Champions Trophy and my prediction

Well, the champions trophy is currently going on and 'experts' do give their guess/take on the possible semifinalists. Ian Chappell, the commentator that I regard highly, has got it wrong and I have got it right :) It is not a case of being 'wiser on hindsight' but I had given my comments in his analysis of Group A, I had commented that Australia and Pakistan will go through. I always thought India was over-rated ever since Sourav Ganguly retired. Dhoni is a good captain but I dont think he is able to get the best of his team, especially the bowlers. Harbhajan Singh, Sehwag, Yuvraj seemed lot more inspired under Dada than Dhoni. Of course, I always felt Sachin and Dravid are never going to win matches and at best can perform 'supporting roles'.

Ian Chappell, in his analyis midway during the tournament or even before, didnt fancy England's chances. I suspect, with Australia being naturally hostile to England (atleast in Ashes), one cant expect Chappell to view them favorably. Again I had commented immediately (can be seen in the page) that England and Pakistan would do better than 'what people expect'. So am I boasting my 'capabilities' to predict? Of course I am. Profundity does not come by playing or captaining a team. It comes from observation, which itself is a science according to me. In cricinfo roundtable where it was concluded with the obvious statement - Lara is the best, John Wright made an observation - 'record's do not matter when we estimate a person - "For me it is just the look and then you say 'he is a great batsman'". Figures just bear it out and Ian concurs - you dont see a person who bats like a bloody champion averaging 10. I remember long back when I just saw one ball (NOT A WICKET TAKING delivery) in a Under-19 World Cup bowled by Irfan Pathan and I told my roommate - he is going to play for India. That is profundity, according to me.

Marketing, lobbying, bribing...

I was always amused, if not irritated, by marketing. There used to be this competition called 'ad-zap' in schools and obviously I neither liked it nor wanted to be part of it. I, for one, am never going to buy anything because XYZ is modelling for the same or if the ad is good. Appreciating an ad does not tantamount to 'buying' into it. Maybe I am a 'serious' person but I believe that a good product talks for itself. I need not convince another person that it is a 'good product'. The problem is with 'good enough' products and to decide how much is 'good enough'. When there are umpteen 'good enough' products, the right and easiest way is to go and buy the cheapest. My classmate who was working in companies that made televisions, used to say that television has become 'standardized' and there is no point in saying LG is better than Samsung or Sony is better than Philips.

I can understand in 'marketing' products like television or refrigerator because it is after all bought by any 'average' person, who need not be knowledgeable on the product and has to be talked to in the 'language that he can relate to'. In companies or atleast in semiconductor companies, I am aghast that marketing takes the form of 'lobbying' and is rampant in almost all Indian companies, if not worldwide. In one company that I worked, tools from Mentor Graphics were used, maybe because manager had worked in Mentor Graphics. Similarly in one interview that I attended, the interviewer was adamant that Tetramax is the best and he knows it because he had worked in Synopsys :x In my opinion, 'tools' are just tools to perform some function. We should be 'patriotic' towards some tool needlessly. In that sense, my experience in Texas Instruments especially in ASIC was more than handy. The tools can differ according to each customer as per the convenience. Some customer may have some deal with Synopsys/Mentor and had to use Mentor tools. So we too had to work on what the customer can use. We were 'EDA tool' agnostic, which was good.

Even during my 'last days' in TI, there was a move to use 'Synopsys' tools only and we did joke/resent about the same, even alluding that 'suitcases' were exchanged between Synopsys and 'TI management'. I was glad to read this 'Hindu' editorial today - especially how it ended

Critics say that what is called lobbying in the west is called corruption in developing countries; and one Indian campaigner says corruption stinks but it is at least a stink that everyone knows. There can be no doubt that lobbying will continue to pose a serious threat to democratic processes around the world.

It is funny indeed that those who shout in roof-tops about 'no transparency' or 'nepotism' in Governments dont even think/mumble about corporate corruption, which according to me is rampant and enormous, to put it mildly.

'assertive', 'insistent', 'nit-picking'...

Difference in perception often crops up over people. Some say I am 'assertive', some say I am insistent what I was right, some others say I nit-pick on others perennially (to show that I am right?). I was reminded of one interview of Carly Fiorina soon after she 'quit' HP. I dont know why but I was always impressed of her and even business wise, she did many things that were good for HP than those that were wrong. Her reply just seemed to reiterate the same to me that she talks sense.

Q: What is the worst mistake you ever made in your career, and how did you try to fix it? - Thomas Keenan, San Jose

A: The mistakes are always about people. And sometimes people think I'm copping out when I say that, but not at all. A leader's most important decisions are about people. Who do you put in which jobs? How long do you leave them in a job? You misjudge people.

Although as phrases/words, 'confidence', 'insistence', 'nit-picking' may seem mutually exclusive if not disjoint, I think they are inherently interlinked. Judgements and self-evaluation of judgements are quite critical in a person's disposition towards life. What other feel/opine is basically immaterial unless the person desperately wants to make others happy and do what (s)he personally does not believe in. My experience is my 'judgement' on people has generally been very good and I think I am very good in 'quick judgment' of characters, which Ian Chappell says is very important in captaincy. People including my siblings think that I judge 'too fast' but I am not sure if it is a 'conscious' decision. I think we all 'estimate' others but just that we may say so and we may take more time. Some believe in face value of words that are told. I dont depend on face value of anything. As Carly of HP says, there have been misjudgements of people.

