside his shop.

¹If a lot of my examples involve traffic situations, it's only because traffic seems to be representative of our problems. Also, traffic is the most common menace.

The Big Why Question

2008-11-16T15:54:00.006-05:00

The big why question I am talking about is - why we are the way we are? In fact, that's the question V. Raghunathan's book, Games Indians Play: Why We Are the Way We Are, tries to understand. As the title suggests, the authors tries to answer the 'why' question through a game theoretical perspective. Specifically, he does it by modelling many of our day to day interactions in terms of prisoner's dilemma (PD). And, as you might know, the only equilibrium that two rational people reach in a one shot PD is defect-defect. That is, neither cooperates. The book does not offer anything frightfully new to someone who is familiar with PD and its possibilities. Nonetheless, the book is a welcome and useful approach to understanding India's problems: a lot of times India's problems are stated at very abstract levels; trying to understand them in terms of economics presents a more concrete model.

It does seem that non-cooperation has stabilised in India. In fact, this is quite the antithesis of another book I read recently, The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod, wherein Axelrod argues how simple, natural and inevitable cooperation is. Raghunathan suggests that most of the non-cooperative bahaviour that exists in India is because the games we play mostly remain one shot PDs and do not progress into becoming Iterated Prisoner's Dilemmas (IPDs). In this post I'd like to explore this point a little bit. I welcome inputs.

So, the problem is not that we Indians play games. It is that we don't play them enough. Or that our games do not become repeated games involving the same small set of players. Why is it that we don't play repeated games? The obvious first answer is that our urban populations are enormous, thus presenting a potentially unlimited supply of random players to chose from. As a result, two (uniformly) randomly chosen players feel it mighty safe to defect and move on. Owing to the huge sample space, the probability of meeting the same player in the near future is small. Thus, there is no incentive to cooperate in view of future gains. The best example of this is our traffic, where everyone is out there to compete and get ahead (albeit, marginally). If only the commuters could see beyond the 2-feet of as yet unoccupied road, and cooperate with each other, traffic would be smoother, safer and more efficient for everyone. But the commuters work under no guarantees; and everyone around is a stranger without any history of interaction; so why bother?

But is that all? Not really. Even in situations that are repeated, somehow cooperation does not evolve. Let's take a real example. My mom had a domestic help who used to "complete" all the work she was responsible for in a jiffy. My mom complained every day about how carelessly the domestic help worked, and who she has to literally redo everything once the help left. Further, she used to remain absent for extended periods of time regularly, without even informing ahead of time. I suggested that mom could get a different person and relieve the present one. But she presented two difficulties: no one else in the locality would do the job for the amount the present one does it for, they all take at least twice as much; and secondly, the present one is an old woman, and it's not nice to ask her to leave. I argued that it doesn't make sense to pay lesser (or pay at all) if the work cannot be delegated. I also suggested that may be mom could raise the present help's wages. Perhaps she will do the job better. That way it will help both. Mom wasn't ready to accept that. It's all the same; it doesn't matter how much more you give; no point in wasting money.

I think a lot of our interactions follow this model. Two things here: (1) Cooperation seems a huge risk to us. We feel that, in the absence of guarantees, if we are the first ones to cooperate, it will likely lead to personal loss and embarrassment. (2) We fail to work out a punishment model when the other player defects. We are happier to defect right at the beginning. To add to this, we are either not easily provoked in the face of defection against us, or we don't know what to do when provoked, thus preferring not to get into such a situation at all.

Rather than adopting a straightforward Tit-for-Tat, we generally work out a complex balancing act not necessarily based on economics, but on combinations of things like value system, social status and stereotypes. For example, my mother was being nice in some sense by not replacing the old domestic help. Perhaps that was her intention. But was she being nice really, in a game theoretic sense? I think not.
***

There's a lot more to say about this topic, which I'll do in later posts. I look forward to your ideas on the big why question and how can this be changed.

No Longer at Ease

2008-11-12T02:15:00.002-05:00

Chinua Achebe is one of my favourite writers. One of the major themes in his writing is the effect of colonialism on the Igbo (Ibo) tribes of Nigeria. Achebe's language is uncomplicated and aesthetically pleasing. Although he writes in English, he tweaks his English to conform to Igbo idiom, thus manifesting the possibilities of language yet again. The Igbo ethos emerges leisurly through his language. It is the language of the Igbo; every conversation is a rally of well constructed monologues; or witty proverbs that seem new every time they are uttered. To quote from Achebe's first novel, Things Fall Apart, “Among the Igbo, the art of conversation is regarded very highly, and proverbs are the palm-oil with which words are eaten.”

The subject matter of Achebe's first three novels is concerned with the Igbo tribes of a (fictitious) village called Umuofia (which later becomes a small town). The three are sometimes together referred to as "The African Trilogy". Previously, I had read the first in the series, Things Fall Apart, and the third, Arrow of God. Both brilliant pieces of prose. In this light, when I recently read No Longer At Ease, which is the second in the series and a sequel of sorts to Things Fall Apart, I felt immensely dissatisfied.

This is the story of Obi Okonkwo, the grandson of Okonkwo, the protagonist of Things Fall Apart. When his grandfather committed suicide unable to bear his sense of endless shame, most of the village had turned to christianity. Obi's father was not just a fervent new convert, he's also a catechist. Obi is a meritorious student. He's gulped all the education he could find near his village. People who migrate to cities in search of jobs have their organisations in every city; the Lagos chapter of this organisation is funding Obi's higher education. Obi is going to England.

The novel begins in a Lagos court room. Obi is facing the judge for allegedly taking a bribe. “I cannot comprehend how a young man of your education and brilliant promise could have done this,” the judge says while handing over the conviction. The story then flashes back. As soon as Obi is back from England, he realises the burden of expectations weighing on him: one of the few Africans who has a job in senior civil service; the gifted son of Umuofia; shall never let us down; shall lend a helping hand to all; etcetera. In the beginning, he imagines that he can handle all this out of his good nature, but that doesn't last long. More importantly, he starts getting convinced that his idealism wont take him anywhere in this newly corrupt city of Nigeria. Things don't improve when his love affair with an Osu girl (a girl from a family "left to God") becomes public knowledge; the relationship with the people of Umofia in Lagos gets strained further.

He's trying to keep afloat, trying not to get corrupt like the rest of the Nigerians. But the ground beneath his feet is drifting away. He faces money shortage persistently. Anxieties. His love affair is getting alienated day by day. When his father doesn't approve of his love interest, Obi says, "But we are Christians." The irony of a staunch christian father, who has throughly rejected everything Igbo, invoking an age old Igbo restraint order in this situation; and of Obi, who despite always being indifferent to his father's religion, is now weilding it out of his helplessness. To add to it, Obi's mother, who freezes the matter by plainly stating that Obi can marry that girl, but of course, after her death. His lover is moving away. Obi is falling, getting debased.

One of the tones of Achebe's works is the following: it's not just colonialism that set Africa back, Africa is equally responsible for its setback. It's true that christian missionaries and British colonialism ruined Africa to a great extent. It's also true that Africans corrupted themselves socially and culturally. This theme comes out very effectively in the other two Achebe novels that I have read. However, unlike the other two, the tragedy in No Longer at Ease does not seem like the tragedy of Africa. It rather seems like a personal tragedy of one young man. Obi is just an ordinary young man who could be from anywhere; he is not necessarily a representative of the Igbo tribes of Eastern Nigeria. I feel this is where the novel loses out. Achebe's strength does not lie in such generality. Even in this novel, as long as he is in Umoufia, the taste of a language fried in palm oil can be felt. But as soon as the novel returns to Lagos, the sharpness in language is lost. The conversations become apathetic. The disconnect between the two threads is clear-cut.

No Longer at Ease is not a bad novel at all. Only it does not reach the bar set by Achebe's other novels. Not that every work of an artist is of the same quality, or that it has to be. What disappoints me is that it could have been a very good novel. And easily so! Since that has not been the case, a feeling of unease remained for several days after finishing the novel.

2008-11-10T18:11:00.003-05:00

I feel like resuming blogging in this blog after a long time. Let's see how long this lasts.

12 Angry Men

2008-05-07T17:28:00.006-04:00

For people who like arguments, 12 Angry Men is a must watch. It has everything that real arguments have: calm rationality; intense stupidity; ad hominem; dubious logic; prejudices; personal biases; indecision; shifting burden of proof; the powerful notion of "beyond reasonable doubt"; sympathetic considerations; and a lot of confusion. Eventually, sanity does prevail, but not before the unfolding of not only the arguments, but also the true natures of the arguers.

