How Mainstream Media Lost its Credibility

In a democratic system, public opinion is the built-in check and balance that ensures that the three pillars of democracy – Executive, Legislative, and Judicial do what they are supposed to do and not start misusing the system for serving their own ends. In India, like in almost every other nation where media is free to praise and criticize these three pillars of democracy, media has played a crucial role in shaping public opinion. It is for this reason that media has been called the fourth pillar of democracy.

The fourth pillar justified the faith put in it by the citizens when it took up issues that had made a mockery of our justice system as a result of botched up police investigations – the Nitish Katara murder case and the Jessica Lal murder case to name a few. Media’s activism despite criticism from legislative and executive quarters was brushed aside by the public which found a hope in it for fighting the corrupt, inefficient system. Liberalization and growth of the Cable TV led to a mushrooming of private news channels and news anchors and journalists presenting the news became known faces with almost celebrity like following. The age of 24X7 news was here and the masses could not tire of consuming the never ending analyses, talk shows and special reports emanating from news channels which were unbiased voices and not a propaganda tool of the government or some entrenched political party. Or so we thought.

There always were people who did not like the way the private channels sensationalized every story to make it an exclusive. But for every such critic, there were hundreds who hero-worshipped their award winning journalists who were always willing to travel to war zones and rugged terrains to get that exclusive story as it unfolded. It all seemed to be working out fine when something disruptive happened: the rise of social media.

As Facebook and more notably Twitter became popular in India, each and every word that was spoken by these journalists came under greater than ever scrutiny. People discussed them online on twitter and even questioned and criticized those who were previously considered unchallenged demi-gods of public opinion. The result of this has been shocking and a revelation. More and more people are realizing that their favorite journalists of old times are not unbiased, neutral voices but men and women with their own agendas who use their platform to shape the discussion or analysis in a way that suits a particular party or political ideology.

Hence, it makes for an interesting observation:

1. When we see shock on the face of an award winning journalist the moment Allahabad High Court grants a verdict in favor of the Hindus in the Ayodhya dispute case. As she repeatedly asks the Hindu community to be large-hearted and share the land with the Muslims, we wonder if her reaction had been the same if the verdict went in favor of the other party.
2. When journalists, who go ad-nauseam about freedom of expression of a painter who repeatedly painted Hindu Gods and Goddesses in the nude and about the freedom of speech of a writer-turned activist who never lets go an opportunity to speak against India, themselves initiate proceedings against bloggers who criticize them or their reporting
3. When a lady journalist calls twitter users supporting rights and privileges of the majority Hindu community as ‘Internet Hindus’
4. When journalists who worry about religious sentiments of the minorities when it comes to certain cartoons in a Danish newspaper have no hesitation in calling Lord Ram, worshipped by Hindus across the world, a divine encroacher
5. When journalists who dub leaders trying to work up the coalition numbers as ‘brokers’ or ‘fixers’ are themselves caught on tape fixing cabinet positions and the only excuse they have is that it was an error of judgment. And while resignations are sought from anybody and everybody not belonging to the grand old party, such journalists continue to hold their positions
6. When the picture of a 42 year old politician, who happens to belong to the most powerful political dynasty of India, is morphed with those of cricket players and fans after India wins a match against arch-rivals Pakistan in the World Cup and the caption says “Yes, We Did”, we wonder if it is independent journalism or sycophancy at its best.
7. When the pretty lady from the network famous for notices and threats to opposing voices keeps bringing in Samjhauta express blasts whenever Mumbai terror attacks and Islamic fundamentalism are discussed
8. When news channels demand resignation of a CM based on charges contained in a Lokayukta report but question the CAG for its report accusing a powerful CM belonging to another party and refrain from asking for resignation because everybody is innocent till proven guilty
9. When the journalists who didn’t think twice about reporting and speculating on Apple chief Steve Jobs’ medical condition are preaching decency and privacy when the High Command of the oldest political party of India has taken ill.

The reaction of these journalists to differing views and criticism goes totally against the rational image they had cultivated before social media arrived on the scene. Criticize their stand and you would be called a troll, a right-wing hatemonger or at the minimum a moron. Sometimes, if you are arguing with their supporters, these journalists tend to jump in and would then ask you to learn some decency or take your poison elsewhere. In fact, there has been an instant where a lady journalist was found cheering her supporters when they hurled some profanities at another lady who has been quite vocal in her criticism of the said journalist. So much for women empowerment and respect for women!

People all across the world have their biases. Journalists are no different. It is perhaps better to openly declare one’s political allegiance than play up the charade of being an independent news agency. News networks in USA openly back one political party over the other. It would be better if Indian news channels and media houses start doing that. It would save their journalists lot of criticism which they cop up for pretending that they present an unbiased, neutral and factual account of what’s happening in the country minute by minute. Thanks to twitter and other forms of social media, it is no longer easy to make fool of your audience. Mainstream media in India must wake up to this reality that they cannot fool all the people all the time, By continuing to try, the only thing they are going to achieve is to further dent their already punctured credibility.

The Case for Capital Punishment

Ever since Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab, the sole surviving terrorist captured during the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai has been sentenced to death, the intellectuals and human rights groups have once again found reason to talk about how humanity would benefit from abolishing the death penalty.  Some have argued that if death penalty is abolished and the culprits given an opportunity to reform themselves into civilized citizens, it would be a victory for our democratic and humanitarian values.

