Steppenwolf

“He is a lot like his father you know” – unsolicited, caustic feedback delivered to me yesterday, courtesy the pregnable grapevine comprising of middle aged Indian women of my extended family. Since the tone it was delivered in wasn’t flattering I can only imagine the original vein to have been of similar temper.

Peculiar thing I have begun to notice is that whenever I hear this judgment, and I hear it a fair bit, off-handed or not, it irks me incrementally less the older I get. Not because I despise these particular characteristics of my father (implicitly being referred to) any less now. Instead, I have gradually grown more comfortable in my own screwed up skin. I am told this is apparently predictable, and that growing more content with my own company goes hand in hand with being more comfortable in my own skin.

Only the wisest and the stupidest men never change. I don’t know who said that but, empirically, I believe it to be an absolute truth. I struggle to find exceptions to that rule. An inability to change must be related to an inability to want change in oneself.

Surely, change is a choice just like happiness. People are only as happy as they choose to be and surely people only ever change should they choose to. Frivolous garbage spewed about “will power” et al. is purely symptomatic. If change is a choice, then its absence is a choice. Whether the cause was a lack of an irresistible incentive or a failure to communicate it, is irrelevant.

Intelligent people understand incentives. This ability is innate since it is perceived to be based on a contrived notion of “rationality.” Nevertheless, if a person of superior intellect, which I believe my father to be, rejects change in any facet of his personality, the rational deduction is that he doesn’t perceive the benefit in change to be appealing enough to undertake it.

This isn’t about “right” or “wrong” or absolutes. I strictly refer to the ability to comprehend incentives, regardless of whether they trigger change. Because, the “action” of change is an inevitable consequence of comprehending its perceived benefit. But what if the benefit is something subjective, like happiness? How do you ensure somebody perceives happiness the way you do? I struggle.

Intellectual arrogance, sometimes a cheap-shot, is symptomatic of people who cannot comprehend emotional, irrational, incentives like happiness. Notice that I didn’t say “value” happiness, because all humans value happiness even if they choose not to be happy. My point, instead, suggests a failure of understanding what’s at stake. A failure in conducting a brutal cost-benefit analysis where the cost is effectual and the benefit is emotional.

I have been reading Steppenwolf by Hesse recently. I have to say, I am fascinated by its lead protagonist character. This book has enthralled me, not quite in the same way Atlas Shrugged did six years ago, but to a comparable extent. I am certain each reader has their own interpretation of this book, but so far, I identify with the character’s bipolar analysis of reality.

Growing up with two parents so diametrically opposite of each other, in an intellectual, social, emotional, and physical sense, has impact me (and perhaps my siblings) in ways I cannot articulate. I understand we are comprised of thousands of persona, but when making decisions, especially those I would (retrospectively) consider crucial, I adorn this bipolar persona.

Life isn’t always about excelling. Perhaps seeking the most fleeting of pleasures is rewarding in different ways (i.e. yields happiness) and one doesn't necessarily grip reality less firmly. However, being confronted with choices where the benefit is potential happiness, I wonder if I will always succeed in recognizing it. These choices are hard and their consequences piercing, especially when the cost of change also results in a change in the way you are perceived by people.

I recognize the argument is circular. If people’s perception of you (for example, their respect for you) makes you happy, then changing that perception in the hope of happiness (for example, their love for you), can only yield unhappiness. I am not deliberately trying to sound profound. If the benefits, as you perceive them, do not outweigh the costs, as you predict them, then you wont choose change.

Stubbornness is merely annoying or frustrating. Intellectual arrogance is destructive.

(Incomplete)

Tired of the rhetoric

The vote for stability is complete, or at least, that’s what they’re calling it. I suspect the press meant that more in social terms than economic, but nevertheless, “stability” it is. Jai Ho!

I don’t stand in particular feel-good stance with the rest of my urban, privileged, and educated peers in the Congress camp, but I’m pretty darn chuffed about the fact that the Left isn’t involved this time ‘round and Karat can go baiser une vache.

This thumping victory resonates of ’91 except with added fervor thanks to a highly penetrative media. Everyone seems to have an opinion about the elections. Although I found that in reality, 90% of Indians to whom I casually mention the elections don’t really have any political ideology or any piercing insight. Merely a fleeting comment about who they don’t want as PM. No sooner do I begin to assess the Congress and its spineless bend-me-over-twice-honey relationship with the Left than I get thrown the proverbial “you would rather have Modi as your PM!” response.

I often think about retaliating with “No, I’d rather want the lets-barter-Nandigram-silence-for-a-Nuke-deal Congress” but then I stop. Its futile. I find vacuous retorts like that as populist as most of the garbage coalition politics throws at its people anyway. I find the response I get to any criticism of the dynastical bullshit the Congress perpetuates disappointing, since I am rendered communal because I don’t support the Congress. That must explain it. Surely, I must want Advani and Modi as my leaders because god forbid I find the Congress protectionism that has strangled economic maturity a bit irritating. (I should specify here that its not Congress protectionism - apologies to PM Rao - but the Manmohan-Sonia protectionism the last five years.)

Regardless, this post isn’t about my fence sitting nor is it about the “I can’t name five Congress ministers but that’s better than those Hindutva bastards coming to power” clichés thrown at me. I just wonder about bench strength of the Congress and I’m sitting here, happy that Karat got his culo handed to him, but nervous about where the UPA is going to take the country. And to me, it doesn’t look promising.

