Rahul Katragadda's posterous

Some profoundly preposterous thoughts...

पूछते हैं वो की 'ग़ालिब' कौन है

पूछते हैं वो कि 'ग़ालिब' कौन है,
कोई बतलाओ कि हम बतलाये क्या |
To talk about the supremacy (or even legitimacy) of Mirza Ghalib ('ग़ालिब') is definitely not in my pedigree, and way beyond my grade. In this post, while I collate some of the gems by the master, I'm trying to concoct a story around his life's experiences towards satisfiability of my hunger for stories. There is, also a grim hope that this could serve as a simple and satisfactory introduction to 'ग़ालिब' for those who are unaware of his abundant work.

ग़ालिब
(Image courtesy: Wikipedia)

Read the rest of this post »

Building a nation full of fools

They said it. You said it. Even I said it. A million times.

But we all have to repeat.

Currently the Board of Intermediate Education in Andhra Pradesh is conducting its board exams for intermediate studies (10 +1/+2). Few days ago (on Tuesday, 13th March 2012), the 1st year intermediate students had their physics paper, which was apparently the toughest in the last decade. Here's what an unnamed teacher had to say:
Another deviation that affected students was the twisted questions. Generally, paper setters follow the questions after every chapter in the books, but this time new questions were framed. Four questions carrying two marks each and two questions carrying four marks each were given outside the pattern normally followed by students. The biggest loss will be to the Government college students who generally follow that pattern. “Questions were within the syllabus but not from the books,” a teacher said. [Source]

I repeat and quote "Questions were within the syllabus but not from the books". Wow! At a time when one would have thought that people would make enough sense to segregate the thin line between a standardized testing and an adaptive, more humane testing, we get to witness these imbecile teachers who (it now appears) neither have the ability to teach nor comprehend what their role is in the system. 

I don't remember any of my (many, many) pals of my age-group getting < 90% in any of the three core subjects (usually MPC). That brings us to the point, what's the point of this exam? If everybody gets > 90%; Nobody has the knowledge; What are we aiming for? That reminds me of one of the episodes of Boston Legal (Episode 9, Season 4; to be precise), where a teenager (student) shreds the standardized tests and sprinkles all over principal's office to protest against the tests.

In our case in India, we must admit, thankfully it was a teacher (or better yet, a group of them) that decided that enough was enough and put up a out of ordinary paper.
I realize and understand, that the paper might really have been very tough. May be, even needlessly so. And so many students would suffer due to this "guerrilla attack". But sometimes, in an extreme act of love towards our child, we sometimes have to snatch their Teddy-bear/Barbie-doll away. Tough stance, but someone has to make it.

Otherwise, we all know "we are building a nation full of fools...".

An open letter to the censor board.

Dear censor board,

I'm not a movie buff, but I like movies of many kind. From the good old, now unfashionable, mythological movies, to todays extremely modern, violent and suggesting movies, as long as there is some message or as long as a movie is expected to not have one; I like them all, for their content, structure and the art of telling a tale. For someone who aspires to write a screenplay one day, it is rather strange I don't yet have a maniac obsession to watch more movies than I do; I sagely blame the lack of time, but I know that's not it; and I hope it is for my own good.

Remember (or know, if you already don't) that a film's screenplay, unlike a novel, has a very specific structure in terms of the layout (a 3-act structure, 8 sequence formula and the like), characterization (strengths, weaknesses, ideology, obstacles, timing of the obstacles' arrival in the hero's path, et cetera), so forth. So don't ever say a movie is formulaic, because in saying so you are only praising the screenplay writer and director. Perhaps, you intend to say that the screenplay has been roneoed from quondam artifacts; which, I believe, is fair as long as the intent was to improve the script or to bring a new twist that was never sought before; remember that most love stories are only a rip-off from the Shakespearean 'Romeo and Juliet' which of course could be a rip-off from something else.

Now, Businessman is a movie that runs on reprised story, but one that has been well laid on a formulaic structure on all accounts. There are faults, like in every other movie, but it is still a well made movie that was formulated to do one thing and just one thing—do business. And it will.

