I am not here

I have moved to Wordpress, along with all the old posts on this blog, except for this one. The old posts here will stay, but all further activity will take place on the new blog. The name of the blog remains the same, along with most other things. Only, it will be better organized and more regular, hopefully.

Black Days?

A series of explosions ripped through Mumbai yesterday, and brought back memories of that black day from 1993. This time, however, they were not in any random order at random places, but in a well-planned series, striking where it would hurt most. The terrorists had evidently learnt their lesson. They did not attack the limbs; instead, they attempted to destroy the spinal cord itself. They almost succeeded, but once again, they could not destroy the much-celebrated spirit of the city.
This spirit has been under various types of attacks in recent times. From the rains to the Shivsena rampage to these serial blasts, events which make our friends and relatives living elsewhere remark that ‘Mumbai is no longer worth living’ have actually given this city an opportunity to show its maturity in dealing with such situations. Events which would cause havoc anywhere else in this world really fail to cause more than a slight disturbance in the life of Mumbaikars.
However, for some, this has really played havoc on their lives. As ordinary citizens, we can offer them little else but help and consolation. Meanwhile, the news channels are everywhere, offering complete coverage of everything related to these blasts. Soon, Tuesday, 11th July, 2006 will be referred to as ‘Black Tuesday’ or ‘Terror Tuesday’. One wonders that, the way things are going, we might soon find all the days of the week blackened with terror.
I am not really in a mood to write a lot, unlike that gargantuan last post. So, here’s a parting thought, from the film ‘Fiza’ (which, after having had enough of distressing visuals on the news channels, I was watching last night while waiting for my brother)
Karisma Kapoor, to a Muslim leader who seeks to extract political mileage by publicizing her plight: Green and saffron are just two colours on the Indian flag. They should remain that, and not try to occupy the whole flag.

For The Love Of The ‘Beautiful’ Game

The FIFA World Cup 2006 is drawing to a close. All the teams that I supported, at some stage or the other, (like Brazil, Germany, Portugal, Argentina, Spain) have bowed out. Few would have predicted at the beginning of this tournament that France and Italy would face off for this year’s title. Yet, stranger things have happened in this festival of ‘the beautiful game’. Before the curtains fall on this year’s World Cup extravaganza, let’s have a look at the way this tournament has shaped up over the years.

Prologue: Until 1928, the Summer Olympics used to be the biggest stage for the world’s footballing nations. After that year’s edition, FIFA realized that the Americans (who have always been crazy about weird games that no one else in the world plays) might decide not to include football in the 1932 Olympics in Los Angeles. An alternative tournament, a World Cup of football, was therefore proposed.

1930 – Uruguay: This little South American nation had won the 1924 and 1928 Olympic gold medals for football, and they were also about to celebrate the centenary of their independence in 1930. Quite naturally, they were awarded the privilege to host the first World Cup. The Europeans protested, since it was too much trouble for them to come down all the way across the Atlantic (after all, the Great Depression had taken a toll on their economies). However, FIFA persisted, and in the end, 13 nations participated in the First World Cup in Uruguay. The home nation managed to beat neighbours Argentina in the final, to win the first World Cup. The Americans proved that they did play football (or soccer) after all, finishing third, while Yugoslavia finished fourth.

1934 – Italy: To pacify the Europeans, FIFA decided to hold the second tournament in Italy. Now, the South Americans protested, with the same excuses. They were not united, though, as Brazil decided that their love for football was above all else (Brazil are the only nation to have participated in every World Cup tournament so far), and came all the way to take part. However, the tournament was dominated by European teams, and hosts Italy beat Czechoslovakia in the final. Another notable moment of this tournament was the ‘blitzkrieg’, where German Ernst Lehner found the Austrian net within 24 seconds from kickoff, prophesying the speed with which Hitler was about to eat up Austria, in a few years’ time. It was the first time Germany was participating, as they had been too broke to go to Uruguay in 1930.

1938 – France: FIFA had promised that the tournament would be held alternately in Europe and South America. However, in 1938, they decided not to cross the Atlantic, and instead, just crossed the Alps and went to France. The South Americans continued their boycott, while Italy maintained their dominance, beating Hungary in the final this time. Coach Vittorio Pozzo of Italy became (and remains to this day, as Perreira and Scolari have seen their teams exit this time) the only coach to win two World Cup tournaments.

1942 & 1946: Nazi Germany had laid a claim to host the next World Cup, but World War II intervened. In any case, FIFA were looking to fulfill their promise by awarding the right to host the next World Cup to Brazil, so Hitler would have been disappointed anyway. Meanwhile, Ottorino Barassi, the vice-president of FIFA and the president of the Italian football federation, hid the trophy from the Germans in a shoe-box under his bed. After the war was over, the trophy was taken out and given a new name, the Jules Rimet trophy, in honour of the legendary president of FIFA who completed 25 years in office in 1946.

1950 – Brazil: Germany, which had broken up into two countries and was under Allied occupation, was not allowed to participate this time. FIFA compensated the loss by mending fences with the Football Association, enabling England, the birthplace of modern football, to participate in the World Cup for the first time. However, Europe was in a mess after the war, and so, Brazil got the opportunity to host this tournament without much ado. Incidentally, they were also the favourites, as they won all their matches convincingly, to book a place in the final against Uruguay, who were only a shade of the great team from the 1920s. The final showdown took place at the great Maracana stadium in Rio de Janeiro, with an attendance of about 174,000 (still a record). The crowd was to be disappointed, however, as Uruguay pulled off a surprise 2-1 win.

1954 – Switzerland: The World Cup moved back to Europe, and to this little nation that had been unaffected by the World War. This tournament turned out to be among the most eventful in history, seeing a record 5.38 goals scored per match. Some samples: Hungary beat debutants South Korea 9-0 (still a record for the largest victory margin) and hosts Switzerland were beaten by neighbours Austria 7-5 (highest goals scored in a World Cup match). This tournament also featured the infamous ‘Battle of Bern’ between Brazil and Hungary. However, it reached a fitting climax when West Germany, still recovering from the War, beat favourites Hungary in the final, in what came to be called the ‘Miracle at Bern’.

1958 – Sweden: The tournament stayed in Europe, contrary to South American expectations. The host nation performed well as usual, as did many other European teams, especially France with Just Fontaine in their ranks. Fontaine finished as top scorer in the tournament with 13 goals, still a record, and one which seems most unlikely to be broken. However, France were beaten in the semi-final by Brazil, who went on to beat Sweden 5-2 in the most high-scoring final ever, with a 17-year old Pele scoring two goals. This was the only time that Brazil managed to beat France in the World Cup, and also the only occasion when a South American team won the Cup in Europe.

1962 – Chile: Finally, the tournament returned to South America, and Brazil continued their dominance. However, Pele’s role was severely restricted in this tournament, because of injuries inflicted by opposition players, and he finished with just one goal. Meanwhile, Czechoslovakia’s Vaclav Masek set a new record for the fastest goal, scoring within 15 seconds from the kick-off against Mexico. His team went on to face Brazil in the final, and eventually lost 3-1. Brazil became the second team after Italy to win two consecutive World Cup titles.

1966 – England: Finally, the tournament came to the birthplace of modern football. It is often said that the English invented football, but the Brazilians perfected it. This time, however, the Brazilians were not in top form, and Pele again managed just one goal in the tournament. Other biggies also faltered, like Italy, who lost ignominiously to debutants North Korea and exited after the first round itself. The Koreans attempted to shock another debutant team, Portugal, with a goal by Park Soong-Jin within 23 seconds from kick-off, but the Portuguese recovered. In fact, they proved to be the real discovery of this World Cup, going all the way to the semi-finals, and the legendary Eusebio finishing as top-scorer with nine goals. The final showdown took place between England and West Germany at the Wembley, and the hosts won 4-2 with one of the most controversial goals ever giving them the lead in a closely fought match (The goal/save in the new Adidas ‘Jose+10’ ad is said to be inspired from this goal). The hosts were also involved in another controversy when, after their match with Argentina, their coach ran onto the pitch and stopped his players from exchanging jerseys with their bitter opponents. This tournament is also remembered for the disappearance of the World Cup trophy with just a few days to go for the matches to begin. Luckily, the trophy was discovered by a dog, ‘Pickles’, wrapped in a newspaper and hidden in a garbage bin.

