Cacoethes Scribendi

2011-01-13T22:55:00.000-08:00

Cricket and the Arts

"What is Art?".
This is the provocative question posed by CLR James in his magnificent book Beyond the Boundary, widely regarded as the finest cricket book of all time. James attempts to answer this question in a manner which is much too elaborate to be summed up in a blogpost. Nevertheless, he unequivocally concludes that :

It (cricket) is a game and we have to compare it with other games. It is an art and we have to compare it with other arts.....Cricket is first and foremost a dramatic spectacle. It belongs with the theatre, ballet, opera and the dance

These lines intrigued me. Cricket is ofcourse a ball game. But is it fundamentally different from the other ball games? Are we justified in regarding cricket as being closer to the arts (the likes of theatre and literature) than other sports?

I attempt to partly answer these questions in this blog. To my mind, there is one chief characteristic that distinguishes all ball games from the arts:

Ball Games are invariably competitive, in that the performance of the sportsman is contingent on the opposition he is up against. Whereas, in most of the other conventional arts, the performance of the artist is nearly independent of practically everything else.

For instance, Pele scored 1,280 goals in his career over 1,363 games. That's an average of 0.94 goals per game. Suppose Pele had played all his football in the Indian leagues (which are distinctly less competitive), one would naturally expect that average to have been significantly higher (perhaps 1.5 or more).

On the other hand, our appraisal of an artist in the theatre or in the cinema is absolute and is hardly contingent on the prevailing competition or standards.

Now, let us examine the game of cricket. To what extent are performances in cricket dependent on the quality of the opposition? I believe that cricket is closer to the arts than other ball games in this respect. Cricketing feats, be it batting or bowling, are less sensitive to "opposition quality" than feats in soccer or rugby.

Does that sound counter-intuitive? On the surface, Yes. But not if one examines closely the records of great cricketers, past and present.

Let us start with bowling. Below, I have looked at the bowling averages of five great modern bowlers both in Tests and first-class cricket.

Mean Bowling Averages
	Tests	First-class
Shane Warne	25.41	26.11
Wasim Akram	23.62	21.64
Allan Donald	22.25	22.76
Glenn McGrath	21.64	20.85
Muthiah Muralitharan	22.72	19.64
Overall Average	23.13	22.2

It is quite clear that all five bowlers have very similar averages both in Test matches and in First-class cricket. Let us suppose a hypothetical bowling attack comprising these five bowlers. Given that their mean Test average is 23.13, we can expect an average Test-class batting lineup to score 231 runs (23.13 X 10) against this attack. Whereas, an average First-class batting lineup (presumably consisting of relatively inferior batsmen) can be expected to score 222 runs (22.2 X 10) against the same bowlers!

The learning is that the wicket taking ability of these five men is almost independent of the standard of cricket being played. It is quite unlikely that these bowlers are any deadlier in a First-class fixture than in a Test match. In fact, we can infer that the bowling average is very close to being a measure of the intrinsic wicket-taking worth of a bowler. A bowler's average is unlikely to change too much across eras and different playing standards.

What about batting then? Is the career batting average very sensitive to the quality of the bowling attacks faced? The answer is No. Below, I have a similar list contrasting the Test careers of several top modern batsmen with their First-class careers.

Mean Batting Averages
	Tests	First-class
Sachin Tendulkar	56.94	59.86
Brian Lara	52.88	51.88
Steve Waugh	51.06	51.94
Kumar Sangakkara	57.25	48.01
Kevin Pietersen	48.42	49.01

Again, we notice that a batsman is quite likely to have similar averages both in Tests and First-class games. In fact, it is quite common to observe cases where the first-class average is lower than the Test average since it is a lot harder to sustain a high batting average over a very large number of first-class fixtures.

I find these tables very revealing. They do suggest how very different cricket is from other ball games. Unlike most other games, performance in cricket is purely a function of the cricketer's inherent skill and not overly influenced by the playing standards of the opposition.

Which is why, it is possible to argue that a cricketer is closer in spirit to a ballet dancer or a movie star than to a soccer player or a rugby forward.

Also, cricket lends itself to comparisons across eras unlike other sports. No serious tennis buff would want to argue too strongly that Bill Tilden transported from the 1920s and equipped with modern raquets would be able to defeat Roger Federer today. The reason is that modern tennis players train harder and are more athletic than champions of yesteryear. In a very physical sport like tennis, training and "professionalism" matter a LOT.

Cricket, on the other hand, is different. Being a skill-based sport, it places less premium on training and athleticism than most other sports. Secondly, the nature of the game is such that it tests one's character as much as skill. If you're a batsman, it only takes one ball to get you out. This holds true regardless of whether it is a Test match at the MCG or a University game in New Delhi. It doesn't matter whether the cricketer in question is WG Grace in 1870 or Viru Sehwag in 2010. It only takes one ball to get you out!!

To my mind, that's the reason why standards in cricket unlike other ball games do not always improve with time. For instance, fast-bowling talent today is most definitely not as rich across the world as it was in the early 1980s. Similarly, the art of leg-spin in the 1970s was surely not as advanced or as prevalent as it was in the 1930s.

Like the other art forms, cricketing standards are subject to crests and troughs. In this regard, it is fundamentally different from most other sports where standards invariably improve with time.

Also, it is possible to think of a batsman or a bowler as an artist in isolation. It is also possible to measure a cricketer's worth by examining his numbers without bothering to consider the numbers of anyone else!

Cricket sure is a very unique game! A veritable art form? Well, very nearly!

2010-11-27T03:04:00.000-08:00

On Risk, Return and Batsmanship

In Finance, one of the cardinal sins is to undertake an investment decision without assessing the forecasted return in the context of the risk exposure. Risk and Return are inextricably linked. I'd rather have my money earn 3.5% in the Savings account if an alternative market investment promises a 10% return with a standard deviation of 50%!

A common metric often employed to evaluate portfolio performance is the Sharpe Ratio, which is basically the premium return that is offered by an investment for each unit of risk undertaken. No wonder "risk-adjusted return" is a hackneyed phrase one hears from portfolio managers.

How is all this related to Test Match Batsmanship? Very closely related as we shall see.

Batsmen in Test Matches are often judged on the basis of their "batting average". An average of 50+ is usually regarded as outstanding and is often the figure that most Test batsmen aspire for. Ofcourse, one needs considerable skill to maintain an average of over 50. But more than skill, I think the key is to understand risk-return dynamics well.

There are two components to the batting average that ought to be understood if one wishes to optimize it:

Component A : Time Spent in the Middle i.e the No of balls that one lasts on an average per innings

Component B : The ability to force the pace while in the Middle. This component is better known as "Strike rate" i.e the No of runs that one scores per 100 balls faced.

Batting Average = F(Component A, Component B)

Sounds too obvious, yes. But this is not exactly a simple plain-vanilla two-variable function. What's often overlooked by batsmen and cricket pundits is that A and B are not independent variables. A is a function of B and vice-versa.

In fact, the two components influence each other negatively. Typically, a batsman with a high strike rate spends less time in the middle, because of the risks involved in trying to force the pace. Similarly, a batsman who bats for long periods of time tends to have a lower strike rate, for reasons that are obvious.

So what should one do to optimize the Batting Average? Should the batsman adopt a risk-averse style by concentrating only on putting away the rank bad ball and defending the rest? The likes of Hutton, Gavaskar and Dravid have achieved great Test records by optimising Component A, without overly worrying about Component B. Nevertheless, for every Gavaskar, there are a dozen other fine technicians who couldn't reach the magic figure of 50 despite their excellence at Component A. Geoff Boycott is a name that readily springs to mind.

There are others who have Test records just as enviable as those of a Gavaskar or a Dravid thanks to their extraordinary strike rates. Viru Sehwag is an obvious example. Here's a guy who is a very limited batsman in many ways, with serious technical deficiencies against the short rising ball. A guy who lasts only 64 balls each time he comes in to bat (that's probably about half the number of balls per innings faced by someone like Gavaskar). And yet, he has a brilliant batting average of 54, significantly better than Gavaskar's 51!! The secret of his success is that he manages to maintain a strike-rate of 80 and yet lasts 64 balls per innings!

There have been several daredevil strokeplayers in the past who have graced the game of cricket. Think Gilbert Jessop, Kris Srikkanth and more recently Shahid Afridi. All of them had batting averages significantly below 40. This is because their high-risk approach to the game significantly reduced their average duration at the crease.

The reason why Sehwag is such a great treasure is not because he is a great strokemaker (there have been several such players in the past) or a great technician (which is hardly the case). Sehwag's greatness lies in his ability to understand the dynamics of risk and return. He is able to play his normal game without taking undue risks that were the bane of players like Afridi or Yuvraj Singh.

It is vital for batsmen around the world to grasp the importance of maximising risk-adjusted returns. The tradeoff between risk and return may vary among batsmen depending on their skill level. Yet, the magnitude of the tradeoff can be minimised only if you are aware of the tradeoff in the first place!

Take Dravid for instance. The man averages a fantastic 53 with a strike rate of about 42 per 100 balls faced. He roughly faces 110 balls each time he visits the crease in a Test match. I'd like to argue that he has not consciously thought about the tradeoff during his career. For a batsman of his ability, the tradeoff between strike-rate and duration at the crease shouldn't be too large.

Mathematically, the tradeoff can be stated as shown below :

d(No of Balls per innings)/d(Strike Rate) <= 0

The objective should be to minimise the absolute value of the above differential!
Cutting down the aerial strokes to the extent possible and running well between the wickets are some of the ways of achieving this objective.

Let us suppose Dravid had been a little more aggressive during his Test career and maintained a strike-rate of 50 instead of 42. This might have reduced his "No of balls per innings" figure from 110 to perhaps 100. Nevertheless, it is a great trade-off. His hypothetical batting average in this case is 56.5, a good three runs higher than his current average! (Note: I'm assuming the same no of "Not out" innings as before)

The man widely regarded as the greatest batsman in Test history is ofcourse Sir Donald Bradman. People often have endless debates on what made him so special. The Don was a somewhat frail man with poor eyesight. In fact, he came perilously close to losing his life on account of poor health during his career. By most accounts, he wasn't a particularly "correct" batsman, with a very unusual grip and a notorious tendency to play across the line. Yet, he averaged 99.94 in Tests and more astonishingly 95.14 in all first-class cricket!

The secret to his success is that like Sehwag, he understood the risk-return tradeoff probably better than most people. No wonder he was a professional stock-broker off the field. The Don managed to maintain a strike-rate of 60 in Test matches (astonishingly high back in the thirties) and lasted about 145 balls per innings.

The figure of 145 is not as exceptional as his batting average. It's still probably better than the Component A of most other batsmen in Test history. But I'm sure there are several bastsmen who are running him close. What made him special was his ability to score at a strike rate as high as 60 without compromising on the time spent in the middle.

I know this post may sound a tad too obvious to a lot of people. But I think it bears repeating. The Risk-return tradeoff is something we're all aware of, yet we don't always consciously think of optimising it in the daily business of life!

2010-11-20T06:15:00.000-08:00

Ranji - the most underrated cricketer of all time?

The name Ranji immediately conjures up a smallish brown man of royal lineage who lit up the English cricket fields with his brilliantly unorthodox strokeplay about a hundred and ten years ago. He is widely regarded as one of the game's great early innovators and a very popular cricketer in England at the turn of the century.

But pundits don't normally invoke Ranji seriously while discussing all-time greats. Recently, Cricinfo picked an "All-Time XI" for each of the major international Test playing countries. I was flabbergasted to learn that Ranji was not even nominated as a middle-order choice for the All-Time England XI!!

English cricket lovers are not exactly known for their ahistoricism, unlike Indian fans who tend to focus on the here and now. It is very hard to find any English cricket writer who hasn't turned in a few lines on the likes of WG Grace, Sidney Barnes, Gilbert Jessop, Jack Hobbs among others. In fact, Wisden went to the extent of picking Hobbs as one of the five greatest cricketers of the Twentieth century!

Being an Indian with a fair share of interest in English cricket, I wondered - Where does Ranji rank in the pantheon of great English cricketers? Is he widely known today primarily on account of his exotic Indian origin? Are we guilty of overrating his stature in the context of English cricket history? After all, he was the first person of colour to play Test match cricket.

I turned to Cricinfo Statsguru to better understand Ranji in terms of hard numbers. The idea was to move beyond the romantic prose penned by the cricket writers of his time and judge the man using figures alone.

What one discovers is a true cricketing colossus!

Here is a man who played First class cricket in England for 25 years spanning from 1895 to 1920. A man who scored nearly 25,000 First class runs at an average of 56.37!! (yes, you read that right) These figures are very impressive even by today's English first class standards, notwithstanding the fact that English pitches in Ranji's time were a lot livelier by most accounts, even when unaffected by rain. Just to put that average into perspective, Graeme Hick, the most prolific English first class batsman of the past 20 years averages 52.

During his time, Ranji played Test match cricket with/against names like Grace, Trumper, Jessop, Fry and Hobbs among others. All these guys represented the cream of talent the world had on offer during that period. How does Ranji compare with each of them?

I must say Ranji trumps them all going by the first class averages. In fact, he is miles ahead of the rest.

First-class Averages of Ranji and his Contemporaries
Ranji	56.37
Jack Hobbs	50.70
CB Fry	50.22
Charles MaCartney	45.78
Vic Trumper	44.57
Clem Hill	43.57
Frank Woolley	40.77
WG Grace	39.45
Archie MacLaren	34.15
Gilbert Jessop	32.63

It is a very revealing table! Ranji is about 6 runs ahead of the next best batsman. That's a really huge margin. The most striking revelation is that Ranji averaged a good 17 runs more than the great WG in his First class career and about 12 runs more than the celebrated Australian legend - Vic Trumper.

The two guys who approach him in consistency are Jack Hobbs and CB Fry. However, Hobbs scored the bulk of his runs post WW-I during the twenties, when batting became a lot easier thanks to the improved pitches of the time. It is quite likely that Hobbs averaged well below 50 if one considers only his pre WW-I record. CB Fry had an outstanding First class record, but disappointed in Test cricket with an average of barely 32.

How does Ranji rank among all the great first-class cricketers of the past 150 years?
To attempt an answer to this question, I looked at the top 10 batsmen with the highest first-class averages in cricket history (with a minimum run aggregate of atleast 20,000 runs). Ranji ranks sixth in this list.

Highest First-class Averages of all Time (Qual.criteria : 20,000 runs)
Don Bradman	95.14
Sachin Tendulkar	59.63
Darren Lehmann	57.83
Geoff Boycott	56.83
Ricky Ponting	56.73
Ranji	56.37
Bob Simpson	56.22
Wally Hammond	56.10
Rahul Dravid	55.89
Len Hutton	55.81

Ranji is the only person on this list who made his first-class debut prior to 1920. In fact, he played nearly all his cricket before World War I. Now that was an era when an average of 35-40 used to be regarded as a very good record in first-class cricket.

I think these tables ought to be better known. Ranji was so much more than a mystical Oriental talent who played unorthodox strokes. He was, without doubt, the foremost batsman of his generation. In fact, it can be argued that Ranji was the most dominant and consistent batsman the world had seen until Bradman came along in the thirties.

Surely it's a career that deserves more recognition by cricket historians and greater mindshare among cricket fans (especially English cricket fans)!

2010-11-06T20:32:00.000-07:00

On Income "Inequality"

I stumbled upon an article lately on my Google Reader feed that ranted somewhat predictably about how income "inequality" has risen significantly in the United States and how the middle class in the US has stagnated over the past 2-3 decades. Here's the link

It is a very provocative article as most poorly reasoned articles are. The worst part of it is that the author attempts to place the blame for "inequality of incomes" on Corporate America without rhyme or reason. In this post, I ponder on the possible reasons for stagnation of middle-class incomes. There are several of them and the most obvious ones have nothing to do with Corporate America or conservative economic policies.

