The old lame lion in the jungle

First off, let me start with explaining a little about the title of the post. The old lame lion in the jungle. It does not exist. And its the classical validation of the Darwinian law of "Survival of the fittest". If its lame, a lion however fearsome wold not survive into pensionable age. Nature would ensure that. Now it a valid question on why I should be pondering about geriatric felines. The train of thought chugged out of the station when I saw a news article on the proposed labour reforms. I know capitalism is going through its mid life crisis and is still figuring out what has and could have gone wrong. There is enough articles, thesis and sundry kind of self  employment generating output that academia are wont to create. Joseph Stiglitz's views about the reform required in capitalism and Paul Krugman's scathing commentaries comes to mind. And they are very valid and pertinent observations. One of the keystones of capitalism is "creative destruction" as articulated by Joseph Schumpeter. I am no economist but what I could discern was that capitalism as much as it enables new enterprises also facilitates destruction of failing enterprises. And the ingrained logic is that by killing of failing enterprises it releases resources to create new efficient enterprises. Now I agree there is a social angle to this destruction and it could be potentially traumatic at best and catastrophic at worst but I intend to address that later.
One of the unwritten laws of nature is that inherently there are resource constraints. So it does make sense for these resources to be deployed optimally. If an enterprise is failing because of inherent systemic issues ( bad business model, huge unsustainable resource drain) and it continues to live on artificial support, it is diverting scarce resources from other requirements to make its transition into the above mentioned geriatric flatfooted feline. At a micro level, there could be sufficient motivation to keep it going (emotional , local relevance etc). But at a macro level, it could be bad logic.
To illustrate it let me recount an oft repeated story that only economists can conjure up.
Long long ago in a far far away land ( Spoiler alert: No Shrek here), there was a small town whose houses were all mandated to have glass windows as per the housing regulations. An ingenious enterprising father-son duo came into this town and saw an opportunity. The son would throw stones on the windows and the father would duly replace the glass and charge a small amount for the same. Now one may argue that this enterprise generated income for the father-son duo who in turn would spend this money in the town and thus boost the local economy. The economist's theory is contrarian. His supposition, and to which I agree, is that at the end of the year, the town has not added any new assets to its kitty since its scant resources (money) round tripped through many hands to maintain the status quo.
And that is why I think labour reforms are critical to growth and employment. You may argue how does hire-and-fire policy increase employment. There are enough studies to indicate that it actually increases employment. Eventually, enterprises becomes efficient, grow and employ more people. The ones that are bound to fail atrophy and do not grow but drain resources.
But humans do not live in the jungle. Differently abled geriatrics rightfully survive and thrive because humans can operate at a different level of abstraction.  The need for a safety net is paramount when India moves to the new labour regime. And that would be really a challenge given the economic realities of India and the propensity to leak public resources which is just another fancy euphemism for corruption. But it is a road that one needs to take. If India needs to grow it needs to unleash the animal spirits through enterprises and start up. Having worked and helped some of them, I can with some semblance of authority say that it is now or never. Labour reforms are but one component but critical nevertheless.