1970 – Mexico: The World Cup moved to a new continent, and Brazil returned to winning ways. They were coached this time by Mario Zagallo, a member of the 1958 and 1962 Cup-winning teams, who thus became the first man to win the Cup as a player and as a coach. After two lacklustre tournaments, Pele was in top form, scoring four goals in this tournament and ending his World Cup career with 12 goals, coming within a whisker of Just Fontaine’s record. Pele was assisted by a host of other great players such as Rivelino, Jairzinho, Gérson and Tostão, and the 1970 Brazilian team is widely regarded as the best ever. The tournament’s top scorer, however, was West Germany’s Gerd Muller, who finished with ten goals. The final was between Brazil and Italy, both looking to win their third title, and Brazil eventually prevailed 4-1.

1974 – West Germany: After exorcising the ghosts of the War, West Germany finally had a chance to host the World Cup. The rejuvenation of the host nation also manifested itself in a new trophy (the current FIFA World Cup trophy), which replaced the old Jules Rimet Cup, which was given to 1970 winners Brazil to keep for posterity. In the group stages of this tournament, Yugoslavia beat debutants Zaire 9-0 to equal the record for the worst drubbing. Meanwhile, Gerd Muller added four more goals to his tally, beating Fontaine’s record for most World Cup goals. The top scorer, however, was Poland’s Grzegorz Lato, who finished with seven goals as Poland finished third. The West Germans, coached by Helmut Schon (who still holds the record for most matches and most victories as coach in the World Cup) and captained by the legendary ‘Kaiser’ Franz Beckenbauer, faced their Dutch neighbours in the final, and managed to win the World Cup for the second time.

1978 – Argentina: After losing bids previously to the likes of Mexico and Chile, the Argentineans finally got to host their first World Cup. At home, they proved to be more than a match for their opponents, reaching the final for the first time since 1930, and eventually beating Netherlands in the final to win their first ever title. The Dutch, unfortunately, became the first team ever to lose in two consecutive finals. Meanwhile, the hosts were aided by a string of superlative performances from Mario Kempes, who finished the tournament as top scorer with six goals.

1982 – Spain: There are many things to be remembered about this tournament. Firstly, very much like 2006, the Brazilians were hugely favoured to win this time. In fact, the 1982 Brazilian team is generally regarded as the best ever not to win the World Cup. They thrashed all their opponents in the group stages, and all seemed to be going well, when the Italians, recovering from a domestic scandal similar to the recent one, beat them 3-2 in the second stage. Paolo Rossi, whose suspension had been cut short so that he could participate in this World Cup, scored a hat-trick in this match to pack the Brazilians off. He finished the tournament as top scorer with six goals. Meanwhile, in the group stages, Hungary beat El Salvador 10-1 to equal their own record for the biggest victory margin. Another ignominious record was set by Italy’s Giampiero Marini in the semi-final against Poland; he managed to anger the referee within one second of kick-off and earned a yellow card for his efforts. Also, Pele’s record for being the youngest player at the World Cup was broken by Norman Whiteside of Northern Ireland, who did not manage to break, however, his records for also being the youngest goal-scorer and the youngest in a World Cup final. On the other hand, Italy’s legendary goalkeeper-captain Dino Zoff became the oldest player to play in a World Cup final, aged over 40 when his team beat West Germany, winning their third World Cup while denying the West Germans a similar achievement.

1986 – Mexico: For the first time ever, a country was given a second opportunity to host the World Cup. This time, the hosts were coached by Bora Milutinovic, who was to go on to coach four other teams at the World Cup, to create a unique record. However, this made little difference to the Mexicans’ performance. The tournament is actually remembered for Diego Maradona and his Argentinean side, who won their second World Cup title in a span of eight years. En route to the final, though, they created much controversy, especially in the match against bitter rivals England, where Maradona scored his infamous ‘Hand of God’ goal. The match is also remembered for what is widely regarded as the best ever World Cup goal, as Maradona beautifully tackled five English players before finally netting the ball. England had some consolation, though, as Gary Lineker finished as top scorer with six goals. Meanwhile, the West Germans became the second team after the Netherlands to lose in two consecutive finals.

1990 – Italy: The tournament returned to its original European hosts after a gap of 56 years. This tournament turned out to be the most low-scoring ever, with an average of only 2.21 goals scored per match. Even the final was decided by just one goal, as West Germany, led by Lothar Matthaus, beat Argentina 1-0 and avenged their defeat in the 1986 final. The Germans were coached by Franz Beckenbauer, who became only the second man after Mario Zagallo to win the Cup as a player and then as a coach. Meanwhile, the hosts finished third, with Toto Schillaci finishing as top scorer with six goals. Another team from this tournament to be still remembered is the ‘Indomitable Lions’ from Cameroon, who shocked Argentina in the opening match and signaled the arrival of African football on the world stage.

1994 – USA: Goodbye Italy, Hello USA. FIFA’s decision to let the World Cup be held in a country largely indifferent to football was generally criticized, but in the end, this tournament turned out to be the most watched ever. Roger Milla came out of retirement to lead his Lions for one last time, and in the process, broke Dino Zoff’s record of being the oldest player at the World Cup. In his last match against Russia, aged over 42 years, he also became the oldest goal-scorer. However, his lone goal was just a consolation for his team, as Russia’s Oleg Salenko netted five goals to break Just Fontaine’s 1958 record of four goals in one match. Russia did not progress beyond the group stages, but Salenko’s six goals in three matches were enough to allow him to share the Golden Boot with Bulgaria’s Hristo Stoichkov, whose team went all the way to the semi-finals. Brazil’s Romario tried hard to catch them but finished with five goals. The final showdown took place at Pasadena between Brazil and Italy (a lot of us must be remembering that), and it became the first final ever to be decided on penalties, with Italy’s Roberto Baggio sending the ball over the crossbar to gift Brazil their fourth World Cup win. Another memorable moment from this tournament is Bebeto’s famous goal celebration, dedicated to his newborn baby.

1998 – France: This tournament saw the switch from the 24-team to the current 32-team format. Brazil were again the favourites, and their road to the final had few obstacles. Netherlands were back in their old form after a gap of two decades, and managed to finish fourth, after losing to debutants Croatia in the third-place playoff. Croatian Davor Suker finished with six goals to win the Golden Boot. The eventual champions, however, were hosts France, who beat favourites Brazil 3-0 in the final to claim their first ever World Cup title, with two of those goals coming off the head of Zinedine Zidane. This was also the first time that the ‘Golden Goal’ rule was tried out, and the first ‘golden goal’ was by France’s Laurent Blanc, which packed Paraguay off in the round of 16. This tournament also saw the last of German greats Lothar Matthaus and Juergen Klinsmann, and some dubious moments involving the ‘young guns’, like the sending off of David Beckham and Ronaldo’s convulsions causing him to miss the final.

