Perfection: a few musings

I'm reading Lila by Robert Pirsig (of Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance). I haven't yet fathomed the ideas on quality presented in the book, but the concept of dynamic & static got me thinking. At this stage, Im not sure whether Im talking of quality or perfection. But for my & your sake, lets consider the concept of perfection, where we strive to achieve the best possible in any given task / field/ etc.

The biggest defeating hindrance is the very idea of achieving perfection. Since the world around us is a dynamic entity, we cannot aim to achieve a static state. Hence, perfection should be a dynamic state. In other words, one should live perfectly in all walks of life / tasks / fields, etc. One should literally breathe perfection! That is the only way to achieve it...

Lets take a simple example. I bit my tongue the other day, and was badly in pain for 2 days. But after that the pain subsided. However, there was a nagging feeling sometimes, and I decided to go to the doctor. He told me that the wound had worsened, as I had not taken any medication. When I told him the reason for not coming - the pain receding, he told me that the body adapts to anything. If one part pains repeatedly, the nerve will send the same signals faithfully, but the brain will learn to suppress them from the conscious mind. Hence, one feels the nagging only when idle. 

In the same manner, the world & we are continuously adapting to the ongoing events, leading to change in situation at any given moment of time. Hence, the definition of perfection is also changing with every moment. The change could be either in the course or higher or lower levels of achievement. But of all things: it can never be static!

So, when we decide to be perfect, we are actually assigning ourselves to a lifelong task. For this very reason if we try to extract happiness from one act, we lose it over some time as the world has changed and the situation has changed. Our past achievement does not hold any value in the new order of things!

So, if the reason for perfection is to be happy: our rishi-munis were right in professing detachment, the only way to stay away from the dynamics of the world, and set one's own order of things. If the reason is achievement, you are doomed to a life of struggle!!! Its not so bad! Some people enjoy struggle!!!!

Whenever I finish a post to my satisfaction, Muffazza's words come ringing at the back of my head: what is the essence of this post? Is there a conclusion?

So my two cents worth: perfection is about trying the best of one's ability at every step of life, either that or nothing!

I'm sure Jun's gonna butcher this one!!!!!!

Posted via email from sandylief

Radicalism...

I've been reading Al Qaeda by some Mr Burke & simultaneously witnessing two events:

- Racism against Indians in Australia

- radicalism in India, (almost) single party government elected in India & the internal strife in one of the largest Hindutva parties...

Al Qaeda is a blandly written book, but an interesting (though I dont know how true) resource on terrorism & radicalism in Middle East & Pakistan. The author puts Pakistan in the centre of the entire terrorist movement, something I have never come across before. The birth of terrorism arising from the discontent of local peoples with the rulers who are willingly or unwillingly allowing western countries to control their resources & eventually lives is documented well in the book. The entire burden of the rise of terrorism is attributed to the cold war between USSR & USA in Afghanistan, subsequently spreading to other nations due to western corporate interests in Middle Eastern oil & business opportunities. The author appeals that local people have been uprooted from their traditional lifestyles & regions due to western intervention and that is the root of terrorism. The people have lost the only ideology they lead their lives with & do not connect to the western society, hence, they try to forge a pseudo-society based on the ideals that they should have followed - be it religious, social, geographical or cultural. When Westerners look at these definitions, they brand them as pagan, derogatory and even blasphemous. The entire problem lies in the increasing interaction between people of different cultures.

I tried to apply this perspective to the Indian scenario, and unsurprisingly, it works well.  The urban youth is born in a Western style society and does not relate to the traditional idioms. On the other hand those living in non-westernized parts of the country are being forced to live in increasingly western / foreign societies as people migrate from rural to urban & native to westernized areas, torn from the culture that they have always known & seeing it disappear. The word western here is used in the social context (& has no geographical attribute). When these two different kinds of people are put in the same place, there ought be a friction. Those who fear the foreign cultures then try to create a pseudo-ideology that they want to cling to, in absence of their original one. When they find they cannot live on that ideology in isolation, they try to force it on others,and thus result attacks on discos, morally correct dress codes, etc. Truth be told, its just a wrong-headed attempt to assimilate oneself in a modern Indian urban society. 

Apply this example to modern day Australia and one can see the frustration of the local unemployed youth at the Indian students who (usually from higher middle class families) flaunt latest gadgets while working at lesser pays. The Indian lifestyle is distinctly different, and somehow the students manage to save for things they aspire, by saving on daily rations (thats what i know, & i may be wrong). Whatever the reason, local youth increasingly feel they are unemployed and pushed lower in the class order due to such foreigners. Thus they try to rebel, bully, etc etc. The Indian students have some kind of an association, is there one for locals???? There is no representation, and that i believe is the underlying flaw, denying any chance of a civilized dialogue.

So how does one assimilate people from two or more drastically different cultures? Its a very tough question, but one of prime importance. I think the first step is to avoid alienization of any culture. People rise voilently when threatened, and that must be avoided at all costs. It is important to note that different people feel threatened in different ways, and that needs to be studied well by anthropologists / sociologists / psychiatrists. 

The second point is to have complete representation of all kinds of people. Unless that is achieved, one cannot hope for a dialogue, as the Australian example might show. 