The Pyramid is a Sphinx

I have always wondered on the preponderance of the pyramid structure in the natural order of things. It is there for everybody to see. Be it the food chain or the food groups or even hierarchy be it in corporate or religious structures or even sports. So what gives? The property of a pyramid from a geometry standpoint is that it has a large base and then tapers off into an isosceles triangle. Structurally speaking, it is stable and does not keel over easily. For the New Age believers, the pyramid is supposed to have occult powers. But what got my attention is that the stable structure inherent to pyramid is extended to even abstract notions like hierarchy. Some of it can be rationalized as related to the ubiquitous Bell Curve or Normal distribution. Though  one differentiator is that outliers exists on both ends of the curve. The pyramid is quite rigid in that sense. There is that top of the pyramid and then there is the bottom. So why do these entities gravitate to a pyramid in the natural order of things. And it is at this point that I make my null hypothesis bereft of statistical data but just my opinion. Egalitarian concepts are very good but if you see the literature expounding on it, tends to associate it strongly with Utopia. And the GPS has failed to locate utopia as far as I know. As Scott Adams , the author of Gilbert famously said the path for humankind has been probably set by a miniscule portion of humankind with the rest of us trudging along willingly and many times blindly. For these people to set the path, they need to have followers to follow and that is how the pyramid has to be formed. One might say "Why a pyramid? Why not a rectangle". For starters, the decision making process has to  be sharp and not diffused. Too many people and we have the classic adage "Too many cooks spoil the broth" in active play. So a set of people will appropriate the decision making powers and arrogate themselves the right to define the destiny of the rest of the people. The same phenomenon can be seen even in the classic ecology based food chain. The tiger is the top of the pyramid, A forest can only accommodate so many tigers simply because the base of the pyramid required to accommodate a tiger would be quite big and too many tigers would require a base too big to be feasible. And that would probably answer the question "Why don't we see tigers and lions in the same forest?". Even in the structure of religious bodies, we see that the hotline to God is appropriated by a group of priests and then the rest of the base is excluded from dialling in directly. You have to go through the operator to connect. So is pyramid good or bad? Right off the bat, I would say nature supports it since we see it in nature so often. But is it good in artificially created pyramid structures. The answer is yes and no. In nature , the pyramid structure remains the same but the components that constitute the tiers of pyramid keeps on changing. So if the tiger is top of the pyramid, the dinosaurs used to be at the top some time back. The old gives way to the new. It renews the pyramid and gives it stability. Other wise we would have either ossification or putrefaction or in some cases both. The original caste system was based on that. It was division of labour. Then it got rigid and atrophied. And we are all aware of the ill effects of that. If a pyramid structure allows migration (both upwards and downwards) based on performance parameters then its a good thing. But to assume the pole position is a given based on birth, race, colour or caste would only weaken the pyramid. The structure would be rigid and when the earthquake of change comes in, as any self respecting structural engineer would testify, the rigid structure no matter how big are the first ones to fall.
And this brings me to the question "Is there an alternate to the pyramid structure?" I don't have an answer yet. And that is why the pyramid is like the legendary Sphinx. The answers are there with it but it refuses to speak. It just sits there.
 

The Theory of Height of Incompetence

There exists a theory of Height of Competence and Height of Incompetence. It summarily states that every person rises to the height of incompetence at the same time he rises to the height of competence. The clichéd example is that of Adolph Hitler. Hitler rose to one of the biggest demagogues of all time . Evil perhaps , but a great demagogue nevertheless. His ability to hold the mass almost bordered on mass hypnosis. Many a social scientist has earned his keep by analysing the effect of Hitler on the masses and convince them to ignore ,abet and even actively participate in mass genocide. In fact one of them coined a term "banality of murder" for the phenomenon. He galvanized a nation abjectly humiliated in WW1 into action and literally shook the core of the world order. And then he went on to rise to his height of incompetence as a military general/strategist. Against all sane advise he opened two war fronts at the same time (Britain and Russia). He met his Waterloo (ironic choice of word) in the unforgiving biting cold of Russia and thence hence the downfall. Incidentally a couple of centuries before that Napoleon Bonaparte attacked Russia in the peak of winter and effectively killed his expansionist plans. To wit, people who forget history are condemned to repeat it. So the height of incompetence can actually fritter away all the gains that the heights of competence that is accrued. Let me give another example albeit a muted one though. Sachin Tendulkar rose to his level of competence as a batsman but rose to his level of incompetence as a Captain. So much so he relinquished the captaincy and never took it even when it was offered on a platter.
So what is it that makes this dichotomy so antagonistic to each other. I have a theory to rationalize it though it has no basis in either empirical observation or academic research.
And there is one word to describe it. Hubris. Since one gains mastery of a certain domain , one assumes that the same success can be achieved in another domain. It might stem from sheer arrogance (which might be true in the case of Adolph baby) or it could be that the new scenario throws one off so badly that the skill toolkit acquired in the area of expertise is not relevant to the new domain (in case of Tendulkar, perhaps). But does it mean one does not use a skill set on one domain in another. I am not advocating that for one second. In fact may a breakthrough has been achieved through cross pollination. A classic example being the encryption techniques used for torpedo guiding in WW2 being adopted by musicians from orchestra experience. I am suggesting a little humility to the craft required for the other domain and the ability to listen. Success is a function of several parameters and some of them are specific to the task at hand. It means there is no free pass to success. It is equally important to understand one's strengths as well as weaknesses to get one's objectives. It is equally important to listen (and not hear) experts and internalize their ideas. I am not in favour of abdicating responsibility to the experts. As a leader, the buck stops with you and it is your responsibility to take that call. But it also does not mean you force the experts to abdicate their responsibility to you. And the core of it lies in the dictum "The monopoly of expertise does not reside with a single person"

Reality bites!!!