2002 – Japan & South Korea: For the first time, the World Cup was hosted outside Europe or Latin America. Both the hosts proved to be quite a force at home, with Japan reaching the second round (after an indifferent performance on debut in 1998), and South Korea going all the way to the semi-finals, dashing Italy’s hopes en route, much like their northern neighbours did 36 years ago. Among other underdogs who did well were debutants Senegal, who shocked France 1-0 in the opening match and dismissed Sweden with a golden goal in the second round, and Turkey, who reached the semi-finals and eventually finished third after Hakan Sukur scored within a record 11 seconds from kick-off against South Korea in the third-place playoff. France’s first-round exit, without winning a match or even scoring a goal, marked the worst-ever defense of a World Cup title. Brazil were back in the final, this time against Germany, and ultimately prevailed 2-0 to win their fifth title. Also, their captain Cafu became the first player to play in three final matches. Ronaldo’s two goals in the final broke the six-goal jinx, taking his tally to eight goals in the tournament and 12 goals in all, tied with Pele in the tally of top World Cup goal-scorers.

2006 – Germany: After the ‘World Cup of the underdogs’ four years earlier, this tournament saw few upsets in the initial stages. Also, after an unusually high-scoring opening game, this tournament has turned out to be quite a low-scoring one. Meanwhile, the Germans have shown uncharacteristic enthusiasm while hosting this World Cup, and while supporting their own team. On the other hand, the refereeing has been quite controversial, with an unusually high number of cards given out. In the later stages, we have seen some unexpected results, and now comes the grand finale. Will it be a last hurrah for Zizou and his ageing warriors, or will the Italians succeed in winning a fourth title?

Back to the blogosphere

Back after a long time. In a few days, I shall have my IIT degree, a fulfillment of the ambition which dictated the course of my life for the last 6 years or so (i.e. if I include the time spent preparing to get into IIT :P). Now it is time to move on, to focus on a new objective, and quite ironically, this degree will not have any conspicuous utility for the path that I have chosen (at least that’s the way it seems right now).

However, before I move on (to some other issue, on this blog), it will be better to tie up a few loose strings from the past. To be more specific, my last post (about two months back) was about reservations, and that was the burning issue at that time. The issue seems to have lost the media’s interest, but the basic problems have not disappeared (and they won’t, at least not in the foreseeable future), so I think this post is not really out of place or time. On the contrary, since the excitement seems to have abated, it might be easier for the readers (whatever few I might have) to keep aside personal biases and look at the issue in a balanced manner. (This is extremely important, because otherwise, anyone who speaks out on this issue is immediately categorized as pro- or anti-reservation, and a bias formed for or against him/her, even without hearing out the complete argument)

Aashwit had responded to my earlier post by asking that if we know that reservations are not the best way to ensure social equality, should we still go ahead with them? Usually, the people who ask such questions, if you ask them ‘what is the best way then?’, will go on to tell you about ‘affirmative action’ programs in US universities and elsewhere. If that means, for example, the preference that universities give to coloured students when ‘all other credentials are equal’, then I am not really sure that such steps would work better than quota reservations in India, or even whether they do so in the US.

Firstly, the number of the people who get such benefits in those universities is too little, making it look more like an exercise in tokenism than a serious attempt to correct the inequality. Secondly, there is a lot of subjectivity in university admissions out there, while in India, it is usually a single quantitative measure (e.g. your performance in a competitive examination) that decides your fate. In India, it is difficult to make the admission criteria more comprehensive, firstly because of the huge number of aspirants for every seat, and secondly because the subjectivity introduced would make the common man mistrust (and quite rightly so, in most cases) the university authorities who ‘use their discretion’.

This argument in favour of our system of competitive examinations is also intended at those who call for the abolition of such exams every time there is a suicide by a student who fails in some such exam. In such cases, I believe it is actually the pressure by parents and peers, and the consequent ‘fear of failure’ (not the failure itself) that proves fatal, and so, abolishing the exams would not serve any purpose. However, I digress here. Let me get back to the main issue, of reservations.

Another form of affirmative action is what is practiced by many media and corporate houses (in India and abroad), the most recent example that featured in the news being of Infosys. This involves comprehensive training programs for the ‘disadvantaged’ groups, which attempts to correct the lack of capability before providing employment. While this is certainly laudable, the problem is that it depends on the benevolence of the ‘privileged’ groups towards the ‘under-privileged’. Where such benevolence is shown, it is good, but what about those who do not care to be benevolent? It was this realization that led our Constituent Assembly to hard-wire the privilege in the Constitution, in the form of reservations for SC/STs.

Having said that, and having established that reservations are needed, it must be remembered that it is a privilege, and not a right (and certainly not a fundamental right). Therefore, it needs to be reviewed periodically, and if certain groups are cornering the privilege more than others, or if sufficient progress has been made in their social status, then the privilege should be withdrawn, so it can be enjoyed by the other ‘deserving’ groups. This is something our politicians seem to have forgotten (or conveniently ignore), ostensibly because of vested interests in their vote-banks.

The clamour by the ‘pro-reservation’ groups inevitably points to the still-rampant exploitation of the lower castes in rural areas, which is a completely different issue, involving a fundamental right (against exploitation). Also, I have read several articles by ‘eminent’ social scientists, which question the so-called ‘merit’ of the IITs/IIMs. On the other hand, agitating ‘anti-reservation’ students dress up as shoeshine boys and sweepers to exaggerate their plight. While the evident contempt here for ‘dignity of labour’ is of course dubious, this also shows that on both sides of the argument, people seek justifications for their stance in unrelated issues or the exaggeration of their problems. And in this chaotic scenario, alternative schemes for reservation, or for ensuring social equality, (e.g. incentives to private-sector companies instead of imposition, or the threat of imposition of quotas, or the formula suggested by Yogendra Yadav) just get ignored.

Another problem is the lumping together of very diverse groups under the tag of ‘under-privileged’. According to some sources, OBCs comprise only 36% of our population, and not 52% as Mandal would have us believe. Also, most of them are economically and socially as well-off as the ‘upper castes’. Many of them might not be present in good numbers in educational institutions or government jobs, but they have a near-monopoly over certain businesses, and are certainly not ‘under-privileged’. While it might be true that certain ‘deserving’ castes were not included in the original SC/ST list, and should get certain benefits (whether under the tag of ‘OBC’ or whatever), the important question of which castes are ‘deserving’ needs to be looked at in a fair manner, without selfish interests in one’s mind.

Sadly, that is what is lacking most in today’s scenario. The politicians obviously cannot be trusted to keep aside their selfish interests, and this difficulty is what led Pt. Nehru, Rajiv Gandhi and even Dr. Ambedkar to caution us against extending reservations too far and opening a Pandora’s Box. Even the agitating students were actually there for their own interest. If, for example, the government was to keep postgraduate medical seats out of the purview of these reservations, the protests would be reduced to almost non-existent.

If everyone is going to look at their own interest, one might attain temporary relief through stop-gap measures. However, to reach an appropriate long-term solution, we would have to look beyond our narrow interests. I have a friend who got through IIT Madras (and now IIM Bangalore) with the help of his SC tag. He told me that he felt he shouldn’t have got any reservations in the first place. For his father, it might have been justified, but not for him. What is required is for such honest confessions to be more common, to be in public and not just in private conversations, and for this honesty to spread across all classes of people, and for this honesty to dictate the decisions we make. It seems a utopian fantasy, but it certainly seems worth striving for.

Meanwhile, the World Cup moves into its finishing stages. I am betting on Portugal to beat France today, and Italy on Sunday! Any takers?

Caste... and my understanding of it

This had to come. I am just too tired of discussing and arguing about reservations with anyone and everyone, so I am just putting all my thoughts over here. Now, I'll just direct everyone here instead of talking about the same thing again and again.
To deal with such a complicated issue, I will go in chronological order, tracing my memory as far back as I can. I shall relate my own experience in this regard, which I hope will help you understand the way I think.
(By the way, if you do not already know details about the issue, or are not aware of both sides of the debate, Vivek Kumar's blog is a good starting point, with the suggested readings at the end. My blog is purely for my 'unique' opinion, which is not wholly on either side)
I was too young when Mandal-I happened, and whatever I know of those times has been told to me later. I attended a Catholic school in Mumbai (or Bombay) throughout my childhood, which had no reservation of the kind we all know; however, about half their intake was of Catholic students (I do not remember whether it was a concrete reservation policy or just an unsaid principle). Also, the school followed the Maharashtra Board, and did not have exorbitant fees, which meant that there was quite a lot of diversity in the socio-economic background of the student population. In retrospect, there seems to have been a correlation between academic performance and socio-economic and religious background, which I will sum up in one line as - students from those families that put a high premium on education, seemed to do better.