If the people feel they are being represented / heard, the tendency to resort to violence is reduced. One can easily see the opposite in terrorist activities where people feel their leaders are not representing them, and hence attack them & their collaborators. 

Again, this is just one angle of the story. Ofcourse terrorism has arisen due to various other political & social factors. But the very idea of instigation lies at the root of every revolt. In a democracy like India, it is necessary (& quite easy) to provide a platform for equality. I can only imagine if the radicals who push north Indians out of Mumbai, attack discos in Mangalore are asked to help in law-making for application of their views, they will have to face a much larger issue of actually listening to the other side - something they evade during violent interactions. 

Posted via email from sandylief

Bureaucracy - the unaccountable public service?

In the last post I was arguing the existence of public accountability in government services. However, there is one large hindrance to the same- bureaucracy. It is a parallel system (gifted by the ingenious Brits) of government, that provided the elites with a just escape from accountability while staying in the system. The elites proved that while democracy is a good way of empowering voters, they also chided the inability of elected representatives to handle specific tasks / concepts / policies. Thus they promoted the rise of the experts, who were capable of "aiding" the elected representatives in governing the nation by providing expert advise, micro-managing daily affairs & policies, etc. These experts or bureaucrats were selected by a so called competitive exam system, but had no accountability whatsoever to the voters. While the elected representatives came & went, the bureaucrats became the true bearers of power influencing the policies (depending on their interpersonal skills).

The government /voters did try to create a barrier by providing compulsory transfers every few years, change of posts, etc etc. However, the voters failed to realize that it was a larger nexus - while the bureaucrats had different individual views, their common minimum policy was to maintain power within the bureaucracy & ensure increasing profits for their kind. They did not shirk from providing carrots to the politicians by giving them a taste of wealth that could be acquired from the public position of power. While the politicians were re-elected or thrown out based on their performance, the bureaucrats who were elites formerly, were able to forward their agenda without much deterrence from the public. They are, today, the true elites & power-bearers, deciding the fate of everyone from the rich to the poor, while enriching themselves limitlessly....

One has to only imagine a public system in their absenoe, or one where the bureaucrats are also elected / directly accountable to understand that the fear of being removed from their position completely can be the only deterrent to their power & money games. Accountability is a great threat to the responsible, but the public has been denied the right to use it on the largest control group - the bureaucrats... Time we changed this?

Posted via email from sandylief

Bureaucrat- capitalist nexus

A day after the election results, I was sitting with my dad & watching the events unfold on the TV when he remarked: " Why do we need two set of people to do the same thing?" I asked him what he meant & he replied:"Well, there is this national highway development program for example. There is one set of govt employees / bureaucrats who sit in NHAI & similar & decide which roads to develop & so on. Then they dole out these lucrative earning opportunities to (so to say) the lowest bidders (namely the contractors). The contractors then construct these roads. Earlier, in the 60s & 70s, the govt used to build the roads by directly employing labour, thus guaranteeing proper wages to the lowest workers while ensuring quality. Then, as corruption increased, the babus formed a nexus with the material suppliers & supplied sub-standard materials to the roads. As a result the roads were no longer reliable. The govt suddenly decided that it was incapable of building roads & should divest itself of this responsibility. Thus were the road contractors born. Earlier, they provided quality as they had a name to keep & the roads were fine again. But the babus formed another nexus with the contractors & again the quality suffered. Now, we are in the third phase where the government passes on the build-operate-transfer/own rights to contractors & they are free to do what they like. Initially, this worked too, as the contractors owned the roads & collected toll. So they maintained the stretches well. Again, the babus have formed a nexus, and the roads (even expressways) are back to the poor lamentable conditions. The rot has set in, and there is no further hope unless we remove the roots of the rot first!"

I took the opportunity to compare this to Klein's description of events in South American countries during the 1970s. A small problem was magnified hugely by private capital hungry for resources & sources of exponential earning to show that the then current system didn't work. They kept proposing free market policies privatizing all forms of services, and earning enormous profits from the same, while the general condition continued to deteriorate.

In the same manner, as just one example of such a policy, private capital in our country has kept insisting the govt is unable to develop & maintain quality roads by itself, freeing the entire operation from the government step-by-step, ultimately owning the roads, bullying people to pay toll even as the quality of roads deteriorates to earlier (or worse) levels. Put this example to comparison in other policies like power, air transport, water works, urban infrastructure, etc etc & you get the point. The whole aim of the exercise is to keep fooling the public into believing that the govt is incapable of doing things itself & private capital / corporations are the only answer to quality development. As each small step fails, another more radical alternative is presented as a hope. If this continues, we will effectively privatize all our essential services to no end, & lose whatever control we have over our basic rights as citizens.

While I am not a supporter of leftist / socialist policies i do not believe that democracy entails complete corporatocracy. Certain basic services / rights have to be ensured by the government & the best (though less efficient) way of doing it is for the government to control the production & distribution of these services. Private capital is not answerable to the public & in effect creates oligarchy, since essential services are not liable to competition. While grossly inefficient, the government machinery is atleast answerable to the voters & thus (marginally) in their control. 

This raises an important question regarding bureaucracy, which i shall discuss in the next post.