A black and white movie made in 1951, by debutant Sidney Lumet, based on a 1947 play of the same name by Reginald Rose. What stands out is the way the director has created a powerful movie that has a very simple storyline, with the minimal use of techniques. In fact, of the 96 minutes that the movie spans, only a couple of minutes of the action happens outside a small room. The rest of the movie occurs in a small jury room where 12 jurors sit around a table and debate over a case. With hardly any background score, the movie makes a very effective use of the natural sounds that the people in the room are making -- fragmented chin-wag, coughing, sighs of perspiring people. A very careful use of the camera also adds to the intensity.

They have to decide whether an 18 year latino boy from a lower class neighbourhood, who has allegedly murdered his father, is guilty or not guilty. The judge requires them to come to an unanimous decision either way. The evidences against the boy are so strong that, the jury thinks it is an open and shut case. So, this is a futile exercise which should get over in a minute. However, to everyone else's dismay, one of the jury members does not vote "guilty". One against eleven. He is childed as to how come he sees something that the 11 of them don't. He only says may be he is wrong, but "I just want to talk." He cannot put someone on an electric chair without even talking about the matter.

Around the table you have a variety of people: an architect, who does not know whether he believes the boy's version or not, but wants to be considerate; an old bigot who thinks everyone in such neighbourhoods is evil; another loud mouth who seems to have a personal vengeance because his own son had stranded him; a salesman who is always indecisive; another man who is apathetic to the whole proceedings, who just wants to reach one conclusion or the other quickly lest he misses a baseball match; a dispassionate, rational accountant, though not very considerate, has a mind open enough to see "reasonable doubt"; and so on. The movie then is much about the unfolding of the case as the unfolding of the different backgrounds, natures, beliefs and failings of the 12 people, who form a cross section of the society, in that sweltering room. They need to fight over not only the details of the case, but also fight their own inner "demons" before everything starts making sense again.

A very powerful movie. Please watch it, if you haven't already.

"Must be an Indian"

2008-05-03T20:47:00.003-04:00

An emptied beer bottle lying on a footpath; an empty shopping cart left carelessly in the middle of the road instead of one of the designated return locations; a honk from one of the cars.

Let's say you chance upon one of such things when you are with your countrymen, there is always an annoyed, "Who the fuck did this?" followed by a blurt, "Must be an Indian."

I can't even smirk anymore at such truisms that people dish out.
***

Of the very few conversations that I get to engage in, most are with one of my roommates. Invariably the chat gets into how "India does not have a future". The roommate always has the same simple point: "The problem is population. The solution is a major catastrophe in which a huge section of the population gets vanished." Initially, I told him once or twice - "If that happens, probably you and I are the first ones to die." But very soon I realised he was dead serious about his solution: "I don't mind dying if that improves the country."

Ek Doctor Ki Maut

2007-06-15T13:53:00.002-04:00

Several days ago I had an accidental pleasure of watching Tapan Sinha's Ek Doctor Ki Maut. It was a unique experince for me, of watching a great movie without even knowing its name, even after it ended. It was only later, when I searched on the web based on the movie's plot and lead characters that I found some information about it. And I watched it on Lok Sabha TV!

The reason I started watching it (it had already begun; I don't know how much I have missed) was because I caught Pankaj Kapur, who plays Dr. Dipankar Roy talking about his research work with his mentor Dr. Kundu, a very senior microbiologist. What caught my attention was that I could readily relate to the way they were talking. It is the talk that we do so often in our lab. Probably in any research lab. As I continued to watch it I kept thinking how things have not changed! The love for scientific approach, the passion for research, the unrelenting quest for truth was there. It is there now too. It was not prevalent. It is not prevalent now either. It was thought that real research is done in the west. That hasn't changed either.

Dr. Roy, who's a government servant has discovered a vaccine for leprosy, after years of toiling. He has worked after his office hours, by setting up his own lab, and working in small private labs of some of his friends. He has also observed that, as a side effect, his vaccine has a definite chance of curing female infertility. It is a revolutionary discovery if it is proved to be true. Dr. Roy states clearly that his primary work is the discovery of a vaccine for leprosy. Though there's a definite possibility of the vaccine curing female infertility, it is only an observed side effect, and he is not going to claim anything yet about that. An enthusiastic journalist friend of Roy's (Irfan Khan) publishes this news. It is the infertility bit of the news that captures the imagination of the people, so to speak, and plays a crucial role in Dr. Roy's eventual "failure".

Very soon bureaucracy takes over. Peer envy starts haunting Roy. Leading gynecologist of Calcutta start a lobby against Roy, because Roy, who's not qualified in gynecology, is interfering in their business by announcing fake results. Roy finds it ridiculous that gynecologists should find problems with his research. It is them who are interfering in his business. It is them who are uinqualified to judge his work, because it has got nothing to do with gynecology; only microbiologists or cellular biologists can review it. The lobby grows stronger. Roy gets rebuked for publishing fake stuff. He is harassed at his work place. But he cannot afford to leave his job due to the loans he had to take for his research work. He gets invited to a talk by medical students. He gets humiliated there. They say they don't "believe" in his research. Roy is not at all amused by their choice of words. He maintains - "Science does not depend on anybody's belief or disbelief; it asks for proof. It's all about truth." He gets transferred to a remote village in Bengal, so that he does not complete his papers.

What is striking also is the foresight of Dr. Kundu, Roy's mentor, who to begin with expresses his displeasure about the news article that mentions the chance of curing infertility. He says - "Dipankar's work is about leprosy." He knows, by virtue of his experience that, this distraction was unnecessary and potentially dangerous until Roy publishes his papers. In any case, he tells Roy to leave everything else and complete his papers. He even makes the first draft of Roy's work and sends it across to an organization called John Anderson Foundation. He knows that the people here will not accept this work unless it is ratified by the west. (An enthusiastic response by the John Anderson foundation is buried deep by the bureaucracy at Roy's hospital.) Dr. Kundu takes Roy's family to task severely when he comes to know that he had gone to give a lecture to medical students. First news papers, then BBC and now this -- he is irritated. He restates the need to complete the papers and send them across before all this publicity kills his work.

A glimpse of hope appears in the form of Dr. Emily from the John Anderson foundation, who unfazed by the bureaucracy, comes all the way to the village where Dr. Roy is working. She goes through his preliminary writings and is amazed at its comprehension. She urges Roy further to complete this work and send across the papers. However, he is finding it immensely difficult to live alone in a village, away from his lab, libraries, and his most supportive wife (Shabana Azmi), who comes to meet him every weekend. He has already grown hopeless, when a new lobby led by his friend and gynecologist Arijit, puts pressure on the director of health to transfer Dr. Roy back to Calcutta.

Back in Calcutta, Roy resumes his work, hopeful of quickly completing his papers and publishing them. But it's too late. One day his journalist friend comes home and in a perturbed tone announces that the vaccine for leprosy has been discovered. The approach for its discovery is exactly the same as Roy's. Just that his name does not appear in the news piece. Some folks from MIT have won the race. At the end of the movie, Roy receives an invitation from John Anderson foundation to join them and continue his work by collaborating with their scientists. He only says to Dr. Kundu - "After all, my research was not false."

The movie was inspired by the tragic story of Subhash Mukhopadhyay, who was the first Indian physician to perform invitro fertilization (test tube baby), and who committed suicide because he was not allowed to present his work in international conferences. It's not so much about the plot of the movie (that I have revealed thoroughly, without even warning) as much as the thought that has gone into it.

The Shrugging Off Purpose

2006-10-25T13:35:00.003-04:00

My cynisism towards people that are commonly hailed to be successful and/or important is legendary in the (extended) family. Not that it's a great quality. But previously on this blog I have, in a tediously long post, talked about why I am generally not impressed by most "successful" people who know all the "right answers"; or why "I believe in those who know the right questions more than those who know the right answers". A lot of family members, in their turn, are generally not impressed by my cynicism.

The other day we had got together for the festival at my uncle's place. I and my father (he's also cynical to a fair extent) were our usual selves mocking and simpering at anybody who appeared on the TV: serial actors (I mean actors in TV serials), advertisements, successful corporate people and, of course, pontiffs (swamis/jagadgurus). After a while, an aunt asked, with a combination of irritation, rhetoric and humour, mostly because we were disturbing her serial watching, "What are you doing? At least, they have achieved something: money, stardom, huge number of disciples. You are just sitting here doing nothing but talking.What is the purpose?". I was about to say something when my father replied - and he put it across in a much better way than I could have - thus: "Precisely. We are doing nothing but talking. But despite they having achieved so much money, stardom, disciples, and we having achieved zilch, it is we who get to dismiss them away within half a second [and not the other way round]." Indeed. Can there be a better purpose than shrugging off?