Before I present my arguments supporting capital punishment, let me present some facts about the death penalty (source: Wikipedia).

• Currently only 58 nations actively practice it, with 95 countries abolishing it (the remainder having not used it for 10 years or allowing it only in exceptional circumstances such as wartime)
• Over 60% of the world’s population lives in countries where executions take place and this includes the People’s Republic of China, India, United States and Indonesia
• In a poll completed by Gallup in October 2008, 64% of Americans supported the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, while 30% were against and 5% did not have an opinion
• Roughly six in 10 tell Gallup they do not believe capital punishment deters murder and majorities believe at least one innocent person has been executed in the past five years.

In India, the judiciary has said that death penalty be awarded only in the rarest of the rare case. The human rights groups are evidently not happy even with this and want total abolition. I support the rarest of the rare clause as it is a directive to the courts that they need to be cautious about awarding a death sentence. However, everyone would agree that ‘rarest of the rare’ is a very loosely defined term and what constitutes rare is known to no one. I support the death penalty for crimes like terrorist acts, murder and rape.

Terrorist acts are the simplest of all because they are an act against the entire nation. For murders, revenge killings can be considered cases where the court may want to understand the motive and circumstances behind the crime. But in case of murders committed for robbery, honour killings – the decision should always be in favor of capital punishment. This is because the victim had done nothing to ‘deserve’ such an end and it was the greed or narrow mindedness of the accused which led him/her to commit the crime. Case in point being a murder committed in Borivali, Mumbai a few years back where robbers hanged a small child so that nobody could report anything to the police. What is the use of trying to reform such criminals? Or the honour killings – where one person orders the killing of a couple who fell in love?

I believe our laws against rape don’t take into account the emotional trauma the victim suffers for life. As opposed to a murder, where the victim dies once, a rape victim has to live through the trauma every day and at the same time handle the social stigma that comes with it. Rape irrespective of whether the motive was revenge or pure lust is a crime where death penalty is the best punishment. Nothing justifies it and I would not want to run the risk of getting more women raped by giving the perverts a chance at reform.

Some would argue that what if an innocent gets punished and loses his life? Looking at our judicial system where it takes years to close a case, one is reasonable to assume that the judge would have sufficient evidence before he takes the call. Moreover, rather than opposing the death penalty for fear of punishing innocents, judicial reforms are required to ensure crimes are reported, victims and witnesses are protected and police does its duty. Another check against injustice is the provision of mercy petition before the President of India.

There is an economic angle also. What Kasab did was available for all to see using the CCTV footage. Why did we have such a long trial? When the evidence was there, why did we waste so much money trying to prove something which was proved from day one? Does it make sense if we don’t trust the footage of the CCTV cameras that we ourselves put up? India needs money to take care of its population and the creaking infrastructure. I am now afraid to board a local train, go to malls and cinemas or to crowded markets. Yet it is my tax money which is being used to feed the same persons who instilled this fear in me. What about my human rights?

Finally, there is the lame argument that capital punishment will not deter criminals and terrorists. I agree. It will not. We will continue to have terrorist attacks, murders and all other crimes. But what makes our intellectuals believe that reforming criminals will curb violence in future. If we set Kasab free, will it move LeT to tears and make them disband their jihad against India? No. A big no.

Hence, I argue that India should stick to capital punishment and define the ‘rare’ clause more comprehensively to include rape, murder, honour killings and terrorist attacks in its ambit. It may not make us any safer but it will at least give some relief to the victims when they know that those who wronged them are not roaming freely outside some reform centre waiting for their next unsuspecting victim.

A slightly different version of this article was first published in e-magazine Reader’s Quotient on May 17, 2010

http://readersquotient.com/2010/05/17/the-case-for-capital-punishment-2/

J&K: Does India need a New Approach?

For the last several weeks, we have heard and read about the recent unrest in the Kashmir Valley. People like me have had bitter exchanges with kashmiris who want an independent state and view India as an evil force. When I reflect on the things I have heard from separatists and Kashmiri Pandits who have been victims of an ethnic cleansing operation hardly anybody talks about, I feel India’s approach to J&K has been wrong all the time.

Let us first fix the blame. The mess we are in can be blamed on Congress and especially the Nehru regime. And to some extent on our constitution which through Article 370 gave Kashmir a special status. The special status awarded to Kashmiris have worked against India in 2 ways Firstly, it had led Kashmir to believe that they are NOT India. Secondly, it has helped them ignore the plight of Kashmiri Pandits. When Pandits who were Hindus were driven out by Islamic militancy in the late 80s, the separatist leaders sat through the brutality. Now, if you talk about rehabilitating the displaced Pandits back, the same separatists say that this is a conspiracy by India to change the demographic of the region.