Posted via email from sandylief

Corporatocracy v/s democracy

I have been reading Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine. She talks about corporatocracy a la Milton Friedman & its impact on the world. The American policies that have allowed free reign of private capital around the world have led to the collapse & deterioration of many countries around the world. I have been exposed to the idea with Chomsky's writings, although he never used the term or explained the concept in the book I read. However, subsequent reads of Klein & Confessions of an economic hitman brought home the idea that private capital is dangerously bent on gaining profits from the crisis in other nations. In a worse turnaround, private capital creates crises to be able to generate new profits. 

Its a very interesting case for India too, while Klein's book does not mention India except a short sentence on Tsunami. Since the last 5 years we have turned socialists again, introducing public funded policies that seek to resdistribute taxes earned by the govt to the poor through farm loan waivers, NREGA and the likes. However saintly it may look, the government is still guilty of misguiding the general public: the largest amount of tax comes fromt the middle classes & not the exceptionally rich. While they pay a good amount of personal tax, most of their wealth lies in corporations which are cross-subsidized by the government through various tax-waivers, import-export subsidies, SEZ system (the largest tax break system in our country to date), etc. If one is to even calculate off-hand, it is easy to notice that the amount of revenue the government loses (& in effect subsidizes) from corporations is many times more than what it doles out towards pro-poor policies. 

So, is this just a way of covering up the corporatist agenda? The earlier government (NDA) wasn't even covering up - they were blatantly doling out subsidies to the rich while ignoring the poor. However, whether the former or latter, the middle class takes the burden of financing most of this powerplay. In the end, its about our money as taxpayers, that the government conviniently pushes across various spectrums, leaving us high & dry.

This is just the first in a series of posts, where i wish to explore the concepts of corporatocracy, democracy & the status of our country within the same.

Posted via email from sandylief

The alchemy in my life...

When i was a kid, i thought i was a dreamer.... so, i used to imagine a hundred million things & draw some of them.... then i came to rigid formal teaching & discovered im good at math & science. So, i took up math & science... when i faced the boards i found hundreds better than me.. then i thought atleast i drew better, and had some sense of imagination... so i joined architecture... there i found hundreds better at sketching & imagination... i found i have a better appreciation for planning, so i took up a job in planning... i found many better than me... i realized i appreciated environment & nature much more... so i took up landscape... & there i found nature lovers more fanatical than me, environmentalists more obsessed than me... so im back here, wondering what is it i am good at...

Now, i think im a better dreamer than anything else... conjuring up the future (imagined) before my eyes... well, i will find another hundreds better at that too....

but the truth is, there are hundreds better than me at any one given thing...its the combination of some math, some science, some imagination, some bit of drawing, some bit of environmental attitude that makes me - ME

am i upto my own expectations? do i value myself? do i believe in myself? well, the answer can only come when i go back to the roots... the alchemist found the treasure back where he started... & i must go back to my dreaming... combined with my experiences in math, science, imagination, architecture et al, ... maybe ill realize what niche i have...where i excel... and what i can contribute to the world....

happy journey to myself!!!!

oh ps: i absolutely adore to travel.. there may be others better,but i havent yet found anyone as hell-bent on exploring even when not having slept in last 24 hours (apropos my trip to mt abu...)

Posted via email from sandylief

Er.. that marriage thing....

I've seen people choosing their own partner & living with them their whole life & I've seen others choosing their own & having flings the next year onwards..

I've seen people getting into arranged marriages & living happily ever after, & I've seen too many not feeling alive ever after....

As you can understand, I'm quite undecided on which bench I should sit.. but there is one positive thing about arranged marriages that I may have discovered. & it reflects not just the marriage & social customs, but also the general state of mind of individuals in the society. The first group wants freedom & chooses their own, the second gives that to their families to choose. Now the arranged marriage system is a good web of checks & balances, not withstanding the fact that I have seen it fail more times, but then success stories are too common & hence are never mouthed.. every successful arranged marriage is yet another good marriage, but a disastrous one is an agenda for the freedom of choice group.

Anyways, the discussion being about checks & balances - the family keeps the web tightly knit, with frequent gatherings & festivals allowing the couple to feel needed everywhere & keep close to each other in the first year. Then onwards, each family takes care of the newlyweds, with economic & social extensions of their own family, thus tightening the web. In the end, we have about 3 loosely nuclear families moving together. If any one of the newlyweds wavers, the bonds around are a moral deterrent, as well as physical when needed.

Now, I have always kept wondering why is this needed? Which brings us to the state of mind question. While most of us want freedom of choice, is every individual in the society qualified enough to make his or her decisions? I do believe in freedom for every individual as the cornerstone for liberty, but most examples in society are that of irresponsible use of the freedom... How do we bring about a balance. I would like to believe that such informal checks & balances systems are helpful. The state can only make blanket laws for everyone, since we have not been able to achieve a personalized democracy - different for every individual according to need. Blanket laws are necessary for some but oppressive for most, or helpful to most but deterring for some. There is no single right way in a country of a billion plus people. Hence, it is necessary to understand the concept of formal v/s informal, legal v/s social laws / customs. Somewhere, this leads me (for now, & to be honest - quite grudgingly) to believe that our system of personal laws (separate for each community - rephrased culture) is better than having a single national law. It may unite us, but narrow our freedoms & tear apart our social fabric.

Posted via email from sandylief

Next is what Mr Prime Minister?