Most urban English-speaking youth today do not know their caste (or at least they claim not to). However, for some reason, I knew it at a very young age. I also distinctly remember a few incidents from my school days which contributed to this.
As soon as my brother and I began to realize that one day, we would get out of school, we were driven by our parents to study harder to face the competition outside. Even though my parents were quite liberal and easy-going, they sometimes could not avoid comparing our performance with that of our friends (all this happens with all of us, I believe). It was during some such conversations that they remarked how some of our friends would have it easier because they belonged to a certain caste which enjoyed reservations. We could not see how these friends of ours, whose parents were also government officers, and who had had a similar upbringing, were disadvantaged in any way, so this revelation naturally led to a resentment.
I still believe that such people of the 'backward castes' should be included in a 'creamy layer' and excluded from reservation. Historical wrongs do matter, but only to a certain extent. Someone who is in a Group A government job (or equivalent income in any other field) has sufficient resources (without turning corrupt) to ensure a good education for his children, on his own (without depending on traditional family wealth). The only reason I see why my parents were able to do it, and certain others weren't, is because they did not put a high premium on education and guide their kids in the right way (I am not saying 'drive harder' because there is a difference between just driving your kids to study all the time, and guiding them in the right way). It is true that there are some castes that have traditionally laid greater emphasis on education, and continue to do so, but at least in urban areas today, any parent (even of a caste which was not into education a few generations ago) should be able to realize the importance of education. In such a scenario, providing reservations leads to complacency in the minds of some of those who get it, and thus leads to the system being misused (I say 'some' here because I have seen such complacency, but I have also seen examples of people who have not used reservation when they could have, and also those who used it, but still worked equally hard. However, such people do not need reservation in any case).
On the other hand, I also saw the way of life of the domestic servants in our neighbourhood. Most of them sent their kids to the local municipal schools, but some managed to send them to the same school as us, and their kids did well. I also saw in their families widespread alcoholism among the adult males (which made us feel that these people do not want to help themselves. This reminds me of a quote by Nani Palkhivala, that the same logic works at the global level, where sometimes, the developed countries do not want to give more aid to developing countries because they feel it will be misused by their corrupt governments. However, I digress here). I also saw, in some of the older teenage children of those servants, a resentment towards the upper classes, which explains why the 'vote-bank politics' of our leaders works with such people.
[By the way, I'll digress again, to explain why I put 'vote-bank politics' in quotes. I believe that it is an integral part of any democracy, and everyone from George Bush to Tony Blair to Sonia and Vajpayee does everything with the aim of winning elections. What is different is the attitude of the people, what issues do they care about, and are most vigilant about, whether they tend to follow a herd mentality or not. However, I shall leave it for a later post to have a more detailed discussion on democracy].
It is a tragedy that the people who actually need reservation the most, and whose opinions are mobilised by politicians in their favour, are the ones who do not benefit from it as much as they should, basically because the benefit of reservations has been concentrated to certain castes and groups of people within the backward castes, who have used it for several generations for the past 60 years. The caste system in India is not a simple one, and there are various levels of stratification among the upper and lower castes. Also, it has not disappeared, even in urban areas, and I do not think it will disappear soon. I also believe that any society which allows for individual enterprise and freedom cannot have complete equality. What we should try to ensure, however, is that it should be possible for someone from the lowest strata to rise to the top within one lifetime.
It is true that if one looks at the caste-wise populations in India's premier educational institutions, the upper castes are disproportionately represented, and it is desirable that this be corrected and there be greater diversity in the student pool, even if it leads to a perceived 'reduction in merit'. However, if there are some castes which are traditionally, or currently, stronger, in business or politics, and not in education and the professional field, they should be left that way. Only people who are socially AND economically backward should benefit from this. I am also doubtful about the motives of Arjun Singh & Co, and whether he or anyone else will try to correct the wrongs in implementation, and not include their own (or other politically powerful) castes in the OBC list. Therefore, before the implementation of any such scheme, there should be a detailed study of who deserves it and who does not. Some people argue that it is too late, and the current measures should have been applied along with the rest of Mandal's recommendations, 15 years back. Also that why are we raising this issue now, why didn't we have such a study already. Or as some politician said on TV, why is everyone asking for an increase in the education budget (from 3.8% to 6%) now, when the reservations issue has come up. The answer is simple, 'better late than never'. It is better to take a well-calculated step with some delay than a hasty, but faulty one. And Mr. Politician (I forget your name), we thought if you are not going to spend enough money on education, you are also not going to interfere with it. If you now decide to interfere, then you will also have to take other positive steps.

At least the protests by medical students (especially after the support of the IMA) have ensured that these questions will be looked at while implementing the proposed reservations, if at all. As for the protests themselves, and the strike which paralysed hospitals, it seems there was no other way of making their voice heard, and they did manage to do it this way, finally. By the way, the doctors' protests are mainly because there are too few PG seats anyway, and the fact that this is the main problem seems to be lost on most people involved in the debate. While the government has hinted at increasing seats, the question of whether the available infrastructure can sustain that many students should be looked at before any such move, in medical colleges, IITs & IIMs, and other Central Universities. Also, when you have just one or two seats somewhere, reserving them by rotation is a completely absurd idea, analogous to reserving the President or PM's post. (By the way, I feel that those forwarded emails that the Indian cricket team and all other sundry places should have reservations are illogical and pointless, and I simply delete them)
Coming back to my own experience, I do not believe that 'No Reservations' would have gotten me into IIT in the first attempt, or that reservations stopped me from getting the branch of my choice when I did get through. 'No Reservations' might have gotten me a 'better' junior college after class 10, but that would not have made any significant difference in my life. Before that, my school did not have reservations, so on the whole, I personally do not feel (dis)affected by it. It is true that there are a lot of 'borderline' cases who are affected, but then, they are able to make it to the next best institute. Therefore, I do not see any sense in those 'innovative' protests by medical students where they act like sweepers or shine shoes. On the other hand, it makes a very big difference to those who get these reservations, which makes it all the more important to ensure that these reservations go to the right people.

Summing up, I believe that in the absence of any other scheme which does not depend on the 'benevolence' of the upper castes (like the so-called affirmative action in the US), reservation is the best policy for a place like India. However, the issue of getting it to the right people is very complicated, and this should be looked at properly before implementing any reservations. Also, the political motivation of our leaders is questionable, which makes me against Arjun Singh & Co in the current scenario. As for the protests, debates and discussions, I find most of them frivolous, and I hope people (students, politicians and even journalists, and especially the MTV people :D) would spend more time educating themselves before opening their mouths. I also do not like the idea of blackmailing the State, but having said that, the brutality of the Mumbai Police on 13th May was really too much, and the subsequent strike was probably the best option the doctors had. The issue will not die out so soon, and I am sleepy, so I'll end it here... :)

Update: A friend tells me the talks between the medical students and Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee have failed. As I said, the issue will not die out so soon...