I wish the issue here was devoid of any religion angle but unfortunately it isn’t. If it were, the kashmiri youth, Muslim of course, would have supported the return of Kashmiri pandits. During my heated exchanges on twitter with Kashmiris who were very keen on painting a negative picture of the Indian Army and the state, whenever I brought up the issue of Kashmiri Pandits rehabilitation, the conversation would use to go quiet and would resume only if the topic was human rights and independence. My frustration and anger at Kashmir stems from the fact that it expects all the favours from India but still doesn’t want any association to India. Kashmiris come to Delhi and speak against India in the country’s capital. We let them do it in the name of freedom of speech and because the constitution has made them special. And then they go back and bad-mouth us on the internet. They need to look left and right – at China and Pakistan and decide which country treats dissidents with such respect.

As much as I would want the Article 370 to be repealed, it won’t happen with the current state of national politics where different parties cannot unite even on issues of national interests. However, even with this constraint, there is scope for a change in strategy which can help India strengthen its support in those parts of J&K which are not anti-India.

Let’s leave out the area of J&K which is currently under the illegal occupation of Pakistan and China. There are 3 major regions in the state of Jammu and Kashmir – the Kashmir valley, Jammu and Ladakh. It is unfortunate that we in India often forget about Jammu and Ladakh in the midst of the constant trouble in Kashmir. These are the often overlooked areas of the state and these regions are definitely not anti-India. But that should not lead us to believe that we can take them for granted.

So, here is my strategy. Change the constitution if you have to but carve 3 states out of J&K – The Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh. Work at war footing to build democratic structures in Jammu and Ladakh, invest heavily in Education and Infrastructure and prioritize the improvement of living standards in these two regions. Let the misguided separatists in Kashmir Valley look at their neighbours with awe. Let us not forget that it’s Kashmir which is the disputed part, not Jammu and Ladakh. Kashmir issue should not be allowed to prevent the other parts from developing. If we are able to do this, we can be reasonably assured that even if there is a plebiscite in these two regions, India is going to win.

The other thing that I fail to understand is why India is blocking Pakistani TV channels in Kashmir. Let’s not fear that these channels will brainwash kashmiri population against India as even without these channels, the kashmiri public behaves like a stooge of Pakistan. So, allow TV channels from Pakistan including the ones which show the wonderful quality of life in that part of the world. That will tell our Kashmiri friends what awaits them on the other side of the border. And finally to tackle the useless chant of independence which Kashmir won’t be able to sustain even if it gets it with Pakistan and China lurking in the shadows, India should make it clear to Hurriyat, other separatist factions and the people of Kashmir that they should not expect any military, development or economic aid from India. Why should they expect any assistance from us when their agenda has been India bashing all this time and when India is the devil incarnate for them?

I am sure this strategy cannot make us any worse than what we currently are. The heaven on Earth is in Jammu and Ladakh; not in a terrorist infested Kashmir valley. Let’s reward those who will stay loyal to us rather than running after the ones who will stab us in the back.

First published in e-magazine Reader’s Quotient on October 26, 2010

http://readersquotient.com/2010/10/26/jk-does-india-need-a-new-approach/

State of Emergency

If like me, you were born after 1980, then probably it is something you have often heard about but seldom given serious thought to. June 25 is just like another day for you but not for those who have seen the India of 1970s when Indira Gandhi ruled India. It was the night of June 25-26 in the year of 1975 when this daughter of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Iron Lady who played a significant role in dividing Pakistan and creating Bangladesh, obtained President’s approval to impose a state of Emergency in the country.

Those who have lived through that era have mixed feelings about those 19 months when most of the civil liberties were curbed, political opponents were jailed, there was no freedom of press and scores of people were detained without reason and even tortured. Most of the non-Congress leaders we have today were jailed during the emergency. The Jay Prakash Narain movement that opposed Indira actually launched the political career of several leaders of North India like George Fernandes and Laloo Yadav.

As democracy was strangled by the government, it is normal for the intellectuals to recall that period as the darkest hour of post-independence India. What probably complicates the matter is that the period of emergency saw the rise of Sanjay Gandhi, Indira Gandhi’s youngest son who quickly became infamous for his forced sterilization drive. He is said to be the main driving force behind the so-called violations of human rights and slum demolitions that took place during that time.

While the internet is full of horror stories of that era which would seem to indicate that there was nothing good done in those times, the reality is different. Yes, the excesses of emergency were probably uncalled for but there lies the hidden reality. A lot of people have told me that during emergency, trains ran on time, in fact they arrived at stations even before the scheduled arrival time; clerks, bureaucrats and babus were never late to office and were often seen running frantically on the roads if they were late to office.

This aspect is the positive part of emergency. It showed what fear of government can do in this country. Perhaps the execution in 1975 was imperfect but just imagine if our government and leaders had taken some lesson from that episode of our history and executed it in a better manner, how wonderful things would have been in our country. Looking for examples? Sample this:

1. Jat protestors would not have been able to block the water supply to Delhi for their demands of reservations
2. Manipur blockade would not have happened
3. Naxalism would have been crushed by now
4. India would not have been a ‘soft state’ when it came to tackling terrorism
5. Senior policemen would not have been able to molest young girls and laugh their way out in courts
6. There would not have been so many cases pending in our courts for Judges would have worked overtime to close cases rather than take long recesses.

The list is endless. If you look at the above points carefully, you would realize that I am not arguing for a state of emergency to be imposed on us for achieving these goals. Just taking the right lessons would have transformed our dysfunctional government into something a lot better.