And I could have added that I get to blog about them whereas they don't. :)

ityEva ityEva ityEva

2006-09-26T05:20:00.002-04:00

The Art of Living Shop, Jayanagar, Bangalore, is strategically located. So strategically located that I have to notice it everytime I commute to the institute or while going to a lot of other places of interest. Of course, now I am just about accustomed to it and don't feel the "thrill" I felt when I saw it the first few times. As you would have rightly guessed, they don't sell The Art of Living books. May be they sell them too, but that's not their main business, I suppose. Even a fleeting glance from a distance of several feet, from my bike, reveals a variety of magnetic merchandise - shirts, kurtas, women's tops, T-shirts, perhaps, amlets bandannas caps, and definitely many other things which I have not been able to identify. Probably they will design The Art of Living Tattoos on you; strategically located tattoos. May be I should venture once and find out.

It should not really be so intriguing a matter. After all, spirituality has been a huge business for a while now. There are numerous spiritual schools; handful of channels broadcasting spirituality round the clock; regular conventions. Spiritual gurus are celebrities; their products and preachings have a brand value. Essentially, spirituality sells and there are a lot of takers. So, The Art of Living Shop is just a next logical step. Why should I be surprised/thrilled then?

Is it because I am conservative and associate puritanical conduct to spirituality? Not really. I don't know anything about what The Art of Living (or any other school, for that matter) says. I am not interested either. Although I have great propensity towards the arts, I am not ready yet to transform my mundane life into an artistic one. What will be the result of the transformation anyway? An Artistically Futile Living? Art does not change the nature of futility; it only makes it more intricate. That aside, when I think again about it, I am merely amused by stuff like the shop. It's not at all a "Rama Rama.. where's the world heading?" kind of a concern.

This amusement is because I am seeing it from a particular viewpoint that I'll explain briefly. As I said, I don't know what these spiritual schools talk about, but my understanding is that they all have the Vedanta/Upanishads as their basis. Again, I haven't read the Upanishads, but one of the important notions there is that of "elimination". nEti nEti nEti (nEti - na + iti, not this) -- not this, neither that, nor the other one, and so on until you find the thing that you need. A meditator uses this to dismiss all the thoughts that are not necessary on the path to clarity (or awakening of the soul or self realisation or whatever else). At a higher level, this is the elimination of the non-essentials on the path to understanding the nature of truth/reality/God/whatever. In this light, I find all these - the competition across spiritual schools, the hype, the buzz, the branding, the merchandise, the broadcast - very amusing. It looks like an elaborate process: do extensive state of the art study, develop a spirituality theory that is different from the state of the art, give it a cool sounding name, whatever be the theory in your textbook, make it practical enough to be attractive, print handbills (glue them on trees), create brand value, design merchandise, grant franchise, hire an advertising agency (also warn people that there are only a few outlets, and that the school is not responsble for any ill effects that may ensue out of buying merchandise in a non-authorised outlet). So, instead of nEti nEti nEti, the new buzz phrase would be ityEva ityEva ityEva - this one, that one too, oh, and, of course, you would need those things as well - in order to reach your ultimate goal. An all-embracing holistic approach!

Perhaps. Or everything is quite alright and I am imagining too much.

Answers and Questions

2006-09-06T02:30:00.002-04:00

I was intending to write something in response to Prof's post on what one looks for in students pursuing research. Since I am a student pursuing research, my views in this post may provide another perspective: What is it that makes one associate oneself with research and a research lab?

I was looking for the right set of ideas to express my views, and I got them, quite inadvertently, in a book of short essays in Kannada called Ekanta Lokanta (ಏಕಾಂತ ಲೋಕಾಂತ, roughly, Solitude vs Worldliness) by the Kannada literary critic O L Nagabhushanaswamy (incidentally, he has a very good Kannada blog here). The book raises several important philosophical/social questions. As a matter of fact, it gave me new perspectives on many things that we discuss frequently in our lab and elsewhere. This post uses some ideas from a few essays in that book.
----
----

Answers are important. However, we value answers so highly that we neglect the importance of questions. People who know the right answers are always respected - in school, at home, in society. Look around and think of those "who matter". A lot of them are full of right answers: politicians, religious figures, cultural leaders, language "protectors", celebrities, op-ed writers, media et al.. Successful, since they know all the answers. And most people are content with these ready-to-use-recipe of right answers. People who know the answers are sought after, paid heavily, celebrated. Do the people who know the right answers know the right questions? Are they the questions that you were looking for answers for? Are those people interested in questions, right or wrong, or are they just full of answers, in the first place? What about the people who know the right questions? What about the people who want to know the right questions rather than the right answers? Hmm... Well, there are not many people who are interested in the right questions. At least, it seems so.

In school, there was a large, but limited, number of questions. Every question had one and only one right answer. The teacher is expected to ask the "right" questions (meaning, the ones in that large but limited pool) and the student is supposed to tell the "right" answers (meaning, the ones that have been generally approved). Students are highly encouraged to know answers and rewarded accordingly. There is not much incentive for those who are interested in questions.

Not just schools. Even the family, the society and whatever else that we are a part of, want us to, at times force us to, find the right answers. Very quickly at that. Natuarally, we take to readily available solutions. They are one size fits all readymade answers, moreover. Example right answers could be: go to the US-make money-come back or get a job-marry-settle down or study well-get good marks-get good job-make good money-buy a house, an insurance policy, an electric razor-live happily. Perhaps these are perfectly right answers, but have we verified? Perhaps it is not necessarily possible to verify but have we at least tried? Have we at least asked the questions and explored a set of answers? Let me illustrate this point with a real conversation I was involved in.

A friend of mine was asking about this highly respected chap who has a lot of right questions but who is quite capable of having a lot of right answers... In short, the friend asked me - "Why is he here?" I asked him back - "What do you mean? Why not here?" He replied - "No.. but if he were in the US or say a bigger place..." I continued - "Does his geographic location make much difference? He is convinced that his job is to ask questions. He would still just keep on asking the same goddamned questions wherever he chose to be." He was not satisfied - "I understand. But if he were somewhere else, he would be more famous, or at least he would have made more money. I am not saying he should go behind money. But if it is possible that money comes behind you without you needing to shift goalposts, why deny it?" " What will he do with so much money? Perhaps he does not have any use for it?" He was not amused - "Ah.. you are showing off idealism..." "No. I am not. Seriously, tell me." "Well, come on.. you could have so much money that you can buy a beautiful island somewhere and live happily." I pleaded - "Exactly. But what if he doesn't want to buy an island? What if he is just happy with the unrest that his questions bring him? Then why should he make so much money? Just because there's a possibility of doing so?"

Money is just an example. It could be anything. Should we be content with the answers that we have found? Should we not be intrigued by the choices of questions and answers that there may be? Should we not have more people who want to find their own questions first and then the answers? Or may be even people who just go out behind the questions endlessly? What are the right questions, anyway? Are they the one they ask in the TV polls? Or the ones that are asked in career advice forums? Or interviews? It is not easy to find the questions. There are no right answers to these questions.
----
----

Over a period of time I am increasingly understanding the importance of questions. As I said, it is not at all easy to know the right questions. A person who knows a right question, knows a lot. Perhaps more than a person who knows a right answer. Over a period of time I have come to a stage wherein I believe in those who know the right questions more than those who know the right answers. I am getting convinced that they can help me better. That is, mostly, why I think research will help me. Research is one of the ways to go out in search of questions. If you are good and have tried as much as is required, you will find the right questions. Research will also help you get associated with others who are also fascinated by questions. They are all at different stages: some are full of answers and want to get rid of them, some are in search of questions, some have found questions and are looking for answers, some are just full of questions and happily don't need answers. Well, perhaps this is a tad ideal. All research labs are quite grounded in reality, but it doesn't matter. You get the point. It's good fun, in fact, with differnt kinds of people around. We are a very small group here, but we are doing fairly good. We should do much better.

Let me conclude this long piece by noting that perhaps there is not much point in knowing questions. It will only push you to a perennial state of doubt and may even lead you to a thorough dissatisfaction with your current state. But it is only from such a state can you take that leap to go behind questions and find answers for yourselves.

I am far far far away from reaching that stage yet. I wish I reach somewhere near that, eventually.

Media and the Legacy of Guilt and Pride

2006-06-21T12:00:00.002-04:00

Something that I saw on TV forced me out of my blogging apathy. So, let me write something first up in the morning.

Did we already agree that our electronic media is er.. fairly stupid. CNN-IBN, the more flamboyant and "experimental", has also grown to be the more stupid of the news channels. That they orchestrate biased opinions is already known. They also seem to know a lot of history, and the nature of guilt and pride.

