Was Gandhi an Intellectual Stalwart?

What's it about?

Read "Far more than ‘honest’ or ‘secular’ leaders, we need intelligent and competent ones" by Ghazala Wahab in the Times of India dated Mar 25, 2014

It was followed a couple of days later by "5 Indians in the running for top world thinkers " by Kounteya Sinha Times of India dated ,Mar 28, 2014.

The two set me thinking about "intellectual stalwarts" and great thinkers

 Ms Ghazala Wahab refers to "India's big fortune of having intellectual stalwarts like Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Azad ".Really ? Was she just being flippant ?(as appears to be the general style at times of India) I will primarily take a look at who deserve to be called  "Intellectual stalwarts" and secondarily at the thesis "if you have these qualities, you will in any case be on a plane higher than thieves and thugs."(referring to intelligence and creativity)

Does the noun phrase make sense?

The adjective intellectual has three meanings (Merriam webster)
1.of or relating to the ability to think in a logical way
2.: involving serious study and thought
3.of a person : smart and enjoying serious study and thought

Stalwart used as a noun (Head of the noun phrase) should mean "marked by outstanding strength and vigor of body, mind, or spirit "(Merriam webster). Other usages of stalwart such : a loyal supporter or an unwavering partisan would make the noun phrase an oxymoron.(e.g a loyal supporter is typically not an intellectual)  The only way it can make sense is a person having outstanding intellectual strength and ability as opposed to physical strength or courage. In one word the phrase "Intellectual Stalwart" probably should mean a great thinker or genius. The phrase is non standard(no entry in dictionary and googling does not help)

Who qualifies?

As the second article referred to points out some among the five can be considered 'intellectual stalwart' e.g. Prof Amartya sen. 
The noun phrase equals "a great thinker" or "an intellectual giant" or simply a genius.
The typical criteria used would include
-acceptance of the intellectual ouput by peers
-citation index
-The mark of a true genius is timelessness. She is not a fad. No one can ignore the contributions of ancient 'panini' or the philosophers like kant or hegel, economist adam smith not to talk of popular figure like Einstein.

When viewed in this light it is obvious that both Nehru and Gandhi cannot be referred to as "intellectual stalwarts".The intellectual output of both has been junked. Nobody takes them seriously other than use their names to further partisan ends

Other things

Being intelligent and competent is absolutely no guarantee of being honest ("be on a plane higher than thieves and thugs") as great lawyers(laiars as some would say) defend known rogues and criminals. There are many judges actually accused of corruption and other misdeeds.


Ms wahab's other theme that critical thinking is lacking in our educational system may be true but the arguments facts adduced to support the claim are hardly paradigms of critical thinking. Looks like she is  a poster boy/girl of our educational system.

Dynamic Aggregation of disparate Entities

Now if the mouthful "Dynamic Aggregation of disparate Entities" feels like a misfit into my blogs , you can't be faulted , but hopefully if you take a better look you will realize that it really is a cornerstone of my ravings and rantings about the media.
I wrote in my earlier blogs that there is a need for correct methods of analysis and presentation. I quite realize that media mostly wants to fill up their programming time or paper space as the case may be and well before the deadlines. Having said that I must add that incorrect analysis or presentation is a disservice to the public and in a way mislead them. No sir this is not niggling or nit pricking but an attempt to correct the conceptual framework. More on this at the end.
Dynamic Aggregation
By this Dynamic I am referring to the fact that the Aggregate (or Aggregate behaviour) under consideration changes with time. By Aggregation I mean that a measure or sum or summary is being talked about. To make it a little concrete Aggregate = people's preference for black, people's opinion about Mr Obama, Mr X's opinion about the American Dream , A companies performance, A nations economic performance.....
Disparate Entities
means that we are really trying to say something about a whole lot of different people or different situations or different causes etc. The word Entity is a place holder for people, situations, causes etc.
Examples and consequences of botch up

• Shobha De claimed young men are irreverent and further an interlocutor claimed that she was a society watcher. Clearly there are too many young men and all having different attitudes, levels of capability.... Assuming that the article was read by a youngster who probably regards her as a style icon or icon of some sort. He or she is likely to conclude that being irreverent is in. Yet others may conclude that they are out with the 'in' crowd. Of course she is more of rabble rouser than an academic. But why misrepresent ? Can't she simply say that this is what I feel. If the interlocutor simply said that this is what Behenji feels that is o.k But it is not o.k for the status of society watcher.
• According to Mr Shashi Tharoor one facet of USA is that of the Aggressor in Iraq another that of the land of opportunity. Clearly there are many more facets than he cared to list e.g as a land of technical excellence. In the context of prognosis for Obama regime from a former U.N official this is inadequate and highly superficial. Clearly this also involves aggregating either the facets , issues or problems. How can the solution (the prognosis ) be right when the steps in the problem identification/aggregation are wrong?
• David Miliband wrote “Resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms.” As is obvious by now this is aggregating over causes of the extremists calls to arms. Whether he or his aides were aware of what they were doing is besides the point. That they have ruffled feathers is indisputable. If they didn't see that they were into Aggregation of causes so much the worse for them.
• Sagarika Ghose claimed that Indians preferred fair brides. Which Indians ? Bengalis? What measure?Some dark girls who took it literally or seriously might actually develop low self worth.