India needs to control its population. Sterilization or other forms of birth control are required. Forced sterilization may be against human rights but if certain sections of the population refuse to take part on religious, social or cultural grounds, it defeats the purpose and actually puts those communities who control their population at a disadvantage in terms of representation. Of course, it makes eradication of poverty and hunger an unachievable goal.

Almost all our cities have slums and a creaking infrastructure. If we have to make our cities modern and like Shanghai, London or New York like our leaders keep promising in election rallies, we need to demolish slums and relocate people. Is this possible in India today? No, it isn’t because different stakeholders involved would never agree to a common solution. The only option if you have to make things happen is do it forcibly. Was it wrong to demolish slums and beautify cities during emergency? The answer may not be straight-forward and the move certainly had its merits.

After the emergency was lifted and general elections called for, Congress led by Indira Gandhi and Sanjay was routed in the elections especially in the northern part of the country were JP movement was strongest. Both Indira and Sanjay lost and a new political formation led by Janata Party formed the first non-Congress government in Delhi.

However, if emergency was all wrong and nothing right, why did Indira Gandhi storm to power in 1980 within three years of her biggest political defeat? We need our civil liberties, we need freedom of speech, we need free journalism but we also need a strong government. Despite all its flaws, full marks to Emergency for showing us the face of a government that acts and gets things done.

First published in e-magazine Reader’s Quotient on July 26, 2010

http://readersquotient.com/2010/07/26/state-of-emergency/

Why Are We Afraid of New Ideas?

( Dedicated to my good friend Ms. Anjali Bhardwaj )

Ever since Mr. Shashi Tharoor has joined politics, he has been shrouded in one controversy or the other. It’s not entirely his fault actually. If we leave out his ‘cattle class’ remark which was more a joke than anything else, the other controversies provide an interesting insight into the way our Indian society looks at views which are out of sync with the beliefs and values of our times.

Therefore, when he said that on Gandhi Jayanti, people should be working rather than taking a holiday, there was an outrage. How can this educated fool disregard the day set aside to pay homage to our father of the nation? Similarly, when he said something which was interpreted as criticism of the foreign policy pursued by Gandhi and Nehru, knives were out and he was forced to issue a denial and may be apologize to the powers within his age old party. Surprisingly, comments to this tune were found even on online news and discussion forums which are supposedly the forte of the educated, internet-aware younger population that resides in cities. If Indians start working on Gandhi Jayanti, will it really be an insult to the Mahatma? Were Gandhi and Nehru ‘super-humans’ who could do no wrong? And if it turns out that one out of so many policies drafted by Nehru was indeed wrong, will it make the man fall from the pedestal of greatness he enjoys? If no, then why contempt for a man who has just expressed an opinion or a fresh idea?

The icing on the cake is the criticism Tharoor received for questioning the relevance of tightening of visa norms for tourists. He was criticized for two things – publicly disagreeing with the government stand and airing his disagreement on twitter. The media which has been calling him ‘twitter minister’ went into an overdrive. Stories of how his boss S.M. Krishna has publicly rebuked his opinion were played again and again. India’s educated youth started commenting on various sites and the criticism fell into three buckets:-

1. As a minister, he should not publicly disagree with the Government of India and more so on a platform like twitter which anybody can use.
2. People of India don’t need a minister who spends his time tweeting rather than do work for the public.
3. His tweets on visa norms actually weaken the national security (may be because it opposes stricter norms)

I disagree on all of these. What is the harm if a minister publicly voices his opinion against some policy? It happens in US all the time and shouldn’t the public of India know what their elected representatives think? If they need not, why do we have RTI for? As far as twitter is concerned, its just a platform. Saying something on twitter is same as saying that in a public gathering or rallies that our leaders frequently hold. Yes, there is an international audience but that is a threat only if some strategic information is leaked out. Just because someone doesn’t agree with a policy doesn’t mean that the law or the policy gets weakened. Unanimous decisions are rare in a democracy and differing viewpoints are what make a democracy vibrant. Sillier is the argument of wasting time. Are we sure that ministers who do not tweet are utilizing their office time to do good for the public?

In my opinion, the points of criticism and the kind of logic his critics have presented give us a reason why India is rarely at the forefront of anything groundbreaking. Barack Obama used technology to pave his way to the Oval Office. But if our ministers use technology, they are dubbed as cut off from the real India. ‘Minister for Twitter’ is just one example. Technology, no matter how useful, is considered elitist and therefore, is disliked by those who are interested in projecting the rural face of the country which sadly, for lack of suitable implementation of technology, is still underdeveloped. If Tharoor were holding four rallies every month, nobody would have noticed and he would have gone scot free despite using public money for self-promotion. But he prefers to use a cheaper alternative, that is, technology and suddenly, he is a wastrel. No points in this country for trying out something new.

The issue with our society is our reluctance to try out something new. Everybody wants to stick to the plot. So, if your child is good in studies, he should study science or engineering; if not, commerce or arts. If you are sharp and still choose arts, people laugh behind your back. In our corporate world, innovation is a buzz word but you are told to find a market first and then innovate. Why risk making a product which cannot be sold? As a result, there is hardly any innovation beyond copy-paste and changing the look and feel.