I saw the first half of Germany vs Ecuador last evening. Thus far it has been a great worldcup finals for the Germans especially with Klose delivering at every ocassion and Ballack and others consistently feeding the strikers. Evidently, the home crowd is ecstatic and is holding its hopes high. However, according to CNN-IBN, it's much more than that. These victories (particularly the stunning 3-0 victory over Ecuador) have finally given the Germans something to be proud about. From now on, it's "cool to be a German"! This worldcup finals success has effectively absolved the Germans of their "collective guilt"! So, the German peoples, generation after generation, have been carrying a "collective guilt" because one particular regime and one particular dictator had disgraced them about 70 years ago. If you happen to be a German woman, and give birth to a child, you better induce that sense of guilt in your child. It's better you do it, before the rest of the world does it. Whatever be your child's individual achievements, s/he has to be guilty and apologetic (unless, of course, the child grows up to score a goal in the worldcup finals).

I am not too keen about things like "pride" "guilt" "patriotism" etc.. I am not a judge on what should people be proud about and what they should be guilty about. But when we think of Germany, do we only think of the holocaust? Don't we think of their cars? Of their physicists? We don't forget history. In fact, we need to learn from history. That does not necessarily amount to carrying a historical guilt. At the least, we don't have the right to "assign" guilt to someone just because that person, due to some random cosmic causal chain, happens to share a broad identity with some historical bad guy. (I am curious if the CNN-IBN guys are aware of the "big picture" of consistency in thought and expression. Their own comprehensive, albeit biased, coverage on reservations talked about not carrying the historical guilt, among other things. So then...). Also, why just Germany? Why not Britain that had committed atrocities in India and Africa. What about the US? Or is the retribution achieved, thanks to 9/11? Well, the world moves on. Guilt cannot have a place in the scheme of things if we have to do well. And guilt about something that was unrelated to me and on which I didn't have the least bit of control? Ridiculous.
-----

From whatever bit of our family history we have managed to gather, we have learnt that our ancestors were highwaymen (or probably they used to come on horses with arms and mug people) from Maharashtra. I cannot vouch about the authenticity of the story, but I find it kind of cool; I want to have it that way. Once when some of those valiant horsemen came to loot some nondescript villages in the present Belgaum district, North Karnataka, the Desai (a local ruler) of the Desagati (his small "kingdom") to which those vilaages belonged, allegedly talked them out of their business, gave them some lands in one of the villages, and requested them to lead a normal zamindari life. Since I am not a mugger, you can rest assured that my ancestors agreed to that deal and made do with the new business. Latter generations lead an honest and respectable life even under severe conditions. The recent generations have flourished. Many of them successful engineers, doctors and teachers; my uncle is an acclaimed writer, my father writes as well; culturally active; fairly well known in our part of the world; and so on. Thus, we have effectively removed all stains on our family that our ancestors had left due to the sins they had committed. And I am playing my part as well. You see, I am one of the very few computer science PhD students in India. So, that's a huge contribution to this guilt removal process. Heh.
-----

Since we don't have a world class football team, but do have a cricket team, we can surely fancy a chance. If we want to stop carrying the collective guilt of Ayodhya, or Godhra, or Gujarat, our cricket team should win the 2007 worldcup. I am resting all my hopes on that. At that moment when India wins the worldcup, I'll resile to a guilt free, legacy free, proud life.

"Into that heaven of freedom, my father, let my country awake."

(As I was writing this, CNN-IBN was showing a program called "Kiss N Tell" discussing stuff like what kind of a kiss is good; the "social etiquettes of kissing"; the basis is the recent kissing incident involving a Mika dude and a Rakhi Sawant girl. One of the dudes that they ask an opinion for says, "A smooch is OK...". Sigh! Watching "news" in the morning considered harmful.)

Arguments: A couple of things

2006-05-08T04:00:00.002-04:00

Of late, when I had gone to attend some family functions I (and a couple of cousins) had had a lot of arguments with my father, who had also come there, on a lot of sociopolitical issues. In fact, we keep on having a lot of arguments whenver we happen to get together, especially in the recent past. I think just a few years ago I resounded a lot of his opinions. But with time there seem to be a lot of differences, especially because of the change that time has induced in me, hence a lot more argument, heated ones at times, but mostly in vain. It does not matter, though, for there is at least a scope for arguments.

I seem to be digressing right in the beginning of this post, let me get back. During one such recent argumentative session, he remarked, rather disconcertedly, that, "You are the kind of guys who will even doubt Gandhi!". I think he said that as a result of my skeptical, and a little flippant even, comment about Medha Patkar's motives. I immediately replied, "We do. In fact, we need to doubt every opinion, every theory. But there is a difference between the way a lot of others doubt Gandhi, and the way I do. I do it, but with a lot of respect!" That was somewhat agreeable to my father, though not completely.

My reply to my father was derived from the passage that I have quoted below. It is from Amartya Sen's The Argumentative Indian. While delving on the argumentative tradition of India, Sen takes the exemplar of Arjuna and Krishna's dialogue just before the Mahabharata battle, and presents two different viewpoints - Krishna's deontological view that dictates the moral of doing one's duty without regard to conseqences versus Arjuna's perspective of evaluating the consequences and the purpose of one's victory over another. Eventually, Krishna does manage to convince Arjuna, but that, in no way, is demeaning of Arjuna's views. They are very relevant, specially so during modern times.

As a high-school student, when I asked my Sanskrit teacher whether it would be permissible to say that the divine Krishna got away with an incomplete and unconvincing argument, he replied: 'May be you could say that, but you must say it with adequate respect.' I have presented elsewhere a critique - I hope with adequate respect - of Krishna's deontology, along with Arjuna's consequential perspective, in 'Consequential Evaluation and Practical Reason', Journal of Philosophy 97 (Sept. 2000). [Footnote, Page 5]

The operative clause here, though, is "with adequate respect". I find it to be very germane in the context of any serious argument. This is specially important when we are "questioning" some "dogmas". Respect for another person/view helps one to have one's feet grounded, and not get flung away by the flow of one's own arguments. It helps you avoid levity, making you deal with an issue in all seriousness, hence prevents you from swaying. It also makes an argument engaging, and so, potentially more fruitful.
------

Some time back there was a debate on Professor's blog. By no means engaging, but exemplary by being very charactristic of most debates on Gandhi. The caveat: it is a negative example. This post is not about Gandhi, but while we are at the topic in hand, let me mention just a few things. Though I talk about Gandhi, they are more or less general comments.

Gandhi was not a theoretician. His philosophy, his life, his writings -- none of these can be accepted as is or disregarded as invalid, as though they all have an axiomatic basis¹, which itself is either completely correct, or hopelessly wrong. He was a constant experimenter. His life and philosophy is just a set of thoroughly worked out experiments. Not everything that Gandhi said/did can perhaps be corroborated. In such cases, when one finds that there is, indeed, something weak about a particular peice of Gandhian argument, one has to plunge in and expose it. I will go to the extent of saying it is imperative that one does so especially when a dubious argument has become/is potentially a dogma.

Let's suppose, Gandhi's views on economics are not well founded (again, there is no Gandhian Economic Theory). In such an event, one should be able to show the weaknesses in them, with good reason. Not everyone will be glad to accept it, but you can rest assured that an argument based on sound reason will evetually hold. However, this in itself does not necessarily make Gandhi a less respectable (or an "evil") person. The fact that Einstein saw a "greater" reality than Newton or Galileo does not make the latter two ineffectual.
------

But I hardly see any reasonable debate. Most arguments on this topic bank themselves on non-issues. By being passionately irreverent - and they congratulate themselves for doing so - they delve on unnecessary character assassination. It's mostly shouting and name calling that I see. It seems to work also! (Remember Calvin saying, "If you can't win by reason, go for volume!"?)

One "cause" for such choleric outbursts is the supposed "self righteousness" of Gandhi. Statements like, "I hate Gandhi because he was such a self righteous prick!", are not uncommon. Let's even suppose Gandhi was one (actually, it hardly makes any difference to me). So what? In my view, for what it is worth, "righteous" and even "self righteous" people are required in a society. (And perhaps utterly "depraved" people are also required, so that some delicate "balance" is maintained.) Anyway, that's besides the point. I will close this topic by asking two questions, and sincere questions they are: What is so repugnant about self righteousness? And how is a person being self righteous related to the merit of his/her argument?