Let's look at certain portions of the article that are worthy of repudiation.

globalization's significant profits were captured by a small corporate elite in the U.S. and a new corporate elite and rising middle class in China and India. The American middle class got very little of it. No wonder people are mad.......Americans accept income and wealth inequality to a much larger degree than Europe........... Looking at the stats on inequality gives us an idea of why so many are angry at the business elite — it's the highest since the 20's and getting worse

Okay. So the moot point is that while incomes have soared in the top bracket, the "median" income of the "representative" Middle American has stagnated over the last few decades notwithstanding the outstanding economic growth during the same period.
I checked up the income stats on wikipedia and it appears that this contention is quite compelling on the surface.

Sluggish Growth in Median American Incomes
Data	2003	1979
Median (50th)	$43,318	$38,649
95th percentile	$154,120	$111,445

We observe that while the 95th %ile income has risen by nearly 40% between 1979 and 2003, the median incomes have remained quite stagnant. On the surface, this might seem like an indictment of Reagan era deregulation and the increasing preponderance of economic conservatism in the US since the late seventies.

But there are several problems with this story.
Think about Individuals and not some mythical "Middle American" : Anybody with an iota of sense can readily see that the 50th %iler who earned a median income of $38,649 in 1979 is not necessarily from the same household as the 50th %iler who earned $43,318 in 2003. It is quite possible that someone who was at 50th %ile in 1979 now has a gainfully employed son who is closer to the 80th %ile on the income distribution curve.

The American Middle class has changed in constitution since the late seventies. Several households have moved up the economic ladder as one would expect in any society bustling with private economic activity. Then, the natural question is that if most households have been upwardly mobile over the past three decades, why have median incomes remained stagnant?? The answer could well be immigration.

Immigration likely to push down median Incomes: A lot of people emigrate to the US with the hope of working their way out of poverty in their native lands and entering the "middle class". These immigrants are often unskilled and poorly educated and hence unlikely to land up with jobs that fetch them more than the median US income.

Households that have immigrated in the eighties and nineties did not feature in the dataset that generated a median income of $38,649 in 1979. Which is why it is highly irregular and inappropriate to compare two very distinct datasets from 1979 and 2003 and make sweeping statements about stagnant "middle class" incomes in the country.

So, does that mean the US should place restriction on immigration to help solve this "problem" of seeming income inequality? No. Reducing inequality of incomes should never be an end in itself. Most recent immigrants to US earning less than the median income are quite happy with their adopted country and wouldn't want to return to their roots. Take for instance a waiter in an ethnic Indian restaurant in NYC (Saravana Bhavan for eg). The guy probably earns $20,000 in his present role which perhaps places him at the 40th %ile on the income distribution curve. It is quite likely that percentile-wise he was much better off in his native country, prior to immigration (given that median income in India is barely $500 p.a). Yet, immigration makes sense for this guy as he is better off being a 40th %iler in NYC than an 80th %iler in Trichy, TN.

The Tamil waiter's immigration to US has contributed to a drop in the median American income. Nevertheless, it is welcome as the waiter's immigration was a personal preference and leaves him better off than he otherwise would've been in his native town.

"Inequality" could be an outcome of personal choices : Let's consider Bob, a successful corporate executive of yesteryear who used to earn the equivalent of $300,000 back in 1979. He has a daughter - Alice who has led a rather comfortable life thanks to her father's affluence. Unlike her father, Alice has little aptitude for business. She has always evinced keen interest in Native American history and wants to specialize in the same and eventually end up as a professor of Native American history in one of the eastern colleges. Alice is 30 years old now in 2003 and is well settled in a Boston college enjoying her role thoroughly. Her annual income is in the vicinity of $50,000, not even one-fifth of what her father used to earn in 1979!!

Is this an instance of downward intergenerational mobility? Yes. Nevertheless, it is an outcome of personal preferences and shouldn't be bemoaned. Alice is less well off than her parents in terms of monthly cash-flow. But she loves her job and probably enjoys more leisure than her father ever did in all his working life!

This little story emphasises an important point that's often overlooked by liberals who bemoan income inequality :

"It is quite likely that the 50th %iler enjoys more leisure and leads a less stressful life than the 95th %iler!"

Distribution of Leisure fairer in recent decades : Back in 1900, the distribution of Leisure was terribly unfair in the Western world. The rich were not just wealthy in terms of cash but also leisure, with little accountability. The workers who slogged 18 hours a day in unwholesome sweatshops, had neither the income nor the leisure to compensate for the lack of income.

Today, the distribution of leisure is distinctly fairer. The clerk in a Federal office may languish at the 50th %ile of the income curve, but he is quite probably placed much better (perhaps 90th %ile+) on the leisure distribution curve! The corporate executives of today enjoy far less leisure and peace of mind than the landed gentry who constituted the affluent class in the 19th century.
Disclaimer : This is only a hypothesis. But I do wish someone undertakes a study that examines how the distribution of leisure has shifted over the past 100 years in favour of the lower income groups.

Writers in the press who talk about rising income inequality in America seldom think about the points discussed in this post because of their obsession with aggregate nation-wide statistics and an indifference to what the statistics actually mean in the context of average individuals and households. Which is why we keep reading pieces where "pundits" use statistics such as the ones used in this post to launch a tirade on outsourcing and corporate executive compensation.

Inequality of outcomes need not necessarily always be a plot hatched by Wall Street wolves or neo-conservative policy makers. People who think so misunderstand not just economics but also human nature. Economics is a social science that concerns real people gifted with a free will. To reduce these people to a statistical abstraction is not just downright unfair, but bad science.

2010-10-30T22:46:00.000-07:00

Puncturing Inflated Legends

Here's another cricket post!
I've been spending a lot of time on Cricinfo lately, where they've been busy compiling All Time XIs. These exercises are fun as they help you put the performances of current players into proper perspective by sparing some time to objectively judge bygone careers which are not fresh in the memory of the cricket watcher.

The passage of time often dims our memory of past players, to the extent that we're very unlikely to appraise them on their merits. Certain cricketers are unfairly forgotten as the years roll by since their once-impressive career records achieved under more challenging circumstances appear less flashy today - an era which has generally been kinder to batsmen. Certain other past cricketers are more fortunate. They end up occupying disproportionate mindshare thanks to legends that inflate with time!

This post concerns a cricketer of the latter kind - a top-class opening bat of his time who has gathered a somewhat undeserved reputation as one of the greatest batsmen of all time thanks to poorly remembered legends. Sunil Gavaskar.

Gavaskar's inflated reputation rests on his seemingly outstanding record against the premier team of his era which possessed a four-pronged pace attack - the West Indies. He averaged about 65 runs per test innings against them with 13 Hundreds! Seven of them in the West Indies. I encountered these stats about a decade back when my obsession with cricket was far greater than it is today and I was busy devouring any form of cricket literature.

My initial reaction was awe, but it was soon tinged with doubt and scepticism. Something was amiss I wondered. I didn't think it was quite likely for anybody to make that many big scores against an attack consisting of Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Joel Garner and Malcolm Marshall.

Thanks to Cricinfo Statsguru, I now discover that my doubts were well founded. Gavaskar played six Test series in all against the West Indies. Here's a summary of his performance in each of them.

Average
1970/71 in West Indies	154.8
1974/75 in India	27
1975/76 in West Indies	55.7
1978/79 in India	91.5
1982/83 in West Indies	30
1983/84 in India	50.5

Very Impressive on first sight. But distinctly less impressive if someone actually bothers to visit the scorecards!
Let's briefly examine what Gavaskar had to contend with in each of these series.

1970/71 : This was Gavaskar's debut series. Probably the most outstanding series return for any batsman making his debut, in the history of Test cricket. The West Indian team he was up against was far from formidable. It was a team in transition captained by an ageing Sobers. The bowling attack was composed of Vanburn Holder (career bowling avg : 33.27), Shillingford (avg : 35.8), Noreiga (avg: 29.0) and Sobers himself (avg : 34.03).

The era of Roberts, Holding and Co was still 3-4 years away. I know it might sound a little churlish to grudge Gavaskar his accolades. Averaging 150+ over 4 games is an achievement in any form of the game, be it Tests or club cricket, especially for a 22 year old batsman. However, it is quite unlikely that Gavaskar on debut would've achieved similar results against the West Indian attack of the early eighties!

1974/75: Gavaskar only played in two of the five test matches owing to injury. And he wasn't particularly successful against an attack spearheaded by the great Andy Roberts in the two test matches that he did play in. Note : West Indies was still some distance away from their era of fast bowling glory. Roberts had already announced himself. But the rest of the quartet were yet to make their test debuts. Gavaskar's friend and brother-in-law GR Viswanath was a lot more successful against Roberts in this series winning two test matches almost single-handedly at Kolkata and Chennai.

1975/76 : Gavaskar did well in this series with two hundreds, including a match winning knock enabling India chase a 400+ target on the fifth day! Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that the record chase was achieved against an attack that was somewhat mediocre barring Michael Holding. The rest of the attack included B.Julien (avg: 37), AL Padmore (avg: 135), Imtiaz Ali (avg: 44.5) and R.Jumadeen(avg: 39.3). That's the kind of attack against which even a flat-track bully like Yuvraj Singh will fancy his chances.

1978/79 : Now, this was a rewarding home series for Sunny in which he harvested four hundreds! But, mind you, this was against a weakened West Indian touring party thanks to Kerry Packer! I grant that the great Malcolm Marshall was around. But hang on. This was his debut series!
The other bowlers whom Gavaskar flayed round the park were ST Clarke (avg: 28), N Philip (avg: 37) and Vanburn Holder (avg: 33). Hardly terrors on subcontinental pitches.

1982-83: Ah. Now, for the first time, Sunny Gavaskar was pitted against a full strength West Indian attack in the West Indies, with Holding, Roberts, Garner and Marshall operating simultaneously. Sunny averaged a paltry 30 over five tests.

1983/84: Here, I must give credit where it is due. He was up against some very formidable bowlers. Holding, Roberts and Marshall. Sunny acquitted himself well with a healthy average of 50, including an unbeaten 236* at Chennai in the final test. Nevertheless, the average of 50 looks flattering thanks to that unbeaten double century.

Sunil Gavaskar was one of the great Indian batsmen. Arguably the finest Indian bat of his generation. But his record against the WI is made to look more brilliant than it actually is thanks to some pretty easy pickings against weakened Carribean attacks on flat pitches.

His record against the full-strength West Indian attack of the early eighties is somewhat sketchy, not necessarily better than that of other great players of that generation against the same attack.

And yet, I invariably find pundits of all hues championing Gavaskar as one of the top 2-3 opening batsmen in the history of Test cricket! That may not be an altogether unreasonable claim, given that the guy scored over 10,000 Test runs and lasted nearly two decades at the highest level. But it is definitely not very easy to sustain that claim based solely on his record against the West Indies!

2010-10-10T01:30:00.000-07:00

Play back or Drive

The ongoing India-Australia Test series has marked my resumption of Test match viewing, after having practically lost all interest in the game over the past 4-5 years.

This post was prompted by Michael Clarke's soft dismissal by Harbhajan in the first innings of the Bangalore Test yesterday.

One of the most ungainly features of modern batsmanship is the almost instinctive lunge forward while defending a slow bowler. To my mind, it seems like a nothing shot. The forward lurch does not necessarily get you to the pitch of the ball. Also, it deprives you of the extra instant of time to judge the delivery.

The key to playing spin bowling well is to use your feet to reduce the element of uncertainty. There are two ways in which one can meet that objective -

By getting to the pitch of the ball
In which case it does not really matter how much spin the bowler has imparted to it.

By playing back!
When in doubt, one must always play back. If it isn't possible to get to the pitch of the ball, the batsman must always play late which helps him buy an extra second to examine the extent of deviation off the pitch.

By lurching forward, you're only making an offer of a bat-pad dismissal every ball!
And yet, this most ungainly of strokes has been inexplicably popular across the world for as long as I can remember. I wonder if there was ever a time in cricket history when the forward defensive was not in fashion!

And yes. It is particularly disappointing when batsmen of the calibre of Ponting and Clarke commit batting suicide by lurching forward.

These thoughts made me scour the net for similar polemics against the "forward defensive". Here's a video clipping of Don Bradman's defensive play in one of the 1938 Ashes tests. Check out the section from 1:45mins to 2:05 mins. What struck me was that the guy does not show any inclination to lunge forward. Instead, he plays back as a rule even if the delivery is not exactly short in length. No wonder he seldom got out caught at forward short-leg or silly point.

I thought it was a very good demonstration of how to defend against slow bowlers.

2010-05-29T21:35:00.000-07:00

On why our bank deposits earn even less income than a Risk-free Government bond

This was a question that had been vexing me for quite a while. My savings deposit earns an interest of 3.5% a year. Whereas, the 90 day Government bill issued by the Indian Government earns about 5% p.a currently.

Shouldn't my salary account at a risk-ridden private bank yield me an income that atleast exceeds what can be earned by holding a "risk-free" 3 month government security?

Irving Fisher, the American Economist of the early 20th century, provides the answer in his opening chapter of The Theory of Interest published in 1930.

While any exact and practical definition of a pure rate of interest is impossible, we may say roughly that the pure rate is the rate on loans which are practically devoid of chance. In particular, there are two chances which should thus be eliminated. One tends to raise the rate, namely the chance of default. The other tends to lower it, namely, the chance to use the security as a substitute for ready cash. In short, we thus rule out, on the one hand, all risky loans, and on the other, all bank deposits, subject to withdrawal on demand, even if accorded some interest...

Reading this unpretentious prose is a bit like being present at the invention of something new - like the discovery of fire or the invention of the wheel. I love the way he uses the term "pure" instead of the cliched modern phrase "risk-free". Also, I love the very broad-minded definition of the term "chance". Back in B-school, we invariably used to think of sigma (the standard deviation of cash flows) when the word "chance" was mentioned. Fisher is delightfully free from all the jargon conventions that bind us.

Most importantly, he manages to answer the question posed in the beginning of the post. There is some merit in reading 80 year old classics once in a while

2010-04-11T05:27:00.000-07:00

On how malleable "economic" Theories can be

Back in business school, I was told that the spread of any interest rate over the "risk-free" short term government bill rate is a function of maturity risk, liquidity risk and default risk among other things. So, the higher the spread of the longer term Government bond rate, the greater the perceived uncertainty of the government's finances in the long run. Let's call this Theory A.

Theory B: At the same school, I was also told that longer term interest rates can be interpreted as the function of the market's expectations of short term interest rates in the future. For instance, one can think of the two year bond yield as the product of the current short term Fed rate and the market's expectation of the short term Fed rate one year hence.

I didn't note the contradiction between these two points of view back then. It all seemed very sober and scientific in the classroom. But now, I often wonder if these were political theories after all, masquerading as science.

The recent blog debate starring Megan McArdle of The Atlantic and Paul Krugman is particularly interesting. Here is the chart that spurred the debate (courtesy Steve Waldman). It shows that the spread of the 30 year/10 year bond yield over the 3 month "risk-free" rate has widened since the recession. Also, the spread is not showing signs of decline even after the recession subsided mid last year.

Megan is worried about this and interprets the trend as a sign of the market pricing in the perceived default risk posed by the US government. Like a good conservative Republican, she thinks this ought to be a warning to the government to stem the deficit and stop adding to the burgeoning public debt. I guess it is very clear that she subscribes strongly to Theory A.

Paul Krugman of the NY Times responded in typical fashion. Quite predictably, he said that Megan was all confused about yield curve basics. The long term bond yield remains high because the market expects short term interest rates to go up in future. Now, we all know that short term rates generally go up only if the Fed perceives improved economic times ahead. So Krugman is in effect saying - Don't worry about the yield spread. It is mostly good news!
Now, this is the classic Market expectations theory which we labeled Theory B earlier in the post.

The question is - which theory holds water? Krugman makes his theory sound more plausible, which is no surprise given his considerable verbal skills. But is he right? Can we be altogether sure that the long term rate is purely a function of future market expectations? If that's true, what about the default risk premia, liquidity risk premia and maturity risk premia that I read so much about in FM-1?

I'd like to believe that all these "theories" are political beliefs in the main. A liberal like Krugman who is so sceptical of Fama's efficient market theory and Lucas' rational expectations hypothesis is so willing to buy the prowess of the same inefficient market in predicting future Fed actions! It is convenient because the "market expectations" interpretation of the yield curve helps him shrug off critics who cavil at government spending and the huge debt burden by saying "Look...the bond market isn't particularly worried about the debt. Why bother!"