The Colour of Life

Again, a post after a long time. I have been busy, & will continue to be for the rest of this year, so the posts will be few and far between. However, every now and then, some incident forces me to get back to my blog. This time, it is a movie.
Rang De Basanti was only the second movie I watched on the day of its release, the first being Mangal Pandey. Usually, I wait for some reviews of the movie to come in before deciding whether it is worth spending money on, but Aamir Khan movies are an exception. Now, in one line, my opinion is that RDB was definitely worth watching on the first day in the theatre, quite unlike Mangal Pandey.
I have already seen countless reviews of RDB with differing opinions about it. It is definitely a well-made movie, with amazing songs and cinematography. But the point that is being discussed the most, is whether the movie does what it promised to (Hint: The tagline is "A Generation Awakens"). I would say I am not in a position to judge that, basically because I am already aiming for an 'unconventional' career, so it was not like the movie made me think and change my mind (I know another person with a similar reason; he is already doing what he would love to. However, unlike him, I basically liked the movie).
One reason I loved the movie was that I went with a group of friends who were joking around, and so there was no dull moment at all in those 3 hours. The opinions of those friends about the movie also differ a lot, and I had long discussions with some of them. I don't think anyone of them has been so impressed by the movie that he is going to go out & do something like that. But let me not get into that.
One objection that many people have is that the movie is unrealistic or impractical. Even if it had to give an idealistic message, it could give a positive message like Yuva did. Well, firstly, we have already seen many movies with an honest police/IAS officer or journalist fighting against the 'system', and many more eulogizing the armed forces, and of course, Yuva, where the protagonists enter politics, so these guys had to make something different. What they showed is obviously unrealistic under the present conditions, but if we look at the conditions built up in the movie, it seems logical. Let me explain.
When they start working in the documentary with Sue, they cannot relate at all with the thinking of the revolutionaries. Slowly, however, they begin to understand and relate with the characters that they are playing. The revolutionaries have, of course, been depicted in a very shallow manner; for example, it is more like Aamir Khan playing Azad than the real Azad coming alive on screen, but that was exactly the point of the movie. It is still a story of these modern guys, and not those revolutionaries, unlike say, The Legend of Bhagat Singh. As for the complete ideology of those great revolutionaries, RDB does not do justice to that, but again, it was not supposed to.
The turning point of the movie is the MIG crash, and again, I read somewhere that the filmmakers have shown a very shallow understanding of the whole MIG issue. Well, they themselves accept that the issue was dramatized for the sake of the movie, and they show a message to that effect. The movie was seen and cleared by the Defence Minister and the three service chiefs (which is, I feel, besides the point; the only reason the Defence Minister did not object was that they had shown the BJP in power, and the BJP didn't protest because that would have been like accepting some hidden guilt). The way the media raises the issue of corruption after the crash was something that actually happened, and someone told me that there was also a real protest march like the one shown in the movie.
What did not happen in real life, however, was the arrogant and high-handed behaviour of the Minister. For me, that was the first unrealistic part in the movie. Also, the way he got alarmed at the protest march and ordered a lathi charge was difficult to digest; most ministers don't give a damn for such protest marches. However, we should also not forget that in many parts of the world today, and even in India during the Emergency, for example, such protests would really face the kind of treatment shown in the movie.
Also, before the MIG crash, those guys lived their lives from day-to-day, with no long-term plans or ambitions. They didn't/couldn't fit in to the regular material world, as was depicted through Aamir's confession of his insecurities, or through Karan's tiff with his father. They also didn't have the confidence and idealism of their pilot friend Ajay. Their life was colourless, in a way, not wanting to accept the white-collar or blue-collar world of work, or the olive-green uniform of the armed forces, or the colour of religious fanaticism (as depicted through Laxman's rejection of his party ideology, and Aslam's quarrels with his family). In such a situation, and with the death of their close friend and the subsequent lathi charge, their lives assumed the yellow (basanti) of the revolutionaries' lives. (I am not waxing poetic out here :D The English translation of this movie is actually called Paint It Yellow [courtesy IMDb]).
The juxtaposition of the scenes of the revolutionaries with the scenes in the present, is not just for dramatic effect, but also a metaphorical depiction of how their lives are changing colour. After that, the way they execute their plan, and then decide to announce it to the country, is a logical extension. The movie ends with their deaths, and students nationwide expressing their anger on television. As I read in some review, if they wanted a Bollywoodish ending, they could have shown the PM intervening and announcing some award for them, etc. :D
All in all, I feel that it was an honest effort (one reason I say that is because I know that the filmmakers arranged a special screening for a group of young students a few months back, took suggestions from them, and actually implemented those suggestions by re-shooting and re-editing some scenes. One of my friends was a part of this select group). It does get unrealistic at a few points, but that is necessary in order to take the story somewhere. It is obviously not going to cause a revolution in India or anything, but even if it makes a few people think, the purpose will be served. (The actual purpose, by the way, is just to make money ;) so let's leave that aside)
People are not going to shed their cynicism by just watching a movie. It will require much more than that. Most of them might just find it a nice excuse to curse the 'system' and get back to their lives. Also, some of us who believe in the positive ways of changing the 'system', like joining the army/police/IAS, media/social work/politics, etc. may feel uncomfortable at the negative message the movie seems to send out. Let me say that I am not a cynic, and I also believe in those positive ways, and yet, I liked the movie. Maybe, in the end, we are just expecting too much from the movie. It is not a landmark film, but it is a good film nevertheless, and I wasn't disappointed.

Cream of the Nation

I am finally back in the blogosphere after a long time (more than three months). A lot has happened in this time, & I thought of updating my blog quite a few times, but something or the other prevented me from doing so. Finally, with the end of another semester, I have got some time to write about a recent event which really shook us up.
Yes, the suicide at IIT Bombay, on which there have already been countless opinions, blog posts, newspaper articles and more in the two weeks since it has happened. Yet, I believe I should add to it, because Nuke was my classmate & I have seen some of the events in its aftermath very closely. In any case, it is good that we are discussing this now, however late it might be...
Before I begin, I should explain the title of this posting. This was the title I had chosen when I was going to write sometime in September about the change in the pattern of the IIT-JEE. I had saved the unfinished draft of the post:-

"This is an epithet we have grown used to over the years, having heard it as much with a sense of admiration by IIT aspirants & other outsiders, as with sarcasm by our professors. For the latter, the context has usually been the apparent lack of interest, in academics, of most of the undergraduate students, something I have discussed earlier too.
Now, we hear that there is talk of simplifying the IIT-JEE, by having a one-stage objective exam with the syllabus restricted to 12th std CBSE level. Whatever the new selection procedure might be, there are a few things which I feel should be kept in mind. Firstly, the new format should still be tough enough, so that we don't have cases where many people get full marks, & there are scores of students on every mark from there on. This usually improves the chances of undeserving people who make arbitrary guesses."