At some point, one has to stop playing the “relative” game (i.e. incompetence is acceptable if one admits the NDA couldn’t do any better anyway) and begin to wonder how many 60,000 crore loan waivers Congress can issue to buy more “common man” votes. Three cheers to “inclusive growth.” I’m glad the global crisis, to some extent, deflated the much peddled “India shining” propaganda (by both Congress and BJP) but I’m anxious to see Manmohan change his zero-reform record, especially since now he’s got no Somnath Chaterjee or Prakash Karat to get a sign off from. Sonia’s spankings shall suffice from time to time.

So where is the UPA bench strength? There are 12 ministries that need a competent cabinet to implement much needed change and reform that’s been sorely lacking since 2004 (besides the opening of domestic civil aviation, the Congress has done bugger all).

You have the Home office, Finance, Foreign, Defense, Trade, Transport, Energy, Communications, Agriculture, Education, Health and Law ministries. Congress seems to have a lustrous starting line up, but the bench seems pretty weak. Is it too much to ask the “common man” (whatever the hell that means now) to look beneath the PM and the CM? Or is it all populist agenda and everything developmental promised is pure sound bite?

Regulation is stagnant, and thanks-to-Indira-Gandhi nationalization of banks is still a reality today and nothing has changed in terms of reducing government ownership in an archaic banking system. Administration of subsidies is still governed by the same bureaucracies it was in Nehru-world and no reform, despite many promises, has happened in that department. Privatization has stagnated (stop comparing 2009 to 1991, and look at the last 5 years!), judicial infrastructural improvements halted, competition regulation hasn’t changed since the 80’s and Industrial tariffs are obscenely high. As Razeen Sally put it, India remains the most protectionist emerging market. Does anyone care that there is no money to support the rural employment guarantee program or more food subsidies? Or that promises were made in this campaign to actually reduce the usage of computers in public offices to increase employment in the public sector?

The Doha roundtable commitments on trade tariffs were abandoned and the Congress decided to raise import tariffs in response to the global crisis. Further protectionism, something the much hated communal yet more free-market BJP never did. Fiscal expenditure is also out of control. In the UPA’s five years in power, the fiscal deficit has risen from just above its target of 2.5% to over 9% of GDP, to be among the highest in the world (Reddy keeps warning us, but nobody listens). Government borrowing has nearly quadrupled from $19bn in 2005 to $70bn budgeted borrowing for 2009/10.

No one gives a hoot that besides Pranab Mukherjee, Chidambaram, and Kamal Nath, you’ve got a pretty poor track record of competent ministers in the UPA. I believe it’s a no-brainer to pick Arun Shourie, Arun Jaitley, and Yashwant Sinha as the better equipped lot with better track records. I’m not sure what economic progress you really get from the allies such as Sharad Pawar (besides growing his personal wealth), Mamta Banerjee or Ram Vilas Paswan. In terms of economic development, they have failed miserably in all aspects of their states. Chauhan and Khaduri and Modi (dare I take his name) make better CM’s, hands down.

I’ve witnessed five years of “our hands our tied” politics from Sonia leading to almost zero reform, an abandoned momentum of economic growth, trade stagnation, tripling of the debt, and a get-out-of-jail free excuse that “hey, at least we’re secular”

Well, I’m done with “fuck growth, we’re secular” excuse, its no longer going to work on me, personally. With the Left out of the picture, Manmohan and Sonia mommy now have literally no excuses left (pun unintended). Get competent people in the cabinet, fix the archaic laws, push much needed reform, don’t go down the slippery slope of protectionism in the face of global turmoil, and put a zip on spending – “inclusive growth” comes at a cost.

I’m freaking overjoyed that you’re singing in the streets that no Modi or Mayawati will be PM. That’s great news. Manmohan is here to stay....now what?

Es Tiempo

The closer to the mirror I get,
The more I look past me.
The less I’d like to choose.
You relish the wound in you.
I hate the knife in me.

I’ve blocked most roads that lead to me.
Memories are like fingerprints, he once said.
I’ve removed yours.
Perhaps true passion is injurious, after all.

No sand castles for your tide to wreck,
No more waiting on words,
No garb of contradictions,
And none of those porcelain lies,
Promises can lead to a deceitful guise.

In rear view are those gray mornings beneath bright skies,
For now, I often steal bright mornings under gray skies.
It isn’t “all in one’s head,” instead, it is all outside it.
There are smiles that are deafening, styles that are refreshing,
And minds that are seductive, all over again.
Though my excitement is inconspicuous,
Therein lies the charm, as you once said.

I welcome fewer knots of contrariety,
And fewer frivolous words,
The beauty of innuendos and inflections,
And witty comebacks,
And even more time spent reveling in them.

There is no recipe, only ingredients.
Tastes keep changing, until they don’t.

- AD

To the one that got away...

So many years ago, a mere 15 seconds after I was introduced to you, trapped amongst six strangers, cross handshaking, and audible clutter, you gave me that “what are you doing with her?” look. I couldn’t decipher it then, but it was undeniable – the look you gave me. You were smiling, squinting, and shaking your head, yet you weren’t actually moving a muscle. I couldn’t tell if you were being presumptuous or just had the ability to look straight through me. I was hoping it was both.