I've been reading A better India, a better world by Narayana Murthy. In one of his articles written on 15 August 2007, he outlines eight outstanding achievements of India: green revolution, white revolution, space programme, telecommunications, nuclear programme, economic changes (1991), IT revolution and Independant media. I mentally arranged some of these into our nation's decadal achievements or lets say 10 year unintended & unplanned achievements! Now, I haven't researched the actual dates, so kindly ignore the precision. I am trying to get a jist of the direction of our movement. So here goes:

1. 50s & probably halfway 60s we were abysmally socialist, trying to develop resources & mega-infrastructure for water, power & transport.

2. halfway 60s & 70s was the green revolution that made us food independant (mostly we weren't self sufficient till after Indira Gandhi's time, but the revolution was happening fast around this time & problems of logistics were higher than problems of actual production)

3. 70s & 80s was the white revolution that made us a self-sufficient milk country, even one of the largest exporters. It was also the advent of telecommunications & large scale space technology

4. 90s was ofcourse the financial revolution, delivering us from socialism to capitalism....

Mr Murthy stresses that each of these needed a visionary: Be it Mr Swaminathan Iyer or Verghese Kurien or Mr Sam Pitroda... a single individuals or a group of individuals have struggled to lead the programmes. Well, we all know there are teams of people struggling to work on schedule behind each leader / visionary, but the vision is necessary for development. Now, to go on....

5. (this is beyond Mr Murthy's words) i believe 2000s is about infrastructure rather than IT. Yes, IT is there, but its a global changemaker, not just limited to India. & it wouldnt have happened if we had not put satellites into space or spruced up our antiquated communications. The 2000s is a continuing legacy of improving urban & rural infrastructure - urban development programmes under JNNURM, rural development & gram sadak yojnas, the cellphone which is the single largest impact on Indian economy - larger than all of Sam Pitroda's infrastructure since it has empowered every subziwallah & rickshaw wallah to better deliver his / her services.

But this is all ongoing & has been set into a cycle. Not a single political party has outlined the vision for the next 10 years. Now I have hardly any qualifications to direct anywhere, but if I were to choose, I would choose sustainability over anything else...

The global environment is dying (although for no fault of our own.. even today the US is the largest polluter, even though China uses a full 50% of global resources today, the US is still in denial) and we are bearing the burden of the western development. We should regulate ourselves before we are down on our knees begging for the last drop of oil.. So who should be our role model: Suzlon wind power, the public transport system promoters, solar power engineers at TERI? well i wouldnt care who is the visionary as long as somebody does take up the axe and chop every inefficient technology out of the country.

We need development that does not cost us our precious resources, wildlife, flora, the pristine beauty of nature, our culture (i.e. our traditional technologies, items, handicrafts, etc) sustainability does not mean just energy efficiency- it also means skillset efficiency. If we can make the best pashimino shawls (one part of India), why should we manufacture stupid jeans for half the world.. well we may do that, since there's too many of us, but why put pashimino to extinction... it sells like hotcakes & we should encourage it.. It should not be ONLY the government's job to do so, we need visionaries who are futurists too - what will sell (since we are capitalists now) in future needs to be understood today & thats where our next 10 year plans will come from..

Any answers our future prime ministers??

Insanity, stupidity - a communal perspective

Day before yesterday I saw a shocking incident... Now, I've seen Hindu Muslim riots before my eyes, and I've seen Godhra happen. But I would attribute those to mob mentalities in general. I have only heard, but never seen racisim / communalism happen before my eyes.

So I was standing at a traffic signal on IIM Junction, Ahmedabad and a rickshaw with a Muslim driver drew up beside me. A guy got down from it (in his fifties perhaps) & blatantly refused to pay the rickshaw driver!!! In addition, he started hurling abuses saying: " I won't let you enter Vastrapur again... I am a Kathiawadi, I will kill you..." and all this with hundreds of expletives in between. The rickshaw walla (in his sixties or seventies) was bold enough to give back verbally.

But there's more... The passenger started hitting the rickshaw wallah!!!! He smacked him 4-5 times while the rickshaw wallah kicked about trying to loosen the guy's grip. A few people tried to get the passenger away, but the signal had gone green & vehicles started moving about... I was too shocked to move, but left the scene as everyone around was honking like crazy.

Sadly, neither me (shamefully), nor the cops (who were hardly 10m away & watching), nor others around stood up for the rickshaw wallah. I experience tremendous shame as i confess witnessing this shameful act in front of my eyes without doing anything about it...

Are we even humans? Is this the way to treat a fellow human being? Are we taught this, or learn this somewhere? What drives us to this? It is all so stupifying.....

Posted via email from sandylief

Just another brick in the wall....

This post is sort of in continuation to the last one, albeit on a very different topic. Edward Luce, author of IN SPITE OF THE GODS (about the rise of India) argues that India has two distinct growth rates due to its skewed education outlook. The budget for higher education is equal to or more than the budget for primary education. So say many others, chiding our abysmal literacy rates. Has anyone stopped to think whether education is actually upto any standard for the future.

I will quote two sources here: Alvin Toffler & Sir Ken Robinson, the first being a futurist & the second being an educationist.