The shiv-sainiks were not even born when Shivaji ruled the lands that are now Maharashtra. But today if you do some research and unearth something new about his kingdom, you run the risk of getting yourself bashed up unless until your findings appeal to the local politics. The novel ‘Da Vinci Code’ told us something new about Christianity. It was a new line of thought for most of us because it was not mainstream. Majority of the world read the novel, saw the movie and went about their lives without thinking that it disparaged their religion. But in India, people demanded that the movie be banned. Surely, Christianity came to India from Europe. They can tolerate a difference of opinion, why can’t we?

We as a society are risk-averse and want to stick to the tried and tested path. We often lament about the way our politicians behave, the way our bureaucracy works and how our system is useless but if somebody tries to do something different, we are quick to dismiss the new approach. Why did the brain drain to US happen? Why are we always followers and never leaders? Why Indian scientists who migrated to the west did better than those who stayed back? Because our society did not let them think new. It is okay if not many of us Indians have heard of John Milton Cage Jr., an American poet, composer and philosopher, but it is time for all Indians to remember what he once said – “I can’t understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I’m afraid of the old ones.”

First published in e-magazine Reader’s Quotient on February 4, 2010

http://readersquotient.com/2010/02/04/why-are-we-afraid-of-new-ideas/

The ‘What Else’ Phenomenon

Let me start by setting the context straight away. This post is a response to a post by Ms. Suchi Kumar on her blog which talks about non-focused nature of most conversations on any chat engine. To see this post, click here.

In her article, Ms. Kumar has highlighted three irritants:

The usage of ‘what else’ in chat?

The difference between friends and social acquaintances

The need to draw a line between good friends, friends and acquaintances

She has given the most importance to ‘what else’ and therefore, I would weave my story by outlining why ‘what else’ is important in today’s shrinking world.

It is said that, if a person is one step away from each person they know and two steps away from each person who is known by one of the people they know, then everyone is at most six steps away from any other person on Earth. This is commonly known as Six Degrees of Separation. This concept is at the heart of the social networks we use (Facebook, Orkut, MySpace, LinkedIn etc).

The main benefit of a social network comes from the loosely-knit ties that characterize it. Let me quote a few lines from wikipedia’s entry on social network –

“The shape of a social network helps determine a network’s usefulness to its individuals. Smaller, tighter networks can be less useful to their members than networks with lots of loose connections (weak ties) to individuals outside the main network. More open networks, with many weak ties and social connections, are more likely to introduce new ideas and opportunities to their members than closed networks with many redundant ties.”

Chat engines like Yahoo Messenger, MSN and Google Talk were developed to help people stay in touch with family and friends. As the social networking and collaboration concepts like Web 2.0 became buzzwords in our societies as well as professional set-up, the chat engines were integrated with social networking sites. In fact, Google perhaps was the first one to integrate orkut and Gmail contact lists. This has resulted in your social networking contacts appearing in your chat engine’s friends list. As a result, as of today, online chat has become a form or medium of social networking.

Therefore, when someone pings Ms. Kumar, this is no more a simple chat as it used to be in 2000-01. It is social networking and since it is based on loose connections, most of those doing the pinging may turn out to be mere acquaintances. And by design, these people don’t know much about you and hence ‘what else?’ is the best conversation starter.

I will quickly now address the second and third points raised by Ms. Kumar. We know each other for around 10 months now. How on earth would I know whether she considers me a social acquaintance or a friend? Like one-sided love, one-sided friendship is more common than we think. The whole idea of drawing a line between different kinds of ‘friends and contacts’ is flawed. I may pour my heart out to an acquaintance when I am emotionally broken but when I have recovered, I start thinking about propriety and limits. This is a self-serving thought which can be used as an excuse to accuse others of crossing the limit time and time again. And most importantly, it is not practical as the person on the other side of the chat engine would never know if he has reached the line that marks your area in the jungle. Unless of course, the intrusion is into somebody’s personal life.

So, if you’re busy and cannot talk, please don’t leave the status green. Better still, log off and come online only when you can manage a chat. Don’t confuse others by flaunting the green signal. Filter out acquaintances from your chat list if you don’t like them pinging you. And don’t think somebody pinged you because they didn’t know what to do with their spare time. They might actually unwind seeing you act pricey.

In 2007, Microsoft paid a $240 million price for a 1.6 percent stake in Facebook valuing the start-up at $15 billions. Bebo and LinkedIn are worth $850 million and $1 billion respectively, based on relatively recent valuations whereas the last valuation of MySpace was $580 million, back in 2005 when it was acquired by News Corp. Let us not forget this value has been created by users who have flocked to these sites; Users who are friends to some and social acquaintances to most members on these sites. And they network using an irritating phrase that reads – what else?

Let me start by setting the context straight away. This article is a response to a post by my friend Ms. Suchi Kumar on her blog which has left me wondering if I am her friend or a social acquaintance. But let’s leave that for some other day.

In her post (To see this post, click here), Ms. Kumar has censured the non-focused nature of most online chat conversations and highlighted three irritants/issues:

1. The usage of ‘what else’ in chat
2. The difference between friends and social acquaintances
3. The need to draw a line between good friends, friends and acquaintances

She has given the most importance to ‘what else’ and therefore, I would weave my story by outlining why ‘what else’ is important in today’s shrinking world.