Similarly, the conservative Megan does not buy Theory B in the context of government bond market, but is quite likely to buy the not too dissimilar rational expectations theory which helps her make a case against expansionary government policy.

It's all so very politically convenient.

2010-01-29T23:14:00.000-08:00

On the Misjudgment of Probabilities

A somewhat rambling, indulgent post. I'm writing a blogpost after quite a while which may account for the rather stodgy turns of phrase.

Finished reading Nassim Taleb's bestsellers Fooled by Randomness and Black Swan lately. One among the several insights in the books is that in the real world, it is difficult to assess the degree of uncertainty as risks are not easily computable. The tools of Probability theory come in mighty handy to help compute odds in controlled environments like a casino. But they are of little use once we step out of such regulated environs.

Also, even when we are in a position to reliably compute the odds, we do not consciously use the odds while taking decisions.

Suppose an insurance salesman presents you with two policies.

- Death on account of a terrorist strike
Covered Amount: $50,000
Annual Premium: $50(for 5 years)

- Death on account of any cause
Covered Amount: $50,000
Annual Premium: $2500(for 5 years)

Now, I find Policy A just as attractive as Policy B if not even better. Yes, we would all expect the premium on a special-case death policy to be a lot lower than a "normal" life insurance policy.
A premium of $50 as opposed to $2500 seems fair enough as it appears to account for the relative rarity of a death on account of a terrorist strike.

However, though a ratio of 1/50 ($50/$2500) sounds very good, Policy A is terribly overpriced! (I'm assuming ofcourse that Policy B is reasonably priced)

Death on account of a terrorist strike is an extremely rare event. Surely, fewer than one in fifty deaths is caused due to a terrorist strike. Even if Policy A were priced at $10, I'd still regard it as overpriced!

This reminded me of the law trial in the memorable Otto Preminger classic - Angel Face starring Robert Mitchum and Jean Simmons (who passed away last week) that I watched the other day on DVD. A 20 year old girl kills her step mother by tampering with the gear and break system of the latter's convertible. She succeeds quite spectacularly in her attempt as her victim hurtles to her death along with the vehicle which falls off a cliff.

In the trial that ensues, the ruins of the vehicle are examined. An automobile engineer concludes that the gear shaft was manipulated. The defence lawyer asks whether the gear shaft may have reached its present position due to the impact of the fall. The engineer replies that it is a one in a million event. The shrewd lawyer rejoins - why not one in a thousand? or even one in ten!

So now the case rests on the jury's assessment of probabilities. The higher the likelihood of the gear shaft reaching its present position during the fall, the better the chance of the step daughter getting acquitted. Here's a case where there is no way one can judge the likelihood of the event, no matter how sophisticated you are in your knowledge of statistics and probability. Juries tend to play safe in scenarios like these (i.e over-estimate the likelihood of the rare event) and let the criminal go scot-free.

PS: Jean Simmons does get acquitted in the movie, somewhat predictably.
I've seldom seen a mainstream Hollywood movie demonstrate our inability to come to terms with randomness. Angel Face is an honourable exception.

2009-08-28T23:04:00.001-07:00

Changing Social Equations : Witnessed through the prism of movies

I've always felt that motion pictures are much more representative of a society's collective impulses than any other art form. It is possible for a novelist or a painter to construct an alternative universe of his own and create works of art that can exist in isolation in any era independent of the social milieu that surrounds them. The art of cinema is fundamentally different. Being a mass medium, movies must be able to relate to the impulses of the audience if they have to succeed. Most movies are products of the times in which they are made, unlike a lot of great books. Frank Capra's films are products of the thirties Depression Era. Woody Allen's pictures on the other hand are influenced by the counterculture of the sixties and seventies. Either of them couldn't have succeeded in the other person's era.

Literature is quite different in this respect. It is a lot easier to associate the attribute of 'timelessness' with books than it is with movies. Take for instance the fictional world of the incomparable PG Wodehouse. He created a universe inhabited by absentminded earls, erudite butlers and wealthy nincompoops which hardly had any basis in reality. The books of Wodehouse found a niche market which exists even today, though the 'Edwardian' utopia found in his books is not to be found anywhere on earth.

Which is why I feel that studying the history of motion pictures can provide a great deal of insight into how the society has evolved over the decades. Having watched countless Hollywood classics over the past year or so, I was drawn towards how the treatment of coloured people on the big screen has changed so dramatically in the course of movie history.

The earlist movie I've seen is DW Griffith's Birth of a Nation released in 1915, a three hour period saga of how two white families cope with the consequences of the American Civil War. The movie was notorious even then for its blatant depiction of blacks in a negative light and its glorification of the Ku Klux Klan. What's more interesting to me is that Griffith employed white actors with faces painted black to play Negroes in the film! And yes. This movie was a major worldwide blockbuster the year it was released. It couldn't have been made in 2009!

Things got a little better in the 30s and 40s, with black character actors like Rex Ingram and Hattie McDaniel getting meaty roles in A-films. Yet, their characters were invariably maids or butlers. It was still quite unthinkable for a mainstream Hollywood film to accept a black leading man or a leading woman. I find Alexander Korda's delightful 1940 Arabian fantasy - The Thief of Bagdad most significant in this respect. It is one of the earlist films that I know of to feature a coloured boy in the leading role. The actor was a teenage son of a mahout in Mysore who was transported to England to play in several British adventure films, the best of which is The Thief of Bagdad.

However, it was still anathema to both movie-goers and movie makers to have a coloured actor as the romantic male lead. The emergence of Sidney Poitier in the sixties was to change that. Remember, we are in the sixties now. The decade of Martin Luther King & Malcolm X, the Beatles & The Vietnam War. The audiences could finally digest the prospect of Poitier, a Bahaman negro, dating and *gasp* marrying a white girl in the family drama Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. The movie may seem too cutesy and sentimental to modern audiences. But it must have made powerful viewing in 1967, amidst all the cultural upheavals of that decade. The success of Poitier in the sixties seems so timely and inevitable. Poitier couldn't have become a star in the thirties. He may have ended up specializing in butler roles instead. He wouldn't have been such a big deal in the nineties either. His stardom had a lot to do with being in the right place at the right time with the right complexion.

Which brings me to a movie that I happened to see recently. The Taking of Pelham123 starring Denzel Washington and John Travolta, two ageing actors lending some star power to an otherwise forgettable movie. Having been weaned on movies from Hollywood's Golden Age (1930-1960), I was extremely surprised that none of the characters drew attention to the fact that Washington is black in the course of the film. Not even a single oblique reference! It was almost as though the colour of his skin was totally immaterial to everyone around him. This would have been unthinkable in a Poitier movie! No wonder America is ready for a black President.

The critic David Thomson wrote that the "history of American movies is the history of America in the time of the movies". Very true. I couldn't agree more.

2008-11-15T23:44:00.000-08:00

On Ganguly's Legacy and the "Great Man" theory of Leadership

Saurav Ganguly's retirement from international cricket spawned many finely written tributes, most of which emphasized his role as a Lutheran figure who transformed Indian cricketers from a bunch of designer track bullies to the world's second best team. Apparently it was he more than anybody else who made the Indian team believe that it could win abroad on a regular basis.

These claims are backed by facts that are very impressive on the surface. 15 of India's 31 overseas test triumphs have been in this decade. Writers who subscribe to the "Great Man" theory of Leadership believe that great leaders arise when there is a great need. The emergence of the leader in Ganguly happened at a time when Indian cricket was at its lowest ebb what with the 3-0 loss to Steve Waugh's Australia and the implication of certain players in the match fixing controversy. Since Ganguly's appointment as captain coincided with the reversal of India's abysmal cricketing fortunes, the "Great Man" theory dictates that he be hailed as a "great" captain. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

A closer examination of Indian cricket history reveals that the "Great Man" theory exaggerates Ganguly's legacy a great deal. It was just over two decades ago that the Indian cricket team was a fairly formidable force both at home and abroad. In a span of 10 months in 1985-86, India won three overseas test series against SriLanka, Australia and England rather comfortably. At that point India was probably the second best team in the world after West Indies. The key to their success was balance. A great opener in Sunil Gavaskar, a strong middle order with Vengsarkar, Amarnath and Azharuddin, a hard hitting allrounder in Kapil Dev and a very well balanced bowling attack led by Kapil again. Things began to fall apart in the late eighties with the retirements of most of the stalwarts in this team. By the early nineties, only Azhar remained and the batting replacements for the rest simply weren't good enough, with the sole glorious exception of Tendulkar.

So, between 1989 and 1996, the Indian side was a very indifferent one, heavily reliant on one man Sachin Tendulkar to put the runs on the board everytime it toured abroad. No wonder we won zilch outside the subcontinent during that period. 1996 was a transformational year. Three very good batsmen debuted for India that year - Dravid, Ganguly and Laxman. They filled a gap that had remained ever since the retirements of the batting bulwarks in the eighties. Indian performances outside the subcontinent improved remarkably from that year onwards.

Now, the natural question would be - why did the Indian team win so little abroad between 1996 and 1999 despite the much improved batting order? Why didn't we start winning until Ganguly took over captaincy? I attribute that mainly to chance more than anything else. We should have won in England in 1996 when we were clearly the better side after the first test loss (Dravid and Ganguly did not play in the first test). We were up against a very strong SA side in 1996 (possibly the best eleven South Africa ever assembled since its return post apartheid) and yet we nearly managed to win the third test at Johannesburg. We were very unlucky with the umpiring decisions in Australia in 1999. The series was nowhere near as one-sided as the 3-0 scorecard suggests.

Now, let's examine Indian overseas results after Ganguly took over captaincy. 7 of the 15 wins overseas since 2000 have been against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. The Indian team of the mid/late nineties didn't get to play that many games against these teams. 2 more wins have been versus Pakistan, a country we didn't visit during the nineties. The series draw in Australia in 2003-04 was against an Australian team in transition, with McGrath and Warne injured. And we lost series in West Indies, Srilanka and South Africa with Ganguly at the helm.

So, it's quite clear that the "Great Man" theorists have got it wrong here. Yes, we are performing better overseas than we used to. But the seed of this improvement was planted in 1996 and not in 2000.

Moving away from cricket, we find "Great Man" theorists at work everywhere. Alan Greenspan is often hailed as the greatest of all central bankers on the basis of the remarkable performance of the American economy during the eighties and nineties. What's often overlooked is that Greenspan's period at the helm was also marked by the personal computer revolution and the internet which drastically improved the productivity of the American economy and helped rein in inflation. Funnily, Greenspan gets the credit for what was largely the handiwork of the impersonal force of technology.

2008-10-12T21:21:00.000-07:00

Thoughts on banking

Prof. Jayanth Varma seems to hold a view similar to what I wrote in the previous post. Securitization has little to do with the current crisis. Here's the link. Ofcourse, a fiasco like AIG probably wouldn't have happened but for the misuse of Credit Default swaps. However, it isn't wise to pin the blame on CDS product per-se, especially when the infrastructure to support it is inadequate. The CDS market is mostly OTC. In the absence of an exchange that bears counterparty risk and ensures liquidity, credit derivatives were unlikely to be successful.

The professor's remarks on the basic unsoundness of a bank driven financial system were quite provocative. Ideally, a credit intermediary would want to borrow long and lend short (who wouldn't!). However, no saver wants to lend long and no investor wants to borrow short. As a result, the banking system is forced to resort to very high leverage levels to make its business model viable.

Now, the most facile solution is to do away with credit intermediaries (banks) and move towards a world where credit allocation happens entirely through financial markets. Securitization is a step in that direction. In an idealized version of that world, every credit-seeker, be it an individual or a business, will issue a bond. The prospective lenders will make the investment decision based on the borrower's creditworthiness (say his FICO score). Sounds very good.

However, there is a hitch. For such a system to function, it is important that we have borrowers and lenders who are willing to borrow and lend respectively over an identical timeframe. That's seldom the case since most reasonable people want to borrow long and lend short. Which is why we have highly risky institutions called banks with humongous leverage levels :(

To do away with banks would imply a considerable shrinkage in the economy's capacity to supply credit to those who need it. To persist with them would mean many more financial crises similar to what we're witnessing.

2008-09-15T20:04:00.000-07:00

On Financial Meltdowns

Frederick Bastiat, the nineteenth century French economist, once authored a memorable essay aptly titled 'What is Seen and What is not Seen' in which he said that the unintended, often invisible consequences of an event tend to be overshadowed by the more obvious effects. We are so preoccupied with the visible problems resulting from an event that we completely overlook the much more darker possibilities that might have unfolded had the event not happened.

The current financial meltdown is a classic example. Large, hitherto formidable, investment banks have succumbed, marking what's clearly the worst financial crisis in atleast a generation. Pundits of all hues have been quick to demonise financial innovation (read CDOs and derivatives) as the prime culprit. However such an inference is incorrect since it is based on the faulty assumption that there would have been no crisis in the absence of the much maligned financial products.

The seeds of the current crisis were sown by the discretionary monetary policy of the Federal Reserve which kept interest rates too low for too long by overreacting to the economic slowdown in 2001. The fact that Asian central banks were propping up the dollar and suppressing long-term interest rates by investing in American bonds did not help matters. The abundance of liquidity and the availability of easy money triggered a huge demand for credit among those who had hitherto not entertained notions of taking on debt and successfully servicing it. When the rates eventually started increasing circa 2005, defaults started piling up and the banks had to face the music.

Now, all of this would have happened regardless of the sophistication of the financial products in place. Securitization is essentially a tool for managing risk. No...it doesn't help us get rid of risk. But it ensures that the risk is borne by those who are most capable of bearing it. Imagine a world without securitization and derivatives. A more traditional world where banks borrow short from depositors and lend long to individuals and businesses. In the event of widespread defaults, the risk would be borne by those who are least capable of bearing it - the small time depositor, the average Joe on the street who has placed all his lifetime savings in the neighbourhood bank. Bank runs would have ensued thus contracting the money supply in the economy. What's worse, many depositors would've lost savings of a lifetime. This is precisely what happened in the early thirties during the Great Depression. The amount of money in the economy declined remarkably and the size of the economy shrunk by almost a third in a couple of years!

Thanks to securitization and the widespread use of derivatives, bank runs are now a thing of the past. The real economy continues to grow at a reasonable rate despite the carnage in the financial sector. Yes, there will be job losses resulting from bankruptcies. But the ones affected belong to the highly skilled, educated and affluent section of the workforce who are extremely employable and can afford to make ends meet without a job for a few months atleast.

Commentators who cannot look beyond the obvious claim that the current crisis is an indictment of free markets and financial innovation. They cannot be more wrong. The crisis is infact reason enough for us to celebrate the virtues of financial innovation, which have helped insulate the real economy and also ensured that the risk is NOT borne by the more vulnerable sections of society.

Postscript :
Bank runs are now a part of our economic mythology - a curiosity from a bygone era that can only be recreated in movies. Here's a clip from the classic Frank Capra film, It's a Wonderful Life that illustrates a bank run :)

2008-08-03T06:40:00.000-07:00

Blurbing an epic

It is often said that Indians don't have a flair for marketing. A line in the first parva of the great Indian epic - The Mahabharata, suggests that our forbears had a genius for advertising that would be envied by many a book publisher today. Here it is -

"What is found here, may be found elsewhere. What is not found here, will not be found elsewhere."

What a way to blurb a book! You just have to pick up the book after reading this most extraordinary advertisement :)

2008-04-09T19:54:00.000-07:00

On Plays , Movies and Hitchcock

Alfred Hitchcock once said that the silent movie is the purest form of cinema. The first time I read this quote, I dismissed it as a nostalgic remark of one who yearns for old fashion to return. It seemed ridiculous to claim that the addition of dialogue could detract anything from a film.
In retrospect, I think the reaction betrayed my lack of appreciation of the differences between theatre and moving pictures.

A play is a form of literature, notwithstanding the fact that it is primarily meant for performance rather than reading. Its success hinges almost entirely on the script penned by the playwright. The art of the Cinema on the other hand is not tied to language. It is essentially a montage of moving pictures that aims to provoke emotions among the audience. Silent pictures fulfil this criterion admirably. Unlike a play, a silent picture is universal in its appeal. Unlike a play, it influences the audience not by means of dialogue but by enabling the viewer to draw connections between a sequence of moving frames. It is no wonder that Charles Chaplin was the most recognizable face in the world in the twenties and thirties as his brand of pantomime transcended the barriers of language and culture.