This rant however, isn't directed at 'Businessman' — the movie, or its artists, or its director etc. This is to call for an opening up of the superannuated censor board which seems to act blind to the reality of the day. Clipping of extremely violent or sexual content from U/A or A rated movies is something understandable given the sensitivity of our audience and sometimes the context of a movie; Again, I only agree to it sometimes, and more often than not, the board should make an offer of a slightly alternate certificate which accommodates such visuals (or language) in case the filmmakers are willing to have it. 

Indian cinema has moved-on from couples circling around a flower pot to explicit smooches and bed-scenes over the last decade; or may be two, sigh, I'm getting old. Some ardent classical right-wingers argue that this is against the Indian culture but what I would really want them to do is peek into today's culture in India that changes with time. Change, for good or bad, is inevitable; and I don't see how smooches or bed-scenes are against Indian culture when we are the second largest nation on the world map; I can't imagine someone procreating without indulging obsessively in smooching, let alone the mandatory sex part. But hey, recently, the censor boards have curtailed their objections on the sexual content too. Good move. But now, if you watch Businessman—the movie, you'd find many scenes that have been muted (I'd presume for explicit language), and some scenes partially blurred (evidently, for sexual vulgarity; in case you didn't see the movie, female cleavage was on display). So somehow, censor board identifies a smooch or sex-scene less objectionable than what was just a cleavage. Okay, if I try to think like a censor board member (even a bigoted one), I get the point. Yes, a smooch may be necessary to show the affection (if only momentary) shared by a couple, the sex-scene could be extremely relevant in the context of the character or the movie's storyline. Agreed. 

What my senses do not fathom is how the censor board is claiming morality by blurring 'a cleavage'. Don't I know what was there, that was blurred? My 4 yr old nephew knows what was blurred, and I can't answer his question "Why was it blurred?" because he knows what was blurred. To be honest, I'd rather answer his question "Why isn't she wearing more clothes?" than "Why was it blurred?". This glaring explicit content from a censor board is deplorable, if not reprehensible and worth criminally pursuable. If you consider some scene as explicit (even in a thematic contextual sense), then it makes sense to offer filmmakers with either a blackout for those few seconds, or offer them to replace it with a better footage, even if doctored. I presume most of them would take up one of these two, instead of a reshoot because it was irrelevant to the movie's theme anyway. After a few movies are objected to, nobody would (hopefully) create such irrelevant objectionable material; otherwise, good luck to them spending more time and money with the censor board.

My argument is this: blurring should never be used unless you are trying to hide a face. Blurring a cleavage or completely bare bosom, or a penis or to complete the list even a cunt, is extremely useless. You are not showing the movie to rabbits. Human beings know what genitals are, what primary sexual organs are and what the secondary ones are. Period. In Lenny Bruce's famous words: "It's the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness". Lenny Bruce wrote it to accommodate for the written word, but it is applicable to all forms of expression. Also to, and especially to, the visual experience. Remember how 'fuck' or even 'suck' was an objectionable word once upon a time? And suddenly we realized it wasn't after all objectionable unless in an extremely formal conversations; By now, however, I have even seen people using these words in formal meetings, yes!

Call me decadent if you want, or proselyte to the modern world if you wish, but please understand the moral sins you are committing by blurring obvious imagery. In doing so you are not even stretching our imagination (or that of a 5 yr old), everybody knows what specifically you are blurring (and not blocking!), defeating the intent and purpose of the board.

Yours sincerely,

Lover of cinemascope, the written word, the imagery, and an ardent fan of the industry.

 

Half-baked eggs aren't omelettes; and connection to Wikileaks, etc.

There are some things (or people) that are half-baked, half-understood, half-explained and half-loved, and you'd always want to know more. Some times, when you realize the second half of it, you'd rather feel it'd have been better if you never knew the other half; akin to most Bollywood movies these days. 

Everybody has questions they seek answers for. I have mine. Even in topics you've extensively studied, you'll always have that one question for which there are answers from all corners of the world but you don't agree with those ideas or sentiments because you aren't able to gauge what it implies in that world.