I was seeing this program on the Discovery Channel and it set me thinking. Scientists had implanted an electrode into the brain of a mouse and the mouse was placed in a box with a small hole. The electrode was placed in such a manner that when an electrical impulse was transmitted, the pleasure regions of the brain were activated. Whenever the mouse peeped into the hole, the pleasure regions were stimulated. After some time , the mouse kept peeking into the hole. And I realized the reality that is constituted by the mouse is actually what the brain constructs for him. The reality that is perceived by the scientist is that of a mouse frantically and to be fair comically is that of a mouse being fooled into poking his head into a hole.And to take the abstraction even little more is that for somebody the reality perceived by the scientist could be comical. Imagine two white coated scientists studiously and diligently observing a mouse putting into a hole for months all together.
Somewhat like The Matrix. So what actually constitutes reality is actually an illusion. I remember my venerable Econometrics professor (just the recall of the word 'econometrics' gives me the nightmares) telling us that a table may seem solid to the eyes, but the distance between two adjacent atoms in the wood is equivalent to a man standing alone in a large auditorium.
Marketing 101 states that perception is reality. Scores of marketeers have made their money by convincing 'gullible' consumers that this is the reality just by manipulating their perceptions. Lets take the example of whitening creams I find it reprehensible when I see icons like Shah Rukh Khan endorsing whitening creams. Whitening creams!!! Really!!!
Excess melanin was put into our body by evolution for people in tropical regions so that the harmful effects of Sun is mitigated. Lighter colored people abound in the colder and northern climes. And suddenly, that has become the in thing. Remember Afghan Snow? So now the reality being perpetrated is that it is not cool to be dark.
On a philosophical track, the Self or Ego identifies with the body. And that becomes reality. So to nurture the reality it attaches itself more strongly to the needs of the body. And that is what constitutes Maya. The path of the philosopher is to detach the Self from the body and perceive reality. Isnt it ironic that I use the words 'perceive' and 'reality' in the same sentence.
But then maybe we don't want reality. As the character Cipher says in The Matrix 'I know this steak is not real and the taste that I feel is just my brain fooling me, But I would rather be fooled'.
That would be manna from Heaven for all the marketers and spin doctors across the world and beyond!!!
 

Clarity of thought and Nations

Clarity of thought and single minded focus are clearly attributes that are necessary for making one an adept in whatever one does. In Kalaripayattu its called ekagrata . Eka means One and it signifies single minded focus. It is no more exemplified than in the Mahabharata story of Arjuna , his arrow and the eye of the toy parrot. In modern times, in a recent interview, Sachin Tendulkar stated that he batted best when his mind was blank and his only focus was on the ball. He found himself transported in the Zone. Many a sportperson has experienced that. So what is it do with nations?
So what drives the objectives of nations? I believe it stems from a core value system which drives the nation to first protect and then proselytise the others to adopt its ways of life. So to have  a core value system defined, one needs to have clarity of thought and the ability to articulate it unambiguously and the fortitude to ensure it is not violated.
I don't raise a candle for the USA but it is instructive to see how they pursue this clarity of thought. The bedrock of the so called "American way of life" is capitalism and the life blood of capitalism is commerce and the integral part of that is the stock market. Now if people were to lose their faith in the stock markets then the bedrock could turn out to be very rocky. So they ensure that an iconic figure like Rajat Gupta finds himself in the slammer for insider trading despite the work and pedigree he brought to the table.
The other bedrock is the right to expression. So much so , they have protected the right to burn the flag because they in their wisdom have defined the right to freedom as something much more relevant than burning a national symbol. I am not arguing over the right and wrong of it. All I am saying is that the nation has clarity on its core values and has the fortitude to pursue it and crush their adversary , be it another idea like communism or another person like bin Laden.
Now lets come back to India. If we believe the cliché that the three things that bind India are cricket, Bollywood and masala dosa, and in a manner of speaking is core to India or at least a subset of India, then why aren't we going the whole hog on this spot fixing fiasco.
Let me extend the logic further. What is the core value of India? If it is pluralism, then why doesn't the state machinery just come down like a ton of bricks on communal riots and bring the perpetrators to book. A child born in 1984 almost 30 years old. 7 persons have been convicted for the killing of 3000 people.
If it is commerce, and as a Western friend told me , we are a commerce driven nation, then why did we not go with our entire might on the attack on Mumbai, our commercial capital. Have we ever heard that so-and-so attack was an attack on our way of life.
Does it reflect our lack of clarity or are we intrinsically ambiguous? It drives the other country people ape when we say 1-2 days as a measure of accuracy for completing a task. Or is it convenient to be ambiguous considering the huge diversity that India has. One may argue that even the US is diverse but then the US has only a baggage of 300 years to contend with, notwithstanding the Native American genocide.
I don't know and the answer might lay somewhere in between. Alternately there might be no precise answer. Hey, you might say I am not exhibiting clarity or rather am exhibiting ambiguity. Then I am Indian. We are like that only!!!!

Tinker,Tailor,Soldier,Spy!!!