However, the distinction between cinema and theatre became blurred with the introduction of sound in the late twenties. The cinematic style pioneered by silent film went out of fashion. Films became increasingly talky with a greater emphasis on dialogue and the performance of actors than on music and cinematography. Hitchcock, a director who came of age in silent films during the twenties decried this -

In many of the films now being made, there is very little cinema: they are mostly what I call "photographs of people talking" . . . One result of this is the loss of cinematic style, and another is the loss of fantasy.'

The difference between a play and a movie became very apparent when I rewatched a couple of old favourites last week - Maltese Falcon, a fast paced film noir starring Humphrey Bogart, and Rear Window, one of Hitch's evergreen favourites. The former, though a fine yarn with superb performances, is not cinema. It is essentially a play that heavily relies on dialogue to convey the plot. Rear Window, in contrast, is a film driven almost wholly by visuals. Though it contains a lot of dialogue, it is possible to comprehend the movie in mute. Dialogue is used mainly to impart humour and develop characters and not for explaining the plot.

The coming of talkies also prompted filmmakers to focus more on content than on style, a development that was diametrically opposed to Hitch's 'content doesn't matter' dictum. Dialogue was used as a medium to explore themes that would've been beyond the reach of silent doyens like Murnau. Hitch nevertheless stayed away from dramatic material and stuck to the suspense/mystery genre as it enabled him to give full scope to his cinematic style. Ofcourse, he paid a heavy price for it as the Oscar Academy preferred substance over style and assiduously avoided his films every year.

The tendency to celebrate substance over style still very much persists among critics and moviegoers. This is especially noticeable in India where off-beat serious movies like Taare zameen par are glibly hailed as masterpieces with little regard to their actual cinematic merit. Whereas exceptionally well made light comedies and thrillers such as Bheja Fry and Johnny Gaddar seldom enjoy similar critical adulation or comparable box office success.

The first question audiences invariably pose while deciding to watch a movie is - "What is it about?". I wish they'd rather ask "How well made is it?"

2008-01-19T02:55:00.000-08:00

More on the Rupee

There still isn't a consensus on the ideal future course for Indian currency policy. Today, Surjit Bhalla in the Business Standard laments the adverse impact of the rupee appreciation on the economy-wide growth figures in general and the Indian exports in particular. Though this might be true to some extent, we can actually do something about it only if the following conditions hold

The RBI is in fact pursuing a strong-rupee policy
If it makes up its mind, the RBI can actually keep the rupee at a much lower level

However, both these statements are untrue. The central bank has actually been struggling hard to keep the rupee down over the last year with limited success. Thus, the rise in the rupee has been despite the RBI policy and not because of it.

In the wake of huge capital inflows, the RBI typically undertakes large-scale purchases of US Dollars in the currency market to keep the rupee down. However, currency market intervention inevitably leads to increases in liquidity and acceleration in prices. To suck the excess liquidity out of the system, the RBI sterilizes its intervention by issuing government bonds. But sterilization is no magic wand. Large scale sale of government securities increases interest rates and tightens credit conditions. Moreover, the interest payable on these bonds constitutes an enormous burden on the exchequer.

The RBI's experience in Dec 2006-Mar 2007 clearly illustrated the problems created by the weak-rupee policy. Call rates shot up to astronomic levels. To bring them down, the RBI resorted to partial sterilization which resulted in an inflation scare. Eventually, the RBI had to ease its dollar purchases and let the rupee appreciate in order to retain some semblance of control on inflation and the credit conditions.

As Milton Friedman once quipped, there is no such thing as a free lunch. The cost of pursuing a weak rupee policy, amidst strong global pressures, is enormous. Successful pegging of the exchange rate will either entail the loss of monetary policy independence or the imposition of draconian capital controls. Neither of the outcomes is desirable or viable.

Instead of trying to have a currency policy, the RBI should be focusing on setting up a vibrant currency derivatives market that will mitigate some of the distress caused by a free-float exchange rate regime.

2007-12-30T04:46:00.001-08:00

SS Tarapore leaves me nonplussed

I recently read a piece by SS Tarapore in IIMA's management journal - Vikalpa (Issue - Apr/Jun 2007) titled - "Impact of Monetary Policy on Bank's Growth Path"
The title is a misnomer of sorts since a substantial part of the article is dedicated to an examination of the recent rupee appreciation and RBI's handling of the same.
Below, I will point out whatever seemed downright incorrect to me in the article.

Tarapore:

It is still not clear as to what extent the Indian economy has integrated with the world economy

I see no reason why this shouldn't be clear. As of 2007, gross capital flows amount to a staggering 45% of the GDP. Gross two way flows on both the capital and current account exceed 110% of the GDP!

Tarapore :

Persistent capital inflows into the country could result in an unrestrained monetary expansion and a REER appreciation which in turn is likely to end up in a crisis

How on earth can capital inflows increase the stock of money in the economy? Ironically, it is RBI's attempts to defend the dollar in the wake of capital inflows which is contributing to monetary expansion and not the capital flows per-se.

Also, the comment on REER appreciation is unfounded. The REER is a function of both the nominal rate and the rate of inflation in the economy. If the nominal rupee appreciation can help moderate prices, the REER shouldn't change by much. And it hasn't. Check out this piece by Swami Iyer for more on this.

Tarapore:

Now suppose that the RBI does not intervene in the forex market. There would be an unbridled monetary expansion and...an appreciation of the REER

Now, this borders on the preposterous. RBI's vain attempts to defend the dollar and its largely ineffective sterilization attempts are to be blamed for the price acceleration India witnessed in March this year. It seems like Tarapore is inhabiting a different planet.

Tarapore:

A real appreciation of the rupee is clearly against fundamentals and is clearly unsustainable as it would imply an over-valuation of the exchange rate.

What does he exactly mean by "fundamentals"? How does one arbitrate on whether a certain rate is overvalued or not? The comment reminds me of the fatal conceit that Hayek once wrote about. The very idea that a handful of "wise" central bankers can figure out the appropriate value of an asset which is traded by millions of market participants smacks of an arrogant condescension towards the market and an exaggeration of a central bank's abilities.

To my mind, the article has far too many open-ended unsubstantiated statements that one would not expect in an academic journal, albeit one published by a Bschool. Please do point out if I've got it wrong anywhere.

2007-12-11T01:32:00.000-08:00

Equity Research vs Wisdom of the Crowds

This is an arbit post. Not much thought has gone into it. So please feel free to correct me.
What is the true 'value' of a good/asset? Whatever the buyer is willing to pay for it in my opinion.
Equity analysts disagree. They claim that certain people (read analysts) are better equipped to estimate an asset's 'true' value than the riff-raff crowd.

Isn't that very similar to the argument put forth by socialist command-and-control freaks about half a century ago? The Nehruvian conviction that a handful of wise men at New Delhi are better placed to allocate resources and dictate the destiny of the economy is not very different from the condescending attitude of equity researchers, especially the ones who rely on so-called 'fundamental analysis'.

In both cases, there is a blind faith in the discretionary wisdom of a handful of technocrats as opposed to the wisdom of the crowd (read market).

2007-12-11T00:34:00.000-08:00

Why do mediocre novels make great movies?

I've never been a big fan of moving pictures (better known as movies) all my life. However, this changed in term 5 thanks to a not-so-curious mix of boredom, lack of academic rigour and peer-to-peer networking software.

I stumbled upon one of the less well known Hitchcocks - Dial M for Murder, halfway through the term. It was probably the best thing I did in the term. Over the next couple of months, my movie education progressed very well! I watched close to thirty movies, most of them filmed sometime between the mid 30s and the mid 60s.

A few observations -

- The older Hollywood movies are far richer on dialogue compared to the more recent ones, but score low on cinematography. Expletives are conspicuous by their absence :)
In contrast to the present day Hollywood pictures that look better than they sound, the older movies sound better than they look.

- Most of the movies, including the really good ones that feature in the IMDB Top 250/AFI Top100, are adaptations of novels and short-stories. Interestingly, most of these novels/stories themselves are often very ordinary and fall under the category of 'Pulp Fiction'. However, the movie adaptations of the same are outstanding and have become all-time favourites!

Take for instance films like Rear Window, It's a Wonderful Life, One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest or even Double Indemnity. All of them are based on novels/novellas that are nowhere near as acclaimed as the movies!

In contrast, attempts to adapt truly popular novels to the visual medium have failed more often than not. Has anyone succeeded in making a great movie out of any of Dickens' novels or for that matter even the popular books of an Agatha Christie or a PG Wodehouse? No.

Ofcourse, there are a few exceptions like Gone with the Wind/Godfather. But those are exceptions and not the rule.

2007-09-20T20:52:00.000-07:00

Uncommon Sense

An out of the box solution to the Sethusamudram deadlock

2007-08-29T03:58:00.000-07:00

Responding to Incentives

Greg Mankiw talks about how American Universities respond positively to incentives, just like anybody else -

Looking at the new rankings reminded me of a conversation I had with a teacher at a mid-ranked university a few years. He explained to me that all classes of introductory econ at his school were, without exception, capped at 49 students. Why such an odd number?, I asked. He explained that the US News ranking penalizes schools based on the percentage of classes with 50 or more students. Deans, like all people, respond to incentives.

Perhaps there's a lesson out there for Indian Business schools especially the younger IIMs.
It is a widely held view that LIK (IIMs Lucknow, Indore and Kozhikode for the uninitiated) often get a raw deal in the Business school rankings. The indignation is perhaps justified. But I'm not sure whether smugly not participating in surveys is the right way to go. Haven't given much thought to this. Do post your views :)

2007-07-26T05:30:00.000-07:00

Drishtikon

The word literally translates to 'view' (drishti), 'point' (kon)

The metaphorical meaning is 'viewpoint' as well!!

huh. It is interesting how disparate languages in different continents bear such striking similarities, i.e employing the same metaphor to convey a certain meaning.

2007-06-13T09:09:00.000-07:00

Defending Vegetarianism
I'm a lacto vegetarian. Primarily because I was born into a family with vegetarian eating habits. The fact that I wear leather shoes and sport woolen trousers without a trace of compunction goes to show that my ethical code in these matters is not without hypocritical exceptions.

Greg Mankiw, in his blog, cites the strongest defence of herbivore eating habits that I've come across thus far.

Aliens from another planet, with vastly superior intelligence to humans, land on earth in order to consume humans as food. What argument could you make to convince the aliens not to eat us that would not also apply to our consumption of
beef?

Strong stuff.
Suppose for the sake of argument that our utility to these intelligent aliens as food is greater than our utility to them in our productive capacity. In which case, it would be perfectly rational for the aliens to kill and consume humans! Chilling thought.

Alternatively, the same argument can also be used in defence of VS Naipaul's opening line in the Bend in the River

The world is what it is; men who are nothing, who allow themselves to become nothing, have no place in it.

2007-06-13T08:22:00.000-07:00

Puritan America

Citizens of Virginia can expect a 27 month sojourn in prison if they serve beer to callow sixteen year olds. Huh :|

Read more about it here

2007-04-02T21:04:00.000-07:00

Cricket's East-West Divide

A provocative take on Sunil Gavaskar's prejudices ;)

how much do "coloured" cricket societies do to keep the stereotypes alive? It is easy to admonish Australian aggression as overdone, but name the cricket journalist in India who has not written long essays bemoaning India's lack of Aussie-style steel. As Indian coach, Greg Chappell has been asked by a dozen interviewers as to how he plans to inculcate "Australian aggro" into the Indian team. To be fair to him, he has not taken the question seriously.
The fact that it is asked, however, does point to the obverse side of excessive sensitivity to racism - that it sometimes betrays an inferiority complex. That's another pitch, to be tackled another day.

Read the rest of it here

2007-02-03T06:06:00.000-08:00

On Conservatives, Liberals and.....Hypothesis Testing

What makes a person conservative or liberal? I don't know.
But the theory of Hypothesis Testing does help us gain insight into a person's political predilections. Gobsmacked, eh? Read on.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that youth from the Middle East/N.Africa are more likely to resort to terrorism than any other race. To strengthen this supposition, we have to reject the hypothesis that terrorism finds no special favour among any specific group of people.

H0 : Youth from the Middle East/North Africa are no more inclined/indifferent towards Terrorism than youth from any other part of the world.

The alternative hypothesis is that youth in certain parts of the world are indeed more likely to turn into terrorists. Hence, racial profiling can help apprehend potential terrorists and debar entry to dubious immigrants.

For instance, assume that 5% of the youth wanting to immigrate to US are of Middle Eastern/N.African extraction. Going by the Null Hypothesis, in any sample of immigrant terrorists, the proportion hailing from M.E/N.A shouldn't exceed 5%. Right?
Now, consider a random sample of immigrant terrorists wherein 20% are Arabs/N.Africans and the probability of more than 20% of a random sample of immigrant terrorists being N.Africans/Arabs, given that the null hypothesis holds, is 5%.

Does this figure justify racial profiling? This is where your political predilection comes into play. A liberal might be wary of rejecting a true hypothesis (Type I error) and may be unwilling to disregard it even if the figure was as low as 1%. A conservative right-winger on the other hand, would not want to run the risk of accepting a false hypothesis (Type II error). He may be tempted to ditch the hypothesis for any figure less than 15%!

This has to be one of the great debates in public policy. What is the most appropriate significance level? Should policy makers opt for a high significance level and aggressively pursue racial profiling to weed out the slightest possibility of terrorist infiltration at the expense of civil liberties? Or should they refrain from 'profiling' altogether, and thereby run the risk of terrorist attacks?

The answer would vary depending on whether you're a fan of George Bush or Michael Moore ;)

2007-01-03T05:10:00.000-08:00

Does Big Government help reduce Income Inequality?

Here's an interesting piece that examines the Government spending/GDP ratios in countries across the world.
In US, as per the 2005 estimate, federal government expenditure constitutes 19.7% of the national GDP. The corresponding figure for India is 18.75%!!

As one would expect, for most Western European countries, the figure is around 50%. For instance, in Norway and the United Kingdom the Government taxes away more than 40% of the national output.

As always, the data lends itself to different interpretations. The purported intention of having a big government is to ensure a more equitable distribution of income. If Government does indeed help alleviate gross inequality of income, there ought to be a negative correlation between the Govt Spending/GDP ratios and the Gini Index, which is a measure of income inequality.

But, this is clearly not the case -

Country Gini Index

Norway 25.8
India 32.5
UK 36.0
US 40.8

The United Kingdom, whose Govt Spending/GDP ratio is more than twice that of US or India, has a higher level of Income Inequality than India!! Hence, the cliched argument of the socialists that governments need to spend more to reduce income inequality doesn't hold water.

Instead, a more plausible theory is that countries that are culturally and ethnically homogeneous are more likely to be egalitarian in terms of income distribution. Denmark, Japan, Sweden and Norway are all excellent examples of nations that are predominantly homogeneous and hence more egalitarian. In contrast, melting pots like US, UK and India tend to be less egalitarian because of the sheer ethnic diversity of their populations. Spending more money on wasteful government programmes is not going to make a positive difference, as shown in the case of UK.

PS: I must admit I haven't considered the redistributive part of Government Spending separately. These figures would include expenditure on Defence which is not redistributive. Even after making allowance for that, the case against big government appears pretty strong.

2006-12-24T08:13:00.000-08:00

The World is small indeed!

Over the last couple of days, I've been watching the archives of 'Uncommon Knowledge', an American Talk Show hosted by one Peter Robinson. Most shows are very insightful and conducted with the minimum of rhetoric/excess.

Much to my surprise, upon checking the profile of the host, I discovered today that this chap Peter Robinson, a fellow at the Hoover institution, is none other than the author of the book - Snapshots from Hell, a bestseller most MBAs would need no introduction to (I haven't read it though).
Well, well, well...