It is said that, if a person is one step away from each person they know and two steps away from each person who is known by one of the people they know, then everyone is at most six steps away from any other person on Earth. This is commonly known as Six Degrees of Separation. This concept is at the heart of the social networks we use (Facebook, Orkut, MySpace, LinkedIn etc).

The main benefit of a social network comes from the loosely-knit ties that characterize it. Let me quote a few lines from wikipedia’s entry on social network –

The shape of a social network helps determine a network’s usefulness to its individuals. Smaller, tighter networks can be less useful to their members than networks with lots of loose connections (weak ties) to individuals outside the main network. More open networks, with many weak ties and social connections, are more likely to introduce new ideas and opportunities to their members than closed networks with many redundant ties.

Chat engines like Yahoo Messenger, MSN and Google Talk were developed to help people stay in touch with family and friends. As the social networking and collaboration concepts like Web 2.0 became buzzwords in our societies as well as professional set-up, the chat engines were integrated with social networking sites. In fact, Google perhaps was the first one to integrate orkut and Gmail contact lists. This has resulted in your social networking contacts appearing in your chat engine’s friends list. As a result, as of today, online chat has become a form or medium of social networking.

Therefore, when someone pings Ms. Kumar, this is no more a simple chat as it used to be in 2000-01. It is social networking and since it is based on loose connections, most of those doing the pinging may turn out to be mere acquaintances. And by design, these people don’t know much about you and hence ‘what else?’ is the best conversation starter.

I will quickly now address the second and third points raised by Ms. Kumar. We know each other for around 10 months now. How on earth would I know whether she considers me a social acquaintance or a friend? Like one-sided love, one-sided friendship is more common than we think. The whole idea of drawing a line between different kinds of ‘friends and contacts’ is flawed. I may pour my heart out to an acquaintance when I am emotionally broken but when I have recovered, I start thinking about propriety and limits. This is a self-serving thought which can be used as an excuse to accuse others of crossing the limit time and time again. And most importantly, it is not practical as the person on the other side of the chat engine would never know if he has reached the line that marks your area in the jungle. Unless of course, the intrusion is into somebody’s personal life.

So, if you’re busy and cannot talk, please don’t leave the status green. Better still, log off and come online only when you can manage a chat. Don’t confuse others by flaunting the green signal. Filter out acquaintances from your chat list if you don’t like them pinging you. And don’t think somebody pinged you because they didn’t know what to do with their spare time. They might actually unwind seeing you act pricey.

In 2007, Microsoft paid a $240 million price for a 1.6 percent stake in Facebook valuing the start-up at $15 billions. Bebo and LinkedIn are worth $850 million and $1 billion respectively, based on relatively recent valuations whereas the last valuation of MySpace was $580 million, back in 2005 when it was acquired by News Corp. Let us not forget this value has been created by users who have flocked to these sites; users who are friends to some and social acquaintances to most members on these sites. And they network using an irritating phrase that reads – what else?

There are better ways to cut costs!

Cost-cutting must be one of the most commonly used words these days. CEOs and MDs of top companies are making appearances all around us and are declaring that cutting costs is going to be one of the focus areas in the next 12 months. Of course, these statements are tied to the economic slowdown which doesn’t seem to be ending soon.

That the purpose behind cutting costs is sustainability of the business is beyond doubt. And in tough times, expenses must be cut. However, almost every time someone from the senior management utters the phrase – ‘we will cut the fat, not the muscle’, it indirectly means that people are going to be fired. HR personnel throughout India and the world are busy searching for excuses in order to meet their sadistic objectives and almost always the reason cited is poor performance. I find it hard to believe that all of a sudden so many people from the Indian IT industry have turned poor performers. Hard to digest till Infosys declared that now the tolerance for poor performance is zero. Does this mean that companies that valued excellence and claimed to be driven by intellect were actually turning a blind eye to incompetence all these years when the going was smooth?

To an extent, this allegation is true. Most IT companies, big or small, have tolerated laggards and not just tolerated them but have even promoted such employees. I remember one Ms. P. Sahu, an Account Manager with a leading IT firm, who was in the habit of having weekly project status meetings that lasted for a minimum of two hours every Friday and all that was discussed there was what children were doing in school and how her children didn’t let her sleep the previous night. You will easily come across people who did fabulous work in their projects but were given a lesser rating as they didn’t participate in account-level initiatives like celebrating birthdays of their colleagues. Many of such poor performers like Ms. Sahu are among the senior middle management now presiding over the ‘pink slip distribution ceremonies’ that happen every now and then.

I am all for cutting costs and promoting a culture based on meritocracy. But IT companies have themselves to blame if they find themselves with a large pool of employees who don’t have a project and are on bench. These companies always had a sizeable bench size and this was seen as bench strength. But these firms cannot shrug the blame now as they themselves created an illusion of explosive job growth in IT sector by hiring in far larger numbers than required. Even today as these top firms fire people in the name of poor performance, they are continuing to hire freshers in large numbers. This is because freshers will be paid lesser salary compared to the experienced associates and as a result the wage bill will be in check. A true capitalist will find nothing wrong in this selective firing but at least the companies should have the guts to admit that this is for purely economic reasons and not for performance.