Do answer. If you are someone who is unbothered about someone being "self righteous", you may still find the second question relevant.
------

I read the first few chapters of Sen's book, and find it appealing thus far. In the first part, he elaborates on the argumentative tradition of India, and revisits a theme several times: religious heterodoxy in Hinduism. Although he mentions the efforts of Akbar in instilling a general sense of religious tolerance, the tradition of heterodoxy, that he claims to have existed, is largely based on arguments, some very ancient ones, within the all encompassing umbrella of Hinduism (perhaps "Hinduism" is too narrow a word). In this light, I want to, for the first time on this blog, strike a very er.. contentious chord. I want to ask this: Is there a similar argumentative tradition in Islam? If you are aware of any literature do point me to it.

My conjecture is this. There is a very small percentage of Islamic fundamentalists, like in any other religion, whose "reason" is based just on religion. There are a large number of "moderate" muslims and a lot of them who are non-religious. Despite that, I feel Islam does not tolerate as much heterodoxy as say Hinduism does. Even the staunchest of its champions recognised and respected other opinions, though they invariably championed their own cause. For example, Madhvacharya wrote Sarvadarshanasangraha (Compendium of Speculations or a "Collection of All Philosophies") in which he expositions sixteen distinct schools of thought. And that included the "atheistic" Charvaka system!

I am not sure if there are any equivalents in Islam. And that is seemingly causing a lot of trouble.
-----

¹ Gandhi has said, "I have nothing new to say to the world. Truth and non-violence are as old as the hills". "Truthfulness" and "non-violence", which he seems to be basing his experiments upon are more like tools than axioms.

Argumentation Crisis and the Family

2006-03-15T16:30:00.002-05:00

The worst argumentation crisis lies in the family. For some of you this much said is enough said. You already understand what I am saying. In any case, I'll continue with this for the sake of completeness.

There is a lot of affection that binds members in the family. Plus there are certain values that are necessary to maintain stability in the family. Values like - give due respect to elders, take care of younger ones, don't indulge in any activity that may bring disrepute to the family, and so on. A lot of these are important, and most of us sometimes even go out of the way to ensure they are not violated. Perhaps it is necessary as well.

However, during the process of an argumentation, it would be great if rationality takes the driver's seat rather than emotions. No doubt emotions are great. And make no mistake. Values like respect and humility are necessary even during an argument, be it in the family, with friends or strangers. They help a great deal in maintaining the decorum of a nice argumentation set up. The trouble is when emotions start running high. They start occupying the place of rationality and will force the people involved to make fallacies. We then see that arguments degenerate to a bunch of ad hominems, appeal to authority, appeal to emotions, appeal to tradition. And more importantly "appeal to age": "What is you age? 23? I have more working experience than your age!", "I guess it's the generation gap. You'll simply not accept something new just because it wasn't so during your times." And on and on. A rise of a younger one's voice by a few decibels need not mean disrespect for an elder. It might just mean that the person is very passionate about the idea s/he is presenting. Similarly, an "appeal to age" and a following "shut up! Go to your room!" may be very necessary at times. But a lot of times, what could have been a vibrant and interesting argument loses out as emotions start creeping in.

The younger ones feel that elders have become "closed systems" and they simply cannot take in any new idea. (They cannot even take this idea, is the pity!) They have a set of ideas, theories, world views and a moral sense - their box. They are unwilling to budge from them. They want to paint everything in black or white based just on what the box contains.

The elders feel that younger ones are bordering on depravity. They are too individualistic and the family does not really matter to them "despite the fact that it is the family that made them what they are today". They are disrespectful, and hardly comply with the box.

It is just a redundant statement when I say they both are right, and they both are wrong. And, of course, I might have exaggerated. But then the above picture does hold true generally. It is not a faulty generalization. Also note that I have been saying 'the family' instead of 'a family'. A lot of times sensible arguments do not happen in the family. Either one of the parties virtually shuts ears whilst the other party runs riot, or both run riot and end up with disgruntled and frowing faces.

Solutions to this crisis are obvious. It is also obvious that they don't really work. "Winning" or "losing" an argument does not really matter in the longer run. A few differences in opinion don't matter; the family can still remain stable. Perhaps the family can do well even without arguments. But I would definitely like it if the family is more argumentative and more vibrant. Arguments, mind you, not fights! I feel it is important because I conjecture that that will help in reducing hypocrisy. It will also help minds open up. Individuals are hypocritical, and the family more so. If you note, we are a little less hypocrtitical outside the family. My hypothesis is this: A less hypocritical family means a less hypocritical individual, which in turn means a less hypocritical society.

By the way, my hypothesis is based on the assumption that there should be less hypocrisy. I also feel that less hypocrisy means less conservatism. It also means we can build better systems. Of course, all this is material for another post or two.

Systemic problems, equilibrium and liveness

2006-02-21T15:47:00.002-05:00

In the age old days (3-4 years ago that is) I used to have a dial up connection. I was an undergrad then, and like all (or most) undergrads in India I earned nothing. But then my father was good enough, like all fathers, to let me have the power of the Internet. He supposed, ideally, again like all fathers, that I would strictly use it for "educational purposes", though he never told me that. I did not, like all sons, use the Internet strictly for "educational purposes", though I never told him that. A lot of times I used to chat with random people. I used to check mails on all my accounts at 1 o'clock in the night. Heh. Who would send a mail to an undergrad? Sometimes I used to visit some porn sites. And it was a dial up connection, mind you. Not a broadband. As a result, my father had to regularly pay Rs.1000-1200 extra for a few months.

In the institute we used to observe that the net access was extremely slow at night time specially because some people used to download movies. I have done that too, though very rarely. Of course, the "downloaders" later on absolved themselves of the guilt of hogging the bandwidth by sharing the movies so that all and sundry can transfer them and watch. But still the inconvenience was evident.

What would have my father done if he knew that I am misusing a facility? What should he have done? What should have an admin done in case s/he came to know of the incessant downloading? Of course, I myself got tired of all the nonsense I was doing sooner than later and almost stopped misusing. In any case, the above questions in themselves are not so difficult to handle. But their implications surely are.

It's a question about power and responsibility. With power comes responsibility. Power is something that some one "tells" you to assume, or some times you assume it yourself. Same is the case with responsibility. Moreover, there is a positive correlation between the two.

However, there are obvious problems with this. While you want to excercise your power, you don't want to burden yourself with responsibility. The temptation always is to use one's power to the fullest extent possible and be the least responsible at the same time. There are always "gains", mostly of immediate in nature, if you use your power. But being discreetly responsible seems like "losing" something, again at an immediate level. In most cases, you can neither completely exploit your power, not can you completely shrug off responsibility. Even then, it is quite evident that it is extremely difficult to achieve an equilibrium between power and responsibility. There seems to be a constant power responsibility mismatch.

Now, let me tell you how this post actually started. It started in a discussion in which I was involved, over here. In that post the author talks about the atrocities committed by army men in Kashmir and suggests that Kashmir should be demilitarised that is why. My response (comment no-43) to that post is here. My point in brief was this - A systemic problem by itself cannot in any way justify a demand for the absence of the system. Of course, the post has some other points that are valid. This post is not a rebuttal. I just mentioned it to put this post in perspective.

Power responsibility mismatch is a systemic problem. When you are part of a system, the system endows you with certain powers and expects you to use that power judiciously and responsibly. Of course, a lot of times there is no explicit endowment and expectation; it's an implicit understanding. But as we saw in the above examples all this is easier said than done. No system is ideal. In fact, systems are far from being ideal. This causes a lot of resentment mistrust frustration anger within the system, and at times even outside it. People inside and outside the system start believing that there is something terribly wrong with the whole system, and understandably so. If I start feeling that the cause of trouble is the irresponsibility of "everybody else", then that feeling is a further disincentive for me to be responsible. I want to become more powerful and less responsible when I should have been aware that my new decision will only worsen my situation eventually!

Every system has to satisfy certain properties. The important ones are "safety", "liveness" and "fairness". Let me roughly define each one. A system is safe if no system component takes acts in a way that is against the purpose of the system, or at least such chances are minimal. For example, say a lot of army men start harassing people in Kashmir. Then the whole purpose of the army is defeated, and the army is rendered an "unsafe" system. Fairness in some way should minimise unfair advantage that system components take. In the institute example, if downloading movies is bothering people who want to browse for more "educational purposes", it is an "unfair" system. However, "fairness" comes only after "safety". You can afford to have an unfair system, but not an unsafe one. So, fairness is not as strict a requirement as safety. The next one is "liveness". This is a very interesting property simply because without "liveness" there is no point talking about other properties! "Liveness" ensures that there exists a system that is working. It might be unfair or even unsafe, but there is a system in the first place and continues to be. An ideal system guarantees all these properties to the fullest extent. But as you can imagine there cannot be any large scale system that can give such guarantees.