Here are the archives, btw

PS: Another tidbit. Peter Robinson was also Ronald Reagan's speechwriter before joining Bschool. The immortal line - 'Mr.Gorbechev, Tear down this wall' was his work ;)

2006-12-22T06:49:00.000-08:00

Living off rats...yes..you read that right

2006-12-17T02:25:00.000-08:00

'Free to Choose' TV Series

Have spent many an enjoyable hour watching these programmes over the past couple of days. I like the structure. A half hour film followed by thirty minutes of stimulating discussion...
Check them out here.

2006-12-16T06:17:00.000-08:00

Bschool Life

A few things that distinguish academics in IIMs from what I experienced at my undergraduate institution -

- You can use a stapler to attach additional sheets in term exams. This is definitely a refreshing change for me after having used those slimy tags throughout school and UG.

- Objective questions (MCQs) in midterms and endterms. This has to be the most heartening aspect of Bschool education. It precludes the need to mug definitions, diagrams et al.

- Over half the evaluation is based on group-based assignments in some subjects...
This means that even the woresssht student will get a decent grade provided he has the requisite political skills to squeeze his way into a stud group.

- Relationships matter! Blokes with a steady intimate set of friends have it easy, since they can have the same group for all subjects. This makes it a whole lot easier to free-ride, since the course work can be apportioned amicably among the members. Guys who get into too many groups don't have that luxury.

- You're never short of an excuse to freeride, given the impressive number of engagements to keep you busy at any given point in time (interest groups/committees/ bschool competitions etc)

- Semicircular classrooms endowed with a 'slope'. The inclination ensures that the backbenchers don't indulge in nefarious activities.

- 'Soft' courses involving specious fundae where everyone starts at the same level, be it an IIT 9 pointer or an Arts graduate.

- The occasional 'open-book' exam

- Professors at IIMs wield considerable discretionary power (actually an understatement), unlike the ones at my engineering college. No complaints from my side. That's how it should be.

- Group activities compel you to interact with people whom you would otherwise have never spoken to during the course. This is again welcome as it helps you develop a threshold tolerance for temperamental incompatibilities.

- Insightful Class Participation from some of my more 'gifted' classmates, which leaves me assured after every class that the future of India is in safe hands.

What I don't like about Bschool Life -

- The soporific HBR cases, which revel in ambiguity. I'm yet to read even a single case at a stretch in the first two terms.

- 'Early to bed, early to rise' hardly finds any takers. Moi probably the only one who dozes off before midnight.

- Inordinate emphasis on presentations, which I happen to loathe. Presentations conceal more than they reveal, IMNSHO.
Added later -
Presentations were infact pretty useful as a teaching aid in some subjects, especially Macroeconomics, Operations Research and the like. Our Macro professor did a wonderful job of covering almost the whole of macroeconomic theory very succinctly in a set of six presentations! A novice can actually get a good grasp of the concepts by just going through his slides without ever having attended classes/read Dornbusch. Too good.
By the way, what I was objecting to was the indiscriminate use of presentations as an evaluation criterion in just about every subject. Because of this, the emphasis is more on preparing snazzy slides than on understanding the subject. It is all the more infuriating since majority of the class is going to be least interested in your presentation.

- Needless hype about Placements. The inter-Bschool rivalry wrt placements is unwarranted. I feel there ought to be greater stress on 'seeking jobs on one's own'.
We're a pampered lot at IIMs. Also, it will be tough for the institutes to assure 100% placements in the coming years what with the increasing batch size and OBC quotas.

2006-12-16T05:31:00.000-08:00

Dr.Jekyll and Prime Minister Hyde

2006-11-09T02:38:00.000-08:00

Why MBA

No...I'm not going to talk about the cliched arguments about how investment in business education from a good bschool yields a positive NPV in the long run. Nor is it about what you and I as individuals expect from an MBA education.

Was wondering why the economy needs MBAs? Will the macro-economy be worse off without business graduates? According to Solow, the growth prospects of an economy in the long run are determined by the capital stock, labour stock and productivity. The reason why the government is subsidising our education is in the hope that graduates from elite bschools will go on to run businesses more efficiently and thereby improve the productivity of the aggregate economy. In 'growth theory' jargon, they hope that MBAs will increase the rate of 'technical progress' in the economy.

After subsidising management education for over forty years, it is about time for the powers that be to ask some pertinent questions.

-Are MBAs from IIMs more efficient and productive than managers who don't have a business degree/have one from a lesser bschool?

-If yes, should we attribute the efficiency to the inherent competence of these executives or to the 'education' they received at IIM?

-Most importantly, do MBAs actually think along these lines? If I were to continue taking decisions based on gut feeling post MBA despite having learnt Linear programming at IIM, would I not be letting the tax payer down?

Food for thought. The debt that IIMites owe to society is humongous considering the largely superfluous learning we acquire at college. The Private gains of Business education ( better career prospects, brand value) outweigh whatever little benefit that accrues to the economy because of our human capital.

2006-10-27T00:55:00.000-07:00

It's 'Alternative', Stupid!

I've grown weary of seeing almost everyone around me use the word 'alternate' when they actually mean 'alternative'.
Huh! :(

2006-10-21T06:44:00.000-07:00

On the curious coincidence of Diwali Legends

As per wikipedia, Diwali marks as many as four anniversaries of completely unrelated events in India's mythical past.

The goddess Shakti observed 21 days of austerity starting from ashtami of shukla paksha to get half part of the body of Lord Shiva. Deepavali is the completion day of this austerity.

Diwali also celebrates the return of Lord Rama to Ayodhya after the war in Lanka.

It commemorates the killing of Narakasura, an evil demon, by Lord Krishna's wife Sathyabhama.

Diwali is also associated with the annual return of Daitya king Bali to his homeland.

Isn't it indeed incredible and rather disingenuous that there must have been a consensus throughout the country on choosing a particular day to commemorate events remotely spaced in time? Strange. One wonders whether these legends were deliberately assigned the same date with the intent of rendering Diwali theologically significant enough to compete with the semitic festivals like Id and Christmas.

Hinduism is essentially a pagan religion that is practised in a million different ways by people across the subcontinent. The Brahminical Hinduism that I experienced while growing up bears no resemblance to the faiths of say a tribal community in Central India.

The modern 'libertarian' ideal of 'To each his own' has always been an integral aspect of the Hindu way of life. Sadly, after the advent of semetic faiths, there has been a vain attempt by the so-called custodians of our culture to semitize Hinduism. As a part of the semitization drive, festivals like Deepavali that were traditionally the preoccupation of a very small segment of upper-caste population have been foisted upon the masses. To make Diwali seem like a pan-Indian festival, diverse legends from across the country have been disingenuously assigned a common date. Cracker-bursting has been actively encouraged to woo the not-so-religiously inclined. (note - cracker bursting on diwali was unheard of in India a couple of hundred years ago) What we have been observing is a form of propaganda that has changed the very nature of Sanatana Dharma.

2006-10-16T08:41:00.000-07:00

Learnings from GD Disappointments

After having fared poorly in a handful of GDs leading upto the summers process here at K, I have realized how poor I am when it comes to effective verbal and non-verbal communication.

It's actually interesting to note that many students here are probably not as good at communication as they should be. It's just that I stick out like a sore thumb in this regard, despite the general standard being not very high.

This has made me wonder why is it that students at premier Indian Bschools, who supposedly constitute the 'best and the brightest' of the country, are quite ordinary when it comes to oral and written communication skills. It has got a lot to do with the way we are taught at school. The education we receive in our public schools lays such enormous emphasis on knowledge acquisition and analytical soundness, that the inculcation of soft skills is often neglected. The curriculum doesn't provide enough avenues for self-expression, argument and debate.

As a result, we grow up oblivious of certain home truths.
- How you speak is every bit as important as what you speak.
- The way you write matters as much if not more than the actual content.

It is indeed an indictment of the Indian schooling system, that it takes a Bschool education to make the students realize these eternal truths, that should have been assimilated at primary school.

2006-09-17T07:45:00.000-07:00

Keynes on Education

Education is the inculcation of the incomprehensible into the indifferent by the incompetent

So very true :(

2006-08-03T18:50:00.000-07:00

An Exception to the 'Golem effect'

As a part of the 'Organisational Behavior' curriculum, we've been mugging impressive, exotic sounding jargon like Pygmalion syndrome, Golem effect and all that jazz.
The Golem effect supposedly occurs when low expectations from others has a demoralising and adverse impact on a person's performance.
Specious...
I can readily recall one notable exception whose performance at the helm of the Railway Ministry has improved remarkably despite the expectations from him being at an all time low.

2006-07-29T04:38:00.000-07:00

An Update

Been a month since I landed at IIM Kozhikode.
Will post a few pertinent observations about life at Bschool once I get my long overdue lappy.

2006-06-16T01:54:00.000-07:00

A NUGGET FROM AMIT VARMA -

Navtej Sarna, the spokesman for India's ministry of external affairs, saying "It's a matter of pride if a son of India and son of Asia becomes United Nations Secretary-General."

Why?

It would be a bit of a cop-out for me to take pride in Shashi
Tharoor becoming whatever. I find it silly and escapist to take
pride in anything but my own achievements, and joy in those of my
near and dear ones. Whether Tharoor or Aziz or Angelina Jolie
become secretary general of the UN should hardly affect my pride,
unless I'm the father of one of them, or something similar.

Spot on!

2006-05-29T01:02:00.000-07:00

Brian Lara : Sydney :: Micheal Clarke :: --------??

Brian Lara named his daughter Sydney, after the ground where he scored his first test century, a memorable 277 against Aus at the SCG.
If Michael Clarke were to follow Lara's mode of nomenclature, his son would be christened..................Chinnaswamy

Hehe.

2006-05-15T19:49:00.000-07:00

On Reservations

Surjit Bhalla, the economist, has reached rather startling conclusions in a Business Standard report based on the 1999 NSS data.

The Conclusion is that the 'Upper Castes in the country do not have a dramatically higher chance of getting top jobs in comparison with SC/ST's and OBC's, in case all of them have the same level of education'.

Before furnishing the data, a few clarifications-

- This survey considers a person who has passed at least high school
(Xth Std) as a part of the 'Educated'
Labour Force.

- A 'good' Job is defined as a 'professional,
technical or a managerial'
job held by those who've passed at least high school.

Here's the data -

Probability of getting a good job
Pre-reservation || Post-reservation

SC/ST's 31.7% 63.9%

OBC's 28.6% 41.3%

Muslims 35.9% 28.0%

Caste Hindus 39.2% 28.0%

Let me elucidate.
The data suggest that an SC/ST high-school passout (this obviously includes those who've done UG/PG) has a 31.7% chance of landing a 'good' job.
For a Caste Hindu, the corresponding figure is 39.2%.
Hence, today the probability of landing a 'good' job for an SC/ST is barely 25% lower than that
of a caste Hindu. The difference is negligible especially if you factor in the fact that most of the SC/ST population is concentrated in the villages, where job opportunities are scarce. No discrimination whatsoever :)

Now, if Kamalnath goes ahead and implements the 22.5% reservation for SC/ST's in the private sector, the discrimination becomes very evident.
The Chances of getting a 'good' job for SC/ST's shall go up to 63%.
For OBC's the figure shall rise upto 41%.
These increases will be at the expense of the Upper Castes and Muslims, who'll bear the brunt of the government-mandated discrimination.
The figure for SC/ST's (63%) will now be almost 125% more than that of Caste Hindus (28%).

This is what the dumbass KamalNath intends to do. With the Intent of correcting a marginal difference of 25% (which may not be because of discrimination, mind you), he has come up with a grandiose reverse-discrimination scheme, that shall prove to be a nail in the coffin of the Upper Castes.

2006-05-13T02:02:00.000-07:00

I am Mighty

2006-05-12T20:18:00.000-07:00

Caste

Caste is one of the great unmentionables among the educated youth in our country.
The young 20 somethings, educated in elite public schools, pride themselves for their ultra-rational approach to life, spurn illogical religious beliefs in word and deed, decry 'Fate' and in short, exude the spirit of William Henley's lines -
"I am the master of my Fate,
I am the captain of my soul"

Fair enough. Sublimation of the Religious instinct is wholesome and desirable.
In keeping with the spirit of the times, it is natural to expect the youth to become not just less God-fearing, but also less obsessed with identity, more inclusive and liberal and less susceptible to prejudices.
Strangely, this doesn't seem to have happened.

The hypocrisy of the Ayn Rand toting youth is pretty evident in their obsession with Caste and Identity. While it is considered politically incorrect to inquire about someone's caste, Caste remains something very close to everyone's hearts.

I could sense this while surfing profiles randomly on the orkut community yesterday.
Orkut is a social networking hub which is predominantly used by Internet-savvy, twenty-somethings. Many among my own list of acquaintances describe themselves as 'Atheists', 'Agnostics' and 'Humanists' in their profiles. Yet, you'll find the same blokes in the 'Thenkalai Iyengar' and 'Havyaka Brahmin' communities ;)
Strange, but apparently our friends don't sense a contradiction.
The maniacal obsession with Identity is scary. There is a community for almost every
sub-caste on orkut. Babboorkamme brahmins, Hebbar Iyengar, Reddys, Iyers, Agarwals, Jats, Kauls, GSB's, Dalits...you name it.
Mind you, these communities are populated by urbane, English-speaking yuppies who are more likely to swear by Ayn Rand than by God.

The 'enlightened' youth may try their hardest to present their 'pseud', rational selves, but to no avail. The fact remains that in India, NOBODY, i repeat nobody is willing to spurn their identity. Period.

2006-05-02T10:04:00.000-07:00

A few questions

How unnatural is it for Humans to consume the milk of another species?

Can there be a graver violation of animal rights than the practice of keeping a cow perennially pregnant to maximise milk production?

Is the government right in subsidising milk products, thereby encouraging the consumption of unhealthy fatty food and perpetuating the misery of Cows?

Why isn't the moral brigade opposing the heinous practice of artificial insemination of cows with as much intensity as Cow Slaughter?

Aren't we Indians guilty of the worst form of hypocrisy by shamelessly consuming milk intended for the calves and yet professing our reverence for 'Go mata'?

2006-05-02T08:17:00.000-07:00

I HATE Celebrity Culture.
While common sense suggests that we should judge an individual's reputation on the basis of his actions, the actions of Celebrities are judged on the basis of their reputations. Can anything be more disgusting than that?

My convictions in this regard were re-inforced yesterday when I read some despicable quotes at Political Compass attributed to some of the all-time great celebrity public figures who are often thought of as being beyond reproach.
Pasting a few here -

Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least
- Thomas Jefferson, in the Virginia Bill number 64, 18 June 1779

Not the kind of comment you would've expected from Jefferson - the champion of Freedom and Liberty.

I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed
-Mahatma Gandhi, May 1940

Sickening quote from the 'champion' of Non-Violence.

I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes ... to spread a lively terror
-Winston Churchill, writing as President of the Air Council, in 1919

If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable (as Hitler) to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations
-Winston Churchill, in his Great Contemporaries, 1937

Homosexuality is immoral and disgusting.
-Ayn Rand, 1971

The word and working of God is quite clear; that women were made to be either wives or prostitutes
-Martin Luther

The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs
-Mahatma Gandhi, on absolute non-violence, speaking to biographer Louis Fisher in June 1946

2006-05-01T07:11:00.000-07:00

Much Ado about Nothing

The Average Pay of Goldman Sachs Employees is a whopping $521000.
To put that into proper perspective, the size of the workforce is over 22000, and that includes a whole lot of secretaries, assistants and janitors ;)
This makes me wonder why the Desi Media goes gaga over a handful of IIM grads with outstanding profiles getting Analyst jobs at sub $100k salaries in firangi investment banks including GS.

2006-04-07T07:16:00.000-07:00

Watch out for this bloke -

Chandrahas Choudhury, the blogger at the Middle Stage, has recently authored a spate of very high-quality pieces on up-and-coming Indian cricketers.
Wouldn't be surprised if he emerges as one of the finest cricket writers of this generation.

Do read these delectable posts -

On Suresh Raina

On Romesh Powar

On Mahendra Singh Dhoni

On Hookers

Chandrahas is probably the finest commentator on Indian Films and Theatre, and also Indian Literature. I can't confidently assert this since I haven't read a wide cross-section of writers on these themes. But, he's definitely light years ahead of the writers you get to read in MSM.