In my case, I think probably it is a mixture of misjudgement and 'confidence'. I may know that the person concerned CANNOT do it but thought because of relationship with me, (s)he may break the 'society' bound restrictions to do what they feel they should do. In general, I think most people, especially women (including my sisters) are single minded. Especially since birth, we are most often selfish. We cry when something is grabbed from us, taken away and even worse, given to another child. Gradually as we start 'seeing' life, we see that some are not as fortunate as we are and we compromise. Even some of my relatives have asked whether I am a communist. I dont know what 'communist' means but I dont believe in 'monopolising' anything. As they say 'success is often counted sweetest by those who never succeed'. Once I succeed, I renounce. We should give chance to others - maybe that is the 'communist' in me.

Coming back to what I started - I am 'assertive' that I am good enough for anything - whether it is a quiz competition or crossword solving or playing chess/cricket/table-tennis etc, I am insistent that I am good enough even if I fail in the same and I nit-pick those who continue to play even after winning once. For example in Landmark Quiz, I hate to see some people qualifying year after year for the finals. I mean beyond the first 'year' thrill, there is nothing to seek for, atleast in my opinion. Again to quote Ian Chappell, I hate people who cant stop the merry go round. I think it is our duty to let others do what we could do. There is no point in claiming 'ownership' or 'monopoly' over anything, after life is much bigger than these silly thrills of life.

Whom can we be angry with?

My sisters, my friends and some other have often told me that I am angry with too many people and at too many things. I dont think this is true because I believe that I can be angry only with friends or those who we consider 'reasonably close'. I cant be angry with say Sachin Tendulkar or Kamal Hassan or AR Rehman. I can easily ignore such 'personalities'. I often think about the typical 'filmy' question - failure in friendship, love etc. I always think in intangibles, especially in relationships, whether it is friends or siblings or others, 'tangibles' dont play any part and there is nothing called as 'failure'. There can only be 'disappointment's because the person we believed in did not come up with what we expected him/her to come up with. Rather, they didnt behave the way we expect him to behave. In that sense, 'hypocrisy' is almost unacceptable in life, not just in politics. If a person says something and does something altogether different, then 'expectations' are belied. It is strange indeed that people are saying 'hypocrisy' is a way of life.

In another context, I read the same in an article in Literary Review of Hindu. To quote,

One of our MLAs now, who is also a good writer, once made a comment to me, saying, “You write about all these controversial subjects, don’t your family object?” I didn’t expect it from him because he projects himself as a progressive thinker but he is something else in practical, everyday life. When I asked him about it, he said “duality is the way of life”. Of course, life is full of such dualities and contradictions but we try to bridge it, or at least think about it...saying such contradictions are a way of life is an easy, ready-made answer.

When there are disappointments, there is bound to be anger, most often with ourselves. When people belie our expectations, then the anger is at ourselves for having 'high' expectations on people, who cant/wont keep with the same. We do know that the other person cannot do what we expect him/her to do. We fervently hope/expect that the 'intangible' force between us will impel him/her to overcome the 'hurdle' and take the earnest attempt to achieve what we expect to achieve. In our judgement, if the other person is not able to do it, we can be nothing but bitter, maybe at life or most definitely ourselves. Probably the relationship was not all that worth.

Self-preservation...

Randor Guy writes a column these days in Hindu on Friday (Cinema Plus section) titled 'Blast from the Past' about old films in Tamil and some snippets/observation about the 'times' then, are interesting. Today, is the turn of Arivaali 1963 and in particular I am interested in one 'sidenote' that he mentions.

ATK, a person blessed with a delightful sense of humour, had then narrated not only his filmmaking experiences but also showed him a copy of the agreement with MGR in Tamil, which was almost hundred per cent foolproof, advantage MGR. It had words like `vaarthaigalaiyo. kaatchigalaiyo maatravo, kezhattavo, neekkavo, kokkavo MGRukku sagala urimaigalum undu...' No other Indian cinema personality had such a cast iron strong agreement in his favour.

To give a rough translation of the italicized part - MGR gets all the rights to change or remove or join scenes, dialogues in the film. Is it an one-off case in one industry reg one personality - here it is MGR in Tamil film industry and so we should not read too much into it? Similarly I have heard that 'Sivaji' Ganesan another star in those times, after one big hit 'Parasakthi' was trusted/loaned by others to produce a film :o I am more intrigued by the 'business' rather than the 'film' part. How/why do people invest in something, which they may not have much idea about? People have a need to multiply their wealth and if they are already wealthy, they have the need to maintain status quo, if not go even higher. More often, people 'hitch-hike' with others so that they can atleast get the bread crumbs without any issue.

Debate during a film function Mozhi is a bit interesting. Gnani makes a point about people always siding with the 'success'. Without getting into the rest of debate, where I agree more with Ameer than with Gnani, I wonder whether sycophancy is a way of self-preservation. It is probably a way of ensuring that life is 'reasonably' secure and predictable and one is always in the 'comfort' zone. People give a red carpet to those who say WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR and help in perpetuation of status quo for a reasonable time. For many, status quo is a way of self-preservation because it 'does not rock the boat'.

Are people 'same' everywhere?