Systemic problems affect the safety and fairness of a system. A trivial way to guarantee safety and fairness is to do away with liveness! My father would say, "You are watching porn with my hard earned money? When did you become so pervert. No more connection. Cut". The admin at the institute would say. No movies. Everyone will access only Google Scholar and Citeseer. All safe. All sound. All disappointed. All fair, nonetheless. India might demilitarise Kashmir. There might still be harassment, violation by militants, or army men from some other country. But the Indian army is not doing it. Right. But as you can see the trivial solution is indeed trivial. It has no practical value. The world is bloody unsafe and unfair place. But we simply cannot wish it away.

Another way to approach this problem while ensuring liveness is to have a "meta system" that will take care of increasing safety and fairness. Typically the "meta system" will guarantee the enforcement of a set of systemic rules. Make no mistake, these rules were already there in the system. But the meta system emphasises them, makes them explicit and strictly enforces them.

However, there are problems with this also. A rule obviously is a check on the power that you have owing to the system. So, people cannot assume powers arbitrarily. But there is a very important caveat here. A curb in power does not automatically translate to an increase in responsibility. In fact, chances are there that people tend to become less responsible because they will see the incentives/gains due to the system reducing as the meta system grows stronger. A ban on movie download does not necessarily increase the Internet usage for more productive purposes. For all you know, it may backfire.

Let me make a final point. This is where I want to touch upon "social" and "technical" solutions. The term "technical solutions" as used over here, is what I would call a "meta systemic solution" and a "social solution" a "systemic solution". A "meta systemic solution" might seem like helping the cause of power responsibility equilibrium, but in most cases it might just be an illusion. Let us even suppose that it does help to achieve an equilibrium. But the way it does is not very elegant; and it will be a case of the end justifying the means. Ideally, a "systemic solution" is elegant and helps the equilibrium better. The admins and the students may collectively come to an understanding that students can download movies only after 12 midnight. This would reduce the incentive to misuse a power. Ideally, that is. There might be someone who hogs the bandwidth during office hours because he is sure that none of partners in crime are downloading, so much more bandwidth than that after midnight, and the more studious ones anyway don't use much bandwidth. Such cases need to be handled, of course. Every system does seem to need and in most cases has a "meta system". A system is more productive if its "meta system" is small.

Survival Loops

2006-02-20T04:30:00.002-05:00

This one was pending since a while. Michael Higgins who owns an interesting blog called Chocolate and Gold Coins recently wrote a nice post - "Why farming is no fun?". He makes an appealing argument in terms of "elasticity in demand". I can't quite summarise it over here. Read it there. It's quite interesting.

Towards the end of the post he suggests, like many others, that farmers should look for other employment options. Quite sensible. No doubt there are too many people farming and that's a very important reason why farming is not a profitable business. He also suggests, like a few others, that entrepreneurs can help in retraining farmers for other jobs like plumbing, and that they can pay back the entrepreneur later, once they start a new job. The obvious questions here would be- why would someone invest the money in training? What would they get back? and anyway what is the collateral security? And so on.

However, there is a different question that intrigues me. Coincidentally, a comment that Prof left on an earlier post almost reflects my ideas. He says - "...the way many social loops function here, it is almost as though people don't want to come out of survival loops! They are too afraid to face a reality that says that things can be better..". Very valid point indeed. Perhaps there are economically more secure options. Perhaps some private organisations or the government or some enthusiastic individuals will help them help themselves. But why do we keep on observing that people don't want to get out of their conventional mould even when they know it does not work? Do they feel that the risk involved in choosing a new mode of life is too high? Or are there some other factors? I don't really know the answers. Here, I'll only mention some of my observations in this light.
-----

It rained quite well in North Karnataka this year. It was a huge relief after three consecutive years of drought. During the prolonged drought many villagers in and around my village were unemployed. Bigger farmers could survive and let the drought pass. But marginal farmers and those who used to work in others' farms had an extremely difficult time. Around the same time there was a national highway being laid near one of my cousins' village. So a lot of people from that place took a sensible decision of working as dailywagers for that company which was working on the highway. They were getting paid pretty well. The wage was more than what they would get working in farms. The drought continued and the road work proceeded as well. The workers moved along, with their family, and started working in Kolhapur (in Maharashtra, about 120KM from their place).

A couple of times when I had gone there during the time of the drought, I had heard about this. However, during my last visit, a few months ago, I found that most of them had stopped working for the highway and had come back. My cousin said, "It has started raining. So, they have come back!". The road work was just a make shift arrangement. Their vocation is agriculture. I was a little irritated about this. After all these guys had been living out of their village for about two years and had settled reasonably well. They were also earning well. It has just started raining. What is the guarantee that it will rain as well to give them a good crop? What is the point of living under the delusion that this is what we are destined for?
-----

Sometimes they look for new and nonconventional options too. A lot of kids of my generation went to school. However, they used to stop sooner ot later; 4th, 7th, 10th. Very few went ahead to Pre University College (the +2 equivalent). They took "Arts" as their subject there , not because they are inclined towards arts. Then they would do a BA. The next logical step would be to do a Teacher's Certificate Higher (TCH) Course, or a Bachelors in Education (BEd). TCH is the more common option. It doesn't come cheap either. People pay rupees 60-70 thousand as donation before joining. The idea is that after a TCH getting a high school teacher's job is easy. It's not very easy. But the chances become better. You got to take your chances, of course. After all, a government job is a government job.

Another lucrative option is public transport. A lot of jeeps and maxi cabs shuttle between villages and the nearest taluk centre. Some teenagers who drop out of schools start their fast track life as 'cleaners' in one of the jeeps or maxi cabs. They are keen observers and ready learners. Over a period of time they will know all the tricks in the trade and graduate as drivers. The next task for a lot of these drivers is clear cut. To get a government job; a driver's job in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). The attrition rate is quite high in this industry. In fact, I know a lot of people from my village who are drivers in KSRTC and some in BMTC also. This job doesn't come cheap either. It takes a lakh or two!
-----

We all exist in one or more survival loops. Sometimes we move from one loop to another because we feel the latter is better in some way than the former. There is always a cost involved in such a transition. We try to choose the "best" from a set of loops that we think are much worthier than the cost involved in the transition. But would it not be great if we can also see farther than the immediate costs and gains, lest "better" or "best" are only delusions and we forever get stuck in the same survival loop? Of course, one excuse we can give is that of awareness or a lack of it. Or we can trace that back to education or the lack of it. However, education is not a necessary condition for "common sense", it is not sufficient either. But then there are some things that don't let people choose a better life. They are not very clear to me.

Crossposted on Desicritics. By the way, those guys have chosen me as the Desicritic of the Day. Thanks a lot guys!

Bijli

2006-02-14T03:20:00.002-05:00

The effort of the blog How the Other Half Lives in trying to know the "other half" is no doubt laudable. But at times the kind of questions posed there, however sincere they may be, seem naive and ineffective.

This one, for example - Also, why is it acceptable, even today, that a tribal district can be deprived of electricity, but the island city of Bombay gets a nearly uninterrupted supply?

And they often generate simplistic and amusing replies such as the below.

Simple. Because the island city of Bombay pays for the electricity and the tribal district does not. and

Because the island city pays for it, and using their supply of electricity generates a considerable portion of the country’s income taxes. Taxes that incidentally go towards funding free electicity for a bunch of mooching subsidised farmers, and rural localities.

But no. Lets stop the march of progress, go for equity, and kill Mumbai’s productivity so that villages can run fans all day long, without paying for it. That’s a *much* better idea.

Why wasn’t it done for 57 years, even post liberalization? Because one of the beautiful things about a free market is that for actions to take place, you need incentive. Governments, having no incentive or accountability, will not act.

Note the "a bunch of mooching subsidised farmers". Heh. No. That's not offensive and all. That's plainly hilarious.

And why should I not be convinced that there is an argumentation crisis?