I had, at one point, extensively studied the philosophy and the pragmatism behind Wikileaks when Julian Assange was arrested more than an year ago. I even had a blogpost, one of the most sincere attempt of journalistic grandeur, an extremely proficient one that until today I am extremely proud of. At that point I was bemused, and I still was until the end of last year, how certain journalists and most governments were arguing against wikileaks calling it an "international threat" and trying to supress its livelihood by blocking payment gateways, servers etc. But the real deep question for me that needed immediate and level-headed answers was "What does an institution such as Wikileaks bring to the world that it threatens transnational relations in a way leading to perhaps even a world war?". I mean, after all, what they release isn't published to specific groups, which they could for ransom for instance, but instead they just open up these confidential documents to the world.

Lets move on to the workplace, for a while.

No employee is ever happy in a constructive way at workplace. There is always something or other disturbing him. If someone is not happy about their appraisal, then one of them cribs about the work, then the other about the workplace (me!), and there will be a third person who always hates his colleagues, and so forth. But there are friends, always; no, not teammates, friends, always. Those chaps you go for lunch with, those with whom you turn into a gossipmonger, those whom you cannot refuse accompanying for smoke, those in whose company you relish your booze, those with whom you discuss football, those with whom you play football, and so forth. The list is practically endless, depending only on your interests and the matching mutual interests in your gild. Nobody can survive the workplace and their life outside without them; especially so for those who aren't working in a city they are brought up. It is a happy eco-system. Everybody is happy with each other, spending time with each other in ways they do; even if it's just a smoke.

Recently, a company where an acquaintance from yesteryears worked had a major fauxpas when the finance team sent an email to all employees having sensitive details of all employees in the institution. Sensitive. Very sensitive. Honestly, I admit, I'd lose stack of all adverbs I can use, if I try to.  Apparently, by mistake, they threw in salary details of all employees into the mailboxes of all employees. Imagine! 

My first thoughts were "poor guy, the one who sent the mail; he'd have to be fired". I immediately didn't understand why I was empathizing with someone I don't know and can hardly relate to, but sooner than later, I figured why. On the inside, I was relating to this poor chap with another poor soul (Bradley Manning) associated with Wikileaks; the good 'ol chap who apparently leaked many of the secret cables. 

It is an open secret that everybody knows that salaries are skewed based on various parameters such as experience, graduating college, etc. and some times purely on negotiation skills. But when the numbers are in front of you, it brings a whole new perspective. People compare, inadvertently. I do not know what exactly happened there after, as I'd rather leave the acquaintance to his position instead of giving him recollections of the nightmare.

But hey, I'm the story guy; I like to think up what exactly might have happened based on the societal networks I am involved in and how those groups would have reacted. This is how I think it would:

The lunch group would be indifferent because I mostly join just one other guy who isn't half interested in any such matter. We'd still discuss politics, sports and gossip, trying extremely hard to supress discussing this one gossip item. The flatmates are extremely shy, and they wouldn't for a moment try to say a word; but there will be sly remarks, that might hurt some other guy. The football team, now that's a great pool, I'd imagine would go bonkers really. This is one place where we have members from all levels of the system. Every penny paid and every penny unpaid will now be judged. Just yesterday, they might have called you a brilliant guy but today they'd stamp you as an overpaid surgeon. Leave that, lets move on to our favorite. Booze. I cannot imagine, actually. Even under normal sensibilities we see people losing their senses when they speak about topics that evoke their emotions about something. Under these circumstances, I believe, a public/private brawl might not surprise me, and necessarily hard to refute. That was a rare event, boozing, something you can avoid for some time. But, every time you take an elevator and some one greets you in the hallway saying a "hello" in a distinctly non-monotonous tone, or the raising eyebrows when they see you, you are essentially judging what they might be thinking. Or perhaps even, what you might be thinking about them; yes, and what if they never intended anything, but who am I to judge that. What happens when a bunch of guys discussing something and smiling and suddenly when you arrive everybody disperse; of course, it had nothing to do with you, but who are we to judge that?

And this rant doesn't even end.

Ha! So much for something I don't know about. May be that's why I called it a story, after all. But returning to the original question on why Wikileaks is dangerous to transnational relations. It is clear how such leaks can make or break networks of countries and with it the ability to institute a war, however, I'd still believe, with a certain amount of clarity this time, that it is the responsibility of the governor of the secrets to keep the messages secure, and once it is in the open, it really shouldn't matter whether 1 person knows about it or 1 billion do. What I mean is, keep a secret—only if you can. The above thinking exercise is a billion dollar worth experience if you think of it from an executive point of view, or if you are framing rules for your upcoming firm, etc. Or when you try to keep secrets. Which is, to keep it simple, everyday.