Coming back to cutting costs, companies must fully exploit other avenues before resorting to layoffs. Here are some of these:

Cut back on deputations and transfers: These increase costs for the company as well as for the employees.

Try to retain employees: Like acquiring a new customer, acquiring a new employee is costlier than retaining the existing one.

Reduce Business Travel: Despite teleconferencing and videoconferencing technologies being available, only a handful of companies have effectively utilized these.

Discourage the culture of working extra hours: A lot of managers look down on employees who work for 8-9 hours and want their subordinates to stay late in the office. Owing to this culture, a lot of employees also prefer staying back, both for the sake of appraisal and for using free internet and air conditioner. Just imagine the electricity that will be saved if people worked for not more than 10 hours and no more than 5 days a week unless business required them to work on weekends.

Switching off PCs before leaving: Make it mandatory for employees to switch off their monitors when leaving their workstations for more than 1 hour and to shut down their PCs before leaving for home.

When confronted with tough economic conditions, senior management should lead by example by turning down their bonuses and curbing wasteful marketing and relationship building expenditures like paying high stipends to summer trainees. Only when these steps have been tried, should companies consider firing employees. Granting leave without pay or with 25% pay for 3 months may be a better idea than snatching away somebody’s means of livelihood. I am not turning communist but one must explore all other avenues before taking extreme steps like layoffs.

Where Customer is not the King

I have completed almost two months in Kolkata, the capital of Left ruled West Bengal. The experiences have been mixed as they would be in any part of the world. It is a city where life is not as fast as Mumbai, where you get delicious street food ad where you can have a sumptuous meal for fifty rupees. But there are certain areas which weakens the case for the city. The metro and the former capital of India, performs poorly when it comes to customer service. The attitude of service staff (not all but most) is appalling at best and if you are moving from Mumbai, Delhi , Chennai or Bangalore, you are in for a culture shock.

The first I experienced this ‘so-what-if-you-give-me-business’ attitude was when I was eating egg rolls at a roadside stall. It was 8 pm on a Friday evening in Sector-2, Salt Lake, one of the posh localities of this city. A couple came and ordered for two egg rolls. The vendor prepared these and asked for money. The gentleman handed him a 50 rupee note. The vendor asked for change and when he didn’t get it, declared – ‘Roll hobe naa‘. I was taken aback at his refusal to sell rolls that had already been prepared. Nobody would buy them stale and a roll costs Rs. 10, so it was not that he had to produce change for 500 bucks. The couple had to walk away.

Sector 5 Salt Lake is where all companies are located. I had skipped lunch and so at around 4 pm, went to Tea Junction, outside RDB Boulevard for some snacks. I asked for two samosas (costs Rs 8 each) and gave out a 20 rupee note. The vendor said – ‘Change nahi hai?‘ (You don’t have change). When I replied in negative, the standard answer came – ‘Samosa hobe naa‘ (No samosa then). I had to leave and move around to get something else to eat. I am still not able to believe that this guy couldn’t have managed 4 rupees change after doing brisk business (the place is always full of people coming for tea and snacks) all throughout the day. May be if he had waited for another customer, he would have got his change.

One of my colleagues has recently shifted from Chennai. He had an Airtel number there and since he has been with Airtel for some time, he wanted to transfer his connection to Kolkata. So, he visited the Airtel shop at City Center, Salt Lake. The guard stopped him and asked him why he wanted to transfer. My friend got so pissed off that the guard would not let him speak to the Airtel Customer Care guys sitting behind the desk that he just walked out. And the Customer Care guys just kept looking at the whole incident and didn’t intervene at all. Now, this gentleman gives a business of around Rs, 10,000 per month. Shouldn’t such a customer be treated with respect?

There are many such incidents that I am coming across almost at the rate of two every week. My blogging here is not going to change anything but perhaps this is the reason why City of Joy offers no joy to the customers at Kolkata and why people keep ranting about work culture and unprofessional behaviour in this great city.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Postscript:

I would like to add here that I am very happy with the Airtel Broadband service that I have recently taken. My calls and queries have been handled very efficiently. However, this post is not a bundle of lies  or conclusions derived in haste – my mobile service provider Vodafone has refused to send me a PDF copy of my April bill as the paper copy has already been generated. So, they say I will get the PDF version from next month onwards. What puzzles me is why can’t they accept and process my request immediately when PDF generation costs them nothing! [April 25, 2009]

Why Dev D is a classic

A lot of my female friends who have watched Dev D, a modern take on Devdas conceptualized by actor Abhay Deol and directed by Anurag Kashyap, have dismissed the film and the concept. The reasons I hear are one of these:

• There is nothing new about the story except an overdose of sex
• It’s all about sex and drugs

However, it is this alleged ‘overdose’ of sex which indirectly hints at the message that today’s younger audiences should have grasped. But first, let me honestly accept that some of the scenes are indeed quite shocking. Like the one where Paro, played by newcomer Mahie Gill, carries a mattress to the fields on a bicycle in order to be able to make out with her lover Dev. Or the dialogues that Chanda, the MMS scandal victim played by Koel, speaks to her on-screen father.

Let me make it clear here that while these scenes are shocking, it doesn’t mean that they don’t happen in real life. Go to villages and you would find that couples having sex in a field is nothing out of the world. Chanda uses the same slangs and vocabulary that today’s college going crowd uses daily.