Toffler discusses the idea behind the current education system. Before middle ages, most professions were either hereditary or learnt through an existing practitioner. There wasn't a formal education system. With the advent of mechanization & industrialization, the need for people involved in rote tasks increased. The requirement was for hands & not the brain, the skill being largely mechanical. Those who could apply their brains shrewdly climbed the industrial hierarchy, while others languished on factory floors. Hence an education system was created to cater to the industrial needs: kids were taught importance of time & punctuality, given rote tasks for improvisation& the like. However, the world is changing rapidly, and we are back to multi-tasking since each person is a walking organization now. SoHos are changing the way we work, & in spite of having a great amount of automation, we are required to have varied skill sets for changing demands. 

Sir Ken takes the argument further by saying that the industrial school system was meant to prohibit creating in order to amplify repetitive skills. Hence the school system concentrates on developing the brain & hands while the lower half of the body is left out. He emphasizes the importance of multi-tasking to creativity & varied knowledge to problem solving. The more we concentrate our knowledge & narrow our spectrum, the more unaware we are of the impacts in other fields. As a result, our solutions are half-baked or require large amounts of co-operative activity, which is quite time consuming. 

The idea behind education should be to nurture one's creativity, encourage problem solving & out-of-the-box thinking, instead of being given repetitive no-brainers. So the question we, as Indians, should be asking ourselves is not how much to give to whom, but whether to give anything to these ruins of the past? They have no future to nurture us or our next progeny; they are OBSOLETE.....

Posted via email from sandylief's posterous

slipping forward... pessoptimism

Im reading IN SPITE OF THE GODS by Edward Luce which tells the weird growth story of India, inspite of all the drawbacks it faces. I havent formed any opinion on the book.

But a series of related events & articles have been observed by me lately:

- Mulayam's English hatao, computer hatao

- Shobha De's article against him in today's Times

- Sri Rama Sene attacks & an interview by the founder to Outlook

- A friend's shock at seeing a temple in front of a 1000 year old cave complex

- BJP & Congress circulars promising PDS grains at 2-5 Rs./ kg

- a friend's narration of wheat imports from Australia lying unattended on some port

- BJP & CPM's anti-nuclear stand

- Maoist attacks on election booths

- Lack of leadership by any party

- Criticism of new candidates from the corporate world

These are in no particular order. My observation is that while most of us are happy at the post 90s liberalization, we cannot make up our minds whether to move forward with the world or go back to pre-industrial world (a.la. Pol Pot). Luce talks about modernization reducing no of jobs in industries, Mulayam of the same due to computer related automation, & so on...

I cannot comprehend how one can miss the point that the world has always been changing. I can only imagine a Neanderthal walking upto me & saying I have extinguished his foraging lifestyle & job due to agricultural inputs. In the same sense, mechanization of agriculture has led to reduction in jobs available in rural areas. Modernization of machinery has the same impact on industrial & service sectors. 

At any point in time, one type of profession is going out while the other is being born. The difference today lies in the speed of change. Earlier professions changed at the rate of a few generations; now they change atleast 3 times within the same generation. I wanted to be an architect, but after coming out I realized I couldn't achieve all my dreams being just an architect. So, I specialized into landscape architecture. A few years down the line, maybe I'll specialize in landscape planning exclusively. I am ready for the change & I think everyone should be.

We do not live in a Nehruvian world where job security was paramount. The nature of the profession changes every 5 years today & there is no way we can provide lifetime job assurance. Even for the farmers, job definition has changed from subsistence farming to edible foods to cash crops to exclusive oil crops to contract farming with industry to demand based farming & cold chain management & so on.....

The question again, as has been raised in my last post, lies in whether we can provide requisite infrastructure to everyone. Unless we can do that, we will never solve our unemployment problem.

Infrastructure as the critical component of change...

I recently watched a TED talk by Shai Agassi on introducing electric cars on a mass scale. He concentrates on the infrastructure aspect more than technological imporvisation. His premise is simple: the battery is like an oil well; if we buy oil today & not the well itself, why should we buy a battery. So, the solution is to sell electricity & not the battery itself. He plans to create a network of electric stations (like gas stations) which will replace used batteries with new ones. The batteries will be owned by the provider & not the owner, and hence the owner has to pay only for electric use. His calculations show that this will allow an electric car to run at 8 cents a mile compared to 60 cents a mile for petrol!!!

Whether his calculations & planning holds true or not, i'm impressed by the fact that he has used infrastructure as a tool for improvisation. It is true that we take for granted our huge oil refineries & millions of gas stations as integral infrastructure to run our car. Today, the electric car is expensive not because of its basic cost, but because it does not enjoy infrastructure support at par with gasoline vehicles! To create that will allow a level competition... I think we have started to see this in India with the rise of CNG & LPG pumps everywhere, gas is increasingly supplanting petrol / diesel & public transport is encouraged to use these fuels!

It raises more important questions for me. Many technologies that we do not find economically prudent today, but more sustainable nonetheless may be victims of infrastructure support rather than anything else. We need to relook at our planning & infrastructure to see whether we are really planning for the future or just pushing our present? Imagine living without the internet today, & yet if India had not embraced the famous STD PCO with satellite linking and rise of last mile connectivity, we would still be internet disabled!No Infosys, no BPOs, just plain old industry....

Please watch the video here

Standing in the summer sun....

Today's article in Times of India discusses Intelligent traffic control systems vs manned traffic. The author talks about how an intelligent traffic system will not only take away jobs, but also be redundant in the Indian scenario. He also claims that manned traffic is the only solution to Indian problems.