I am not sure if this is a continuation of my previous post, but today one German friend reiterated what an American friend told me, back in 2004 - people are the same everywhere. American gave a probably credulous argument focussing on 'basics' of human nature. All of us laugh and cry and emotions are the same because we are all humans. Having seen 'Il Postino' just weeks back, where postman innocently queries 'isnt a poor man entitled to happiness?', I probably agreed (atleast mentally) with him. Now, I am also exposed to columnists like Krugman who assert that 'Devil is in the detail'. If we want to 'satisfy' ourselves with just 'countenance' of people without bothering about what is inside their mind, we can easily say 'entire world is happy'.

People are same if we think they are same. Just because we want to simplify and are not interested in getting bogged down with detail, we pigeon-hole people and unfortunately their mental state. Actually 'pigeon-holes' vary according to each person. For instance, Tamils film have long been harping that 'poor' is happier than 'rich', because 'rich' is too occupied about preserving what has been 'accumulated'. On the other hand, 'poor' aspire to be the 'rich' - happy folks wanting to be unhappy :)) As Krugman said during his interview in Stockholm, we need to know where 'strategic simplification' helps. Generalization, simplification cannot be applied universally on everything. It is not surprising that those who 'choose' which dress to wear, what food to eat, which car to drive etc cannot reason/justify why some cannot afford even shoes/slippers. MGR has put it across 'simply and entertainingly' in his Tamil film, Nadodi Mannan நாடோடி மன்னன் (nomad who becomes a king).

As George Orwell puts it down in 'Animal Farm' - all are equal but some are more equal than others :))

Public Opinion: Homogenizing a heterogeneous world?

I was never interested in watching these 'public talk' programmes in any language, forget about participating. I never understood why people or even 'guests or celebrities' participated in such programmes, almost making it a joke. The 'topics' are chosen intentionally to be 'entertaining' and not really 'informing', forget enlightening. On the other hand, it seems to be the 'only avenue' to get public opinion. It is probably a good way to get informed about topics that we dont even have much of an idea (maybe misconception) or opinion, say homosexuality or bull-fighting or agriculture. On the other idea, as often is the case, if there are topics like 'should women work after marriage?', 'should we live in joint families?', it is an easy guess on the 'output' with atleast 1008 opinions.

In India, I am not sure if there are so many DIFFERENT channels in one language as in the case of Tamil. I dont watch Hindi channels but from the little bit of it that I have seen and even looking at Hindi movies, I dont think they represent 'cross section' of the Indian public. For instance, one 'common' perception is that all Hindi speaking people are fair-skinned, which is nothing but a joke for anyone who has done an occasional visit to Bihar or to Rajastan or Maharashtra - like me. This common perception is being floated by the TV channels and the people they 'invite'. Let me not go too much into Hindi or other language channels, without watching much of it. Among Tamil channels, there is a clear differentiation in audiences for each channel - almost leading to the point where the viewership could be mutually exclusive :o One can easily discern by looking at the 'anchor's of different TV programmes. Sun TV, easily the most popular Tamil TV channel, not just across India but across the world still remains the 'representative' of Tamils. I feel that now they are moving towards catering to the 'upper echelons' of the society. Jaya TV was always elitist and brahminist - whether it is in its choice of programmes - one soap/serial 'எங்கே பிராமணன்?' ('where is the brahmin?') recently ended - anchors, invited guests, content etc most are English-smeared. Makkal TV - started by one political party PMK, probably with 'high ideals' is finding it tough to maintain the economics of running a channel, especially after it received a severe drubbing in 2009 National elections, where it could not win even a single seat.

Public talk programmes were always popular in Tamil, even when there was only one TV channel for the public - government run - DD Chennai now named 'Podhigai'). Public participation was often as 'spectators' and 'learned' people (mostly professors in colleges) were invited guests/speakers. In particular, 'patti mandram பட்டி மன்றம்' or 'debate' was often of two kinds - one on Tamil literature, more often Kamba Ramayanam and other on issues facing the society. In early days, even in latter, speakers used to speak predominantly in clear and erudite Tamil, quoting snippets from Tamil literature. Colloquial or local parlance was used more often to inject a 'humorous note' in a serious topic. When Sun TV started as probably the first 'private' channel in Tamil via cable TV, they had no pretensions of catering to erudite audience and wanted the 'public' to watch and 'enjoy'. So debates were clearly ones that had 'social relevance' - for example, who is more important - mother or wife? The audience also 'grew up' that it has got nothing to do with 'knowing a new perspective', so why not enjoy it? The speakers started and ended in a Tamil, that was definitely not 'erudite' but one that is heard in street corners.

The talk show started in Sun TV with 'Arattai Arangam' அரட்டை அரங்கம் compered by Visu and reached higher TRP ratings (viewership) mainly because now the 'public' can also participate and give a 'piece of their mind'. The other channels too followed suit - Visu later switched to ADMK (why?) and so did the same programme with a different name ('Makkal Arangam' மக்கள் அரங்கம்) in Jaya TV. Vijay TV all the while was not just brahminic but also Chennai obsessed. It is no wonder that their talk show நீயா நானா Neeya Naana, hosted by somewhat popular Gopinath, starting with much 'promise' fizzling out to abysmal depths. Today's topic was 'whether people should be emotional'. I never knew how any TV channel or anchor can stand on judgement on an inherently personal topic. Today somebody said that he didnt cry for his father's death. I didnt understand the point of why someone should say that in 'public' and even worse to follow, when people question/judge why he didnt cry. It takes all kinds of people to make this world. It is ridiculous to 'homogenise' people and expect him/her to react the same way as one 'expect's to. Some may cry, some may not. Some may like idli, some may not. Oft quoted quote - all fingers are not same - seems to be lost on all TV channels, these days.