Of Publications and Graduations

2006-02-12T04:13:00.002-05:00

I had started writing some mediocre poems during high school. Mediocre/stupid, in retrospect. At the time of writing them they were pretty good efforts. I could have possibly sent them to kids' supplements of news papers or some such magazines, and got some published. Never felt like. That in itself was no sin. But when parents or some enthusiastic relatives told new acquaintances that the chap writes good poetry, I would be hopelessly embarrassed. "What do you write poems about?" "Whaaat? Er.. well.. anything...". "Oh... where all are your poems published?" "Umm.. well.. actually I don't send them anywhere.. you know..", and so on. Soon they would 'discover' that "either the kid's poems are all rejected, or the kid and the parents are lying through their teeth". After a while I grew tired and stopped explaining. Whenever anyone asked I would just say, "Well.. no...nowhere." There would be a prompt consolation to the effect of "Keep trying until you succeed"!
-----

"Let me try some prose", I told myself a few years later. I wrote a bit, and good it was. At least then. This time, due to some favourable occurrences I got some 'success' even though I hardly put an effort. But then that wouldn't help you in answering questions. "What is the story?" "Whaddya mean?" "No.. the story.. what is it about?" Can you say, "Whaa.. you want a meta story? It's a story. A story. Read it."? You would rather, "Umm.. it's kind of modernist.. dilemmas.. meaning of rela..." "Hmm.. was it published anywhere?" "NO!". Well, actually this time I had a publication or two, but then it mattered only to the other guy, and that didn't matter to me.
-----

And here I am. Trying my hand at research in computer science. Heh. I know it's a sheer accident and all, but what's not? And this time I don't have a problem with explaining what my research is about and why I am doing it and so on. But then, "How many journal publications do you have?" "None yet" "Any conference?" "Umm.. yeah.. half a .. I was a second au.. actually a paper I wrote got rejected. Will be sending it somewhere else." "How many publications do you need to get a PhD?" "?! No ideaa..".
-----

You never graduate. The whole thing is a system of concentric circles. Each circle with the same configuration. You move up from one to the next and feel a deja vu. There is no escape. The only thing you can do is to stop taking yourself too seriously.

2006-02-10T19:50:00.002-05:00

You are ready to go to office in the morning and have come out of the house. Your mother comes out too to convey some message. A woman in her mid to late thirties who is passing by-who you wouldn't have noticed had she not stopped opposite your compound-notices your mother and stops. She says something. Or she asks. "I have some new clothes that I had bought. I want to sell them. I need money to pay school fees of my kids. Help me out. I am ready to sell them for half price." You start wishing that this hadn't happened. The tone is a mix of one who's pleading and one who's trying to strike a deal, and it progressively moves from the latter to the former. And you know it. You have seen it before. "It is embarrassing to ask people like this. But I just asked you since you were outside", she adds. Your mother is not too keen, but she doesn't want to be abrupt and impolite. She too wants a graceful exit like you. The other woman senses a chance and comes up to your mother.

Asking help to pay the school fees to a mother who's kid-not satisfied with school, and even engineering college-is getting a scholarship to do a PhD is such a poignant theatrical moment! Evidently the woman is unaware of any such possibility. And anyway, it's a boolean world. She's either genuine or she's a crook. And it doesn't matter either way.

You recollect all those previous ocassions when you had lost a few moderate sized notes "even when I knew that they were all crooks". In Hubli railway station, in Electronics City and elsewhere. You were amused when the very same guys had to come back to you with the very same stories, more than once! Obviously, they had forgotten your facem though you had not. You absolve yourself and start drifting away, leaving the situation to your non PhD mother. You hear a few words of the conversation as you heat up your bike. Slight sympathy, slight confusion, slight fear, for your mother. But soon you discover that the amount of collective sympathy you and mother can afford is much less than the deal the woman offers. "She is showing a receipt of Rs.1800!", your mother explains to a curious neighbour, as the woman retreats with slight indignance, and you throttle away.
-----

On the way you think of the binary possibility again. You tell yourself, "either way she hasn't had even a chance encounter with 'life'; she has her eternal tryst with 'survival'." You use quotes italics semicolons even while thinking! "And here are we. Wanting to trivialise survival. Wanting to outsource it. Wanting to quantify our success".
-----

You are disturbed sincerely. For various reasons that are unclear. You sit down on your chair and stream Dhrupad incessantly. After an hour or two you are better. You feel like writing about it, but you restrain. Hypocrisy it is, you think. You write anyway. It will be a truckload of highly romanticised pretence to others, today. Tomorrow it will be a truckload of highly romanticised pretense to you. You will delete it tomorrow, and rightly so. Indulgence is someone else's business cannot last a life time. It just lasts for a split moment. It is hidden somewhere deep in that split moment which is lost. Which will have to be lost.

Nature of Truth: Knowledge

2006-02-09T03:25:00.002-05:00

(This is my first attempt at "philosophy". If you find the ideas over here redundant, pointless, or rubbish, do tell me. But in an agreeable tone. Don't pounce on me.)

According to epistemology, knowledge is a justified true belief. We know P, if P is true, if we believe that P, and we have a justification for believing P. Of course, there are some problems with this definition (Gettier problem), but that's not a point of contention right now. Let's continue with the above definition. So, if we have to gain some
new knowledge, the set of ideas that potentially make up that knowledge must be true, and we must have a justified belief in that set of ideas. The process of believing some idea is inclusive of justification. We believe in something because there are some "justifiers", some "evidences" that will help us believe.

Let us make this interesting by bringing in the notion of "existence and reality". Each one of has his or her own existence within which we exist. There is a reality without us. It is independent of existence. And each one of us has his or her own perception of reality. This perception affects our existence. Now let us fit in truth. Let us say that truth is a part of reality. So, truth is also independent of existence.

Let me call this 'perception of reality' as knowledge. Supposing there is some way to quantify the knowldge we have, if I have K units of knowledge then I have perceived reality worth K units. If I gain some new knowledge, I have perceived something new about reality. Since something becomes knowledge only if it is true, and since truth is part of reality, knowledge is just our perception of truth. Knowledge does not have truth, because knowledge, or the perception of truth is part of existence.

How do we gain knowledge? We gain knowledge when we are able to find some "justifiers" that will make us believe in some truth. What is it that leads us towards finding new justifiers? The perception of truth or the knowledge or the set of justifiers that we already have, leads us. So, the pursuit of knowledge is the pursuit of these justifiers. Scientific process (and even arts?) is essentially a process of justification of truth.
-----

Now, there is a question that get raised at this juncture. We seem to have assumed that reality is static. It does not expand. "Entire truth" is already there as part of reality. But is it that truth is what we are able to justifiably perceive, or is it that what we are able justify becomes a perception of truth? Or does this question does not hold at all? We are able to justify something only because it is true; were it not true, we would not be able to find its justifiers?
-----

Since knowledge relies so heavily on truth, it would be interesting to explore the 'nature of truth'. I won't be talking about that in this post for it will become too huge. In the next post (in this series) I'll take the example of the atomic theory and argue that some popular theories of truth like 'Correspondence theory' and 'Coherence theory' are inadequate.

If a Chinese scientist gets a Nobel...

2006-02-07T03:50:00.002-05:00

...what does it mean to the US? It will make the US happy because, "...if China produces Nobel-quality science, it won't put the United States out of business; rather, Chinese discoveries will help American scientists discover more, too".Whatever China makes it will sell it to the US too. "...so whatever makes it more productive has some upside for the United States as well".

We should also understand that "competition between countries, unlike companies, is a positive-sum game". At least for the US. Because, "In the race to turn scientific ideas into businesses, the United States is hard to beat".

Read this interesting op-ed in Washington Post that I came across via some blog - The Fake Science Threat. It states that the alarm that some scientists are creating in the US that its scientific innovation will suffer due to competition by other countries, is spurious. If someone else is doing high quality research, it will only boost us to do even better. Most things in that article hold not just for innovation in the US but for the process of innovation itself. I agree with most of it, in principle. However, is there a way by which I can help the rife holier than thou attitude a little bit?

See. "...in the competition to retain the best research scientists, the United States has a lead that tends to reinforce itself. Because nearly all the world's top universities are American, the world's top researchers flock here; provided enough visas are available, it's hard to see why this would change". What you meant to ask, Sebastian Mallaby, if we consider a reasonably long period of time, is not "why would" but "why should". For not just it should, but it also would change. But even that should not cause an alarm for your science lobby guys because, as you rightly said, research and innovation will remain a positive sum game. Just that the game and its sum will be a little more distributed.

Urban Syndromes - 2: "We know what you want"

2006-02-01T19:00:00.002-05:00

(Previously, Urban Syndromes - 1: "We are the world")

No one writes to the colonel is one of my favourite short stories by Marquez. In that story, one of the characters (a doctor I suppose) says something that was very impressive. I don't think I can hazard an exact recollection, but he says something to this effect - "I think people in Europe should be reading our newspapers, and we should be reading theirs. That way we can come to know about each other". And he clinches it by this remark, "To Europe, Latin America is a man with a moustache, a gun, and a guitar". I have definite reasons for quoting the above at the beginning of this post. They should be clear subsequently.
------

Last year I attended a half a day seminar organised by a huge corporate called M, marking the inauguration of its research center in Bangalore. The seminar was held at the Taj west end. There were a lot of delegates that included senior professionals and researchers from the industry and academia. The major focus was of course on the inauguration of M's research centre, and what is the kind of work that will happen over there. But a lot of time was also spent through presentations and panel discussions on one particular topic - "how does our research help to improve the life in rural India?"