I dont know if the gentleman has ever seen a traffic cop standing in the middle of a tarred road on an Indian summer afternoon. Appalled would be an understatement. These men risk their lives (to unruly drivers) and health (to sun, rain, name it) to just maintain some sanity on our roads!!! Ahmedabad has a lot of road rage & traffic cop beating incidents. These people merit a better life.

To say that the intelligent traffic system will take away their jobs is absolutely rubbish. Besides, it feels like the Mulayam manifesto of removing computers so that more people can be employed to do the same work!! 

The intelligent traffic system monitors traffic on a real time basis, by counting vehicles & adjusting traffic cycles to the flow in any given direction, much like a traffic cop does. However, it is but a dumb computer & needs to be supervised. Hence, cities like London have central control room where 10 operators manage about 80 intersections!

We have the advantage of manpower to our side. We can install on-site traffic monitoring booths, where the cops can stay inside & supervise the traffic at ease. They may come out when needed only, eg in case of an accident or major traffic jam.

Another advantage of the system is that it can capture an offender's number plate photo & send the fine directly to his / her house. This reduces the stress on the cop, who does not have to run after offenders, or argue unnecessarily with them.

These are just two examples I gave off my head. The IT system can aid us much more, by giving real time traffic data for better management & planning, while serving the needs of our large cities.

please vote

Today's paper shouts: "Maoist attacks on many booths, yet polling (average) at 62%..."

While we urbanites are too lazy to move ourselves (myself being a culprit) to vote, leaving the shelter of our airconditioned offices & standing in a queue to vote; rural India is voting, even in places where it costs them their lives. 8 people have died at poll booths (in addition to kidnapped election officials & injured & dead army / police personnel). In Kandhamal (where Christianity related riots took place), a large number of tribals have come forward under army / police convoy protection to vote. Some booths, where firing & landmine blasts took place did report 0% turn out. But then, even with the probability of such events happening elsewhere, many people turned out.

I have discussed earlier with Rooney, the futility of voting in a democracy, including ours (& even the great USA). However, if these simpletons can believe in democracy & turn out to vote, i must exercise my right, whether useful or not....

to buy or not to buy...

We have zipcar now... for those who came in late:

zipcar is a company that rents car, A la Hertz; however the difference is that one subscribes to it like a monthly rental or similar & can ask for any car in their stable. Obviously all cars have different rents, but the convinience is amazing!

To put an analogy, you can go to downtown office in public transport & then order a BMW to reach client lunch meeting, which you can drop anywhere. You can order a family wagon on a weekend for your trip, or a 4wd for off-roading.. The idea is you buy the timeshare of the car, not the car itself. It is cheaper in the long run as you pay only rent (like EMI), and you dont have to maintain it or look for replacements when your car malfunctions!

I don't know if I would like to use this, but if I were to apply this analogy to automobile manufacturers, maybe they could come out with a system where you buy timeshare of their particular model or segment & they provide you latest upgrades for free. For this, you dont pay them the whole amount, but a continued EMI. This concept has partly taken off with second hand car market, where you can drive in your old car & drive out in a brand new one!

However, the issue is that in the current economy, we are paying out loans to banks for all our capital investments. If we pay the auto company a fixed (or variable, depending on scheme) amount every month, & get a fully functional automobile in return (the amount including services, repairs & replacement car during service), why would we ever want to BUY a car?

The whole idea of ownership is changing, we need to change too...

Capitalism as parasitism...

I just finished "Confessions of an economic Hitman" by John Perkins, & Im indebted to Mufaazaa for gifting me the amazing book! While I cannot make up my mind whether it is fact or fiction, the book does cover the most widely debated topic today: American imperialism.

The author claims to be an Economic Hitman (EHM) for a private company(that was sold off to another company subsequently). His sole aim is to create lucrative economic projections about third world countries, justify world bank / IMF investments into them, and then gain contracts worth billions of dollars for his own company. The larger aim is to make the country so indebted in the long run that it defaults its payments & accedes to US power by allowing military bases on its soil, opening its natural resources & workforce to US companies & voting as per US instructions in the UN. Thus US gains a slave without spending a dollar, since all the money is funnelled back to the States by its companies.

The author denies this being a conspiracy; rather its just a set of minds that methodically go about getting richer by sucking dry the resources of other countries. Perkins claims to have worked in Panama, Ecuador, Colombia, Indonesia, etc. He also puts forward another way of supremacy for countries that are cash rich: the middle eastern nation-states. Here the US asks the countries to buy US bonds and use the interest to finance infrastructure development in their countries.

The greatest ease for US is that the dollar is a universal currency & it isnt backed by a gold standard. Hence, it can print any amount as long as the world is confident of the American economy. The book is written just before the depression set in & has important lessons to teach.

Perkins also talks about American dollars funnelled to terrorist organizations & CIA assassinations of top global leaders, not for political motives, but purely for greed. He also points out that most of American bureaucrats & politicians are, in fact, on the payroll of large American Corporations. To sum it all he has coined the word: "Corporatocracy". It think its says a lot.

I read Chomsky some time earlier, & coudlnt convince myself about what he wrote. He seemed leftist to me. Perkins, however, is a capitalist who has grown to despise the system which gains its riches by killing & starving others.