Generalizers, simplifiers, sifters et al.

'Why' is the question that stumps most people, but it is the most important question because if forces people to think, to reason and not take anything as a given or even worse at 'face-value'. Why we are where we are, what we are, how we are... are the most difficult questions. Since the day I saw Krugman's column in New York Times, I liked the way he reasoned many things, which are neither 'alien' nor 'Greek and Latin' to me. For that matter, why should we consider any topic 'alien' to us? One with 'common sense' should understand or question anything. Coming back to Krugman, I (did) suspect that he won Nobel Prize a bit 'earlier' because he was 'anti-Bush', 'Jew' etc, but that is hardly to take away my admiration for his prolific output, especially his blog. Also, we have many 'home-spun' theories of many things/phenomena but we keep it to ourselves - on the lines - it is better to keep quiet and be stupid rather than open the mouth and prove it to others. I found Krugman to ratify my 'common sense' when there are so many 'popular' experts in India, who in my opinion are some kinda fear/hate/xyz mongers, if not stupid. Fuels on the hill runs in contrast to 'home-grown' rather Swadeshi expert, Gurumoorthy யூக வியாபாரமும், பெட்ரோல் விலை உயர்வும்! ie 'Speculation and rise in petrol prices'.

We want 'one stop shop', easy answers, 'acceptable' answers etc. I dont know but given the little bit of brain, I believe that we should exploit it to the maximum in our short life and exercise it as and when possible. I cant just 'accept' someone or something as answer for everything. To quote the couplet of one identity common to Tamils - Thiruvalluvar

எப்பொருள் யார்யார்வாய்க் கேட்பினும் அப்பொருள்
மெய்ப்பொருள் காணப தறிவு

(my rough translation goes) Quest for truth in words, irrespective of whose mouth it came from, is wisdom. Even if Krugman says, I have to look if it 'makes sense' and then accept/discard the same. I like Krugman's interview at Stockholm during his visit for receiving the Nobel Prize. In particular, I liked the part about possible 'candidate's who could give a good model - there are 1. generalizers, 2. those who sift large amounts of data quickly, 3. simplifiers etc and of course, he is a 'ruthless simplifier' :) I myself would like to put myself more in 2nd category leaning towards the 1st.

I think I may have inherited 'fast reading' (ie sifting) not from my parents, but probably my 'grandparents' (maternal). In school, I used to read 'Hardy boys' novels (250-300 pages) in about 2.5-3 hours. Why I am inclined towards 'inheritance' is when my Chithi (mother's younger sister) said (unsolicited of course) that she is amazed that her daughter reads magazines in a flash. Of course, some of my relatives think/say that I dont 'work' at all but simply read (useless?) 'magazines' all the time. I recently realized that I actually dont read all words :o Maybe some sort of 'intuitive' feel as to what are the 'key words' and key is to 'read those select words'. Infact, I remember one old forward about people reading correctly even in a message full of typos :o Similarly, 'Beautiful Mind' shows 'Nash' (Russell Crowe) picking out certain digits, letters from a maze of words/letters. I hope that I am not a schizophrenic like him ;)

Profundity.

When I was studying 9th (1990), I asked meaning of 'profound' to my great English teacher, Mrs Elizabeth Thomas (without her and the other English teacher, Mrs Alphonsa Jacob, I dont think my English would be where it is today) and she said 'not superficial but with deep realization or understanding'. In some sense, I have always tried to reach the state of 'profundity' in whatever I do. Kancha Ilaiah says - casteism is profound racism. Thinking a bit, yes, it does sound true - after all there was some effort in India to include 'caste'ism as part of World conference on racism or race-related issues. My friend used to question when we went from school to college, are IITians intelligent or knowledgeable? Now it is almost 'proven' that they are at best 'knowledgeable' - they know to solve some patterns of problems. I think even in criticism of MBA, they talk of empirical studies. One may know how one kind of problem was solved by one person in one country with one method. Problems are not the same globally, scenarios change, people are different and how can one solution be just 'retrofit'ted into another situation?

I was seeing video of Richard Dawkins again - where he talked of religious beliefs and IQ. Here he chose 'Mensa' to denote the people with high IQ. For one, I dont know what is meant by evaluating IQ. I remember that I had an IQ test in my school (Jawahar Vidyalaya) when I was 10 or 11 years and still have the report which stated that my intelligence suited that of 13 or 14 years and my intelligence is 'well above normal' ('paranormal'?). Going even before, as I passed out of 5th std in Shakespeare Convent, I was given one certificate, not for scoring high marks or representing sports or even being class leader, but for my 'intelligence' :o How the hell did they evaluate that? Because I could remember many things 'ad verbatim'? Because I could multiply two digit numbers without pen and paper? My foot! One of my colleagues at TI did mention about Mensa test and even at that time, I refused. I hate 'pigeonholing' and more importantly, uselessness of such a grading. What is their social relevance? Do people with high IQ become Presidents or Prime Ministers or great sportsmen? :o To me, it looks that intelligent people are more likely to be 'single-minded' and 'adulation' can also be 'detrimental' for some people (including me).