What to do

Not to recognise Aggregation problem is in my opinion akin to not being able to do a simple sum. And If somebody fails to see the problem in bimt-poyt response mode I think he or she is semi-literate at best. There doesn't seem to be a dearth of this species.

• Recognise the nature of the argument when you see it.
• Reuse Aggregate measures which are well known wherever possible e.g GDP, opinion polls for what they are worth, Surveys , pie charts...
• Talk to some one who knows better on aggregating for the domain under consideration. May be an Anthropologist, Economist..
• If nothing better is known be fair and suitably qualify your Aggregation

Thinking correctly implies following certain rules of the game. One cannot organise the thinking without paradigms much like one cannot think of money without the paradigm of addition. In my opinion Aggregation over Entities is a paradigm

why The President fumbled-Grammar?

This has reference to "Flubbing his lines" by Steven Pinker in the Times of India dated 23rd Jan 2009.
I know nothing of the U.S constitution. However since Mr. Pinker writes"(Roberts)unilaterally amended the constitution by moving the adverb “faithfully” away from the verb." I surmise that the constitution probably uses the form "will faithfully execute...".
Now Mr. Obama is a trained lawyer and it is extremely unlikely that he would not know the wording of the oath. And besides it is quite likely that he has probably done a dress rehearsal with the oath in the "will faithfully execute...". format. He was probably surprised at the unexpected wording change and this has little to do with "Freudian slips" or the "unconscious" on the President's part. Mr Pinker is bang on Target.
Some in the media Rajdeep Sardesai included announced gleefully that it is not just the Reporters but also presidents who fumble.But In this case it probably was not the president's fault.
It is worthwhile noting that according to syntactic theory Adverbs or Adverb phrases are 'adjuncts' and there fore moved to other positions in the sentence. What this means is that from a syntactic view point "faithfully" is not essential and therefore can occur before or after the verb phrase .It is indifferent between "will execute....faithfully" and " will faithfully execute...". The only exception that I can think of is the adverb "not". The wording is more a matter of style and Mr. Roberts is entitled to his style but probably not on the matter of an agreed oath of office.
The question of correct grammar is also tied to whether Normative Grammar or Empirical Grammar is meant. This in turn needs a view on the existence of a "Universal Grammar" propounded by Noam Chomsky.
I personally believe people don't go around with either a Normative grammar book or a hard wired "Universal Grammar" in the head. People I think can make sense of both of the constructs above and similar ones without the faintest notion of an adverb. And I think they will invariably associate "faithfully" with "execute" irrespective of position. Language is more a matter of convention and these keep changing. Yesterday's noun can become today's verb e.g google to googling. Besides people can make sense of ungrammatical constructs in context.

Indian Obama?

Mr Omar Abdullah is chief minister candidate from the NC side. I sincerely hope that Congress gives him a chance to lead J&K right away in greater national interest.
Among all the current younger politicians, I rate him the best. From some of the TV interviews that I have watched and of course his famous speech in parliament, I feel he has got what it takes to lead people.
I feel the Indian media has missed out a potential Indian Obama. They have played up the 'Prince' but in my opinion the prince is no match for Omar. If we ignore the dynasty bit, He can be considered the real "Indian Obama" in the sense that he can bring in the right changes to lead J&K and India .Here is my prayer to god.
The prayer

• May god help you fulfill the aspirations of the people of J&K
• May god help you solve all problems of the people of J&K
• May god help you balance the conflicting interests.
• May god help you put peoples interest first
• May god help you become the best CM of J&K
• May god help you become the best Indian Leader and lead the nation
• May god help you become the best leader in the neighbouring countries
• May god help you become the greatest International Leader and usher in the 'Kingdom of god'

Obama and the Kingdom of God

These are some of the observations after Watching one of the TV channels prognosis for 2009, Obama and Shashi Tharoor's interludes.
Kingdom of God
There seems to be a quest among non christian countries for the kingdom of god . Vatican of course wants it, but the majority of the christian countries seem to regard their existing kingdoms as god's very own. The BJP in India wants RamRajjya . The Jehadi's all over the world want to bring in their god's kingdom. The sikhs wanted Khalistan meaning " Land of the Pure". Pakistan means the land of pure(land of the Paks - the spiritually pure and clean) or the Kingdom of God. Even officially atheist china seems to be wanting to find it's roots in the teachings of Confucius. Iran already has semi kingdom of god.
Poor God must surely be in a dilemma because one man's God seems to be another's terrorist.You might ask what has Obama got to do with the Kingdom of God ?Answer is that large sections of the world want it and He might as well give it a whirl.
Tharoor and the two faces of USA
According to Mr Tharoor one facet of USA is that of the Aggressor in Iraq another that of the land of opportunity. Mr Tharoor as an Ex-UN official should have known better than to refer to the two faces.A school boy might be a lousy student but a great footballer. The face used by person depends on the context and the observer. If Mr Tharoor wanted to balance one against the other or appear balanced that's o.k. But in the context of prognosis for 2009, Obama and Change It is about as relevant as a statement like "US has the best blonde's in the world." ( never mind the truth or falsity of the statement)From the point of people at large worldwide land of opportunity face or image is relevant to only a micro mini segment. If everyone lands up in the land of opportunity no opportunities will be left for anyone.
Will Obama usher in the Kingdom of God
This immediately begs the question whose god? Chances are that it will be the American God( Whatever that might mean). He may as well end up portraying all his acts ( Whatever they might be) as acts of god.
What's the hitch
There are no Universally accepted ethics. Otherwise we wouldn't be needing an advisory by the U.K authorities "Don't indulge in extra marital affairs in Islamic countries etc.."If there were accepted norms some troubles might be averted.God is inaccessible to the majority. might as well go for the next best thing of Universally accepted ethics.
As I said earlier one needs an acceptable code at least on major issue contexts to approximate the Kingdom of God. In the context of leaders this implies an ability to put societal interests above personal interests and for international leaders to put the world interests above "self interest" ( -of the nation .people and experts call it "real politic")
It is anybody's guess whose interests Mr Obama will espouse. Of course guesses could be wrong. Wait and watch.
Experts etc..
Are people well up on current orthodoxy.
Change is the only certainty other than death. Today's innovator may well become part of tomorrows orthodoxy