Your wit always trumped my cynicism. I wonder which incredibly blessed skate has since pulled the rug from under you. If there is such a gent, he’s certainly keeping you happy. For you’re too smart to barter stability for happiness, no matter how much you once claimed otherwise. The girl I knew didn’t take long to figure out which side of a bad trade she was on. I remember you wishing away that skill, but I hope you failed in your attempts to balance empathy with self-preservation. Hell, I was stuck somewhere between epitomizing Ayn Rand and Entourage’s Ari Gold, and you sized me up rather quickly.

The best part of discovering you in impossible circumstances was watching you balance guilt, self-preservation, and love. The disconnect between what you said and what you did fascinated me as much as it frustrated me. So much time has passed. I can only imagine you having since experienced so much along the way that I’m curious if you have changed in that regard. You had the ability to de-personalize your departure from any relationship or friendship like no other. For someone as fragile as you, your sheer force of will could disarm most men, unquestionably.

I’ve spent but fleeting moments with you, each separated by long lengths of time. Each time I saw the same you, only getting incrementally more comfortable with who you really were. I suppose that’s true for anyone as they age. And with that comfort, the dichotomy within you became, with each meeting, more apparent.

I always saw a complex amalgamation within you and I loved that. Still do. There was one side of you who despite all the displays of independence and Resume-points, just wanted to be taken care of, who would gladly hand over her car keys without unnecessary feministic role play, who insisted I order the wine every time, who talked of a past of broken-hearts and lessons learned, and who thought it was better to wear the pants at home and let your man wear them outside. Then there was the equally potent other side, who spewed monologues (over bad steak and good wine) about the impossibility of monogamy in humans and her frustration of how ill-trained women were of developing expectations in bed, she who confused Keynes with Friedman and thought Marx had it right, and one who couldn’t believe the irony in that the ‘chase’ was the most deceiving, yet unforgettable, and yet eventually irrelevant part of any relationship.

It doesn’t matter what you look like when you’re made up of all those things. You will seem incredibly sexy to the right men, and just plain to the wrong ones.

I hope you’re well and just as complicated as I remember you. Life isn’t the same without having people like you play their part in it. There are enough bores like me around to make this world uninteresting. Stay the way you were, and never compromise your happiness, not for your body clock, not for your mother, not for your 'options' as and when they appear in your life, not for your ever-changing definition of stability or your incomprehensible understanding of compromise, not for your silly explanations of "Mr. Right" often being "Mr. Right now," not for how much investment you already put into someone/something, not for nothing. Never compromise on being happy.

Nothing like a slap square in the face...

It is difficult to write about the completion of an incredible first leg of my vacation amidst such gruesome reality of terrorism in Bombay. I was at/close-to the very places that were attacked a mere 48 hours before I heard news of random firings at VT station.

On the steps of Empire (restaurant), in Shivaji Nagar in Bangalore, I caught a glimpse of a muted TV screaming the incident. At that stage, no one had a clue whether there was pan-Islamic terror groups (LeT or others) behind it, as peripheral evidence seems to suggest now. Irrespective, I remember shaking my head and thinking how big an intelligence failure this was.

I’ve often remarked how there is very thin line between obstinance and the much lauded resilience. The shockingly accurate “spirit of Bombay” phrase wasn’t coined over a round of beers. It has suffered the gruesome ’92 riots followed by the blasts in ’93 and through 15 more (yes, fifteen) terrorist attacks since. You can slap us ‘kutte-ki-dum’ desensitized Indians around that many times in that short a time span and little will change. After all, we are a “resilient” lot.

At the cost of sounding ‘Shobha De’-ish…fuck resilience.

With Zawahiri infused global Jihadi tactics now maturing to lethal guerrilla terrorism on a global scale, this ‘fight against terror’ is being badly lost (reminds me of Ahmed Rashid’s comments on this matter, and he knows what he’s talking about). India wants to play with the big boys on an economic scale but doesn’t want the responsibility of behaving like one. This isn’t a taunt at the politicians, I’d only be jumping on the blame bandwagon. This is directed more to us citizens. The “emerged” players have been dealing with this pest for a long time. We’ve all heard the “no attack on US soil since 9/11 under Bush” retort (only marginally true, sans anthrax, sans snipers et al) and similarly regarding England’s 07/07 (completely true).

Yet in India, whether it’s the Parliament attack under BJP, or Mumbai blasts under Congress, our reaction or lack thereof (or is that resilience?) is endemic to Indians, irrespective of your secular bent. Why else would the deputy CM Mr. Patil, who’s a prime example of God’s unintended defective gene, make comments like “bade, bade shahron mein aise hadse hote rehte hai” (translation: In big cities, these sorts of incidents keep happening). Vir Sanghavi remarked --- “I can think of only three countries where terrorism reigns unchecked: Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Of those three, Afghanistan is at war and Pakistan is a failed state"

This slap in the face ranks among the heavy handed ones the Chinese gave us in ’62.

Shivraj’s (our incredibly incompetent Home Minister) resignation means f-all to anyone who is really affected by this. It’s the tip of the iceberg. You’ve got a lot of angry Indians out there, and I’m happy about that. Yet, like so many times before, there are only a handful of us (who have been directly impacted) that will remain committed to bringing about a change. The rest of us will forget our conscience and move on in pursuit of inflating our bank accounts.

p.s. - Despite the incredible job (without floor plans or intel) the NSG commando’s did, they took 9.5 hours to get there. In fact, we didn’t have a chopper to bring them from Mumbai airport to Colaba (they were driven through traffic). There is something seriously wrong with shining India. I don’t need 3G on my phone as badly as I need NSG commando’s to be in more than ONE place in the entire country (currently, New Delhi).