Maybe 'intelligence' is 'profound knowledge'. Another thing that some have told me (again since childhood) is that I have great 'intuition' (I heard first when I played chess in school). I think intuition is 'profound intelligence'. It may look paranormal but it is like the phenomenon that William explains in Umberto Eco's 'The Name of the Rose'. The main thing is that unlike the book ('nature speaks to us in many ways and we just have to listen'), intuition cannot be explained in simple words. Infact, I myself cant reason out. Chess is where I can explain easily. I made moves because I felt it was a 'good move' and not because it was a 'right move'. Maybe it has some 'risk element' and 'dependence' on opponent. To put in Ian Chappell's terms, as a captain, you should be a quick judge of character of not just your own team members, but also your opponents. In chess, some 'tutored' players later told that I 'wrap' up games against minnows with 'scotch' opening. I dont know if it is scotch or whiskey ;) - basically it is 'aggressive' and you try to win by 'intimidating' your opponent through your moves. So intuition is profound intelligence and it is useful if one is intuitive instead of just being intelligent. Maybe for this reason, I consider politics as the most challenging 'sport/game'. One has to judge the character of atleast million people while charting a election manifesto and starting the election campaign.

Indian crabs...

When I was in college and my class was getting 'ready' for placement season, some 'expert's came for conducting mock interviews and some students clarified doubts/apprehensions personally or in front of the class. One question was about 'hobbies' mentioned in the resume. If someone does not have an 'exciting' hobby or rather no hobby at all, does it matter? Though personally I would be interested to know the 'non-schooling' part of any resume, I dont think current day 'recruiter's (even those who do the interview) are like that and it is not the 'game-changer' even for me. Basic technical skills are definitely needed but how much 'bandwidth' the person had in going beyond studies gives me an idea of how well rounded as an individual the person is. Do you know about 'traits' in C++? - as a question or even if answered, doesnt tell much about the candidate. As much as interviewers may think, they are 'evaluating' candidates in interview, I think candidates can also evaluate companies. Infact, that is what I do.

When Intel came to India, they wanted to become big in short time (atleast in headcount ;)). Intel is an honorable company. Texas Instruments was probably the first semiconductor MNC in India (started in 1985) and by virtue of their 'experience', some TI employees were given 'blanket' offers apparently-say on lines of 'twice what you get now'. In 2003, I was called by four people from Intel in one week, each having no clue of the other. That is how 'coordinated' Indians are - maybe management of Intel was unaware but management of Intel India should be aware and maybe couldnt cope with it. In the interview, the interviewer did not even know that Intel has a new office in Outer Ring Road and got offended when I asked whether I had to come to that office :( I repeat, Intel is an honorable company. Last week Microsoft called me (I dont know why). Microsoft is an honorable company and I thought like Texas Instruments, they may also NOT believe in my 'history' or 'geography' but see whether I can be effective in whatever I do. To begin with, the interviewer told me (why?) that he is 'new' to Microsoft (so?) and doesnt know much in C++. Firstly that tells more about Microsoft - asking a newbie to do an 'interview' is a silly decision. I can understand if Microsoft established its Indian operations in last month or even last year. They have been in India for quite some time and to ask someone who recently joined, to take interviews is ridiculous. It was a 1-question-knock-out I guess.

char *p;
p=&p;
strcpy(p,"hi");
printf("%s",p);

I said that it wont work because you cant write into 'address space'. The interviewer had apparently worked in 'embedded systems' before joining Microsoft and said that he can do it. Ok, he is 'better' than me (maybe using 'far' pointers, I dont know), but how does that test my 'programming' skills? I can understand if he asked me 'algorithm' or 'strategy to solve some problem'. This is not even trivia and I dont know what is the point in asking 'Kanetkar' trivia when probably is going to do such 'silly coding', especially in a software company like Microsoft. He wanted to 'complete' the interview but obviously didnt have any clue on how things work in 'other' world. He looked at my resume and asked how many seconds will simulation take - why seconds? what simulation? analog or digital? digital - structured or functional? - I would have liked if he followed Wittgenstein - What you cannot speak of, you must pass over in silence.. 25 minutes and I exited the campus. Microsoft is an honorable company. No pun intended, I am serious ;) Indians are 'single minded' - were, are, will be.

Is there an issue if a person who is recruited as a 'manager' starts handling interviews? Firstly I have an issue with recruiting 'manager's. I think every company has a 'culture' and 'personality'. It takes some time for any new employee (manager or otherwise) to adapt to the new 'environment', take the 'personality' if possible and act accordingly. I strongly believe in 'home grown' managers. The person should have worked in the same 'site' for some years, (get to) know how other employees are, how they react, what their 'opinions' are etc so that when made-a-manager is fully aware of the environment. Air-dropping PhDs or Indian expatriates is simply not going to work, unless the employees turn into stooges (I agree in India they often do). My sister thinks that I am spiteful on desis for no reason but I think I am not alone if other's comments are to go by. Indians are genuinely 'threatened' by 'others' and use 'stories' and 'claim to fame' to retort. If other person is having an i-phone, they are threatened; if other person is Tamil, they are threatened; if other person is fair skinned, they are threatened. They think such paraphernalia of others undermines their own (assumed?) 'importance'. It is no wonder that some Americans (of course, not desis) and Europeans referred my name to their Indian operations eagerly or readily but obviously I didnt hear anything from India. Even in my interview at Qualcomm, I felt that I knew more than the interviewers :o It is not surprising if they are genuinely threatened that my 'entry' could lead to their 'exit' and maybe to add 'I am a Tamil'.