Irresponsible Media

Last time I wondered whether Media was following an undeclared war time reporting code.I happened to see Barkha Dutt's so called Debate and Rajdeep Sardesai's interview of Mr Antulay. Both of these shared the same sentiments and also shared the same with other media.
Whose views are these anyway?
It appears the entire media has one interest( whose?) and is determined to thopo(thrust) their views on everyone.They seem to be determined to manufacture news to suit the war.Further they read statements to suit their convenience and imagine they are the people or perhaps they are above the people and of course the politicians.So much so that I wonder who the handlers of the media are.
One can claim that these are the results of agreement on common shared values or principles. But when elementary logic is given short shrift you have to either think they are dumb or that they have some other agenda.
As far as I can tell people are collectively supreme, followed by the parliamentarians( or politicians if you like), followed by the judiciary. The so called fourth estate should stick to neutral ground on matters of opinion.
Mr Antulay said that he neither wants to deny nor confirm his resignation. This was interpreted by media to mean that He has resigned. Why can't it be interpreted as his reluctance to talk about it.
When one participant in Barkha's view asked to be given more time she let the cat out of the bag by declaring that The editorial policy was different and so she would rather reflect their ( the NDTV) view than that of the participants. Why have a farcical debate when you have made up your mind and don't want to listen.
Similar observations apply to Rajdeep sardesai's interview. If you don't wish to listen to what the other guy has to say for god's sake stop the farce. If that is part of the so called pressure tactics to force the other guy to "confess" I am afraid that's not on. Mr Antulay was patient .Some one like me would probably told him ...you know what.

I am at a loss to understand why the media is keen to have the so called surgical strikes and manufacture public opinion and or News. A war only raises costs to ordinary folks like me without any assurances on betterment of life or security.

Sum
It is best if the media ploys are seen by the public for what they are and not be swayed by their so called expertise.

Whither Liberal Democracy or RamRajjya ?

I happened to watch the parliamentary proceedings yesterday on the 17Th Dec 2008 in parts and also watched TimesNow TV News/panel discussion at night on Antulay's remarks. I also have in front of me "Antulay's remark over martyr sparks row " on TimesNow website as I give vent to my feelings on the issue.
Advaniji
I watched only in parts the parliamentary debate.A text of the proceedings is unfortunately not available either on the parliament website or elsewhere.So I could be a little lax. During the half an hour or so that I happened to listen to Advaniji 90% time was dedicated to "we told you so" or why the tougher laws were not brought in when BJP asked for them.One would have thought that the parliament's time is precious and that the "we told you so" bit was restricted to 10% so that substantive matters could be debated.I strongly suspect that there was little of "substantive matter".May be there ought to be a debating framework.Perhaps there is.I will come back at a later date.Or perhaps the speaker should have restricted he "we told you so" bit.
Does Mr Advani look up to only the US of A for a role model. what about the about 200 countries where there were no terrorist attacks ever happened in the first place.
whither "White Paper on Terrorism" ?
As far as my knowledge of the reactions in India to the 26/11 Mumbai attacks goes no soul searching has been done.As far back as Thursday, Aug 30, 2007 , Andhra Pradesh State Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president Bandaru Dattatreya has demanded a white paper on terrorist activities, particularly in Telangana and the Hyderabad city. Nothing ever came out and it is a pity that Advaniji has not asked for "White Paper on Terrorism".
Complex problems need multi pronged solutions not just a few tinkering here and there. I wrote last time about the need for common people to make a fishbone diagram. Let alone common people the people who should know better seem to know no better.
Antulay's remark
This title is borrowed from the TimesNow website article.Whether it was a remark, a cry of anguish or plain dramebazee as we say out here I don't know. I tried to look up Mr Antulay's site. pity he doesn't have one.Surely He could afford to have maintained a site. As mentioned earlier transcripts of the debate are not available.
I start by analyzing the possibilities
case1: Antulay made an off the cuff remark Looks very unlikely because he is a mature politician and could not have made a potentially damaging remark.
case2: a cry of anguish Nobody knows who all were part of the team giving inputs to the Home minister. If indeed Mr Antulay was part of the team or was in the know of things Mr Chidambaram could have intervened to say so.To my knowledge such an intervention did not take place. The only interventions I know of are the ones which all but said said that He was a 'Pakistani agent'. I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt.
case3: "dramebazee"cannot be ruled out. But neither can it be claimed that he was "playing politics"(what are politicians supposed to do anyway?)