For the first time in my life, even if momentarily (until i do further research), I am glad that India has not bowed to American pressure in that last 50 years & opened up its economy only in the 90s, a time when American power is either declining or concentrated in numerous wars elsewhere. 

Perkins also points out that America is the only country (other than Iraq) to have invaded other countries in name of justice / democracy (Vietnam, Korea, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan) while the sole aim was economic greed. It is, the modern East India trading company. Instead of being one company, its an informal consortium of the largest corporations in the US.

I will write more posts on this topic as i reflect & research more, I hope to start a dialogue with the readers... & we thought our politicians are corrupt!!!!

Na...aah....No...oh!!!!!

There's this big moral battle & im unable to take sides! I just keep wondering & arguing with myself: to be or not to be!

Im talking about Ms Nano by the Tatas. While tech-geeks are hailing a great Indian invention (almost), the transport planners are up in arms against the probable exponential increase in congestion that she will create.

The geeks have retorted that Nano pollutes less than a two-wheeler, and will make travel more orderly, as the great two-wheeler riders are responsible for rash driving most of the time. The transport planners agree with the latter, but cannot reconcile to the former...

So where am I? I agree there will be increase in congestion, and increase in cars. So less people will use public transport & since we cannot come to terms with congestion taxes as a nation, we will create endless traffic jams.

But there is another side: the sheer willpower and simplicity in invention! The Tatas have succeeded in creating a car that is technologically at par with the best luxury cars, while being sold at a pittance. They have created a complete car at the cost of an auto-rickshaw! & the most accomplishe heavy-weights have contributed to its advanced engineering. 

My inspiration is in the fact that if we can create a low cost- hi end car, why are we still using archaic techniques / technologies in other parts of our lives? Why do we have manned signals, buses that look like a walking dumpyard, camel carts, polluting two-wheelers or cars, & so much more? 

If each of us aims to create one such great technology, we would all be much better off, be it transport planners or tech-geeks. Forget the argument guys, LEARN FROM IT!!! & now that Nano has already arrived, think of how to live with her....

(h)our earth....

Saturday was earth hour & i religiously switched off my electricity for an hour, eating by candle-light... Looking out of my house, though, i was aghast... the rest of the world was lit as usual..

Inspite of our media taking up the issue with great fervour, i could see it had little impact. So what went wrong? Why were all those people completely insensitive to the earth hour? I haven't seen much of the media campaign other than excerpts from last year's sydney earth hour. I believe they completely missed (though i cant confirm this, as i couldnt have seen tv all the time) the concept of earth hour. If we are trying to save some CO2 pollution by switching our lights, then was the whole idea even conveyed?

Also, i was hardly a willing partner to the whole idea. My skepticism arises from the fact that there may be better ways to reduce CO2 consumption on a regular basis, rather than such rare mass-movements. Our government does try hard to advertise use of CFLs over incandescent bulbs, switching off engines at traffic lights, switching off electronic items on standby and the likes. I believe the campaign is true at heart, but for some weird reason, nobody (in the media) wants to take it up voluntarily. Maybe, it has no "scoop" value. Anything that is regular becomes too ordinary to discuss & unfortunately our media thrives on new scoops.

So, how about an earth year? How about we decide that for the next 365 days we will:

1. switch off our electricity for half hour (one hour is too much, & those with power cuts are exempted)

2. switch off our engines at intersections

3. switch off all electronic items that have standby mode, and move our bums to start them only when we need them, rather than use the remote (aka tv, audio systems, laptops, etc etc)

4. remove chargers from sockets when not in use & switch off the plugs

5. drive at optimal speeds (upto 60km/h i believe) & not accelerate too fast & brake too hard

6. use the stairs atleast once daily instead of using the elevator (even downstairs helps!)

7. switch off our computers when not in use / atleast switch off screens when leaving the desk (even laptops have buttons to switch off screens)

8. promote (& use if possible) solar heating & lighting

9. close doors / windows when using air conditioners (ensure place is almost air-tight) & draw curtains to reduce heat load on the room (those with glass walled offices may demand partitions / dark +thick curtains)

10. reduce daylighting by using / creating ventilators in the room to allow ambient sunlight

These are things that hardly need an effort & yet can save enormous amounts of electricity & subsequently reduce CO2 pollution. For those of you who are really concerned, please go ahead & try these out! One radical point that i missed out : "Bicycle your way to the office / use public transport!!"

Dont look at me, i'm not the one who wants to save the world! Dont expect me to do this for the next 365 days! Besides, advice is always free! :P

A drunk society #2

This is in response to Jun's comment to my Drunk Society on: http://flippidy-flip-jun.blogspot.com/2009/03/response-to-sandys-drunken-society.html

I've been quite waiting for some response on this one! i quite agree point 3 is downright rude! Responses are numbered to Jun's points:

1-a) I repeatedly pointed out prohibition did NOT restrict access to alcohol, it only made it unacceptable in public places

1-b) The question of a parallel underground power structure is an interesting one. Albeit, the idea that it can exist only in presence of prohibition like Al Capone's gangs is wrong. Even when alcohol is legally available, there are standards guiding what alcohol is, for safety. In small rural breweries, alcohol is made directly from chemicals - it is essentially ethanol. A little mistake in that chemical process leads to the deaths of many unknowing persons. Hence, the government tries to control such unlicensed brewers. This results in the rise of another mafia - the cheap liquor mafia / the counterfeit liquor mafia, & so on. My point of the above ranting is that we cannot avoid a parallel power structure like mafia. It is a product of the society, & shall exist irrespective of prohibition.