Also - read this: Cops have never fired a gun in 10 years.

I'm not a bloody caveman, stop it

What really pisses me off is when people overuse emoticons in every piece of writing – which these days is defined largely under ‘email’ – as if to accentuate the message they are trying to convey. It is this presumption that the recipient of your email is pretty much an idiot, who is rendered incapable of truly understanding the full intent and emotion of your message without you using pictorial clues.

If, at this point, you’re thinking that I’ve possibly over-reacted, then ask yourself the following: Can you email, or sms, someone “Happy Birthday” without an exclamation mark or a smiley at the end of your message? Is it possible? It sounds drab without it doesn’t it? The perceptive degeneration is incredible.

When Scot Fahlman invented emoticons (the Smiley, i.e. “:-)”) 25 years ago, he didn’t think it would spawn a lexicon of symbols that would eventually butcher the language to such an extent, where their usage became integral instead of supplemental. Its not that Smileys or other emoticons bother me. It’s the overindulgence. It is unpalatable. This literary tool is not the kitchen scissors but instead a chainsaw.

Are we retrogressing to cavemen times? Do you need to draw a picture to tell me how you’re feeling? Am I that ignorant of subtleties that I wont ‘pick up’ the emotion you feel when you write something? I don’t feel happier when you say “Happy Birthday :-)” instead of “Happy Birthday.” I get the wink in a flirty message without you pointing the obvious ‘wink’ by drawing the fucking thing. Its grown men and women who feel that adding emoticons somehow brings their vacuous writing to life. Actually, they are dependent on it. That’s what I find troubling.

I’m no expert in the language. If you ask my siblings, they would probably single me out as the black sheep in the family when it came to a command over the language. I'm horrible at it. This post isn’t about English or its destruction (and I'm certainly not one to talk). Its specifically about the fucking smileys and frownies (if I may call them that). Why can’t people write “Ooops, I totally forgot” without adding a “:p” at the end? Will I fail to comprehend that you feel sheepish about forgetting without you adding a darn “:p” in the end?

Put a stop to it. If I’m part of the minority who you think is ‘hung up’ or ‘uptight’ or whatever, that’s just dandy. Do me a favour then: Next time you write to me, don’t end every sentence with a smiley. I get it. I really, really do. Believe me, I understand your message without you flooding my screen with these fucking symbols.

Do *you* get it?

Rediscovering...

It ain't no use in turnin' on your light, babe
That light I never knowed
And it ain't no use in turnin' on your light, babe
I'm on the dark side of the road
Still I wish there was somethin' you would do or say
To try and make me change my mind and stay
We never did too much talkin' anyway
So don't think twice, it's all right

It ain't no use in callin' out my name
Like you never did before
It ain't no use in callin' out my name
I can't hear you any more
I'm a-thinkin' and a-wonderin' all the way down the road
I once loved a woman, a child I'm told
I give her my heart but she wanted my soul
But don't think twice, it's all right

How does it feel?

La Institution del Marriage

Before I’m rendered a cynic, and suffer purgatory counter-attacks, please do NOT read if you satisfy any of the following conditions:

1) You’re under 18 – you will likely find below a repulsive revelation.
2) You’ve never been in a relationship where you’ve felt emotionally dependent on someone (I don’t like using rhetorical phrases like “in love” et al)
3) You are unable to undo the malleable wiring in your brain about societal conformity
4) You do not fully comprehend the meaning of the term “Institution”


I’m to keep it as short as possible (yeah, right), but I felt like penning down my thoughts about Marriage (especially in the Indian context, yet applicable outside it as well).

I don't think marriage serves any purpose but to legitimize. That is my view. Marriage legitimizes something. In some cases, everything. What is that "anything/something"?
Depends on who is looking to get married and at what stage in their lives they are at.

When a friend's young 17yr old cousin wants to "seriously" marry her Delhi high-school boyfriend, she is trying to legitimize her time spent with him. Sneaky nights spent with this boy, fake road trips with "friends" (excuses), propelling sexual discovery, all of it. To make it all legitimate. That's where she is coming from. Marriage is a way to get there. She isn’t really thinking beyond that. She’s in love (or so she thinks, I’m no expert) and she feels the appropriate step (socially acceptable) to get what she wants is Marriage.

There was no point in me trying to drill "objectivity" (as if I were the authority on it) into her. No point in trying to warn her either of how frivolous she was being about her first "so called" love and the permanence of marriage. I could see what this young 17yr old was trying achieve. Something she couldn't articulate.

Fast forward 12 years to another woman who's fiercely independent, has been through many relationships, a successful professional, is currently seeing someone but suddenly feels the need to get married to him. She is related to me. We have a discussion about her newfound disposition.
She is intelligent and articulate. I find her easily understanding my point of legitimacy, and we finally narrow it down to children. She feels the need to get married so she can have children soon. Whether its bio-clock or maternal calling, the impetus is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that Marriage will legitimize children (note esp. in India). Without marriage, the children are illegitimate. Fair point, I say.

In rural societies marriage legitimizes several things such as a "belonging." For others it is "class", quite often "caste" and for some others it legitimizes "status" (read: 'jaagirdar' lineage).