TimesNow news/panel discussion
The main reporter was seething with rage at the supposed "misdemeanour" of Mr Antulay and the subsequent discussion was colored by this undercurrent. For starters I make the "No war / No Censor Assumption"
No war / No Censor Assumption
Under this assumption I expect any media person to to remain neutral, objective and rational. If there is a war/censorship I expect the media to acknowledge and say sorry gentlemen we can't be objective.
Antulay's remark supports the Pakistani media/Government
The substance of the discussion implies Antulay's remark is a disgrace to the nation and therefore should be condemned. Mr Singhvi, the congress spokesman washed off his hands and left the resignation thing to the honorable prime minister. Dileep Padgaonkar made an ad-hominem attack and claimed that Mr Antulay was a loose cannon. The shiv sena MP wanted 'the sack for Mr Antulay'. Another senior journalist was more balanced and said that a sack is not required because such an action would actually help the Pakistani Establishment and / or the media.
I expect media person's to be objective in their views and / or discussions and not get swayed by so called patriotism the way the shiv sainiks and all are prone to. Neither should they believe that problems will vanish by lighting candles or talking to movie stars.
If Pakistani media is right (I personally doubt this) what is the problem? Give it a whirl. Show them that they are wrong. Do I need to add that you are supposed to critique ideas, not people.
Jug Suraiya claimed in one of his recent articles that the Pakistani media is far too establishment biased.In yet another article Mr Suraiya also advocated/remarked that a potential reunification of the subcontinent is a potential solution. I am personally inclined to believe in this potential solution/Utopia(depending on how you look at it). Any Engagement with our 'Subeh ka bhulaahs' or prodigal sons should be fair. If they are right so be it. If they are wrong please do tell them why that is so rather than saying that 'we don't trust the Pakistani press' and that Everything they say is 'Bakwas'. Please do consider issues on merits of the case. case by case rather than lump the good, the bad and the ugly into one heap of scrap.
Mr Karkare and the Martyrdom
As I have said earlier the late Mr Karkare was probably a fine officer and that my personal sympathies lie with his family. Having said that We should bear in mind that we lost three officers in one go and that too ill prepared for the task. The Bombay Police chief's claim that they reached the spot within 10 minutes and wanted to save more lives is simply incredible.
The Indian movie goer is used to seeing all and sundry Heroes and villains brandishing their AK-47s . Is the Mumbai police so blissfully ignorant of these movies and the reality? Do they run their affairs in such a lackadaisical fashion bordering on the unprofessional?
Either the Mumbai police is incompetent ( I don't want to join the candle brigade. Let's not forget that there is rampant corruption and inefficiency) or they are doing a cover up job. Every one doing his or her job cannot claim Martyrdom. If we use this as a definition we will end up with too long a list of Martyrs.Besides Martyrdom is no excuse with which to gag the doubts raised by people.
People certainly want to know the answers to many questions that the events have raised in their minds. It is a pity that the media considers 'Asking questions' as Anti Patriotic Pro Pakistani etc. If Mr Anulay asked questions for which he didn't get the answers ( as far as can be figured out) he is well within his rights, at the risk of sounding Unpatriotic, to raise the question in an inappropriate way.(And of course take the credit or the blame).
Back To Media
Pakistani media is supposed to be part of the "civil society". Should we rubbish them lock stock and barrel?No Sir, give the issue a fair trial, review and critique the views as they come. That the question or comment or remark came from Pakistan is no bar to it's fair trial or critique.
I don't have answers to the questions I have on the circumstances leading to Mr Karkare's death.( I am by no means implying that he was gunned down by Hindu Fundamentalists.).Perhaps as a member of the laity, I am not entitled to have my questions answered in "National Interest".
To the extent that it sets to rest Any questions or doubts raised either by the Pakistani media or by laity , Mr Anulay's request for a probe is justified especially because Mr Antulay is no ordinary Mortal. He is a cabinet minister and no less. To say that he is "playing politics" is absurd. What else do you expect him to play? Cricket? If he voiced either his or a section of his constituency's voice that is as it should be not as it should not be.
All the media commentators claimed that his questions had no basis as they were his views. A section of the Hindi channels called it "Shahadat par Sawal"- Questions on Martyrdom. Tears, candles, patriotism .. etc need not veil basic flaws in thinking and Critiquing events. Whether or not the conclusion follows from a hypothesis is established in this sort of cases is by recourse to empirical facts. Which in this case means a neutral probe. one eminent journalist claimed that he had similar circumstantial questions and doubts but that this did not entitle him to conclusion. Fair enough at face value , But not so when you realize that it is Mr Antulay's basic job and not the journalists to answer these questions on behalf of people.
What are parliamentarians supposed to do? Put their rubber stamp and move on? To my knowledge there has been no parliamentary debate on the general terrorism perspective. Yesterday was the only occasion when Mr Antulay could have raised the issue. Mr Chidambaram's speech on 11th dec cannot be counted as an initiation of debate.
As far as I am concerned people like me too have a right to have their questions answered except in rare cases of national security. To cry foul to each and every thing as "national security" is to cry wolf.
To deny Mr Antulay the right to know is to deny the people their right to know because Mr Antulay represents them.
RamRajya and Caesar's wife must be above suspicion
Ramayan tells us that Lord Ram asked SitaMata to undergo the acid test based on a dhobi's allegation. To me the Lord was establishing the principle of heeding the Minority view. If that is a part of the tradition that Indians carry why didn't the BJP, Shiv Sena combine respect the minority view?Let the truth come out "Satyameva jayate".Let there be an enquiry or probe.
In Brief