Another huge corporate called I made a special kind of PC that they claimed would be very effective in villages. It had a special dust filter. But the killer improvisation that it provided was an AC adapter so that one could run the PC using a car (jeep or tractor) battery.

Since we are into research some of us regularly come across people from the industry who want to collaborate with us to drive some research. A lot of them want our research to help rural India and specially the farmers.
------

Firstly, I have always wondered as to what does it mean when we say we "improve" someone else's life. And what does it mean to improve the life of a segment of society, when they are not even aware of it? Or when we are not aware of them, but only have some predefined notions about them? Is it not like saying - "Hey guys! We discussed at length about your problems, and found some solutions. You know.. if we do this set of things, and if you do this other set of things, it will be good for you". How? I don't understand.

If I am doing research, it is only because I enjoy it. It's not because it is going to help people. People might make use of my research and help themselves. That's a different thing. Similarly, if you have made a cool gadget and want to sell it, go ahead and sell it. But please don't tell me that you made that gadget because it will help me. Specially so, when you don't even know if I really need what you are trying to sell me. Do not assume "we know what you want". You need not know, and you need not care. I have no problems. But if you care, then you better know.
------

Let me make it clear that my rant is not against the assumption "we can make a difference". It is against the assumption "we know how to make a difference". The assumption that you already know what my problem is, or the assumption that the cool solution that worked for you will also work for me, is what I am talking about.

Let me deconstruct the "village PC" example. The claim is that it is a rugged PC that will tolerate "harsh climatic conditions". Firstly, I am not sure if a villager who has bought a thing worth 20 thousand will subject it to harsh conditions. And secondly, I don't understand what is so specially harsh about villages. Next, the AC adapter that can use a car battery. The reason you have that is because one can work on the PC even when there is no electricity. But is a computer so critical for a villager that he needs to use it even when there is no electric supply? I am not too sure. You might argue that it will help in schools where kids can work on it even when there is no power. Right. But then, did you check if the car battery killer improvisation you are talking about is really a new one? No. People in villages have found out such tricks and more long ago. They still continue to. And it should not surprise you. Electricity is so very basic to them that they know how to "loot" your electricity, they know how to "convert" a single phase electric supply to three phase electric supply using a capacitance, they know how to burn motors, and they know how to wind the coils.

What you are doing is "solution probleming". You have a "solution" that has solved some problem of yours. So, you "discover" a problem for the sake of using that solution. It's not at all necessary, but if you care, try and address a problem, not a solution. Try and find what is the problem. Then, if you want you can as well give a solution. Don't be ignorant if you want to make a difference. Go and do a reality check about what you heard or what you read somewhere.

Supposing I am wearing a suit, and the guy next to me is wearing pretty ordinary clothes. Am I right in assuming that his problem is that of clothes? And that his life will be better and he will be happier if he gets good clothes? I don't know. It might work. It might not work.
------

"Social service" is perhaps necessary. But it should involve the society. I am definitely not saying that people left to themselves will miraculously come to know of things that are good to them, and thereby improve the quality of their life. Thinkers are necessary, because a lot of people don't do it. Leaders are necessary, because most people have the habit of following. Visionaries are necessary, but at a macro level. Visionaries are not required to tell people what gadgets they should use. They are required to create awareness in a much more fundamental manner. They should empower people by thought. Today you think a computer is going to improve someone's life, and you give it. As days progress you keep on coming up with newer and cooler things. So, are you going to tell me each and every time that some new thing is good for me? When will I find out on my own and ask you to give me something that I need?

Update(2/2/06):Melquiades puts this series of posts in perspective, and adds his views. Here.

(Crossposted on Desicritics. Some discussion there.)

Urban Syndromes - 1: "We are the world"

2006-01-19T16:00:00.002-05:00

This series of posts is more of an anecdotal account. So, don't sue me. I won't be stating if these syndromes are harmful or how "good" or "bad" they are. At least not right now. Although the tone is light and there is enough sarcasm, the observations do hold generally. Though I will be talking about different syndromes, the sets of symptoms across these are not disjoint.

"We are the world" syndrome

We all are members of one or more "small worlds". Example small worlds are those of IT professionals, of urban dwellers, of beer lovers and so on. We absolutely love and hate our small worlds. We are so involved in them that we tend to forget the existence of a much bigger world. Even if are aware of the big world we often start believing that whatever is good for us is good for the big world as well. Similarly, whatever affects "them" won't affect "us". Not that we don't have our insecurities. So we say, technically what affects them should not affect us! We tend to get into a state of almost total oblivion caused by ignorance. That's what I call as the "we are the world" syndrome. There are many sub-syndromes of this. An important one can be termed as "Tax Payer's Money!!" syndrome.

Some examples would make it clearer. Although I am giving only a few examples, the syndrome is not restricted to these specific cases.

You would have heard a lot of people complaining about how subsidies to agriculture are ruining the industries in urban centres. And how farmers are absolutely "looting" all electricity. How tax payer's money is being misused and so on. A lot of the people who crib in this manner are belong to the second generation of families that have come out of villages. Typically they are government employees. Many times their fathers and grandfathers would have lost most of their lands due to the Land Reforms. However, this is not restricted to them. An extremely popular blogger had reportedly said something like this - "Let agriculture vanish; we can replace it with other industries."!

Another sub-syndrome manifests as "we are all too knowing". Some important symptoms of this syndrome are words like - "utility", "popularity", "logic", "rationality", "global reach", "libertaranianism" and so on. You would have also heard or used this line - "Everyone is comfortable with English; regional languages are dead". And how the "whole world" is connected through computers. Or how reservations are ruining the lives of the people with real merit. Or how easily "free markets" can solve all the problems.

"We are not morally responsible" or "the government is corrupt" is also a prevalent sub-syndrome. Urban centres are creating so many jobs. That 1 job supports 3-4 people in India, and that is why urban centres have to struggle due to a lot of overheads, is an incidental fact. Learn to look (only) at the positives! Even though we are not morally responsible we are "helping" the "society" by providing some basic amenities. Thus proceeds the argument. Ask them why a place like Electronic City with tens of thousands of employees hardly has any medical facilities, they will promptly explain how corrupt the governments are.

So, that is a very general description of the "we are the world" syndrome. I can give more explanations, symptoms, sub-syndromes, case histories and theoretical proofs. But I will avoid all that for brevity's sake. This itself should give you a general idea.

More syndromes, eventually.

Rigid Freedom

2006-01-12T09:55:00.002-05:00

The following is from the mission statement of Khadder, that sells Khadi for the "Global Indian".

"We will radically change the perception of khadi and hand-woven fabric in your minds from a dull, staid and rigid concept of a symbol of freedom to that of vibrant, youthful and wholesome exuberance."

No. I am not talking about the historical context of Khadi, or about the freedom movements etc.. Just take the above statement, and nothing else, matter of factly. I want to ask the dude who wrote the above thing this -- what does (s)he mean by something (be it Khadi, be it anything else) being a staid and rigid concept, and also being a symbol of freedom? And if Khadi were a symbol of freedom, as (s)he says, then how did it remain so depite being staid and rigid all the while? And your vibrant youthful wholesome exuberance cannot naturally be associated with freedom, and so you have to transform it. Eh?

So much for your branding.

AOTD-Contribution to Knowledge

2006-01-10T21:25:00.003-05:00

Let us start by making some ideal suppositions. One does research because one wants to enjoy the process of exploration and also wants to contribute to knowledge. Having fun is the essential purpose. And if one has had enough fun, one might as well have contributed a bit.

Research creates and sustains a vibrant environment. There are a lot of parameters that help in making a vibrant research environment - the strength of the research community, how driven the members of the community are, the quality of research, access to infra structure, incentives, acceptance etc.. Further, a vibrant environment feeds back on to itself.

A vibrant research environment more often than not is a successful research environment and success also feeds back on to itself. Many US universities clearly outclass most Indian universities in this regard.

Having fun is easier in a vibrant and successful environement than a dull one. Let us also consider the aspect of contribution to the body of knowledge. Some standard ways of doing this are by getting papers published in leading conferences and journals. This again is easier and faster in the US due to many technical and some non-technical reasons. So, contributing to knowledge is easier in some sense of the word if you are researcher working out of the US.

In view of these points and initial suppositions, let me ask some questions.

Is it not natural that aspiring research students from India go to the US and work out of there?

Is this 'bad' as far as research is concerned, in some way? Why?

If it is, then how are we going to argue so that at least some students consider staying here and helping to build a more vibrant community?