Do read his contentious review of Rang-de-Basanti. Spotless Prose!

2006-03-27T17:49:00.000-08:00

Oxymorons

A few self-contradictory expressions that I could recollect off-the-cuff...

Cosmopolitan Nationalism

Evenhanded Fairness

Libertarian Conservative (William Safire considers himself to be one)

Authoritarian Communism (this one is no longer widely recognised as an oxymoron)

Pagan Fundamentalism

Contemplative Business Graduate

Do pour in with a few more....

2006-03-22T19:00:00.000-08:00

Riveting Conversations

Conversations with History is a remarkable website. Definitely recommended for
anyone with more than a passing interest in politics/economics/public policy.
The videos are available as well for most of the interviews.

For starters, I would recommend the following interviews -
(video links at the bottom of each page)

Shashi Tharoor

UN diplomat and one of the leading Indian writers.
Talks about his education, influences and work.
The video is a must-watch. Tharoor is probably the best speaker I've ever listened to. Wish I could talk like him.

Robert McNamara

Former President of Ford Motor Company
Former US Secretary of Defense
Former World Bank President

That's SOME resume!
Again, a very edifying interview. Provocative views on the Auto Industry. Honest Retrospection on the Vietnam War - of which he was one of the architects.

Christopher Hitchens

Controversial Journalist. Notorious for his irreverent views on holy cows like Mother Teresa.

Even if you are only remotely interested in these figures, it would still be worth watching as one can listen to some very fine conversationalists and hopefully get a few cues from them.

2006-03-20T18:38:00.000-08:00

Pearl of Wisdom from a former Auto Executive

Robert McNamara, former President of the Ford Motor Company and former US Secretary of Defence, on fuel consumption in the US -

The objective and responsibility of the auto industry should be to produce safer cars. Cheaper cars, more functional cars, more environmentally sustainable cars..................... I just read the other day that gasoline consumption has risen, I think they said 25 percent per year from 1980 until today. And that is disgraceful. In the first place, our(i.e the US) automotive fuel consumption per capita is roughly twice that of, say, Germany. And this is a problem. It's an environmental problem: we are putting more greenhouse gas emissions in the upper atmosphere that are going to lead to climate change. It's a financial problem: it costs us far more. It's a security problem, this fuel comes out of the Middle East and we are more dependent on a very volatile region. We are not buying anything for it. We are not buying greater comfort, more convenience, or greater mobility. We could achieve the comfort, the convenience, the safety, and the mobility with much greater fuel efficiency. The automobile industry today, I think responsibly, would move toward greater fuel efficiency. The petroleum companies are not willing to do so.

2006-03-12T08:39:00.000-08:00

The Power of the Written Word

Maintaining a high level of Self-esteem all the time can be very demanding in this world , where chinks in your armour are being exposed just about every day.
Getting depressed is quite a natural thing for me on such occasions.
On one such occasion about three weeks ago, I was wallowing in self-pity after returning from a tough day in office. Opened the book that I've always wanted to read since a long time - VS Naipaul's Bend in the River
The opening line arrested my attention -

"The world is what it is; men who are nothing, who allow themselves to become nothing, have no place in it."

I read the line about a dozen times. After every reading, I felt as though a spear is being pierced through my innards. The Catharsis lasted for about three minutes, at the end of which I was relieved of all those despicable emotions that were threatening to maim me for life.

Naipaul rocks.

2006-03-08T07:22:00.000-08:00

Evolving New Standards for Human Behavior

Homicide is a punishable offence in almost all countries, and has been so, for millenia, in most cultures. The Reason why it is proscribed is not very evident.
Is it because murdering a fellow human is an intrinsically immoral act?
If yes, why is it considered immoral?
After all, no one was ever convicted for murdering chicken, cows and sheep. It was and is perfectly moral to kill and consume these creatures. But if the animal happens to be a human being, all hell breaks loose.

The answer to this can be found in the memorable Christian precept -

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

This simple, yet profound, statement stands out as a perfect guide to human behavior.
The Reason why we desist from Murder is because we wouldn't relish the prospect of others murdering us.
The Reason why we don't bat an eyelid before maiming a chicken to death is because we very well know that chickens don't pose a threat to us even if they were granted the right to kill their masters.

Hence, Morals are products of circumstances and expediencies, and it would be foolish to think of them as an invariant set of rules.
Morals are relative and their suitability varies with time and location.
A few examples -

The Primitive man contracted sexually transmitted diseases upon leading a promiscuous life, and drew the inference that it is immoral to be promiscuous. But we know better. The cause behind the STD's is a virus and not the wrath of God. If we still hold on to the primitive notion that promiscuity is immoral, we are being foolish.

The Practice of Respecting Elders is another universal moral that has been challenged lately, and rightly so. In the good old days, when education was limited to the act of learning to read, write and count, most of the learnings were derived from experience, i.e on the job. Hence, it would be quite natural to expect a fifty year old person to exhibit greater wisdom and maturity than an upstart of twenty. This would hold in most cases, as there never was much difference in the education received by the father and son and more pertinently, the nature of their respective jobs, as in - the learnings to be derived from various jobs used to be roughly the same. Hence, one's wisdom was directly proportional to the number of years spent on Mother Earth! Ergo, it made ample sense to defer to the judgment of elders.

Today, thanks to advancement in various spheres of human activity, education is more specialised and as a result labour is more specialised! The Education you receive almost invariably determines your occupation - something that was never the case before the twentieth century. Moreover, the opportunities to learn vary from one job to another.
Besides all this, the Digital Divide between the youth and the middle-aged accentuates the disparity.
Having the right upbringing and the right exposure, being at the right place at the right time matter far more in determining the course of one's intellectual development than the amount of experience. Therefore, unconditionally deferring to the judgement of Elders is an outworn Moral that must be sent to the dustbin, where it belongs.

2006-03-04T04:57:00.000-08:00

The Economist's take on the Nuclear Deal

Disconcerting, if you're an American.

2006-03-04T00:38:00.000-08:00

Does being Devout make you feel Happy?

Here's a very interesting link that discusses the results of an Opinion Poll on the levels of Happiness among Americans.

One of the results is particularly startling -

People who worship frequently are happier than those who don't.

One would definitely not expect this to be the case in India, where the poor and the lower middle classes are far more pious than the well-to-do. Given the positive correlation that exists between affluence and happiness, it can be categorically stated that in India, the unbelievers are far happier than the devoutly religious.

What could possibly account for this discrepancy? Could it be because of the nature of the respective religions in these countries? Protestant Christianity, with its moral certitude and simplistic teachings, probably offers greater solace to Americans, than does Hinduism, a religion (if you can call it that) that revels in ambiguity and philosophical speculation, to Indians!

The finding is certainly disturbing from an American perspective, as becoming an agnostic/atheist would imply being less happy!!
Thankfully, Indians don't seem to be facing such a predicament.

2006-02-28T17:23:00.000-08:00

Freedom to Offend

We are all familiar with the 'Right to Freedom of Expression'. This Right has such unanimous support that even the most retrogressive conservatives would not dare to decry it.
Yet, it is not universally acknowledged that this Right is meaningless without the Freedom to Offend.

The dichotomy between these two rights typically comes to the fore, in the culturally hidebound societies of Asia, where the exercise of the Freedom of Expression often entails an offence on religious sensibilities and the prevailing social mores.
This was very evident in the recent Danish Cartoon Controversy and also in the Khushboo episode. In both the cases, the opposition stemmed not from a governmental authority, but from a certain section of society. i.e the fact that the 'Right to Expression' is enshrined in the Constitution did not deter the offended parties from launching a vicious verbal assault.

This provides us with a pertinent insight. i.e that We are often deterred from giving expression to our convictions NOT by the law of the land, but by the 'general drift of society'. Hence, the 'Right to Expression' cannot be secured and is irrelevant even in a country like India, because of the implicit checks imposed on it by the Society.

Unlike a totalitarian State, where one fears the constitutional authority, the 'free thinkers' are stymied by the 'tyrannical majority' in democracies like India. Hence, this notion of 'Democracy' serving as a facilitator in securing 'Individual Freedom' is a hogwash. Securing Freedom in the truest sense is impossible in an illiberal democracy wherein the Primacy of the Majority prevails over the Rights of the Individual.

2006-02-27T18:09:00.000-08:00

Paradox of Value

Ever wondered WHY a dumb piece of Gold costs you more than 'The Complete Works of Shakespeare' ?
Wikipedia provides an interesting explanation.

2006-02-24T18:35:00.000-08:00

Jinhe Naaz hai Hind par woh kahan hai!

NEW DELHI, 19 February 2006 —
A minister in India’s Uttar Pradesh state government
has offered a reward of $11.5 million to anyone who
would kill any of the cartoonists who drew the images
of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Muhammad Yaqoob Qureshi, minister of state for Haj and
Minorities Welfare in the Uttar Pradesh government, told
a rally in Meerut, 65 km east of New Delhi, after Friday
prayers that he would give “the avenger” 510 million rupees
and his weight in gold.

Not unexpected...
After all, what else can one expect from the 'Haj and Minority Welfare'
minister. Must be jobless most of the time.
Jokes apart, truly a dark day in the History of Independent India.
A minister of a democratically elected government in the world's
largest Democracy calls for MURDER!!

2006-02-21T07:39:00.000-08:00

'Absolutely' Ridiculous

One of the tendencies among Indians is to gratuitously use adjectives/adverbs, to express a strong emotion. 'Absolutely' is IMHO the most abused of such words.

"It's absolutely amazing" is a sentence that one hears almost daily....Interestingly, the phrase 'relatively amazing' finds very few takers....Strange that Indians find most of the incredible happenings around them to be 'absolutely incredible'...Now, C'mon...not all incredible events can rank very highly on an 'absolute' scale of incredibility. Surely, there are many events that are 'relatively' incredible , i.e their incredibility pales in contrast to events that are 'absolutely' incredible!!!
Take for instance, the event of Venkatesh Prasad scoring a century at Perth which is 'relatively incredible' as its incredibility ceases to amaze us when juxtaposed with the event of Shiv Sainiks distributing Valentine Cards.

So, I urge the readers of this Blog to use the adjective - 'absolutely' sparingly as we live in a 'relative' world wherein very few things can actually be talked about in an 'absolute' sense.

2006-02-07T04:26:00.000-08:00

My IIMK Interview Experience

The selection procedure for full-time Management Programmes in India is weird.
Performance in an Aptitude Test is used as a criterion to shortlist two in hundred students. And then the selected guys (most of whom are 22 year old kids) are grouped into batches of ten where they are made to discuss Bertrand Russell's musings. Followed by an interview wherein one is often grilled on Bhakti/Sufi saints, English Royal family and stats related to the Indian IT industry...

Here goes my tryst with the famed GD/PI process of one of these so-called institutes of excellence.

GD : A passage from Bertrand Russell's 'Analysis of the Mind'.
It dealt with empirical/experiential learning and seemed to support the view that 'learning' has a neural basis.
Started the GD by making some arbit comment abt empirical learning.
Chipped in 3-4 times in the course of the GD. Tried to differentiate between book learning and experiential learning. At the end, we reached a consensus that 'experience' per se might be neural, but the learning that one derives from it requires the application of reasoning.

PI :
Panel 2
Two panelists
Mine was the second interview.
P1 : Dark, short guy
P2 : Well built, clean shaven guy.
M : Myself

P2 : Related to the cricketer Srikkanth?
M : nah... (we share the same surname)
P1 : What does Shrikanth mean?
M : It is one of the names of Lord Vishnu....'Shri' denotes wealth...'Shrikanth' is the possessor of wealth.
P2: Are you rich?
M : nope...
P2 : What do you do?
M : am a softie....elaborated on what my company is into...
P2 : Why didn't you join infy?
M: blah
P2: did the 'pay' influence your decision?
M: yes
P2 : How is your product different from Cisco's
M: elaborated on the difference between a services gateway and a router.
P2 : How is your gateway different from the Gateway of India? (as weird as it gets)
M: (fumbled a bit at this point)...spoke abt the symbolic significance of the monument. The fact that it was built in 1921 to commemorate the arrival of Prince of Wales.
P2: Who is the current prince of wales.
M : told
P2 : why is he not the king?
M : c'mon
P2 : Is queen elizabeth a widow?
M : no...mentioned the Duke of Edinburgh
P2: Why is he not titled 'King'?
M : because he has married into the family.

P1 broke in at this point.

P1 : Why was Diana called the Princess of Wales? She too is an outsider, right?
M: Well, dunno.... i guess she wouldn't have been called the 'Queen' if Charles had acceded the throne when she was alive...Queen Consort maybe. Not sure abt this.
P1 : ok.
P2 : name the countries in UK
M : told...england, scot, n.ireland, wales.

P1: What's the size of the Indian IT industry in terms of revenues?
M : dunno
P1 : take a guess
M : 30,000 cr ???
P1 :hmm
P1: how many people are employed by this industry?
M: around a million.(if you include BPO/ITES)
P1 : sure?
M: yes
P1 : nah.. it's closer to 7 lacs...

P2 : you've said that you're a very lazy person...(looking at the form)
(I had used the word 'laidback')
M: not exactly...working on it....i lack the killer instinct to travel the extra mile at times.
P1 : but that's a weakness that all Indians have...
M: but it's a weakness nonetheless.

P1: what are u doing to overcome it?
M: setting goals and deadlines...
P1 :what's the target for this week.
M: finish the book I'm reading.
P1: which one?
M: History of India Vol1..Romila Thapar...
P1: Is she a leftist...
M: mmm yes..but writes objectively.
P1: Tell me abt the Bhakti movement....the period..
M: 13-14th century
P1: name a few saints.
M:told
P1: ah...is kabir a bhakti poet....isn't he a sufi...
M: i'm pretty sure..
P1: name a few sufis
M: moinuddin chisti....can't recollect anybody else.
P1: name a few south indian bhakti figures...
M: Ramanuja.
P1: What!! what's his period.
M: 11th c
P1: then how can he be a bhakti figure?
M: well, he was one of the pioneers...he stressed on Bhakti as a path to salvation....
P1: well that's what even sankara said....would that make him a pioneer?
M: no...went on to highlight the differences b/w advaita and vaishnavism...
P2: do u believe in all this....
M: (actually i don't)....didn't ans this properly.

P1: subjects in final sem
M: told
P1: final yr proj
M: told
P1: Which Microprocessors have you learnt?
M: 8086/85
P1: name an advanced MP released recently
M: Itanium
P1: how is Itanium different from 8086?
M: talked about 8086 being a 16bit mp and itanium 64bit...said both are CISC...he didn't get it thankfully....(actually itanium is RISC)
P1: 16bit??8086? (seems incredulous)
M: yes...8085 is 8bit
P1: what does all this mean?
M: talked abt data and address bus lengths...virtual address space.

It went ok till here...then things turned awry.

P1: shall i ask u questions from Math?
M: i'm not in touch...but i'll try....(biggest bloomer)
P1 : explain integration in layman's terms...
M: unsatisfactory answer
P1: applications of derivatives...
M: (arrgh....donno why i said this)....i think it finds application in stock market derivatives, but not sure.
P1 & P2 : laughed aloud.
Any other application?
well, the prev qn had devastated me...kept mum...body language suffered.

P1: name 3 economists who went on to become fin-ministers...
M: manmohan singh....well john mathai--maybe....not sure
plenty of economists have become rbi governers though...
P1:stick to the point....i asked fin-min
M: can name only these two
P2: so u a quizzer, eh?
M: yes, not big time.
P2: name derek o'brein's company..
M: dunno.
P2: who produces kbc?
M: siddarth basu's 'synergy' firm.
P2: name a big-money quiz show hosted by derek of late.
M: the one that pits corporates against bschoolers?
P2: that's not big money.
M: dunno
P2: bbye

P2 was particularly unimpressed throughout the interview
Frankly, I don't care a damn.

2006-01-25T18:52:00.000-08:00

A bunch of Retards

One wonders if the men at the 'commanding heights' of our political establishment are mentally challenged....
Nandan Nilekani has been awarded the Padma Bhushan for his contribution to 'Science and Engineering'...To the best of my knowledge, Nandan is not a Scientist, nor is he an Engineer (at least no longer). He is a businessman, and a very good one at that.
I'm sure the list would've been perused by a number of top bureaucrats, and the incongruity of it has apparently struck no one...