So where is the message I am talking about? The message lies in the treatment Paro receives at the hands of Dev. And it’s not a single message, rather there are four points that the director leaves its audiences to ponder with.

The first point is the obsession with sex that today’s college going youth has. In the movie, it is not difficult to assume that Dev is addicted to porn. Look at his expressions when he is downloading Paro’s topless picture on his laptop and you would know what he has been learning in London. The second example of this is when Dev tells a married Paro that he wants to love her and in the very next scene talks about ‘making love’ as if you cannot love a person without ‘making’ love.

The second point about our society reveals itself in the way a village guy who claims to love Paro talks about her sexual behavior. Not only he says this to Dev, he brags about it to others as well. I was surprised how true this is to real life. During my intermediate and engineering days, we often heard such stories about girls who were more outgoing that the average. And the rumour-mongers often went to great lengths to claim that their stories were nothing but the truth. The fact, as we know now, is that 9 out of 10 such stories were totally fabricated. How easy it is for we guys to malign a girl’s character, isn’t it?

In the movie, Dev believes the rumours he hears about Paro. The reason is simple. Because Paro is ready to do it with Dev, her beloved, she must be doing it with other guys as well. And he calls her a slut. Isn’t it amazing how quickly we brand women who are not meek and have a mind of her own as ‘sluts’? This is the third point that Anurag Kashyap makes.

Dev refuses to marry Paro, breaks her heart and his own in the process. And after he goes on a path of self-destruction, he finally meets Chanda and finds love. And it is here where the fourth and probably the most disguised point about the movie comes to light. Not many people have understood that Dev D is a slap on the face of a male-dominated society that is so obsessed with a women’s virginity. Dev has no reason to doubt Paro’s virginity but does so because he himself is no saint and finally accepts as his own a woman who has taken to prostitution. Can it get any more hard-hitting than this?

Dev D is a tight slap across the male community who equates love with sex and brands women as sluts.

No to Subsidies, Yes to Infrastructure

As the inflation in India rises to 8.75%, it is time for the economists and the policy makers in India to rise above petty politics and ponder over a long term solution for both the oil crisis and the capacity of the economy to digest the amount of money that is pouring in the country.

For many years now, India has been subsidizing the consumption of oil products in the country. As a result, the efficiency with which the average Indian uses these sources has taken a hit. There was a time when I saw my parents and uncles complain that the prices of petrol have hit Rs. 20/litre. Now it is close to Rs. 60. While prices have risen considerably, the government has, time and again, resisted passing on the full burden of the global price rise to the Indian consumer. Some of this resistance has been because of the regressive politics of the Left parties but much of it has been the lust to remain in power.

The oil producing countries, chiefly the OPEC, have taken advantage of this situation. While crude oil is a limited resource and will be expended completely in some time, I believe we still have sufficient oil reserves globally to last a century – if we also start promoting and using renewable sources of energy. This is to say, that the current crude oil prices which stand at $ 139 does not seem justifiable. There is more to it than meets the eye.

By subsidizing the Indian consumer, the government has not forced us to use petrol, diesel and LPG judiciously. Wastage may have dropped as a result of the rising prices but efficiency is far from being attained. As a result of the subsidies, the demand for the oil products is artificially maintained, leading to a situation where the OPEC is benefitting directly by raising prices. If the full impact of the rising global prices of crude is to be borne by the consumer, three things will be achieved:

Consumer will use oil products judiciously. This may lead to car pools and more use of the public transport. This will help contain the global warming problem.
Reduced demand may help reduce our oil import bill. This will significantly benefit the economic health of companies like Indian Oil Corp. which suffer tremendously when forced to sell petro products at a price lower than what prevails in the global market.
A developing country like India with massive energy will be forced to take to clean energy sources like nuclear power and alternative energy sources. This has long term benefits for the ecosystem; not to forget that the future generation will have to use renewable energy extensively.

If we leave aside the problem of rising crude oil prices, the other factor that we need to address is how to keep inflation under 5%, even when the economy is growing at close to double digits. This overheating of the economy when foreign investments get pumped into India shows that the economy is not equipped to handle so much money. In other words, the supply response from the economy is not fast enough and bottlenecks in infrastructure and in the expansion of productive capacity limit the economic growth.

Instead of looking to curb inflation by raising interest rates, the government needs to look at the supply side. China has been able to grow at around 11-12% while keeping the inflation at 3-4%. This has happened because the Chinese have built roads, bridges, and dams long before there is an actual need for them. Contrast this with India, where infrastructure projects almost always exceed their time frame (e.g. Bandra-Worli sea link in Mumbai) and where the state governments keep dilly-dallying on SEZs and manufacturing plants.

Accelerating the nation’s production capabilities will help the economy cruise along at a higher speed with lower inflation. It is important that infrastructure bottlenecks are not allowed to become a constraint on the Indian economy. In addition, it is important that we address the agricultural issues by not only increasing productivity but also by limiting the wastage while storage, which currently at 10%, is extremely high.

Clearly, action on agricultural and infrastructure front will help solve the nation’s problems. Subsidies by delaying the much-needed action at grass-root levels will only compound issues in the long run.