Are there situations you can relate? Please tell me.

 

On wiping the slate clean.

I like slates. It is probably the first device you've ever used that lets us make mistakes. Where making mistakes is not an exception but the norm. Yes, that's what I am missing in my life.

At the beginning of this year, today, I was lazing around like every other Sunday, and there I felt the need to repair the monotonic consistency in the risks I take, or don't take, in everyday life or there about. That is, in the mistakes I was willing to take chance upon. 2011 has been a great year in many ways. It changed a lot about me, but the most important one was perhaps that it was never easy to come out of university and 2010 was difficult for me for the same reason. In 2011, I had finally come to terms with this work thing. The understanding that there are rules that govern any workplace and if you want to live in this ecosystem you have to abide by the constitution -- or rewrite it. I bent to some rules, I mended some; curiously enough, not in the right proportions. But at least I could come to terms with the system.

Life had taken back seat in 2011: I wanted to do a lot of things in '11 that I didn't get close enough to doing at the risk of losing out other stakes or stakeholders. Managing people I don't already know was never my strength, but perhaps this is the time I make it one. Time is always against us.

So here we come to what the world calls new year resolutions, and I just call it a wish list:
  1. Read more. And Write more.
  2. Love more. And Hate more. (Don't let go of that rage!)
  3. Play more. Everything.

In principle, wipe the slate clean... restart, sketch the caricature again, make mistakes, wipe off the loose ends, wipe slate clean, trust yourself, dream broader, tell the world that you dream.

Begin. Make mistakes. Wipe the slate clean.
There are always more mistakes waiting to be made.

 

Try to finish things.

Conflict

In a world driven by conflict, there is no shortage of courage, and outrage.  The outrage-smitten mentality of man got coded into the DNA—shockingly, over just a few centuries—illuminating the meaninglessness of the humankind. What once used to be a ground of compassion is now just a ground of competition. "Survival of the fittest", as they say, turns out to be among the shortest motivational speeches of the century. The message is so powerfully short and so much a cliché that nobody cares to use it anymore; actually, apparently, nobody needs to; such a crass message to be passed over—generations after generations—and now running in the blood or as biologists would say 'encoded in the DNA'. 

The people of the world had reached a physiological state where everything was a conflict. Every moment was, by definition, devised by a conflict, and resolved by another conflict. Everyday was a war for people; they woke up, won a few battles, got to work; win another battle before securing dinner and go to bed — of course, to battle their dreams. In a rather sad consequence, over the last century, people around the world have completely accepted this as a way of life. The advancements in science vs naiveté of early man, the two contrasting faces together in a single urban world was a delightful science fiction setup of just a few centuries before; today, a reality, also, more realistically, pitiful reality.

This was a time when even the Tibetan Buddhist monks gave in to the rest of the world's surmise, and ineluctably pilfered violence into the system. However— by design, perhaps, there was a remote tribe in Africa who believed in something else. Perhaps, the only known society of this time that doesn't believe in conflicts, or the wars that they produce, or such. They were true believers of non-violence. Their lives however weren't devoid of conflict, only, the conflict was gracefully resolved. The tribe had their leader, who was much like Charlemagne to them than Rabbi. He was the only person in the tribe who had been to far east and far west. He was the only member of the tribe who had an education; however, education, in that era meant something radical. Perhaps it was his interest in philosophy, that led him to study some of the greatest philosophers of all time, and during this period he caught on to Epicurean philosophy. The idea that 'pleasure is the highest good' wasn't difficult to seep in, especially in the trying circumstances the world around him was facing; and him watching it unfold.

In his reign, every time there was a conflict between two people or groups they had a simple protocol to resolve it. The toss of the coin in front of the leader and/or other heads, the one who won the toss loses the battle/conflict, so in a way it is a win-win situation; you either win the toss or win the battle. It all went fine, until one day, when the leader lost the toss to the growing opposition; that day (after winning the toss) they didn't like the procedure and so the leader was killed, mayhem was introduced like elsewhere, the tribe collapsed in a week.