• Mr Karkare's death needs to be probed to on the grounds of not squandering precious officers .
• Exposing the real truth behind Mr Karkare's apparently foolhardy behaviour.
• The principle of fairness and objectivity.
• Last but not the least to set at rest any doubts or questions some among the Muslim community might share with their coreligionists across the border.
  
  
  
  

Innovation and the Young Neta

I happened to watch a CNN IBN TV show in which Sagarika ghosh asked Milind Deora what Innovative steps the congress has taken to curb terrorism.(I must confess that I knew the name Milind only today as otherwise I knew him only as Murli deora sab ka beta.) I don't know if sagarika's query was calibrated or casual in her use of the term "Innovative". Whatever might have been her intention Milind's response betrayed either an outright dishonesty of the typical politician (use lungpower or circumvent the question) or an ignorance of an important concept in contemporary discourse. His reply was something to the effect that all parties have agreed to fight the terrorism unitedly.

Let us take a look at what the term innovation can mean in the context of terrorist attacks.
First a few words on the general notion. Innovation is either an improvisation or a brand new way of doing a task, or solving a problem ,or making a device and so on. The effectiveness of an innovation is always in terms of the societal benefits. No benefit equals no innovation. The First charachteristic of innovation is that it is different from the existing solution or way of doing things. Second charachteristic is that it benefits the society. Having said that I must add that a babu sleeping on the desk cannot be said to have innovated if he stops sleeping. Doing one's job the way it is supposed to be done is not "innovation". If parties closed their ranks it is good that they have realized their folly, but to claim that they have innovated is a load of crap. Before one can innovate one must know the existing state of affairs.Newton and the apple falling on his head is a myth.

Most innovations come from people who know what's going on.That is why I said earlier that you need a forum for these inputs so that one so that people can innovate.
In the context of innovations for fighting terrorism an innovation could be technological like low cost transponders for fishermen,better tear gas to smoke out terrorists or financial or managerial or social like enabling private commandos,empowering the beat constable.. building a new democratic(or anti terror) values and so on. I think Sagarika would have been better of looking for innovations (assuming she wasn't casual) by looking for these from policemen,commandos,the navy or other persons than a professional politician whose only qualification is that he is the son of a Minister and that he was educated in the great US of A.( I couldn't find anything better on the wiki).
To be a leader of a one has to know better than the followers on issues that impact the followers. In a democracy there may be no bar on age and qualifications. But this is more an anomaly When you insist on minimum qualifications for a peon's post How can you leave the all important leadership to vagaries of polls alone. It is not that sons of politicians are not eligible. They are as much as anyone else. But the media drooling over young politicians or gen-x is pathetic. Bernard Shaw once said something to the effect that if age was any criteria the stones of London would be wisest. A mod would be if youth was any criteria the newly hatched chicken would be wisest. Moral is age is not the criterion, effectiveness on the task at hand is. I tried hard to figure out what it was that Rahul Gandhi the 'Prince' is being credited with only to come out a cropper. All that the paper said was that congress was building him up. Sometime later about the sycophancy culture and who is a real leader.

Media and the Terrorists

Terrorists have let loose war on India and the Media was quick to give blow by blow account of the events in real time.There are several questions raised about terrorism,terrorists,police,the defence services and last but not the least- the politicians, so much so that Shobha De came up with the Slogan "Enough is Enough" and the slogan was quickly grabbed by the media-NDTV,IBN-CNN and the rest.

In my usual style I ask enough of what and for whom. "Enough of terrorists?" or "Enough of politicians?" or "Enough of Celebrities?" or "Enough of tearjerkers?"or "Enough of thinking?"I suspect that there are shades of many enoughs and Shobha De was better off letting it it be under the hood.

That there are several different takes is obvious.The only good thing the
media achieved by holding the various shows ( May be pardoned for the
nomenclature- I am referring to interviews with supposed laypersons,celebrities, the Aam Aadmis, the officials ,politicians celebrities
and all) was to highlight people's anger. But then that can be concluded
without the fuss. The real time reporting was good., But the commentary lack lustre.

I mention a few things that strike me as glaring in the sequence of events
before moving on to the central theme.
1.Police routinely patrol the areas under their jurisdiction? why did it not
realize the gravity of the situation in about a couple of hours?
2.It was a pathetic sight - the chief of ATS getting armed with a little
pistol ,helmet and a jacket. While my personal sympathies are with the brave officer( one of 'us') I wonder what made him take on the AK-47s and grenades with a pistol.
3.Demarcation of roles -Navy and coast guard. We have a long sea coast to
guard and are not equipped-argument only shows lack of will. Why Navy could not have helped while the coast guard was not yet ready? Answer probably would be that nobody asked for help. Whose job is this ?
The Central Theme
It is not enough for the media to highlight anger (I am leaving out the bread and butter reporting out) but they should channelize the people's expertise into creative solutions for common benefit.(I know it might be asking for too much but then the ad's exhort us to demand more.) because I believe that what people should really do is to solve their problems and that is best done by an objective "Problem solving approach" as contrasted with a subjective "Enough is Enough" or do something and fast.