2006-01-21T07:08:00.000-08:00

Here's an Incredible anecdote

2006-01-20T17:11:00.000-08:00

Learnings on the Job

- Being Smart definitely helps.
This might sound cliched, but it's true.
No amount of sweat can compensate for lack of smarts.

- Being Smart has got little to do with your IQ.
It is a virtue that can be imbibed over a period of time.
How ? --- By observing smart people.

- 'Experience' is no big deal. It's just the name we give our mistakes.
Moreover Experience can be a harsh mistress. It makes you learn from
your mistakes the hard way by reaping the consequences. Lack of
Experience can most definitely be made up for by exercising the most
underrated human faculty, the possession of which separates men from
beasts - Foresight.

A person endowed with Foresight will be able to anticipate
problems and take corrective measures before the problems
manifest themselves. It happens so often that a solution
seems very favourable at the outset, but is disastrous in
the long term...Any Software engineer who has faced scalability
issues with his code would vouch for this.
Sceptics who are still not convinced about the primacy of Foresight
over Experience would do well to read this timeless classic essay by Frederic Bastiat
penned over 150 years ago.

So Guys, the next time you do a night-out in your office to
meet a deadline..Don't brag about your 'commitment' and
'professionalism'... It's just that you probably weren't smart
enough. If you were, the need for a 'night-out' would never
have arisen.

2006-01-15T07:02:00.000-08:00

Don't know what to make out of this

I read this in one of Naipaul's essays....
In 1957, there was a survey of high-school students of an unsegregated school in Trinidad. The school comprised of adolescents from all races - Black, Indian and White, as one would expect in a multi-racial society like Trinidad. The students were asked about their "expectations and hopes for the future".
Here are a few typical responses from the students.

Black - I would like to be a great man not only in music but also in sociology and economics. In the USA I would like to marry a beautiful actress with plenty of money. I would also like to be famed abroad as one of the world's foremost millionaires.

East-Indian - I will write a book called the Romance of Music and Literature. I will make this book as great as any Shakespeare play; then I'll return to India to endeavour to become a genius in the film industry.

White - I want to live a moderate life, earning a moderate pay, slowly but surely working my way in the law firm, but I don't want to be the Chief-Justice of the Federation or anything like that....Look around. All the other boys must be writing about their ambitions to be famous. They all cannot be, for hope is an elusive thing.

Poignant....

The Black kid is irrational, imprecise and bordering on the insane.

The East Indian is pretty much the same, full of fantasy, and, dare I say, lunacy.

The White Kid is calm, rational and by far, the most pragmatic.

The point to be noted here, is that all these kids grew up in the same society, studied in the same school, and yet the responses seem to suggest that the White Kid inhabited a different planet.
The Essay made me wonder if there is some credence after all to hackneyed colonial stereotypes like the 'phlegmatic Anglo-Saxon' and the 'excitable Asiatic'

Now, Please don't jump to the conclusion that I'm a racist....

2006-01-10T18:43:00.000-08:00

Introspection

It happens so often that a stroke of good fortune proves to be a catalyst for serious introspection. At the end of which you begin to wonder whether you deserved the slice of luck after all!

A week ago, I received an interview call from IIM Kozhikode(probably the most mispronounced city name in the country). Given the disastrous show i put up on the day of the entrance exam, a solitary call from one of the 'less sought-after' IIMs is the best result I could have hoped for. The immediate reaction was unmixedly one of elation and relief soon tempered by the realisation that converting it is going to be bloody tough.

What prompted the bout of introspection which led me to my present 'depressed' state was the questionnaire in the IIMK interview form. Questions like-
Why MBA?
What's your most significant accomplishment so far?
What alternative careers are you contemplating?
et al.

After looking inward to find answers to the aforementioned questions, I realised the truth. The fact that I'm an incompetent engineer, a weak-willed person who always shied away from following the callings of the heart, a guy possessed with an inexorable instinct to conform to the zeitgiest, obsessed with self, seeking to define myself in a world that emphasises on achievement by means of associating myself with an educational brand....

The Probing of the heart has also led me to question the efficacy of the Market in fulfilling the pursuit of happiness - which is the supposed goal of a society organised along capitalist lines. Let me clarify that I'm no market-baiter. I have faith in the efficiency of the market when it comes to allocating resources, spreading risk et al. But one of the failings of the Market is that it renders certain vocations/walks of life more attractive than others.
The craze for the so-called 'professional degrees' for instance can be attributed to the market. The craze is good for society. But for it, there shall be no economic growth. But it is not necessarily desirable from a sociological point of view. It results in people ending up pursuing professions for which they are ill-suited. This is dangerous as it can lead to the ruination of talents that are not needed by the market.... It can also lead to the damnation of the soul.

2005-12-31T22:13:00.000-08:00

Iron Curtain ??

In the course of a desultory conversation, an elderly neighbour of mine made a startling revelation. In the last 40 years that she had spent in the city of Bangalore, she had been to South Bangalore
(i.e the part of the city that lies to the south of Majestic Talkies) just once.

We live in the Ulsoor locality, a Tamil-dominated area in North-East Bangalore, one of the oldest suburbs in the city. In these parts, it is not uncommon to find quite a few long-time residents who've never gone past the Railway Station!! They've spent all their lives staying within a few kilometers of the Cantonment area.

The same observation can be made with respect to South Bangaloreans
as well. Many residents in the solidly middle-class Kannada-speaking
suburbs of the south have no idea of what Bangalore looks like, to the
north of Vidhana-Soudha. For many of them, Fraser Town is every bit as alien and unfamiliar as Brooklyn.

It's almost as though an Iron-Curtain of some kind lies somewhere
in between the GPO and Chickpet that prevents the unfettered
intercourse between Bangaloreans living on either side of it.

The Iron Curtain is in many ways symbolic of a distinct cultural
difference between the North and the South. The South is predominantly Kannada-speaking, with a pretty high median per-capita income.
The gap between the rich and the poor is not very evident in the
South.

The North, in contrast, is dominated by the minority communities,
largely bacause of its relative proximity to the neighbouring states of
TN and AP. Most of the brick and mortar industries are based in the
north which accounts for the striking disparity between the haves and
the have-nots, the privileged and the under-privileged.

The South is considered by many to be the cultural nerve-center of
Old-Bangalore. Demographically, it is far more homogenous compared
to the North, with a very significant upper-caste presence. Politically,
the South is clearly right-of-centre, almost unfailingly electing a BJP
candidate to the Parliament. The North, on the other hand has always
been a bastion of the Congress Party, thanks in no small measure to
the sizeable working-class.

South bangalore, is a more settled and idyllic region. Some areas have
remained unchanged, demographically at least, for decades. The North
is forever in a state of flux, viewed scornfully by the Southerners,
for providing a haven to arriviste outsiders, who are unfairly blamed
for the sky-rocketing real-estate prices.

It is easy to take this divide for granted. But for me, this is
one of the prime reasons for the state of unrest in Bangalore today.
A somnolent town, which was once a 'Pensioner's Paradise' has been
caught unawares, so to speak. The inexorable tide of progress and
fortuitous circumstances have ensured the growth of the city to
proportions that were unimaginable a few decades ago, but yet this
very tide of progress has marginalised the locals, who find themselves
unequal to the changes that have been wrought on them.

It is the story of an Old city struggling to come to terms with the
New World.

2005-12-30T18:35:00.000-08:00

Letters to the Editor

The section of the Newspaper that I revile the most, perhaps even more than the supplements bearing obscene pictures of revolting models, is the 'Letters to the Editor' box.
Most of the Letters are terse two-liners which state the obvious
without a modicum of original thought. One wonders why the poster
took the trouble to draft it. Perhaps to boost his/her fragile ego
by seeing his name in print.

Here are some samples from the Hindu Newspaper -

Sir, — Dr. Singh's attitude towards the Opposition leaves much to be desired. He refused to accept even a memorandum from the Opposition leaders. An experienced and confident leader could have easily avoided such a controversy.

Ashutosh Purushottam,

Gaya, Bihar

Mr.Vajpayee has shown the right way to all politicians who hanker after power. His career was studded with several noteworthy achievements.

K. Vasu
Chennai

It is a pity that the retired Delhi IIT professor MC Puri who came to Bangalore for a seminar has fallen victim to an unknown assasin's bullet. It is also sad that adequate security cover was not provided at IISc.

Anirudh Sudarsan
Chennai

They suck. It's a shame that such Letters get to see the light of day in one of India's premier newspapers. Indicative of the abominable quality of public discourse in this country.

2005-12-10T19:38:00.000-08:00

The Unintended Consequence of Bankruptcy Laws

....is the perpetuation of poverty.
The conclusion may not sound intuitive. So let me explain.

Let us at the outset understand the rationale behind Bankruptcy Laws and the problem supposedly being addressed by this legislative fiat.
Finance, in most countries, is beyond the reach of aspiring first-generation entrepreneurs without the backing of collateral. If the debtor does not have sufficient means, he often resorts to mortgaging the house in which he resides, which could well be his sole tangible asset. In the event of failure to repay the loan, he faces the grim prospect of being deprived of the only thing that he could lay claim upon.

To alleviate the distress of people facing such a predicament, Bankruptcy Laws are framed, wherein a substantial portion of household assets are exempted from seizure by creditors. The intent of this fiat is to prevent the borrower from being rendered destitute in case of a financial disaster.

At first sight, the law is seemingly beneficial. But the result is disastrous. The law deprives the talented entrepreneur without means of his only chance of gaining access to credit. The Bankruptcy exemption ensures that he is left with no assets that can be used as collateral. The probability of banks turning him down goes up considerably. This is how an entrepreneurial career is nipped in the bud, and enterprising businessmen are doomed to a mediocre existence.

The main beneficiaries in this system are the well-to-do established businessmen who will have enough assets left even after the exemptions that can be used as collateral. Such laws also insulate them from competition as new players will find it well-nigh impossible to finance their ventures.
Hence, a law that was framed with the intent of levelling the playing field has the opposite effect of widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Sad.

Do read this wonderful book for more on this.

2005-11-26T17:28:00.000-08:00

William Jones

A name that most Indians haven't heard of. The original orientalist, proponent of the Aryan Invasion Theory and the person to whom we owe our understanding of the subcontinent's ancient history.

As a Philologist, Jones' crowning achievement was the indepth study of the classical Indian tests. He is best known for observing the affinity between Sanskrit and other Indo-European Languages. The following observation of his had wide-ranging implications on Indian history and altered our racial sense.

The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists

Here are some examples that reveal a startling similarity between an oriental tongue and its distant occidental cousin :

Sanskrit Latin Meaning

trayas tres three

devas divus divine

sarpa serpens serpent

Words for 'father' in different Indo-European languages -

"father"

pitar (Sanskrit)

pater (Latin)

pater (Greek)

padre (Spanish)

pere (French)

father (English)

fadar (Gothic)

fa∂ir (Old Norse)

vader (German)

athir (Old Irish--with loss of original consonant)

It can be said that Sanskrit is much closer to Spanish in origin that it is to Tamil.
The more I read about William Jones' work, I find it increasingly hard to conceive the existence of a Pan-Indian race or an 'Indian' family of languages, as claimed by our obscurantist nationalists.

It's sad though that linguistic research of this kind that could provide a link to our obscured past doesn't get much press in our country.

Here's a fascinating page that explores this topic in greater detail

2005-11-14T16:24:00.000-08:00

Pertinent Observation

"Google wants the rest of the world to put its stuff online to be searchable by Google. Will the stuff Google creates be searchable by everyone else?"

Jeff Jarvis (link via Instapundit)

2005-11-13T19:00:00.000-08:00

Much Ado about Nothing

Compared with China, and measured by value, how much does America manufacture?

About twice as much

This should definitely silence the protectionist doomsayers in the US.

2005-11-11T08:34:00.000-08:00

Arbit Musing

The Greatest Loss is the loss of self-confidence.

The Most Dangerous Trait is the absence of self doubt.

Hmmmm. How do you reconcile these two statements.......

2005-11-09T06:59:00.000-08:00

An Update...

I was way too gullible in the previous post. Got carried away by the good Professor's number crunching. Micheal Higgins has demystified the statistical quirk since then.
Can somebody point out why it is much more likely for a batsman to have a round figure strike rate of 50 or 100 than 49.88 or 99.74?
Post your answers without reading Higgins' elementary explanation.

Read the article here to know what I'm talking about.

Current Mood - Embarassed.

2005-11-08T17:54:00.000-08:00

Fascinating Stuff

Thanks to Micheal Higgins for pointing the link.

2005-11-07T18:45:00.000-08:00

An Extension to the Prisoner's Dilemma

It's amazing how seemingly pedantic concepts like this one, have wide-ranging implications.
Here's an excellent post at Cafe Hayek on why people vote. Do read it.

2005-11-02T07:01:00.000-08:00

The Quest for Truth

The year was 1663. A Professor at Cambridge was discoursing passionately on natural philosophy, a subject better known to us as Physics, to a class of sophomores. The principles formulated by the great Greek polymaths, which had been an integral part of the textbooks in Europe for more than half a millenium, formed the topic of discussion.
To be more accurate though, it was probably more of a lecture than a discussion. The students were rapt with attention drinking in each word. The more conscientous among them did well to make meticulous notes. One such student, in the backbenches, stopped abruptly midpage,perhaps out of boredom, left a dozen pages empty and wrote the following words in Latin on top of a fresh page -

Quaestiones Quaedam Philosophicae
(Some Problems in Philosophy)

Amicus Plato Amicus Aristoteles Magis Amica Veritas
( I am a friend of Plato, I am a friend of Aristotle.
But Truth is my greater friend )

The young man was none other than Isaac Newton.
More about him later.

2005-10-30T03:31:00.000-08:00

Shocking Indifference

I was browsing PG and a few orkut communities yesterday in the hours following the Delhi Bomb Blast. And was taken aback by the indifference and triviality of the discussion surrounding these blasts. A typical conversation ran like this -

A: Hey. Heard of the blasts in the capital?
B: Ya. I happened to be in the same place exactly a week back.
A: Oh yeah? Bunch of morons behind it, i suppose.

And then the conversation invariably veers towards inanities like the weather, Diwali, cricket et al.It's almost as though we are making a conscious effort to blind ourselves to the reality.Even if someone does comment on the issue with some seriousness, it is with an air of detachment and helplessness. Common diatribes generally include criticism of the government's revocation of POTA, nasty comments on minority appeasement, possibility of a foreign hand among others.
Most of these hackneyed analyses are superficial at best. They do not really probe deep into the causes of terror.

The most disconcerting thing is the obdurate unwillingness on our part to address the issues involved in terrorism head-on. Had that not been the case, we would, by now, have found answers to the following questions -

Who are these terrorists?
What are they aggrieved about?
Why do they almost invariably hail from a particular community?
Why does this community suffer from a deep-seated sense of victimhood?
What's the role played by their faith in shaping these deleterious ideologies?

There can be NO meaningful discussion on Terrorism which does not attempt to answer each one of these questions.

Some of these queries are taboos in public forums owing to their political incorrectness. But yet, it is very important that we ask them. The sad thing is that nobody seems to be asking them.
A typical response that one gets upon asking these questions is -

Hey. What's the point in asking them. Think of solutions. This is a law-and-order problem, not a religious one.

This is sheer escapism. We are dealing with individuals who don't fear death, leave alone being apprehended. You can't have cops in every nook and cranny of a huge metropolis, can you?
Moreover, these queries are by no means counter-intuitive and prejudiced as many would suppose. Even if a group of Martians were to pay a visit to Earth, they would most definitely ask the same questions upon reading the newspapers!
It is indeed a misfortune that the public discourse on terrorism in our country is bereft of nuances. Those who seek answers to the stated questions are branded as communalists, right-wing nutcases, majoritarians, fascists and what not.
For fear of being labelled thus, a number of well-intentioned thinkers remain aloof from such polemics. As a result, we are not able to define the problem of terror that we are faced with. Without having understood the problem, there is no way we can embark upon finding a solution.