The leader collapsed smiling and wondering "how on earth did I manage to entrust them for 42 years that this would work". 

On embarrassment; and how I'm guilt free this Diwali

Weren't there times when you were embarrassed but you couldn't let go or let it out? Despite being someone who wouldn't care much, there were times when I was so embarrassed I could neither eat nor sleep properly. This has always been something I wanted to let go of (let out, actually!), but I couldn't write down, and perhaps on such issues being sober doesn't help anyway. Please to notice— at the time of this writing, I am not sober; theoretically speaking, you could close this browser tab right away.

June 2006

Three of my many awesome friends were leaving to the UK for further studies, and like always we gathered at a nice little bar, had our share of drinks (and got emotional about not being able to play cricket together anymore; it was those buggers—captain and vice-captain— that got everybody emotional), munched on very little food, then was force-fed by senior members of the drinking fraternity (and I can't tell how grateful I am to them), then we went down to one of the friend's place and retired for the night (I was already sleeping while a traffic police was fining us). Pretty normal for a 21 year old fresh engineering graduate, only if it had ended right there.

Usually, on days like these I used to get up before dawn, freshen up a little and leave to home by 6.30 AM; this was my copy of insurance to maintain sobriety with parents and to pretend that I have been sober all night. Today, however, was supposed to be different. I woke up to the glaring sun hitting my eyes sharply. I looked around - everybody was still sleeping. Sun was at its blistering best, even for a typical Hyderabadi summer morning. I looked around for my mobile phone - couldn't find it. I looked around for any mobile phone - found one - and time was 8.10 AM. My eyes wide open now... trying to believe but unable to make sense of it. Within the next 5 minutes, I found my mobile, found my bike keys and started back home in the grim hope that my father hadn't woken up already; though I very clearly know that unlike me he gets up at 5 AM daily.

I went home safely, parked the vehicle properly, and went inside without removing the helmet. I smiled at dad, and then went straight to the wash basin to wash my face. I removed the helmet— and apparently, with it my sobriety. I was brushing teeth and dad was staring at me - silently. I was so stupefied and keeling, and I had no frigging idea about it. My dad still staring at me, and I found him in the mirror. I turned back to look him in the face, and then back into the mirror. In that moment I realized how stupid I look right now. The mirror clearly showed that I was drunk all night, and the way I looked I felt it was a miracle that I rode the bike 10 Kms and reached home safely. 

Dad was still staring at me.

I looked up for a moment, and in a reactionary statement that made no sense to me even after 10 seconds, I said "Are you wondering if I drank last night? Don't wonder. I did drink last night and very badly". I remember not showing him my face for the next 10 odd days.

June 2010

I am an occasional drinker and when I drink I am okay with smoking, and for me smoking without a drink is a strict no-no; again an insurance to avoid addiction. However, I have friends who smoke regularly, and two of them were leaving to the US for their masters after rutting for three years in industry. Since they were leaving in 3 days, we weren't being allowed privacy at their homes; they were the center of their respective family's universe now, and we had very important decisions to be made ;like deciding the venue of the booze party tonight; very important.

To take such important decisions and give general advises such as "Don't lose your virginity just yet; ah, not in haste, anyway!", I decided that we should meet at a Irani café. And we did. Ordered our Irani Chai, biscuits and just then one of them pulled out a cigarette and said "smoke?". I replied "we are not drinking yet, are we?", to which my dear friend replied "today could be the last day we are smoking together in a long time, so just take it"; I obliged to avoid the risk of attracting emotional atyachaar. As soon as I lit the cigarette, and took the first two blissful puffs, my face went pale and my friends were confused as to why. Dad walked into the café, looked around for me, found me, and finally walked towards me. I was shocked, to say the least, but I decided to deter my feelings. With the cigarette in my right hand, and Tea cup in the other, I asked "whats up?"; meanwhile, the two friends of mine did something awkward, they hid the cigarette under the table, one of them had smoke in his chest. "You have the keys..." dad replied; I gave them to him and he walked away. The one with an inflated chest began leaking smoke through his mouth and nostrils, and of course suddenly our table was smoking too, obviously dad saw that though we (as a group) continue to believe—to this day—he didn't notice; either way, he noticed the cigarette in my hand.