The first thing they could do is to act as a facilitator in a problem solving
process rather than merely as chroniclers of events,sentiments and knee jerk reactions. Shobha De talks of accountability. Is there clarity on who is
accountable for what? Heads must roll- fine provided there are well set rules of the game. A retired police officer on one of the shows was closer when he said that the problem is complex.

The media role would include the following elements

• Problem facts -State of various facts,figures,references related to the problem
• Organizing existing Information into say a fish bone diagram
• Analyzing and chronicling all proposed solutions
• Formulating or reformulating goals/Solution Requirements.

You might say these are beyond the range of Shobha De or Simi Garewal etc but then it wouldn't do any harm to be armed with mental tools. One can also complain this is not my job the experts do it any way.

Answer- Experts at times overlook the obvious and besides there are several different experts ranging from expert on the gulli affairs to expert on international relations.

Before a problem can be solved as best as a group can, the relevant facts have to be available. Interaction of both the laity and the connoisseurs is required and to do that there needs to be a jargon and frame work that the two can share. And like I said different people bring different takes on both the problem and solution. There is no reason to believe that solution building is the monopoly of the babu or the Neta.

ObaMania

It's a long time since I felt like talking, but then it's supposed to be a "Historic Moment" and It would be injustice to the media if I am unaffected by it.

I have had a look at some T.V shows and Print media and followed the obama trail whenever I could. The last being in Times of India dated 19Th Nov 2008 entitled "Why It Won't Happen" by ASHUTOSH VARSHNEY

I have wondered whether Obama will make a difference to India and the International order.

Two of Obama's main themes were supposed to be Change and Recovering the Economy from recession.

Nature of Change
----------------
I believe that positive changes, the one's that benefit people at large can come from new ways of looking at things. Changing details of implementation based on some old fashioned view can only have a marginal impact.

Old Wine in new bottle is not of much help. Any major innovation represents a break from the past. Take any innovation say the cell phone it's not conventional telephone. A major solution can come by looking at the roots not the leaves.

Obama's Intellectual pedigree comes from American universities. He is supposed to have specialised in international Relations. One inherits one's views from pedigree or develops it on his own or gets these views from peers. Please note that there are only two types here originators and inheritors. Advisers, peers etc mostly fall into inheritors category.

As far as I can tell there is no major new breathtaking view on "International Relations" from the American think tanks or for that matter Obama (Can't rule out for future.)

I personally believe that international relations should be based on "Love". This does not preclude punishment but the major theme is Love not Hatred.

Obama's pronouncements on ALQaida hardly differentiate them from Bush's pronouncements on the Subject.

The same holds for Economic Recovery. Everything remains the same. There has been no human or natural disaster of great magnitude, the producers all have their factories and farms intact, people have their needs intact, yet there is a global slowdown. As far as I can tell it is a failure of monetary system and needs a great Economist to come out with a fix.

Relevance to India
------------------
Obama is irrelevant to India because of two reasons. One is that there are no great reasons to believe that he will make our life any better(Some believe that actually he will make our life a little more miserable). Second and more important reason is that We should judge a Change or Change Agent(Obama claims to be one) by it's ability to solve our myriad problems.

Instead of bemoaning that it won't happen here ASHUTOSH VARSHNEY would be better of devising a political system that works.The real issues are not 'producing thousand Obamas or 'Where is the Indian Obama' or 'Is Mayavati our own Obama'..., but How we solve our problems. Rephrased We need 'a thousand winner solutions to our problems' ,'How can we change for the better','How to include the whole of India and the world for a better tomorrow' and so on


How good is Obama
-------------------
As of now Obama is a President Elect as such this may be premature. But then We go by available evidence. If the evidence changes we change our opinion.
Available evidence indicates that Obama might be great for Americans and particulary the Americans of African origin.
As for international relations or economic recovery it appears to be a change from tweedledom to tweedledee.

As for relevance to India it borders on irrelevant.

Having said that I must add that Obama has a great presence, great deal of charm and great oratorical skills.I do hope that he will keep the doors open to Change agents who will make the world a better place for everybody Americans, Indians and every other nation.

Deciphering Narendra Modi's win

For a few days there was nothing on TV and in print other than Modi. It was Modi all the way and right fully so.

But the way media went about claiming that it was a win for moditva='hindutva + developement' is glossing over the man's achievement and hiding their laziness in doing their homework.

Political scientists and analysts don't seem to base their comment or interpretation on either facts or a well grounded theory.
why can't you not use the basic notion of science? Finding the relevant facts for a start. How many surveys were quoted in the media report? I am not counting electoral poll related surveys as relevant here.