2005-10-16T20:20:00.000-07:00

Strange

Ever wondered why so many publishing houses are named after Birds? Heron, Penguin, Bantam, Pelican......

2005-10-15T03:09:00.000-07:00

The muck of our society

I guess everyone would've heard by now of EYE-EYE-PEE-EMM's foolhardy attempts to muzzle the blogosphere. There's more to it than meets the eye as sordid facts are being uncovered by the hour.

Found this link to an interview of His Holiness Malay Chaudhri, the reprobate founder of this egregious empire based on avarice and chutzpah. When asked by the questioner about his economic agenda, this is what our man has to say -

An accelerated rate of growth of GDP is possible through a well-planned income distribution policy, which ensures uninterrupted growth of purchasing power in keeping with increased national income.

As such, policies should be advocated, which ensures redistribution of growing national income in favour of bottom 80 per cent. This will not only enhance growth of GDP from the current around seven per cent to 14 per cent in the coming years.

Can't help laughing.Sounds Stalinist, doesn't it? I doubt if even Sitaram Yechury would have the gall to puke like this. Sad, that the task of exposing these self-styled academics devolved upon disinterested bloggers.

2005-10-12T02:29:00.000-07:00

Evolutionary Wisdom ?

In the South, we have this age-old custom during dussehera of staging a doll-exhibition called golu in Brahmin households. The most common exhibit being the depiction of the ten incarnations of vishnu in the order of chronology. When i was looking at them, I was struck with the similarity between the sequence of incarnations and the theory of evolution.
Matsya(fish)-->kurma(tortoise-amphibian)-->varaha(boar)-->narasimha(half-man/half ape)-->vamana(dwarfed man -with stunted growth)-->parasurama(axe wielding primitive man)-->Rama(just king-epitome of goodness)-->Krishna(worldly-wise--Machiavellian cunning)........

I felt like shouting 'eureka' upon discerning this pattern.. Could it be possible that our forbears were cognizant of the evolutionary pattern of life?
Or is it just a mere coincidence(which seems very very unlikely)?

If indeed they were aware of it, it opens up so many vistas of thought. Did they know it because of rigorous empirical study(which, again is unlikely), or was it the result of the collective memory of the human race(nay.. living species) residing in this part of the world.

Pour in with your views.

2005-10-02T02:51:00.001-07:00

Pin-up Poem

I get depressed very easily these days. Especially on Sunday afternoons in the immediate aftermath of a poor mock and faced with the prospect of work on the morrow.
These mocks can hurt your self-esteem MAJORLY, more so if you are of a sensitive-type like me.
Luckily enough, today I chanced upon a nice litte verse penned by the incomparable PG Wodehouse which should definitely lift one's spirits no matter the gravity of the situation.

Here it goes......

Put all your troubles in a great big box,
As big as any box can be:
Put all your troubles in a great big box,
And lock it with a great big key:
Crying never yet got anybody anywhere,
So just stick out you chin
AND
Jam all your troubles in a great big box
And sit on the lid and grin.

Pin it up somewhere in your lair.

2005-09-26T18:49:00.000-07:00

How low can they go?

2005-09-17T06:40:00.000-07:00

'OUR UNIVERSAL CIVILIZATION'

At some stage in our lives, most of us stumble upon a piece of writing, a speech or a book that leaves behind an indelible imprint of our psyche. It can potentially alter our opinions on myriad issues, or in some cases the way we view the world around us.
One such agent of change that reaffirmed my faith in what we call- the Occidental Culture, is VS Naipaul's acclaimed lecture - Our Universal Civilization.

This Universal Civilization which he talks about has its roots in the West. It embodies the values and ideals that we imbibed in our public schools. No equivalent of this civilization exists or has ever existed in the East. There is no room in it for asinine concepts like pre-ordained destiny and divine revelations. It emphasises on perfectibility and the dignity of the individual. In short, it simply rocks!

What I especially liked was the way he sums it up in the end. There's nothing that one can lay a finger on:

The idea of the pursuit of happiness is at the heart of the attractiveness of the civilization to so many outside it or on its periphery. ... It is an elastic idea; it fits all men. It implies a certain kind of society, a certain kind of awakened spirit. I don't imagine my father's parents would have been able to understand the idea. So much is contained in it: the idea of the individual, responsibility, choice, the life of the intellect, the idea of vocation and perfectibility and achievement. It is an immense human idea. It cannot be reduced to a fixed system. It cannot generate fanaticism. But it is known to exist; and because of that, other more rigid systems in the end blow away.

Do read the full piece.
What's hard though is the effort required to sell such ideas to the masses.
The Mullahs and the sarsanghachalaks can't understand the sheer beauty of this civilization. All that they can do when confronted by it is to cry hoarse at the 'pernicious impact' of the so-called 'Western Influence'.
What we need is more and more of this 'Western Influence' and not less of it.

2005-09-03T09:52:00.000-07:00

THE PITFALLS OF SUBSIDISED INSURANCE

This piece
pinpoints one of the principal causes for the colossal loss of life and property in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
It is the classic case of a 'well-intentioned' Governement initiative proving to be counter-productive. Government provides heavily subsidised insurance against flood. As a result,people heedlessly built seaside dwellings without a care in the world,and are now paying a price for it.
Without Govt intervention, the proverbial Invisible Hand of the Market would have mitigated the damage.
Private insurance firms might have insisted on high premiums for providing cover to property in flood-prone areas, thereby making people think twice before constructing houses close to the seafront.

Ofcourse, such a market-based solution makes little sense to India, as vulnerable fisherfolk in our country can't afford private insurance.

2005-09-01T19:10:00.000-07:00

SPEWING VENOM

Check this out.Shocking,if the translations are indeed accurate. It's a disgrace that these verses are considered the word of God by over a billion people.

2005-08-21T07:37:00.000-07:00

WISE WORDS FROM A VERY WISE MAN

2005-08-18T07:15:00.000-07:00

Pagan Beliefs vs Semetic faiths

Pasting a discussion i had on the Pagalguy forum some time ago.

Me: Here's an interesting distinction between pagan and semetic religions.
Semetic(abrahamic religions): God is an unknown entity to be feared.
Pagan religions(including Hinduism) : God is a familiar lovable benefactor whose refuge can be sought in troubled times.

Provocative distinction,eh?

X: I think you have got it the other way round. In the Theistic religions the very purpose of man is to love God and worship him while in quite a few pagan religions the Gods are more to be appeased.

Me: How can you truly love god if he is impersonal as is the case with Islam?
What marks out pagan religions is that they are not revelatory in nature.
There is no absolute truth or a dual state of heaven or hell.
Take for instance Hinduism where you either attain salvation by leading a flawless/virtuous life or you are born again to redeem yourself. Here God is more of a gentle overseer of your conduct who doesn't punish the errant by banishing them to Hell, instead gives you another chance to redeem yourself.
The concept of 'Judgement day' is conspicuous by its absence in pagan religions.

PS: But as you said, there is a strong tendency to appease gods in pagan religions. But the appeasement is not exacted by god. It is just a human failing. Whereas in a semetic faith, guidelines for good conduct are a part of the revelation itself. ex: pray 5 times a day,don't look at an idol or else ......

Pour in with your views.

2005-08-15T02:58:00.000-07:00

"This left and right thing is a great crippler of thought"

Jargon dominates political discourse these days.Even on a public forum like orkut, you are asked to sum up your political predilection with one of those cliched phrases-right-conservative/left-liberal et al. Politics of common-sense takes a backseat. Instead, positioning/branding oneself favorably using a cliched,poorly understood term is the order of the day.Sad...
This is what Naipaul had to say about the deleterious impact of political jargon:

Nearly thirty years ago I went to Argentina. It was at the time of the guerrilla crisis. People were waiting for the old dictator Perón to come back from exile. The country was full of hate. Peronists were waiting to settle old scores. One such man said to me, "There is good torture and bad torture." Good torture was what you did to the enemies of the people. Bad torture was what the enemies of the people did to you. People on the other side were saying the same thing. There was no true debate about anything. There was only passion and the borrowed political jargon of Europe. I wrote, "Where jargon turns living issues into abstractions, and where jargon ends by competing with jargon, people don't have causes. They only have enemies.... This left and right thing is a great crippler of thought"

2005-08-13T18:25:00.000-07:00

THE EARLY WODEHOUSE

Was reading Robert McCrum's much acclaimed biography of PG Wodehouse.
Accounts of Plum's brief career in the bank and his travails as a freelance writer are very revealing. Some of the snippents extracted from Plum's By-the-Way column in The Globe 'seem stiff and unfunny' and are a far cry from the virtuoso Jeeves and Blandings novels of the thirties and forties.
Take for instance this piece from one of his columns in the Globe:

Herr Nyman, a poet of the young Finnish School, has been expelled from the native town by the Russian authorities. Their idea is to make him a young Finished poet.

or this:

After forty-six years the widow of an Indian mutiny veteran has just obtained her husband's share of the Lucknow prize money. He was in Lucknow; she is in luck now.

Funny, but seems as though the young Wodehouse was trying too hard to make an impression.

2005-08-12T20:28:00.000-07:00

Arbit

The word 'voracious' yields close to 700000 search results on Google.
The phrase 'voracious reader' in quotes produces nearly 150000 results.
Hmm.Approximately one in four times,'voracious' is used in conjunction with 'reader'.
That's interesting. The ratio could well be half if one takes into account related phrases like 'voracious reading'. Can't think of any other adjective in the dictionary that exhibits such a strong association with a particular subject.

2005-08-10T20:18:00.000-07:00

Balderdash

This Website indicates the degree of evil content on your webpage.Heights of joblessness.

2005-08-07T07:17:00.000-07:00

Perceptive Comment

I never cease to be surprised by the insights provided by the seemingly mundane comments on blogs.
Here is one by Siddarth on the Mumbai Catastrophe in the Secular-Right blog:

It's a sorry state of affairs that the government had no agency to help the people in emergencies like this. It looks like there is no government when we need one. And of course, there is lot of government when we don't need one -- running airlines, petrol pumps etc. I don't blame the politicians or bureaucrats for this sorry state of affairs. I blame the vast majority of indians who still continue to support the twisted priority of the role of the state.

2005-06-30T09:11:00.000-07:00

Freakonomics available Online!

Here's the link.
Levitt also maintains a popular blog.

2005-06-29T04:47:00.000-07:00

The travails of an Artist

After all, in any other walk in life it doesn't matter if
you're not very good; you can get along quite comfortably if
you're just adequate; but it's different with an artist.

I'm quoting the narrator in the Somerset Maugham novel - The Moon and SixPence.
This one line sums up the reason behind the apathy towards fine arts among the youth all over the world.
After all, why would you want to risk becoming a professional writer even if it were the overriding passion of your life, when you can earn a comfortable amount writing mind numbing code which doesn't require you to be the best in the business!

A novelist, or for that matter a painter or a playwright has no surety of monetary success as his fortunes inextricably depend on the whimsical,often uncultivated,taste of the hoi polloi.
In contrast, a technologist or a professional manager need not lose sleep over his next meal as long as he possesses the right qualification and appropriate skillsets.Natural ability or flair is a useful adjunct, but is in no way indispensable for survival as is the case with an artist.

Moreover, unlike in conventional professions, Mediocre Art is rewarded and wins more acclaim often at the expense of original art.
The Sidney Sheldons and the Chetan Bhagats end up raking in more moolah than the VS Naipauls and the Ramachandra Guhas.
Hence,there is little or no incentive for a talented youngster to pursue art seriously. Even if he does, he must consciously pander to the popular constituency by dumbing down his output and running the risk of being branded as a 'populist' 'lowbrow' artist.

Young Artists who defy popular trends and heedlessly pursue their obsessions deserve more appreciation from the society. So, the next time you meet up with a student of literature, Archeology or any such 'arbit' course, Don't denigrate his ilk with the snide remark- 'You're after all a BA!' as nothing else could be more mortifying for an artist.

2005-06-25T03:39:00.000-07:00

Moulding Precocious Talent

John Stuart Mill had a singular childhood. At three, he learnt the Greek alphabet. By the age of eight, he had read the whole of Herodotus. He was steeped in Aristotle's logical treatises at twelve.Was very much into Adam Smith and Ricardo's work in early adolescence. What's not so well known is the role played by his father in regimenting his life and disciplining his intellect. A few excerpts from his Autobiography are very revealing-

One of the evils most liable to attend on any sort of early proficiency,
and which often fatally blights its promise, my father most anxiously
guarded against. This was self-conceit. He kept me, with extreme
vigilance, out of the way of hearing myself praised, or of being led
to make self-flattering comparisons between myself and others. From
his own intercourse with me I could derive none but a very humble
opinion of myself; and the standard of comparison he always held up to
me, was not what other people did, but what a man could and ought to
do. He completely succeeded in preserving me from the sort of influences
he so much dreaded. I was not at all aware that my attainments were
anything unusual at my age. If I accidentally had my attention drawn to
the fact that some other boy knew less than myself--which happened less
often than might be imagined--I concluded, not that I knew much, but that
he, for some reason or other, knew little, or that his knowledge was of
a different kind from mine.

He also points out the importance of developing good work habits during the formative pre-adolescence years. Even a person who is not naturally quick-witted can be moulded
into a formidable intellect with the right training.

If I had been by nature extremely quick of
apprehension, or had possessed a very accurate and retentive memory,
or were of a remarkably active and energetic character, the trial
would not be conclusive; but in all these natural gifts I am rather
below than above par; what I could do, could assuredly be done by any
boy or girl of average capacity and healthy physical constitution: and
if I have accomplished anything, I owe it, among other fortunate
circumstances, to the fact that through the early training bestowed on
me by my father, I started, I may fairly say, with an advantage of a
quarter of a century over my contemporaries.

Very,very pertinent views. Here's the link to the ebook

2005-06-17T18:21:00.000-07:00

I'll be joining NetD in a fortnight from now. Slightly apprehensive at the prospect.
Never broken a sweat for anything during the past 21 years.And now I'm expected to slog for 40-60 hrs a week! My Psmith-like distaste for routine work is bound to make the transition a very painful process.

2005-06-10T03:45:00.000-07:00

Odd

I've been in Bangalore all my life. But somehow, the incongruity of a thoroughfare being named -'Avenue Road' never struck me until I read this. Very,very strange.
The institution in which I study-'University Visweshvaraya College of Engineering' is
another good example. God knows why it was named so.
Has anybody noticed similar oddness in any of the vernacular names for roads/institutions. Or are these instances merely indicative of the inability of the colonised people to wield the English language with finesse?

2005-06-09T22:42:00.000-07:00

Nugget

There's a world of a difference between a strong ego, which is essential, and a large ego, which can be destructive.The guy with a strong ego knows his strengths.He has a realistic idea of what he can accomplish and moves purposefully towards his goal.
But the guy with a large ego is always looking for recognition.He constantly needs to be patted on the back.He thinks he's a cut above everyone else.And he talks down to people who work for/with him.

- Lee Iacocca

2005-06-03T04:58:00.000-07:00

BOOK TAG

Smitten by the meme which originated at Yazad's place.Though no one has tagged me as yet, I am posting my list to relieve the boredom :

Total number of books I own

Close to 500.

Last Book I Bought:

Galahad at Blandings

Last Book I read

The Complete Yes Prime Minister - By Jonathan Lynn and Anthony Jay

Five Books That Mean a Lot to Me:

1. To Kill a MockingBird
An exquisite book. Atticus Finch's address to the jury is the most moving piece of prose I've ever read.

2. The Best and the Brightest
This tome by David Halberstam on the Vietnam War fiasco stands out for its detailed charecter portrayal. Not even in my wildest of dreams could I have imagined people as bright as McNamara and Bundy!

3. Leave it to Psmith
Read it.I shall say no more.

4. India - A wounded civilization
This book ought to be read by every Indian who wants to know all that is wrong with this country.

5. The Valley of Fear
Vintage Holmes.'I am Birdy Edwards' shall forever remain etched in my memory.

Tag five people and have them do this on their blogs:

Sukumar
Zing
Rohit Kaul
Venkat
Deepak

2005-05-29T04:30:00.000-07:00

Steven Weinberg on Religion

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."