I have forgotten now what I was going to write after that, but the underlying question beneath all of this is the same - Is there something seriously wrong with the IITs as they are now?
Before that, let me tell the events since the 16th from my point of view...
We had our first end-semester exam in the afternooon of the 16th, for which Nuke did not turn up. All of us thought it was not something new... There had been other courses earlier where he had got an XX and did not appear for the end-sem. Some of us from other hostels had even been preparing for that exam in Hostel 13 (with two other batchmates, who happen to be the top two rankers) that morning as well as the night before. This was a very regular thing for us, and usually, at some point of time during such last-night study sessions, some of us would go to Nuke's room and give him some notes and ask him to study. Sometimes, he would even come up himself to study... at other times, he was plain disinterested, and no amount of talking would help. But that night, all of us somehow completely forgot about him (maybe because we all knew he had got an XX & would not appear for the exam tomorrow... or maybe we were just too busy trying to avert the FF/FR grade ourselves).
The next evening, after the exam, all of us went back to our hostels and relaxed (the next exam was a simple one). Sometime around 8 pm, I got a call from one of his wingmates, who was also known to me. He was asking questions like 'When did you last see Nuke?', which immediately sent alarm bells ringing in my head (but you do not always want to think of the worst rightaway). When I asked him to tell me what exactly had happened, he replied, 'Nuke has tried to commit suicide'. I immediately left for the hospital with GV, and in that 10-minute walk to the hospital, I was only thinking of what we were going to say to him when he regained consciousness. It was only on reaching the hospital that I realized that he was dead... he had been dead for 11 hours... since probably 9 am in the morning, while we had been preparing for that stupid exam.
It was a strange feeling, everything inside me seemed to be stuck where it was, while my mind raced around to think... what had we been doing all this while? When was the last time that I actually saw him... spoke to him? Did I ever realize things would take such a turn? I could not answer these questions, and I felt guilty about it, but it seemed to me that all the guys out there (who knew him in some way or the other) had similar expressions on their faces. After just wandering around aimlessly for a while, it sank in that we could not do anything, and all of us left for our hostels one-by-one.
The next evening, we came to know that he would be cremated that night, and we all went. There were only three faculty members there (and only one of them not in any official capacity). Again, it was that same strange feeling, but now coupled with anger and frustration. I could see that the guilt that I was feeling was just a fraction of what some others were going through (some of my batchmates were saying that we are guilty of having neglected him, others said we should not have teased him). His father - I believe we can't even begin to think what he was going through - somehow contained his emotions and went through the rituals, after which he grimly thanked all of us for having turned up. Even though we knew that he actually meant that, it seemed to me to be a slap on our faces. Truly enough, some of the guys who had somehow managed to stay calm until then, just broke down at that moment. I came back to my hostel, had a bath, spoke to some friends, and went to sleep. There was no way I could study then.
About four days later, we came to know of a condolence meeting to be held in the department. Some newspaper reports had just started appearing, which I would not want to comment on (we all know how they work). But we decided we could not let this be just an occasion for saying a few grim words and forgetting the whole thing. Some guys felt we should boycott the meeting (in response to the absence of the faculty at his cremation), but most felt we should go, and we did. Soon enough, the frustration of the students started appearing, but thankfully, the faculty (the few who were present) were ready to listen. Some of us were incensed by the comments of some of the faculty in the newspapers (which were probably out of context, so let's leave it at that), while some brought up the issue of postings about this incident being selectively deleted from our online newsgroup (iitb.general). Again, the explanation that has been given is that it was a technical glitch, so let us leave it there.
But the questions still remain - is the IIT system so harsh on students? From whatever I have seen, it does not take much to pass your courses here, & even do reasonably well. Yet, there are many cases of people failing in courses (this happens in colleges everywhere), & most of them complete them in summers, but a few from every batch have to extend their stay at IITB for a year or more. Even for most of them, things are not so tough, as they have friends to talk to, and the degree that they finally get is still good enough 'in the market'. Obviously, the value is much reduced compared to someone who cleared everything in time, but it is still good enough. Besides academics, there are a lot of other activities, and a vibrant culture, and most people look back on these years as the best of their lives.
But beyond this wonderful landscape, there are those who are at the borders of this system. There are some who are just not interested in what they are doing, who probably chose their branch out of parental pressure, or peer pressure, or the general 'herd mentality'. IIT just doesn't have the opportunities for average students to do what they want to do. For changing your branch (that too, only at the end of first year), or for taking extra courses of your interest, or for any sort of such freedom, you have to do well in your current branch (which I personally see as a major paradox). The faculty has explanations for all these rules, and we understand the constraints that they have to work with, but can't there be more answers than explanations? Here are a few I have come across while talking to several students, alumni and faculty on this issue.
If a student is stuck somewhere in his program, and does not have the ability (or more often, the willpower) to go forward, there should be a reasonable exit option. Expelling him or asking him to drop out is not, not just because dropping out of college is considered such a big deal (& more so from IIT) but also because one would have to go through a 3-4 year grind again for a degree. There can be some system of transferring to a 'lower-rung' college with a transfer of your credits earned here. There can also be a system within IIT of providing a 'lesser degree', so to say, which may not have as much value in the job market, but which would still give these students some certification for whatever efforts they put in here (it may also allow them to sit for further competitive examinations which ask for a college degree). Finally, there should, of course, be efforts to expand the scope of academics at IIT and giving students more options in this expanded scope. Most importantly, the faculty should keep out petty politics and personal egos while making such decisions, which will impact the lives and careers of so many students.
All this may sound of no consequence, as I am talking of how the 'system' should be changed. But, more important than all this, is the system that the students have built for themselves. In everything that we do, be it extracurricular activities or the daily life in the hostel, you can notice a few people who are just left out. They cannot conform, or they choose not to conform, & they are either teased or looked down upon by their batchmates, or just ignored & left on their own. Why does everyone have to share your enthu for the hostel, or for cultural or sports activities, or for anything that you (and the majority) have a passion for? Why does everyone have to share a drink or smoke with you in order to be your friend? No - obviously not. Everyone will agree, and everyone will say that we just let such people be the way they want to. But we also form an opinion (mostly negative) of such people. They are consciously ignored, they are often ridiculed (behind their backs), and very few of us actually try to understand & get to know them better. And each one of us is to blame for that. It may sound blasphemous, but we have to accept that this happens.
As for Nuke, there were people who knew him. His comp fundaes were widely acknowledged (even by faculty), & most people in the institute had heard his name through 'Umang', the search engine. But very few knew him personally. And even those (like us) who did, never realized what he was going through, never had a heart-to-heart talk with him. We can blame the 'system', the administration, the faculty, the lack of counsellors, the attitude of society at large, but we were all at fault... somewhere, somehow. We have to realize that if we want to prevent things like this in future.

What If?

Today, in our 'Culture & Media' class, while the professor was discussing how the modern perception of 'Indian culture' was constructed in the late 19th & early 20th centuries through calendars (we had earlier discussed other media like newspapers, novels, etc.), an interesting question was raised by Anirudh; what if India had achieved its independence earlier than it actually did? What would have happened then? What would our history be like?
This immediately woke up all the sleeping souls ;) & a few opinions were voiced. However, the professor soon brought the discussion back to calendar art, & the currents of imagination that had risen in everyone's minds were stemmed. These currents might find an outlet in the next lecture, or on the proposed HS 476 e-group, but meanwhile, I would like to present a few scenarios of India that I imagined, while pondering over this question.

Case 1: If the Mughals or Marathas had been powerful enough to keep out the British, or if the British had lost the Battle of Plassey, or if the 1857 revolt had succeeded: I am handling all these cases together, because I believe that the end result in all of these would have been the same. Even if the British had not won the Battle of Plassey, the European powers were, in general, gaining ground in India. Almost all the Indian rulers were taking help, at various times, from the French, the Portuguese or the British. If the British had not succeeded outright, then most probably, the country would have been divided into 'spheres of influence' of the major European powers. Even if India had managed to retain its independence, it would have been something like China, which was continuously harassed by these Powers. Also, if Germany or Italy had managed to get a foothold later (as they did in Africa), then India could also have been a major battleground during the World Wars (as if providing our 'sepoys' to fight for the 'British Empire' was not bad enough), which would have been much worse. It could also have meant the breaking up of independent India into more than the two parts that actually happened (examples of this can be seen in Africa). The British stronghold on India allowed them to build up the administrative & other systems that we inherited.
Bottomline: If our princes had not given up completely to the British, they still could not have avoided foreign interference. In fact, their success against the British in the struggles before 1857 would have just resulted in an increase in the divisions within India, which would have been exploited by other European Powers.
(I have made this argument based on the belief that the Indian princes were a declining, & divided, creed. The reasons for this are rooted in the medieval history of India. To say that a strong ruler could have emerged & held the country together, or that India could have become a global power, or that it could have developed without losing its independence, would require a lot of other changes in the history of India.)

Case 2: If the British had listened to the petitions of the Congress in the 1890's: This would have required some very kind-hearted soul in power in Britain, as there was no other motive for them to do so. The result would most probably have been Dominion status on the lines of Canada, Australia, etc. & the end result (i.e. the present) would have been mostly the same. Not a very interesting case to discuss, so let's move on.