How many surveys were conducted to rate Narendra Modi's Leadership
qualities with that of Sonia Gandhi?
Here's what a survey could have included

• Leader's commitment-Sonia vs Modi
• Leader's integrity-Sonia vs Modi
• Identifying the leader as one of their own. Sonia vs Modi. In question format- With which one of these leaders do you feel 'apnapan'? A.Sonia B.Modi
• Leader's identifying the leader as representing their interests-
• Leader's Honesty
• Leader's No non sense approach
• Leader's Track record of developement
• Leader's Self above people attitude..Does he or she promote a
  dynasty?
• In the event of a tie which is more important A.Developement with allegations of minority torture B.Developement with allegations of minority appeasement
• How often does this leader push things under the carpet?

I think the media folks don't think. The guy on site can't but the back room guy can.

Some more questions

Democracy means that the majority views have to be articulated. Problems taken by their horns. Even if Modi had said we are better off without sohrabuddin I am sure he was articulating the view of a majority.(This is not to justify the encounter - but to merely state that people's views are not necessarily politically correct.)

what's communal?

Unless you are the media type you will know that there is a simmering distrust of other faiths-riot or not. If BJP says look I would want to solve it this way-What is congress's response?None other than brand BJP as communal.

• Is congress/left even aware of mutual distrust?
• Does congress/left have an agenda for promoting mutual trust?
• Are they willing to bet their last dollar(allright Rupee then) on what they beleive is right?
  

As I said most media gets fail marks on their Modi trail. Times of India gets pass marks courtesy of Mr Swapan Dasgupta.

In my opinion one would have known the results much before had you been there at say Ahmedabad and felt the pulse of the people there.I had told my wife to take Modi's victory for granted.

People prefer originals to fakes, genius to charlatans and leaders to followers. Let a thousand Modis bloom in the BJP,congress and the left.

Devil's paradox

I thought karan thapar was a terror as I generally tended to watch his devil's advocate show.But then it was with a little surprise that I read Friends and opponents by him in Hindustan Times dec 23.

".. Regardless of who loses what will be hard to forget is the distasteful comments exchanged between Sonia Gandhi and Narendra Modi. To be honest, they were more than unnecessary and unbecoming. They were uncouth."I fully agree with his viewsI also fully concur with his assessment that media is playing to the gallery by 'playing up their (politician's) comments'.

So now let's go right ahead and examine the devil's paradox.
P.S. In English the noun phrase devil's paradox is ambiguous between wether 'one devil's paradox' and 'paradox of "devils"'.Take your pick.

A paradox consists of atleast two statements that seem to contradict each other.

statement 1:" MPs are extremely warm and friendly.” -In Parliament
statement 2:"in their speeches and election rallies do MPs forget their friendliness"

Resolutions of the paradox:

• 1.politician's treat political opposition as enmity. Karan Thapar's view
• 2.There are no friends any way-any time -any where.
• 3.People are friends except when their interests are effected.
• 4.Politicians are schizophrenic. They are one persona in parliament and another at election rallies
• ....

We could add some more.

What is probably the most sensible resolution?

That there are multiple relations between any two persons.In the parliament A and B are friends. But in the electoral Arena thay are rivals-for an outsider.But in the electoral Arena they are opponents to be vanquished-for A and B.

Let us consider C and D who are friends as well as boxers who participate in a contest. If the two of them think I shouln't hit a friend they will get boo.. from the audience besides losing points. In the ring they had better be boxers than friends- and no holds barred at that -let the referree take care of the fouls.(Election commission take note).

I can add from personal experience that once in the ring you only at the opponent and not the public. and that you have one goal to defeat him you don't think.You react.

Remember Lord krishna's advice to Arjuna on his reluctance to fight his kith and kin?kill or be killed -take your pick.
In any case let's take a look at so called advanced countries the U.S, France and germany. Tell me when was the last time that a sex scandal was not whipped up in the electoral arena. When was the last time skeletons were not pulled out from the cupboard?
Karan's lament and the punch line?“You were in devastating form,” said tThe boxers routinely do it but only after all the rounds and the winner is declared.

Attitudes, Attidudes, Altitudes and Antidotes

Great to see an article entitled irreverence with a red leading i by Jyoti Sharma in Delhi Times TOI 16th Dec 2007.


Few Birds don't make an autumn?(No apologies for misquote?)

Here we are taking a closer look at shobha de's views and her social watching. If she's reading this so much the better for her and if she isn't so much the worse.The subtitle can be recast as a part whole confusion or over generalization ( There are many other recasts). Be that as it may let's see what is the content of the template.

Since according to jyoti Shobha is a social watcher let's begin by asking which society is she watching? The one in the music show video ?show and the fashion show?

My god what a way to watch society!
Let's ask this question--what percentage of the society does she monitor? (the video society.. as
percent of total society) -I am assuming that by society she means Indian society and not the society where stays or of which she is a member.What happens to the rickshaw puller youth, the barber,the maids son and countless such others.Shobha would be better off with a few lessons on how to watch society.I know of several youth (young ladies and gentlemen) well educated,
decent income, fully at home with modernity, who would rather go for arranged marriages ( some want nothing less than their own subcaste e.g A mathur wanting only a mathur-saxena is unacceptable, go to the temples and are repectful of elders.
Some want to join IAS to make their pile on the sly.
So much for the view that the so called gen i beleives in dismantling old views.