We friends had a hearty laugh after that... and I never spoke about it with my dad. 

I am going to talk about both these incidents at home this week; after all, the main purpose of Diwali—I believe—is to clear up the mess, ain't it? Lots of fun ahead during Diwali. :-)

PS: This post was written many weeks back. :)

What's next?

IIIT-H has a fantastic platform, a social blog, if I may call it. It is called PING. Last month, PING asked for inputs on "Now that we have Lokpal, what's next?". I had scribbled out my thoughts and thrown at them without any editing and they have done a decent job of it. Some major chunks of what I wrote appeared in the latest issue of PING with a title "What's next" (page 16 in the issue, if you are curious). However, as bad as my initial writeup might have been (even I myself didn't read it a second time before submitting!), it contained a discourse that I felt should be taken in full.

Therefore, what follows is the entire article I originally authored:

 

The lokpal revolution? A lokpal bill is one that empowers a lokpal to carry out legal procedures against corrupt government officials at all levels. The revolution — or the uprising, as many of the incongruous national news channels televised — wasn't supposed to be the joke it has become. Soon after Anna Hazare led a movement against corruption, he dealt with the problem with the perennially corrupt government in a supposedly Gandhian style by "fasting unto death [I consider this an attempt to suicide, and under IPC illegal; but that's not the point] unless his terms were accepted un-conditionally [This is coercion of the government and unconstitutional; again, that's not the point]". What followed was no less than a revolution, however it wasn't one. It was a revolution not because there was an end result, but it was one because it rose the collective consciousness of the dozing Indian youth. So much so, that youth themselves coerced each other into the revolution by saying "if you are not one of us (ANNA?), you are one of them (corrupt)". It has been an amazing victory, in whatever little way, for people against a corrupt government -- no matter how unconstitutionally it was achieved, I do respect the end result for what it is.

What next?
  1. This is by far the most relevant question of the decade, but at the same time seems like a meaningless one too. It is clear, that politicians that are financially corrupt, are corrupt anyway, and politicians (like our PM) that are silent about the corrupt, are morally corrupt. But sadly, it appears what we are saying is that "whatever the revolution it was, it couldn't create enough leaders". Was it just one messiah and his scores of followers? Or if we did have enough (or in whatever count) capable leaders, we should promote them in general elections. Indian Against Corruption may be an NGO, a webpage, or a facebook page, but what it could be is perhaps a political party where in they take up issues of the people in constitutional manner, because untimely extra-constitutional measures are by themselves morally inappropriate. You will already find enough examples of this in Hyderabad, gushing out of the Telangana issue.
  2. Let us, for a moment, assume that Lokpal erases the financial corruption in all forms of government transactions; which of course is an outrageous thought. Given our population what makes corruption come back is not the presence of bribe takers but of the briber givers; it's a simple demand-supply curve, if you know what I mean. So is there no end to this corruption? Do we take this granted in todays society and just move on? No. A blunt no, of course. A law is a mechanism that is akin to a drug that cures the disease, but what we need is a way to prevent it. As much as a law can solve a problem, much of it can be done by the common man who has nothing to do with making the law. Often we flaunt the mantra "it is my right to ...", but how often have we exercised our duties that come with those rights? It is good that you are an Anna (of the "Mai Anna Hoon" campaign fame), but it is not enough when the first thing people coming back from the peaceful demonstration do is to break traffic rules and disrupt public life. 
It is easy to say "I'm not corrupt, and I won't feed the corrupt" in your current status as a student. But all of you are going to graduate soon, much before another govt comes and goes, and will be lining up some queue with hefty paychecks up your sleeves. Do you have it in you, to follow the procedures instead of paying the extra bucks and get away? Are you willing to submit only the original rent receipts and original medical bills for tax exemption, or will you—like countless others—dodge the bullet when it comes on to you? The beginning of all modes of corruption, is a seemingly small dose of moral corruption. Don't let the 'chalta hain' attitude lead you into a morally corrupt individual.

Seek change and be the change.

Jai hind.

 

PS: All thoughts are appreciated.

PS1: Please note that the original post by me was written keeping in mind the student audience of IIIT-H, though it is equally applicable to each one of us.