John Le Carre must have been a party pooper for sure. His stories were stark and dark. His characters had all the burden of life to bear with. His protagonist Smiley never smiled and his antagonist Karla did not either. In some ways, they were the proverbial twins separated at the clichéd Kumbh Mela. And they did not hold a candle to either Bond or Bourne. But the stories reflected the mundaneness of the spy world. Boring and inexorable with the occasional bouts of excitement. Why am I writing this? Because Sarabjeet Singh is no more. For a person whose freedom was fought for on humanitarian grounds, his death has transformed him into a martyr and a  patriot. Which leads me to believe that he was a spy who did what he could for his country. It reminds me of the famous lines from "The Charge of the Light Brigade"
  It is not for us to reason why
 It is for us to but do and die
From a human psychology stand point, it is quite intriguing to understand the psyche of a spy. The caveat being, I haven't met a real life spy. If I knew he was a spy, then I presume he would not have been a darned good one at that. I did meet somebody who said he ran spies. He was ex-military et al.
So my knowledge is restricted to what I read about them. I understand there are three motivations for a spy.
1. Money (They are mercenaries who prostitute state secrets for lure of the moolah)
2. Blackmail (caught in compromising positions, leverage is bought to bear to do the bidding)
3. Idealist

The third category is intriguing. For somebody to take huge risks in life due to a higher calling requires serious fortitude and conviction. Spies are not covered by the Geneva Convention and as such can be hanged. So in that sense, they are going into the danger zone with eyes wide open with no tempo songs playing in the background. And the reality is , if they are caught they are on their own with the country's establishment disavowing them. Unlike the US, which strongly believes in the dictum "No American left behind", India with its legendary bureaucracy sacrifices these  guys to the altar of expediency. The Brandenberg gate has been witness to lots of spy exchanges during the Cold War. In India, the only exchange that happens is that of homilies. Sarabjeet Singh is liberated from the façade he created for the sake of his country. The country should owe him a debt. And the debt is not to be repaid through 21 gun salute orchestrated by cynical politicians with an eye on the near polls. It has to be repaid by the country following the dictum "No Indian left behind". Realpolitik be damned!!! The spies of the third kind do it because somebody has to do it!!! The country should do it because it has to be done!!!

Star Wars, The Force and Ratan Theater

I was watching the television (and yes, I do watch Television a lot) and they were showing the Star Wars saga with all the six episodes slated to be shown. Star Wars has a special memory in my mind primarily because at heart I am a geek and no self respecting geek would not like the saga. Ask Leonard and Sheldon!!!! That and Star Trek on Doordarshan has evocative memories. I remember seeing Star Wars -The New Hope in the late 1970s at Sterling. My dad had taken me to this theatre in South Bombay(it was still Bombay then) for the night show and there was something new fangled called Dolby sound which to my 8-year old mind was as exotic as light sabres. I distinctly remember being awed (ok frightened) by this looming giant with a raspy voice who entered into the Hall of Villains as Darth Vader.  We then moved to Panvel which was then a village struggling with an identity crisis of whether it was village aspiring to be a town but pretending to be a city. There were two theatres in Panvel. One was Gyan theatre which specialized in showing movies to be mildly put , qualified as Dirty Pictures. And no National awards for these dirty pictures!!!!
 The other movie theatre was called Ratan theatre. It was nestled in a busy bylane of Old Panvel and was a landmark which in today's age sounds like an overkill to qualify as a landmark. But hey, even Bade Miya is a landmark and it just consists of a grill and umpteen wooden stools. Ratan theatre specialized in showing Hindi movies which appealed to the masses. For some unknown reason, the theatre started showing English movies on Sundays. And therein hangs a tale!!!
I used to cycle down to my beloved Barns School and on the way on a wall peppered with graffiti there was this slot for movies to be shown in Ratan theatre. And there I saw this movie poster called The Empire Strikes Back. My mother, obliging as ever and as only mothers can be, gave me 10 Rs for me and my brother to see this movie. And as a measure of luxury, I could buy balcony tickets. So in this theatre (with bedbugs et al) in this place called Panvel, I saw one of the all time classics.
Ratan theatre then hosted me for more classics like Modern Times, The Dirty Dozen and Guns of Navarone. I remember the Grindwell gang cycling to Ratan theatre to watch some movie. And then in the intermission , the mandatory message flashing that cycle thieves breed and multiply in the vicinity of the theatre. And we all rushing to ensure that the beloved cycles are safe and sound.
Then one day, the theatre stopped screening English films and then it just stopped screening films. But for that time it showed the classics, it was in a different time warp. And then I guess , the Force just dissipated!!!