1-c) morality & stigma ARE ineffective! thats why we need the law!

1-d) yes, prohibition is unacceptable to all, including you & me! all the same, its necessary for a saner society!

2) The very idea that treatment may  not be available to cure drug / alcohol related problems is one of the largest reasons of self-control in use of such items! Treatments are available to addicts, if only they are willing to accept the social consequences! There is enough research in drug related disease programs to cure most of them. Why they dont go? Its a social stigma to accept the fact!

3) this point is quite invalid. Its only because of prohibition that we dont find drugs being sold on every street corner, like we have pouches of gutkha. Nobody needs a lesson in diseases (aka cancer) arising from intake of any of the above. Very simply, WHY should the society tolerate those who willingly hurt themselves? only to turn back to the society for support when they are full with their stupidity??

Prescription drugs may give us a high, but not many of us are willing to try that. Only the desperate do it! Liquor has been given the status of a social status symbol / necessity against wordly problems. It is this label that i am completely against, & prohibition is a tool for that! There is no way we can control anything completely! Not atleast in our great Indian democracy!

4) The problem of liquor is very different from that of smoking. We are not just talking of the urbanites here, but the other 50% - rural folk. Liquor available in urban areas & to middle class (+ above) has high standards - meaning it does not give much of a high! But local brewed chemical based liquor available in rural areas (our potli!) is quite a thing! Its no less than a synthetic drug. It can give a high like no other & even kill the user! When taken in, the person is hardly in control of oneself. When you turned up drunk that day, you had a commercially available brand! The best you could have done is taken your pants off! But had you tried true-to-its-name potli, you would have ended up pulling everybody's pants down! Believe me, you just need to go to rural areas to see what brews there! They put in anything that works - from chemicals to dung to animal fat / meat to rotten flesh, anything!!!!

5) I dont believe gujarat is the safest place exclusively because of liquor. My point however was that it is quite an assuring thought to not have drunk people running around the place! & i will stress again, its hardly a problem in urban areas - im talking about rural areas. The  reason why we dont hear enough of it is because media is urban-centric. The rural news come in only when hordes of people die due to consumption. No brawls / riots / drunken stupors are reported in mainstream newspapers! 

Regarding my view of drunk people, im sure you can make out the difference by now - its in the liquor buddy! The things urbanites use regularly are hardly stupefying!

Your historic perspectives are quite catching! I had no idea of the same. Gives me all the more reason to talk about prohibition! The examples are apt too, as a society level structure of drinking versus a personal riot. A social drinking ceremony leads to further ills, a personal bout is also less harmful.

To quote myself again, prohibition is a good social practice. While people may enjoy liquor personally in their homes, it is quite risky for the state to publicly allow liquor consumption & face the consequences.  I too believe that any kind of prohibition should not be regulated by the state, but we live in a society that is hardly self-regulatory!

A drunk society...

The Times of India Ahmedabad has a reader's debate on whether we should allow drinking legally in Gujarat. Most readers have voiced that it should be allowed because it leads to additional revenues!!!

Are you out of your mind!!!???

First of all, in theory, i would disagree with the government deciding who should drink or not. But we are not a society blessed with a good enforcement agency. Hence we cannot control the drinking problem. So, for this imperfect location, a draconian law prohibiting liquor consumption is necessary.

I am aware that liquor is freely available, as & when required in whatever quantities. The only disadvantage is that the state does not earn anything from such transactions. So, why should the state earn trying to kill its people? By enacting prohibition, the state has the following advantages:

1. Nobody comes out drunk on the streets (except rare instances). This leads to a high level of public security, making Gujarat one of the safest places to live. 

2. Offenders can be booked for more than just drunk driving or public harassment. They can be booked for long & fines taken from them.

3. The state can officially deny free medical benefits to diseases arising from drinking & thus save itself a lot of mess. If there was no prohibition, the state was bound to admit those with drinking problems / diseases & create an enormous infrastructure for them. That will take away more than the earned revenues.

4. The state does provide loopholes like licenses for drinking to foreigners, NRIs, "health problems" etc. Its a safe way of earning, controlling drunk behavior & having a list of all those who drink officially.

5. It is legal to have parties with drinks for corporates who can take permanent or temporary licenses. Hence, the state does not suffer the problem of hospitality to outsiders.

6. Social drinking is as common as elsewhere, but only under wraps; and nobody walks on the roads after drinking, which is better! Also, because one has to pay a high price for the liquor, drinking is restricted. In addition, local liquor dens can be kept under control, and death due to drinking improper liquor among poor people is reduced (if not prevented completely)

7. Why the hell should the state allow for an activity that is harmful to oneself & others? If smoking & drugs are banned, why should liquor be allowed freely?

8. I would agree that we miss the famed pubs here. But the drunken brawls seen at pubs all over are a happy avoidance here, at the risk of sitting idle on weekends! UAE has a law where one cant be found drunk outside a pub! If we had such governance & enforcement, we would have happily opened pubs everywhere! But, with our system, prohibition (& then secret drinking) works better!