Marriage is an institution built to legitimize. Built by men (solely) so they could define a social construct around the notion (perhaps born out of the male insecurity of being inadequate) of "my woman...mother of my child"

Ever thought about what proof there was for say, 3,000 years (without DNA technology), to validate the concept of "my woman" or "my children"? How does a man prove any children as his? Its totally absurd to me that a male (i.e. supposed ‘father’) should claim “his” children as “his.” Let’s not apply a modern civilized social framework around this question. Plain and simple – where do we see this in our ancient 'ancestry'?

It is almost obscene for me to say something like that, but isn't it true? The children are their mother’s children. Most male mammals don't even know who their children are and an aging female will often mate with younger and younger more fertile males to produce successive litters/babies.
Obviously this seems obscene in the "civilized" world of humans. But at the end of the day "maternity is a fact, paternity is an assumption" - and to legitimize children and build a concept of "family" - one had to invent an institution. Snap! Marriage.

To stop "animalistic" behaviour (notice the irony in how far we've come from the barbaric Neanderthals), a man must stop OTHER men from procreating with "his" woman? So what card can he play to avoid a break down of society where everyone procreates with everyone? It is perfectly healthy, biologically speaking, to do so. There is nothing wrong with it - genetically it is BETTER than scraping the bottom of the gene pool. Darwin would agree. So the only way society can function in an "orderly" manner is through this division of "my woman", "my children", "my family". Marriage allows such boundaries to be drawn, enforced, and accepted.

There is nothing Marriage offers to me (or anyone else in my mind) but legitimacy. Everything else that comes with it comes through the course of being in a long-term relationship (a meaningful one). This is where most people “don’t get me.” Every retort I hear confuses the concept of a long-term relationship and marriage. In people’s minds, the two things are so twined, that those terms are used synonymously. What does the institution of marriage bring, incrementally, that a meaningful long term relationship doesn’t?

I understand that legitimacy is important.
And worth it. I submit to it knowingly.
And that's why I will get married someday.

But I'm pretty clear about the hypocrisy. It is not a token of commitment. It is a token of insurance. Especially for women who are known (historically) to be more monogamous than men (male dolphins, do forgive me). You can easily commit yourself to someone without paying the Clergy, or the Brahmin, or anyone else and expending cash to legitimize the relationship. The social constructs that bind two people into marriage make the walls around the relationship a little thicker. You "need" marriage more than "want" it - is my point. The institution is omnipotent.

From mother-in-laws, to young girls, marriage provides (specific) legitimacy that is so powerful, I find it poetic that one of the reasons it was established was to cover the male insecurity of fading virility.

If women can fend for themselves now, and for their children and provide them everything they wish to, why should they settle for ONE man? Why not go younger, and more fertile as they themselves age?

I understand that my thoughts may be deemed “crude.” But lets cut out the riff raff. I find relationships, love, commitment etc meaningful and complex things. Marriage, isn’t complex or opaque to me at all. Again, one has to try and separate the relationship from the concept of marriage. And if you think one IS the other, then you have proven my point of the potency of the institution.

This is why I say women are the stronger sex (and not only because they live longer). Give them the power to "provide" and you have no use for men.

Amen.

p.s. - I am not proposing social anarchy. My objective is to expose the purpose (in my humble view) of marriage and attempt to question the brainwashed notions that love & commitment are achieved through marriage. You can commit to someone without a ceremonial announcement. Marriage provides the insurance against a "change of mind/heart" (to some extent, depending on which society we're referring to). I am not unromantic because I feel that, those who believe asking someone to marry you is the ultimate token of love, are hypocrites. If your significant other's word isn't enough, and you "need" social (family, potentially children, and society in certain cases) obligations to keep your man or woman with you, then you've proven my point. Net-Net, to allow two people to trudge through the "troughs" in a relationship you "need" constructs to impose obligations on the two people who had decided to commit to each other. I'm not saying its not "a beautiful thing", I'm saying that's the definition of "insurance." If that makes me unromantic, then so be it.

Here today, gone yesterday?

I hate sounding the cliche. Being clubbed with those cast aside as "protectionists." Yet, somehow, the more I watch the IPL matches, the more I'm put off by what I see. The thrills of the 20-20 world cup and seeing Yuvraj hit those sixes...that novelty, is wearing off.

"Its action packed yaar! Cmon, its entertaining." Ummm, yes. I agree. Its "particular action" (packed) and is entertaining in a "particular" fashion.

'Action = Sixes', isn't "Action" for me, unfortunately. Is a team getting bowled out for 85 on a flatpith "Action"? For me it sure is. So careful when one says "Action." Because they usually mean the bat obliterating the ball, and certainly NOT the other way around.

The IPL format of 20-20 (not just 20-20 itself) has turned on the "don't really watch cricket, but Rahul is soooo cute hehehe" fan, and put off the fans (notice I didn't say "real fans") who truly understand the game.

This (financially sensible) incusion has been so overdone (note the cheerleaders, swollywood...i mean bollywood, and the constant deafening music) that its left the game with the most fickle minded consumer. Need a drink with a buddy and 3 hours of entertainment? Sure, go watch a 20-20. And to be honest, there is nothing wrong with that. Absolutely nothing.

The problem I have with the IPL 20-20 is that I don't see much cricket. And before you jump the gun with your ignorance and assume I like "a good leave" from a batsman in test cricket, I'd like to think you, the '20-20 luvvvver', don't get to see much cricket either. Its numbing to see the number of sixes being hit as pure slogs. Its almost rhetorical to ask why the grounds were all shrunk by an average 20% (in fact, one of the grounds - i won't name which one - shrunk its square leg boundaries by 30 yards). Andrew Symonds spoke of how bats have improved over the last 5 years alone, but what about the ball? The technology keeps favouring the batsman to a point where it isn't "marvelous" to see a tier3 'pappu' from bangalore flat bat the likes of McGrath for a six.