To put the 'attitude' simply, I will help someone ONLY if I think that (s)he will not 'grow' above me. So if it is recruiting 'junior's, people will gladly take the next step. If it is recruiting a 'peer' or 'senior', then they are 'threatened'. No wonder, the first question in Broadcom was how my MCA (masters degree acquired nearly 10 years back) can help in semiconductor industry. If it helped for nearly 10 years, why shouldnt it help any further? I dont even want to answer such questions because the underlying motive is just ONE-UP-MANSHIP. Indian crab always prevents the other crab from going up. Is it that my countenance 'threatens' or 'predisposes' many Indians to interact with me with an 'anti' disposition? You dont know what could turn off in any Indian :( It looks as if everyone wants to make a point with me that they are 'better than me'. Apart from the fact, they dont need to (and they are not ;)), I am to blame in some sense that I dont even try to be 'pacifist'. If they talk some truckload of baloney, I am probably going to make a 'song and dance' about it and make sure that they know that I dont appreciate. Even among colleagues, I find very little 'professional' behavior in INDIA. In TI, one guy (as 'experienced' as me) talks about the biological cycles of one female colleague. In Nvidia, one colleague works from home (WFH) all the time. In NXP, one employee picks up 'contractors' in company provided car at UK and charging them money. Managers (atleast two that I know of or heard) in AMD believed/expected that if I go in bus, it should be in Volvo. Mind you, everybody including myself were getting helluva lot (atleast in my opinion) for what I call as 'silly work' since Jan 2000 in different companies. As Pulp Fiction goes,

if self-preservation is an instinct you possess, you better fuckin' do it and do it quick. I'm here to help. If my help's not appreciated, lotsa luck gentlemen.

It is only 'fair' that they should loook forward for the next opportunity to ease me off. My ex-roommate mentioned about a 'home-spun' philosophy of his colleague-which he christened as 'screwism' and it goes 'there are two kinds of people - those who screw others and those who get screwed'. Corollary is if you are of the first kind and dont want to screw others, you will be immediately put in the second group and screwed first. That pretty much sums up the Indian crab philosophy :)))

Bread crumbs, peels...

As I was having bread for breakfast today, I was reminded of what my mother used to say - dont waste the crumbs, they have more nutrition. Is it true? Similarly even when my mother used to cut apple, she used to mention the same that they have lot of nutrition value. I am not a 'nutrition expert' but I wonder if there is an 'underlying' attitude - good or bad. I am reminded of 'stories' long back told by many people (obviously they may not even remember that they have told me :o). One story went about differences in different 'Iyer' communities in Tamil Nadu. North Arcot Iyers are apparently always rich because they dont waste anything. After eating, their plates will look ready for eating (of course, thats an exaggeration). Similarly such attitude in found in Kerala, they apparently use everything of the plantain ('nenthiram' fruit or vegetable) including the peel, stem etc. Apparently Gujaratis have similar attitude. My sister who is currently in Porbunder told one news/story which was atleast amusing. In showrooms of Gujarat, they dont switch on all lights all the time. Lights will be on only where people are there. If you want to look at some section in showroom, they will switch on the light of that section, present what is present and then switch off :o My sister went with her Gujarati friend from Porbunder to Ahmedabad for weekend class. Her friend thought that she had forgotten to switch off the light in kitchen and apparently didnt sleep in the train :o Till next day morning, when she could confirm that lights were indeed off, she was not her normal self :o

I would think that this bread crumbs, fruit peels are another form of this attitude. One can say 'dont waste' attitude is a good thing. When I used to stay with two other classmates in Bangalore (2000-2004), I used to cook often and at the end of the dinner, we will not 'waste' anything and 'finish' whatever was cooked. Once my classmate from Chennai who had come from US to visit me in Bangalore and heard about 'not wasting' food from us, he said 'hey, your stomach is not a garbage can'. If you dont like it, throw it away. Well that is another way of looking at it. Yet another way of looking at it is to eat everything - may be, thats the closest thing that some can come to - have the cake and eat it too :)

Indian writers in English

Many times, it is better if our idea/thinking is corroborated by another person. We atleast get the satisfaction that another human being is thinking or thought on 'similar lines'. That was the case with the article in Hindu newspaper today - Mirror, Mantra. Though I felt that the author was indulging in euphemisms or maybe the author is a 'natural' pacifist -

No, I am not accusing Rushdie and Naipaul of bland mimicry or of consciously catering to Western opinions

They are not the Other. They are not even different, really. They are the West today.

Unfortunately even an Indian who writes about India in English is not likely to be made visible by agents, clubs and book chains in the West: she has to write about India in certain approved ways, ways that very often depend on a celebration of the “multicultural” West either as actual presence or enabling possibility.

On the other hand, I am fully convinced that all, yes ALL, Indian writers have been conformist not to Indians but to Western audience. I remember an article long back in Hindu about 'occidental'ization and 'oriental'ization - former referring to works of India or the 'East' being "tempered" to suit the Western audience and latter referring to works of UK or US or West being "tempered" to suit the Eastern audience. When I was in my school, I knew that my 'opinion' will be trampled but still I had the opinon that RK Narayan, for instance, was trying to hard to translate appalam, dosai etc - why should he or for that matter any Indian writer? Of course, I liked RK Narayan for his simple and down-to-earth books.