Case 3: If the revolutionaries had been strong enough: Now this is a very interesting case, & according to me, India would probably have gone the way of many of the Latin American nations (repeated coups). This seems quite difficult to imagine, mainly because of India's long peaceful history, but there's another reason, which is precisely the reason why the revolutionaries did not succeed. India is too large a country to be moved by a single line of thought, mainly because of its diversity. The ideology of the revolutionaries was all very good & respectable, but it was not so broad-based as to appeal to all parts of India. If however, they had succeeded in mobilizing the masses in an armed revolt, the result would have been that India would have done very well as long as it was governed by that generation of revolutionaries, but soon after that, there would have been similar armed revolts against the now-indigenous government.
Another major stabilising factor for India today, & probably also the culprit for a lot of inertia, is the administration & the apolitical army. These British legacies would most definitely not exist in this case, & indeed, they would have been the vehicles for many of these coups. An alternative case is the American example, where an armed revolt led to the creation of the USA we know today, but the difference is that by the late 19th & early 20th century, the European countries were too strong not to interfere with a nascent Indian nation. In America's case, the French Revolution & Napoleon's apparition kept Europe busy, giving the USA crucial time to establish itself.

Case 4: If the INA had 'liberated' India during WW II: This case is very deeply intertwined with the overall history of WW II, but still, if we assume that the INA had 'liberated' India & Japan had won the War, it would have meant a new 'pseudo-colonial' phase with Japanese, instead of British, influence. If instead, the INA had won, & subsequently, Japan had lost, & further war between the INA & the British avoided by a ceasefire, it could have resulted in a stronger India bargaining for its future, & possibly, an avoidance of Partition. This is a very complicated case to discuss, & I'll let it be for now.

Case 5: If the Congress had succeeded earlier than it did: This is not very different from the actual case that we all know. One thing that can be argued about is the time of Independence. If it had been before the estrangement of Jinnah, it would probably have meant a weaker Muslim League, & no Partition, though it is difficult to imagine that the British would not have tried to bring up communal questions & create divisions. A more detailed analysis of this case, however, would require a knowledge of the internal politics of the Congress & other parties, beyond what is known to us through common history.

History is much too complex, as it is, for us to make conjectures about 'alternative histories'. Still, I have presented my opinions. I know that some of these might sound quite objectionable to some. The only thing I would say to that is that while I respect all the people who fought for India's Independence in any which way, I do not believe that any of them should be put on a pedestal. I am too sleepy to write anything more, so goodbye for now...

Against All Odds?

I saw 'Viruddh' yesterday. It was a nice movie (btw, my definition is that if I can sit through the movie, it is nice.. Then there are various levels of that niceness :D), but could have been much better. Firstly, John Abraham can't act. He is fine in the scenes where he just has to be himself, like talking to his parents on the phone, or hanging out with his friends. But the scenes at home where AB is cracking jokes & he is supposed to help in the comedy, he looks utterly helpless. Then there are the other characters floating around, especially AB's friends, who, in the typical Bollywood style of 'political correctness', have to represent the various parts of India, who just do the bare minimum required of them. Sanjay Dutt, I felt, was wasted here, & the only other notable performance was Sachin Khedekar, who has a good monologue in the beginning, & generally conveys the feelings of helplessness (against the 'system'), arrogance of authority (of a typical policeman), & sympathy for the old couple, all very well. That leaves the two main characters, of Amitabh Bachchan & Sharmila Tagore, & it was indeed due to their acting that this film is watchable.

But more important than the review of the performances, or the film per se, is a review of the issues dealt with in it, although there have been better movies with similar stories & issues (most notably 'Saaransh', although there is much more to 'Saaransh' besides this plot). Like 'Saaransh', this film also shows the fight of a lone couple against a powerful politician, who is able to manipulate the entire machinery to his advantage. Both also show the old couple's love for their deceased son manifesting itself in a different way for another closely related person. Both show, in the end, that there still exist some people in authority, at a level high enough to punish the villains, who have their hearts & minds in the right place, thus leaving a glimmer of hope for the viewers at the end.

That brings us to the main point of such movies. What is wrong with our system? Who is to be blamed for it? What can be done to correct it? As both these movies show, a lone person CAN fight against all these odds, & come out victorious. But why should he have to fight alone? It is easy to blame the ones in power for the wrongs around us, but what everyone conveniently ignores is that all of us are as selfish as them. They have the power to take advantage of any situation, & they will use that power, even unfairly if we do not check them.
In these movies, for example, if everyone at the scene of the incident had 'followed their conscience', it would have saved everyone a lot of trouble. If this collective action takes place regularly, the powerful people in society will be wary not to use their power in unfair ways. But what actually happens is that everyone chooses not to meddle, & rather carry on with their own lives, fearing that if they stand up for what is right, they will invite trouble.
Every person who gives in to this fear, & to the corruption around him, actually strengthens it. Corruption can exist in any society only if the people (unconsciously) nurture it. Then why does everyone blame the 'system' for all the wrongs? Who forms this 'system'? Where do those corrupt people come from? From the society itself!

The most recent example of this that we saw were the Mumbai floods. It is true that faulty planning & haphazard growth contributed to the deluge, but at the personal level, how many of us always dispose of garbage in the right way? Forget the rules, how many of us show some basic civic sense in our behaviour?

Recently, I overheard a conversation in the first-class compartment of a local, where one guy was cynically blaming all the authorities for all the trouble. He criticised the Railways for the way in which they handled this crisis. Then, he mentioned that the Central Railways had, after these rains, allowed passengers having a Kurla-CST pass on either Harbour or Main line to travel on both (whichever was convenient to them) until the services were fully restored on both lines. So, apna hero took a Harbour line train with a Main line pass (or vice versa, i don't remember), & when the TTE came & asked for the ticket, he said he didn't have one. When asked to pay the fine, he refused, & kept on arguing with him upto CST, where he finally showed his other pass.

He narrated this incident with a sense of pride, & criticism of the officials ('the trains are not running, but they still want to check tickets'), while in my opinion, he was a classic example of how ordinary citizens pester the officials & affect their normal work, while themselves failing to assume any responsibility as a citizen.

There is no end to the debate on such issues, but I will have to end this post here. Got to catch up on some sleep.

India Unbound

My apologies to Gurcharan Das for lifting the title of his book, but as you will see, I have used it in another context. I had found this cool thing recently, where you can indicate on a map the states you have been to in India. I tried it & here is the result:- Actually, this is if I count the states that I have passed through on train journeys. If I count only those states where I have stayed somewhere for a few days, then the result looks like this:-

My father being in the Railways, we could travel for free anywhere on the Indian Railways (with some limitations), & as you can see, we made good use of this. For the last 4-5 years though, we haven't gone to any new place. Now that I think of it, there are still so many places left. Besides a lot of the eastern part of India, I have not yet been to Goa, the islands (Lakshadweep and A&N), Kashmir (we just visited Jammu), or the western part of Gujarat (I have just been to Ahmedabad & Vadodara).
There is a lot still to be explored, not just in geographical terms, but in many other ways. For example, I came to know a lot of stuff about the Indian Railways through my practical training this summer, inspite of my father having been in the Railways all along. Technicalities apart, you can check out some of this interesting stuff here. Also, when Lath & I set the India Quiz at MI two years back, or even now, once in a while, I come across something or the other, & India still manages to amaze me.
Now I hope the context for the title of this post is clear. :)

Food for Thought

This story was sent on our batch mailing group by Rohan a few days back. I thought posting it here would be a nice way of preserving & publicising it (if & when my blog gets a sizable readership :P). Here goes:-

"I awoke early, as I often did, just before sunrise, to walk by the ocean's edge and greet the new day. As I moved through the misty dawn, I focused on a faint, far away motion. I saw a youth, bending and reaching and flailing arms, dancing on the beach, and no doubt in celebration of the perfect day soon to begin. As I approached, I sadly realized that the youth was not dancing to the bay, but rather bending to sift through the debris left by the night's tide, stopping now and then to pick up a starfish and then standing, to heave it back into the sea. I asked the youth the purpose of the effort. "The tide has washed the starfish onto the beach and they cannot return to the sea by themselves," the youth replied. "When the sun rises, they will die, unless I throw them back to the sea." As the youth explained, I surveyed the vast expanse of beach, stretching in both directions beyond my sight. Starfish littered the shore in numbers beyond calculation. The hopelessness of the youth's plan became clear to me and I countered, "But there are more starfish on this beach than you can ever save before the sun is up. Surely you cannot expect to make a difference." The youth paused briefly to consider my words, bent to pick up a starfish and threw it as far as possible. Turning to me he simply said, "I made a difference to that one." I left the boy and went home, deep in thought of what the boy had said. I returned to the beach and spent the rest of the day helping the boy throw starfish into the sea."