All I'm saying is that if the game is going to turn away the fans who actually understand the game and include just those who have constant attention deficiency disorder and love to catch a glimpse of Preity Zinta or "oh, Shah Rukh" and those who find "Yuvi, Oh, so so cuuuute", then the game is going to the shitter. That's all.

If you want a "Dhamaka" game, watch the NFL (which I love). But if Six hitting is where its going, maybe I'd rather watch baseball, where the ultimate objective is just to hit it out of the park. I've been to several Baseball games at Yankee stadium, and i'd much rather pick a Test match at Mohali over seeing constant slogging.

I'm not in denial that 20-20 is the "future" - sure is. That its where the game and money is heading - yup, that's true. But sensationalizing the game and marginalizing the fans is a recipie for disaster. You'll have to keep making the grounds smaller, and the bats 'better' (ahem), and the free-hits more 'free'quent, and the field restrictions more (f)re(e)strictive. Because the middle-order batsmen is going to be extinct in 5 seasons, blocking out a lethal inswinging yorker would render you a loser because you didn't hit it (somehow) for Four, the Chinese Premier League will threaten 20-20 with Ten10 in the year 2020, and also because potentially we're going to have 'bowlers' renamed as 'Guinea Pigs'.

Ok, Ok, I'm extrapolating beyond reason there, and Yes, I know that Twenty20 cricket is here to stay. But its just not Cricket. One day, several years from now, I will overhear one kid on the street ask another "Do you play 20-20?" - That'll be all I need to hear to know that cricket is dead.

Bathing the red horse...

My experience at the Royal Academy of Art this weekend was just incredible. It was my first time seeing, what I like to call in ignorant terms, “real” art.

I could never understand the beauty of a Mondrian despite people constantly reminding me the non-representational neo-plastic context. I just didn’t ‘get it’ and I couldn’t understand what the big deal was looking at one of Mondrian’s compositions or Malevich’s “Black Squares.”

Somehow the phenomenal exhibition at the RAA this weekend changed all that. When me and Cha got there, the yucky weather with the long lines didn’t seem inviting. However, Deutsche Bank being a patron of the arts, we got in free without waiting in the ticket line. Go DB.

Walking through the galleries it took you in quasi-chronological order through the various movements and always provided you a context, mostly social and political, behind each section. Unlike the more realistic depictions of the pre-impressionist art that showed a more academic approach to painting and its details, the Impressionist art was more vivid, quite anti-establishment, more colourful and just represented a lot of freedom. Less adherence to any rules by questioning the way one saw things (rather than how they are supposed to look), can easily be seen when you stand opposite Monet’s ‘The Pond at Montgeron’ – which was among my favourites that I saw on Saturday.

I was told that Eduard Manet’s ‘In the Bar’ (you have to stare at it for a while for it to really sink in) started it all off even though Monet is attributed as founding Impressionism (‘soleil levant’). Regardless, all of them, from Manet, Renoir, Monet, Cezanne, Pisarro and the rest (I didn’t see any non-European work though), produced Art that is just incredible to see, in person. You don’t have to be an artist to appreciate this stuff. The similarities among them all – the thick strokes, colours next to each other without fading into each other, noticeably blatant errors in the visual representation, and the incredible use of light and shadows and reflections off objects.

Cezanne’s impressionist stuff seemed like it became more abstract and “wild” almost post-impressionistic as I saw more and more. All geometry breaks down into simple shapes and ‘Mont-Sainte Victoire’ is a classic example of that. As is ‘Girl at the Piano’ which hits you the second you look at it. Then came Picasso and other post-Impressionists like Mantisse, Van Gough and Gauguin. Matisse is another one of those who’s work visually ‘strikes’ you. You could be a bum of the street or even an art-ignoramus like me and yet Matisse’s work will just amaze you, especially his colours. ‘La Danse’ was featured on the cover of the pamphlet they were handing out to everyone and seeing it in real life was astonishing. First, its bloody simple. Second, its imprecise. But anyone who’s seen ‘La Danse’ or ‘Woman with a Hat’ can’t deny that it is brilliant. Pity that more people know of Picasso than Matisse even though I realized for the first time, how similar their paintings are, to me. Picasso’s being a bit more imaginative though.

That was just half the exhibition. It went onto works in cubism, cubo-futurism, neo-primitivism, and just plain abstract. The best parts of the gallery were Kandinsky and Malevich which I shall mention soon….

Right now its United vs Arsenal. Shall be back to write more.

He can't stop the fire

There is no monetary policy cure for this credit deficiency. Everyone knows this. Including the Fed. So Bernie chooses to make his aim: asset price stability instead of economic stability - hmmm, "same difference" you say? Not so sure.

I also hear people remark "low interest rates caused this bubble, so how can they fix it now?"

I'm all for taking it on the chin and suffering. Only time will cure this outbreak, and we might as well stop these delay tactics and bear the pain. I must admit I was part of the same bandwagon, and mostly still am. But the catastrophic proportions of what we're dealing with isn't obvious to people. The housing market is "big" - The word 'big' has been redefined in real terms in the last 6 months. Honestly.