Salman Rushdie - I never understood what was 'great' about him - UK guys should be crazy to give him Booker Prize, but maybe he wrote what they WANTED to read. I found 'Midnight's children' mediocre or taken off from Indian (melo)drama and not really reflective of India, forget Indian muslims. Should a novel or book be 'autobiographical'? I dont know but I am inclined to believe that there should be some 'level' of it because that is how the author perceives this world, the people and the events. My friend once gave a perspective - Salman Rushdie writes about a Jew in India (not many may know that there are Jews in India as well), so he does all the research to get his 'facts' right in his novel and thus 'synthesis'es a novel to bring a new perspective - something like 'what if?'. I can only say that I am not a fan of such techniques. Similarly desis cant write about India of now, they can probably write with old India of their time as background. Obviously world or any country is changing over time continuously. They cannot read newspapers or articles in magazines and newspapers about India and add 'their old masala' to cook up some fiction. Rather it is 'pseudo-fiction' - why should fiction have a 'real canvas/background'? Infact, I am also not keen on scientific fiction. They say (Krugman too says) that Isaac Asimov's Foundation series is great etc but I found it too boring. Going to another planet or changing DNA as in Robin Cook's book etc is 'fiction' and 'fiction' to a great extent is escapist. I rather would like to read what, how and more importantly why things are, the way they are. I think that I can think 'better' than others on how things 'add up', reason out why what happened the way it happened and what 'trends' are.

Something indeed wrong with humans.

I do think that people are having 'sick'ness. Krugman seems to think that in US it is a strange madness. My 'home-spun philosophy' is getting crystallized faster and faster. People are becoming more and more 'single-minded' and maybe, Darwin would have further studied or theorized it further that it is the nature of humans to seek 'compatibility', rather than to make themselves 'compatible'. Is it possible to have the best of all possible worlds? It is this search that people tend to even dismiss/ignore/forget when their current state could be the best state. Preconceived notions, exaggerated fears, misplaced complacency could lead to nothing but harakiri.

In our work, we do face the terms of 'trade-off' - you give some, lose some - in anything. Few/some/many humans do not seem to see the +ve in anything, once they are conditioned/convinced that the 'current condition is detrimental to them'. What is 'best' is not a personal explanation or experience but subject to the people around us? Thus 'richest are the happiest' becomes a truism for those who are seeking the riches. I am reminded of the classic 'Il Postino' - isnt a poor man entitled to his little bit of happiness? If I look at films, it has been 'drilled' into Indian films that 'poverty' is associated with 'misery', 'sadness', 'cries', 'pain' etc. It is only in Tamil films, spearheaded by Bharatiraja which highlighted the life in a village (poor man's world?), humor, romance, tragedgy and all shades of life that is seen all over the world. When Bala highlighted the life of 'marginalia' with aplomb, say in Pithamahan' middle-class and educated 'revolted' saying that 'poverty is being sensationalized'. In their world, poor people should be shown in soiled clothes, starving for months, unable to cover themselves and all such stereotypes. I think this 'image' itself is developed by humans (like any mythology) to justify their 'hypocrisy' ('why I am seeking greener pastures?', 'I am very patriotic even if I get out of the country', 'When I am abroad, I marry outside my religion/caste because I am secular'). I think things could be much simpler if people dont explain and give reasons, but then as I said, something is indeed wrong with humans.

YSR's death

It did start off in a comical note - 'Andhra CM missing' (Tamil note even more rib-tickling) but I, for one, didnt expect AP CM YSR to die. Neither do/can I vote for him nor I support Congress for that matter. I think the 'suddenness' of the end to someone's life does shock me atleast. I am not of the 'emotional' kind but maybe it is wired into nature that I am shocked by 'sudden death's. I had a similar feeling when actor Soundarya died in a similar crash. When the news about his non-availability was coupled with some reports that he was sighted in some village, I thought that either he went to some place without informing others or there was some communication problems, especially when there was also news of heavy rain. Even if the helicopter was going to crash because of rains, my brother-in-law who flies helicopters used to say that helicopters are typically low-altitude carriers, I thought the helicopter should have crashed from a pretty low height and if it fell into some trees, he may have broken some leg or hand. Death didnt have a high probability, atleast in my mind.

I am member of one online community in Orkut (Tamil Nadu Politics) and I was surprised AND sick to see posts where people wished that Karunanidhi, CM of TN, was in that plane or that YSR indeed dies :o I may not cry for any death whether it is relative or others, but still I am not so insensitive or so single-minded to wish so or to indulge in low grade comments. In some sense, it puts into perspective what Joseph Stalin had remarked - one death is a tragedy; one million deaths is just a statistic. He was probably referring to 'exaggerated' reports of casualty in some project - say underground railway work. I think now it is a case of where even one death is a statistic. Looking back, I cant help contrasting how people were to how people are. My grandmother cried when MGR, CM of Tamil Nadu died (I was 9 yrs then). Her husband was a Congress (Kamaraj) loyalist but still death of a human being, who she may not have seen directly even once, moved her. MGR's death was also not totally 'unexpected' given his age, medical history, hospital admissions etc. When she died, I didnt cry and I think it is my mental make-up. Next 'sudden death' was Rajiv Gandhi's death and it was tense in our house because our family friend, a Muslim had the marriage of his daughter who was a close friend of my sister. Practically nothing could move across the roads in the city and all of us including bride and groom WALKED to the marriage hall and marriage had only minimal attendance. Obviously nobody even thought of Rajiv Gandhi or his family or politics, that day.