Then there was another similar anecdote mentioned in one of the replies on our group:-
Once, Mother Teresa had gone to a biscuit factory owner for charity (she used to take broken biscuits). The owner asked why she served the diseased (Leprosy, TB, etc.) when there are so many diseased and the help she provided was but just a drop of water in the ocean. Mother replied, "Without that drop, the ocean is incomplete."

The starfish story is due to Loren Eisley. I believe there are hardly any of us who can give up all comforts & follow what Mother Teresa did, but at least we can be aware of such people around us, & try to do our little bit.
I guess that is enough for now. It is sounding like a sermon. :P

Latecomers

Quite a weird name for a blog posting, right? Well, our entire batch just received a warning (through email) from our ES prof, saying that we won't be given attendance if we are more than five minutes late for the lecture. Since this course started, many students had been casually strolling into the lecture theatre upto 45 minutes late (for a 90-minute lecture). Given that our institute is now getting very strict about attendance, this latest warning may ensure that all the students are in their places on time.

However, that still won't solve the biggest problem with this course (& many other courses, for that matter), which is, complete disinterest from the students' side, due to which, most of them just do whatever they want to do in class, without listening to what is going on. In the case of ES, the air-conditioned atmosphere helps, with its comfortable seats, & dimmed lights. Now, most of the students just sit behind & read something else, or sleep, or talk softly & play pranks on their friends, while some more adventurous souls try to irritate the prof by whistling or making catcalls, laughing or clapping in between, or actually standing up & asking irrelevant questions.

Though I am not trying to justify all this, I would say that I have heard of worse behaviour by students in certain other colleges. Here, firstly, there is a certain level of decency (it's IIT, after all). Secondly, the prof who teaches you is also the one who sets your exam paper, & then grades you for it, unlike other colleges which are affiliated to some university. While this may also mean, sometimes, that the prof can use his 'absolute' power unfairly, let us keep that discussion for later. Thirdly, such behaviour is by no means the norm, & in fact, in almost all other courses, students either listen to the prof, or do something else silently.

I have digressed from the major problem, i.e. the disinterest of the students. While many profs feel that the culture in the hostels & the extracurricular activities on campus push students away from studies, & the lure of an MBA & a high-paying job causes them to lose interest in technical fields, many students feel that this is the only time they have to enjoy themselves fully & do whatever they like, or pursue any hobby or interest. Many students also feel that many of the courses taught to them are irrelevant, & that they have little freedom in choosing their courses (i.e. very few electives).

In the case of ES, for example, most students feel that there is no point doing the course, while I would say that the course is necessary but is being taught very wrongly. I mean, you cannot talk about 'Environmental Ethics' or 'Environment & Society' or the development of the human race & its relationship with the environment through the ages (that too, in a manner befitting school students) in front of 300 students who have come in with a mindset that this course is being imposed upon them, & expect no negative reactions. And then the prof tells us that we should behave like mature college students, not school kids. If they expect mature behaviour, maybe they should deal with the course as college professors, not school teachers.

That is not to say that all is bad with the course. There are certain thought-provoking points made, but they are very few & get lost in the general cacophony that prevails. Also, this being a 'technical institution', the students have a general repulsion towards humanities & social sciences courses. For example, a friend once said that 'these courses are so painful.. there is no definite conclusion to any discussion.. only a lot of opinions.. physics or elec courses at least have something definite to talk about..'

I would say two things about this. Firstly, the point of social sciences is to deal with human nature in its various forms, so obviously, it cannot be as 'definite' as the natural sciences or engineering. Secondly, I believe that such courses become interesting when discussion is encouraged (& that is another problem with ES.. it is finally just a monologue, with no one even listening).
Anyway, I have some work now, & this post has also become quite long. Farewell, readers.

Opinions

In the last 3 days, I have seen (or heard) such a multitude of them that I am inclined to write about them. Firstly, there was Malhar on Sunday & Monday, which I also mentioned in my last post. Yohan & I participated & won in the debate out there (thus giving a happy ending to my 6 years of participation in Malhar :D). It was basically a mock UN thing with teams representing various countries & discussing various world issues. I won't go into the details of the debate, but to those who are interested, I would recommend this link http://www.maketradefair.com/en/index.php?file=ghana_chris01.htm . This was the topic we brought up in the finals.
Later on Monday evening, some of us friends went to Pizza Hut, & our conversation slowly moved towards the virtues of development v/s the need to protect the environment & indigenous tribal cultures (drawing from a documentary that we were shown in our ES class last week). The almost 2-hour long discussion also touched upon almost all the social, communal & political issues that we read about in the papers now-a-days.
Then yesterday & today, in our 'Culture & Media' course, we had a dicussion on the absence of Dalits from the Indian media. Again, interested people might want to check out http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=reflections+on+apartheid+in+india&meta= .
If I go into the details of all these discussions, it might take too long. Instead, the point I want to make is that in all these discussions, I have seen a very wide variety of opinions (all of them, however, from people of the same age & education level as I), & sadly, some of them quite clearly vitriolic or based on misinformation. Firstly, this tells that there are no absolute rights or wrongs. You can only hope to reach an optimal solution, which will still have its bad effects, however small they may be. Secondly, the good thing was that I did not encounter any really stubborn people in these discussions. Most people, however misinformed they may be, are ready to listen to a reasonable argument, if it is explained in the right way to them. There are some, though, who are so stubborn that they not only refuse to listen to any other arguments, but also accuse the others of stubbornly holding on to their opinions.
All this is not a revelation or a sudden enlightenment for me, if that is what some of you might be thinking :D. It's just that my mind has been occupied by such thoughts in the last few days. Guess I should keep it aside for a while, & concentrate on the physics courses & my BTP for a change ;).

Happy Birthday

I couldn't think of anything better as a title for this post, & anyway, it is not too out of place. As you know, today is Pakistan's birthday (or Independence Day), & tomorrow will be India's. Tonight, we are also going to beat (with affection :P) a friend who happens to have his birthday on such a great day.
Talking of India's independence reminds me of the movie we went for this Friday night, 'Mangal Pandey: The Rising'. It was much-awaited, not least because Aamir Khan was coming back on screen after 4 years. However, it was a disappointment. Go watch it if you are an ardent Aamir Khan fan, or have a group of friends & have nothing better to do. Do not expect anything much, & you won't be disappointed. But if you are looking for a really good movie (the kind which will win critical acclaim, but not work on the box-office), watch 'Seher' (the other movie we saw that night). A more detailed post on both these movies later.
Among other things, we went to Malhar today, & had our fair share of funny experiences. God, it seems to get worse every year!! ;)
I want to write more about these funny incidents, but a couple of friends are waiting for me to finish this, so we can go have some coffee.

First Post

Finally, I have an outlet for all the things I keep thinking about. :P
(and what an 'auspicious' day to begin with.. Saturday the 13th :D )
Let's see where it goes...