The U.S.. mortgage industry is north of USD 10 Trillion or 80% of the U.S. GDP. That's 'big'. A 10% correction is a USD 1 trillion loss in re-pricing. But disregarding synthetic figures, on the way down, the pain may make you think twice about taking that upper cut on the chin. I suspect we're dealing with 'more' than a knock-out here.

The U.S. government has long been bankrupt. But fiscal bankruptcy is a matter of perception, not numbers (i.e. hope/faith of/in fiscal surplus in future). If the growing sovereign debt is anything to go by, we could blindly choose any year in the last 20 years to render the U.S. government (specifically) bankrupt. And we'd all be right, more or less. So claims of governmental bankruptcy means nothing. But Municipal bankruptcy is dangerous. That'll cause the U.S. to implode.

With MBIA downgraded and other monolines to follow (let's face it, these guys should've been downgraded a long, long time ago), we have a *serious* muni sell off on our hands. Monollines' zero-expected loss policies clearly call for a re-think in this market. Its not the probabilities that are scary - personally, its the size. A dozen Fed's, put together, cannot pump money fast enough into this economy if all the layers of debt (on top of each other) suddenly fold. And they will, I am pretty certain. I'm just not smart enough to predict, "when."

All that capital which was freed from banks' balance sheets through wraps from Monolines needs to come back. The regulators can relax the rules (and start this mess all over again), but that's unlikely to happen. This required 'replenishment' is in the order over several hundreds of billions of dollars, and that doesn't include the bail-out capital needed due to the write-offs.

Whether we enter into a stagflationary state is unimportant to me (all of a sudden). The Credit guys on every trading floor in the world are looking at the Equity guys and shaking their head thinking - "You guys have no clue, do ya? You think this is just a correction? Get your head out of your a$$." So far the Equity markets have said "hogwash". Yet somehow, YTD returns of -8% and -12% on global indices could look trivial.

An 1100 S&P maybe? I think its very possible.

ISB in top 20 B-schools.

ISB (Indian School of Business) made top 20.

http://rankings.ft.com/global-mba-rankings

Didn't know avg wght Salary was USD 170k. Hmmm.
Research is the only way into Global B-school rankings. I hope we build our resident faculty to acceptable levels. Kudos though.

The United States of Bailouts

Bush's stimulus package stinks like a skunk...but oh wait...

I wonder what's worse: political..err i mean "economic" (ahem) consumption 'stimulizing' plans? Or private funds buying out Monolines? Hmmm....

"Hey Mom, I got a great idea. I'm going to own the very Monoline* insurance company that insures my bonds. Ain't it sweet?"

Bernanke found his BB gun but fired too many pellets (got another 75bps in ya?) too quickly. Poor guy's run out of ammo. So if we witness another Monoline downgrade, he's going "click click click" and looking scared as s**t. An analyst at Barclays believes that the "regulators and banks will be strongly incentivised to reach a workable solution" to avoid the downgrades. No kidding, really?

He'll be more than happy if the Wilbur Ross' and the Buffets of the world buy up everything that's distressed out there. Why not? Rescue, Bailout, Buyout and lets start this mess all over again. This is after all, the United States of Bailouts. Moral hazard? What moral hazard, you commie!!

These Reinsurance 'impairments' are of proportions greater than their own market value. Which is (sorry to say this but..) plain funny. Its like a bleeding ER patient with organs hanging out being brought into the hospital (i.e. the Federal Hospital) and the doctors, named Dr. Bernie & Co., say "Aha! Bandaids! Lets find as many band-aids as possible to stop the bleeding."

Need to keep the AAA rating? No problem, here's $5billion to keep it for another week. You want me to pay you? Oh no no, call the Arabs. They have the moolah, i.e. not Capital, but "CASH"

And that's what these Monolines need now don't they? Cash. Over USD 200 billion of it. To "bail" them out (yeah, right). USD200B is USD50B more than Bush's stimulus package and about 25% of the India's (nominal) GDP.

Makes you think hard about for how many years, the whole darn world was, and still *very much* is, dependent on the American consumer. Every dollar s/he spent/spends.

Well she is going to stop spending (the way we like her to spend) pretty soon. Foreclosures are on the up and people figure its better to walk away from a mortgage (and suffer 7 years of bad credit) than it is to stick it out in a home which they borrowed at 80% LTV that is now worth less than the loan itself. Walk away, buy another home while your credit is still good, default on your primary home that's lost 20% of its initial value, and suffer 7 years of credit shame. But hey, your retirement is in better shape than it would be if you took it in the chin.

The Banks can't be trusted, why should the borrowers? The very fabric of doing business breaks down when even basic levels of trust in any contract disappear.

* - For those not familiar: Monoline insurance involves the insurance of repayment of third party debt (with restrictive business policies). This gives the insurers AAA ratings and incentivizes municipal issuers or ANY issuer, really, to enhance their issue rating by getting their bonds insured, or "wrapped", by monolines, thereby reducing net interest costs and securing a wider distribution. The Monoline wraps its own credit rating around the bond its insuring.

What India must do to modernise

Good Article: http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/868

"....While high growth has helped India bring its poverty ratio (the proportion of the poor below the official poverty line) down from 36% in 1993-94 to 27% in 2004-05, its transition to a modern economy remains problematic: it must still move the vast majority of its workforce out of farming into non-farming activities. With the services leg doing all of the walking, the economy can only limp along towards this transition. For a more rapid transformation, India must walk on two legs. That means more rapid growth of the labour-intensive manufacturing."