The death that probably affected me the most till now was that of my grandmother (mother's mother). Maybe I practically lived with her for years, when her son (my uncle) was abroad on work. Also during bouts of hysteria that she had, she shouted at everyone, but NOT ME. Her last days/months were practically alone - my uncle had gone to US and not to come till date. After that event, any death was just a piece of news for me. At the same time, I never mocked or laughed at some death. It may take some more time still for me to come out of the sickening happiness in some people at someone's death.

Where do you want to go today?

Human race has always been nomadic and never content. I am not sure if I am lazy or content but it is difficult to 'move' me, unless I am forced. I think Trichy is the only place that I went, purposefully for my masters at REC (now called NIT) when I could have remained in Chennai to do the same at Anna University. The 'nomadic' move started since then hasnt brought me back to my hometown, though I visit Chennai often. Campus recruitments at college forced me to move to Bangalore and 'nomadic' trysts also tend to become habits, if not addictions. I think I was 'over and out' with my career in 2004 because I didnt think there was anything 'radically' new to learn in semiconductor industry. I have just been going through the motions all these years and my classmate in Bachelors chatting with me last week was suggesting that we should think 'out of the box'. I did apply for say 'teaching' positions but people dont seem to be interested in even 'calling' me for an interview. How out of the box can 'out of the box' be? I am sure if I sit in one place, I will fall into rut (if not fallen already) and cant really think out of the box. Maybe 'nomadic' surge will rekindle that 'out of the box' thinking - I dont know.

I had told him and probably some others quite some years back that 'next wave of growth' has to be in South America and Africa. I had always liked Krugman's simplicity, lot before he won the Nobel Prize, which I suspect he had an 'edge' to win (not in any way undermining his 'competency') because of Jewish origin and anti-Bush stand. I havent read any of his books but many times I thought my thinking coincided with his on 'common topics'. For instance, I was surprised to see this article in NY times website Running Out of Planet to Exploit, which was precisely my point. US could not break into China much and apart from language problems, China cannot bombed like say Iraq, can it be? ;) Only region left in the world is Africa and South America and as I told my friend, we can make a living even if we sell vegetables or fish in a new way in these continents. I guess Spanish is lingua franca in South America and Africa may have lots of dialects and languages :o Reg 'venture'ing out into these places, it will be impossible but doable ;) and lot more interesting to go and try it out. Having said that, these 'thoughts' come into my mind million times during past decade but like any other stereotypical Tamil, I still continue to do what I have been doing :( To put in Tamil actor Vadivelu's words - புடுங்கறது பூராவுமே தேவையில்லாத ஆணி தான்:(

Audio: Cricket and life...

I am of the opinion that every aspect of life is not very different from the other and what one learns from one can be equally applied on the other. Of course, we cannot apply it directly but we have to get the 'idea' out of the 'form' and apply the 'idea'. Applying the 'form' in one onto another will be ludicrous. I would say that 'sports' is the best place to learn/understand a lot of lessons. Being from India, where cricket is the most popular sport (atleast on TV), it is natural that discussions about cricket can be more easily understood by most Indians, than reading tomes of management theories and case studies. I have found Ian Chappell to give a sensible and new perspective on many occasions. Let me give my pick of good chats/discussions.

'Don't discourage unorthodoxy'
Ian Chappell, Michael Holding and Tony Greig analyse unusual cricketers down the years

What makes Australia tick?
Sanjay Manjrekar, Ian Chappell and Tony Greig analyse Australia's dominance of world cricket

'Go forward towards youth'
Should the Big Three of Indian cricket stay or go? Ian Chappell, Sanjay Manjrekar and Tony Greig debate

'Your team should laugh with you'
Tony Greig, Ian Chappell and David Lloyd on cricket's characters and what they bring to the game

'Don't judge a captain on wins and losses'
Ian Chappell and Sanjay Manjrekar discuss why a captain needs to have more powers, and pick their best captains

'Every captain has a shelf life'
Anand Vasu gets Ian Chappell and Sanjay Manjrekar to analyse the difficult art of captaincy

'Great keepers go unnoticed'
Ian Chappell, Michael Holding and Kumar Sangakkara analyse the evolving role of the modern wicketkeeper

'The chatter is out of control'
Sanjay Manjrekar, Ian Chappell and Tony Greig analyse the growing menace of on-field chatter

When is it the right time to go?
Sanjay Manjrekar discusses the issue of retirement with Ian Chappell and Michael Holding

The great Aussie swansong
Two legends of the game going out on their own terms

Sobers is the best
Tony Greig, Ian Chappell and Michael Holding discuss the importance of the all-rounder in modern day cricket

Lara is the best
Sanjay Manjrekar asks John Wright, Tony Greig, Ian Chappell and Ravi Shastri

Adaptability is the key
Are flat tracks the reason for inflated batting averages? Sanjay Manjrekar discusses this with the panel

How good is the modern batsman?
The Champions Trophy showed how much modern batsmen struggle on pitches that had a bit of zip