Huckabee, Nano-ness, and teri ma ki...

I like Huckabee. But I can't figure out why.

My bet with the pro-hillary folks seems fair money right now. Nothing against Clinton - in fact I like her policies on healthcare. [And calling it "socialized healthcare" isn't going to work on anyone with half a brain. Ooooh, the sickle and hammer, now she dun-did-it. Bulls**t. Take Canada, or NHS in the UK. They both have their issues but work better than the US healthcare system.]

Anyway, pro hillary healthcare strategy aside, I just don't think she's going to win.

Back to Hucka-by-baby. Is it because he's funny? Or a musician (pretty good one too)? Or perhaps his tax system proposals. I think overhauling the IRS is unimaginable. Too many lobbies and too many powerful corporates to oppose it. Eager to see his hybrid tax model in action. If he ever gets to be President. Anyway, I think Huck-habibi is solid.

Not so solid are the uber elitest crying environment foul against the Tata Nano. I have doubts that car is going to achieve what Tata is claiming, but I certainly don't see why everyone, and not just us priviledge brats, does not deserve the right to improve their lifestyle. I am well aware of the congestion impact - DEAL with it. Get two 40 lac SUV's OFF the road before you stop 10 Nano's from coming ON it. You live in a farm house and have a car for each family member? I do too! Well f**k me and f**k you. Those Nano's have as much right to be on the road as your pretty arse does.

Tata Motors management prides in how the Nano shall successfully penetrate the scooter/bike market. They aren't trying to steal existing car market share; they're creating a new pie altogether. Nobody plans to manufacture 300,000 cars in its first year without sourcing a brand new segment. Ahh, the two-wheeler-walla's!

So I thought, a bit, about this apples to oranges comparison, i.e. Nano's attraction to the two-wheeler brethren, who shall be its sucker bait.

Mind it! Back of the envelope calculations puhleseeee...

If I compare the Nano - which would road-retail at 1.22Lacs (give or take a few L's) for the consumer, to a self-start LML, or a kick-start Kinetic, or the Bajaj Discover, I see shocking results.

Assuming an average 5 yr fwd rate of petrol at the pumps of INR 50.6 (I took expected crude rates as a proxy for petrol pump prices in india. I know, I know, not the best comparable, but hey!). Assuming the Nano actually delivers 20km to the litre, I tried to calculate the running cost over 5 years.

The three alternatives all churn between 76 - 80 km per litre. If one averages 8,200 kms of use annually on the scooter (average assumes one family, of 4, has ONE scooter), and that the Nano would increase usage (conservatively) by no more than 10% (to 9,000 km a year), it will cost 4x more to operate the Nano.

Repairs will be more in cost terms, not frequency. Euro IV standards have little to do with CO2 emmisions. So more CO2 with the Nano. I'm not going to dive into Euro IV here.

With the price tag ranging between 2.1 to 2.8 times the cost of the average premium 2 wheeler and the running costs over 4 times, the base-model Nano could be that bridge too far (5 yr cost of ownership 1.55L incl semi annual maintenance). Sure, better than having no bridge at all. But have the Tata's overestimated sales?

Oh, and Sunny Gavaskar needs to STF Up. Either he should resign as the ICC CC's C (the last 3 C's are Cricket Committee Chariman). Or stop stoking the fire. Australian bashing is welcome, if deserved, but ICC bashing, esp. when you're the darn chairman, is appalling. If "Teri Maa Ki" was misheard as "Monkey," so be it. Attack Ponting, take a stab at the Australian hypocrisy, but either be a pesky commentator or the ICC CC Chairman, not both. Otherwise, you're the hypocrite Sunny bhai.

Rural Marketing... from the eye of the storm

I love receiving rants...esp via email - There's something about written rants that is hilarious!

"...all the wholesale markets across states look and feel the same. Most streets would generally have about 20 odd big wholesalers. Sadar bazaar in delhi is a good example although much larger. The outlets are characterized by hoards of sachets, a marwari or baniya in a baniyan adeptly screaming and working on the calculator, and stink of the kirana items. Most of these outlets would probably be as big as the entire body of a human being. These guys have a wonderful business models. Small outlets, large godowns (to stock items from companies when there is a good promotion), stock fast moving items, maximize turnover, make a margin of 1-2%, low to abysmal overheads. They haggle endlessly. Endlessly means endlessly! Have no vision beyond schemes on skus. do not care one bit about the brand.

There is often no place to walk around the streets. The cow pulled trollies are parked all over. And these cows look confused and to while away their time they move their tails around. Mentioning i am a baniya too is the best way to get all the information out of them. all these baniyas in the madrasi land are anyway starved to talk in hindi. Also, when you go with the sales team you get a VIP treatment. A stool will follow on which if you don't sit, the wholesaler will take an offence. A coffee will often be poured down our throats even if we have had a zillion cups before. They think i am some 'Maidamuh' (madam) from bombay and that will get them some better schemes!"

LMAO.

to Vitasta...

I suppose overcoming obstacles within yourself is crucial. Perhaps beyond the Product, bringing about a "personal change" within oneself is just as important to succeed. It must be lonely working alone. I see the sacrifice each time I visit. But as they say, “Businesses are successful because someone makes the sacrifices others are unwilling to”

reverence

The Elastic Retreat will stay captured at http://arundharold.blogspot.com/

Hopefully, this blog will inaugurate new themes in 2008.

Post #1 complete.

Welcome.