What is ATTITUDE-ATTIDUDE?
Attitude is the stance(position or stand) on a given issue/person/organization and is in general of the form Attitude towards X. e.g What is your attitude towards X?For X you can fill in Shobha (Answer = irreverence) For X you can fill in X= live in relation/premarital sex...

Unfortunately the word attitude has been hijacked by the likes of shobha and jyoti to to promote videos, fashions and such like.So much for the ATTIDUDEs/ATTIDUDESSes

Altitudes and Antidotes
I would urge the twosome to pray 'Thodisi to lift kara de' (Does that ring a bell? Too bad if it doesn't) , rise to higher altitudes in their attitudes towards society and take mind deconstruction as an antidote to cliches.


Is irreverence acceptable?
Irreverence as an end in itself and for itself is totally unacceptable. Disgusting to find unqualified advocacy of irreverence ('irreverence is the absolute priority of the young'). Irreverence as pointed out above is an attitude to be adopted in order not to get cowed down by Authority if need be. The focus is the issue not irreverence (so sorry the twosome once again
mislead the youth). In otherwards irreverence for a good cause is totally acceptable. Examples Russell, galileo in the west or shankaracharya/Buddha here in India and countless others.


Why are attempts to break away not successful?
As I often keep repeating , care about it? take it warts and all. If society watching for the twosome is like birdwatching (amorous connotations not excluded) then the following is redundant. If it isn't it would help.
Come on the two of you arise and awake and look below from high altitude.

• How many youth?


• What are their social,financial,educational and personal constraints?


• How many of these can actually think for temeselves?


• Is it irrelevence that is relevant or societal values?


• .....

I do hope and pray the twosome stop patting each other's backs blindly and give better leadership to youth than 'irrelevence(irreverence) is top priority'.

Men and ideas

Well here we are on the subject of men and ideas . Every body understands what the term man or it's plural version men means . I would say there is convergence here. But as to the word idea there is lot of divergence there. And when I say divergence I mean the several different takes on the subject. Kant has his own. Idea cellular have their own and of course our columnist in the Times of India entitled 'Men & Ideas' sure has his own.

Specifically One would have thought that an Idea is something that is useful and new in the context of the column. A factory (albeit mental) production using a template would hardly be worth calling an idea. If a clerk applies a procedure for filing an application he would (and no one else would) hardly lay a claim to having generated an idea. If the template says look for similar solutions and try to use them. I would say that's part of the drill.

The second template look for and tear apart the socialist agenda- here's a sample and I am afraid a recurring theme in Mr Gurcharan Das's column-
"it must ditch the old socialist idiocy of ‘one bus one owner’ - a product of the 'small is beautiful' thinking of the Eighties.

Can't we grow up and ditch the templates. Aren't we well into adulthood as far as reforms and the rest are concerned. Why hark back to legends of yore.

Come on and start looking at things the way they are rather than how they appear through red goggles , green spectacles , blue binoculars..

you might say (or the columnist might say) I am talking about other's ideas not mine. By men and I mean other men and their ideas. Well 'Blueline solution in Indore' might look like Mr Vivek Aggarwal's Idea. But Is that so? If the report is correct it is true indeed that Mr Agarwal has done a commendable job. But then there are several others who do so day in day, day out on several different things. You need to distinguish between competence and novelty. A job well done is just competent( I might add however great the benefits from the job well done).

Criterion I would use to classify an Idea

• novelty
• generality-applies in many different sittuations
• ease of application of the idea
• simplicity

So what kind of ideas are we really talking about? -Well the wheel has turned full circle and I shall take a break.

Doctor's Dilemma?

Our media is busy berating DrSingh (Honourable P.M) . See Mr Swapan Dasgupta's 'breach of trust'. Interesting under specification in the frame' who trusts whom for what?' Here are some ways the three slots can be filled.
The media and U.S-'We trusted Dr Singh to steam roller the deal'
The Left-'We trusted Dr Singh to implement the cmp and nothing but the mp'
Lalu ,karunanidhi and others-'We trusted Dr Singh to last five years deal or no deal'
Me and such like 'We trusted Dr Singh to keep the onion prices in check'
Dilemma there for Dr Singh 'Kis ka dil dukhana hai?'

How much of a liberal democrat is Indian Media ?

To start with let me take a look at what the term 'liberal democrat' means to me . To me it means in the Indian tradition 'Aa no bhadra'h kranto yantu viswatah' (excuse for misquote if any . It just means let noble thoughts come from all sides) . It means we should welcome all that is good irrespective of source. We shouldn't be worrying about wether BJP said it , the congress said it or George Bush said it etc.
Second to me the term means beleiving in reason in the context of conducting our affairs in society. Faith is a personal matter and a matter of choice. As far as I can tell that is how Indian Constitution was meant to be as indeed are those of many other countries like U.S.
I am not too clear what exactly is democratic. 'Majority views' or the 'Interests of Majority' in the view of a minority. I will side step that issue (perhaps the domain of political science) and insist that all views have a right to be heard the good bad and the ugly.

Now let's take a look at how the criteria are to be actually used and How our media fares as per these criteria. I borrow on these additional bits of contemporary wisdom (include folk lore). Need I add that these are additional criteria for being a 'Liberal Democrat'

• Critique Ideas not persons.
• Name calling shouting and crying foul is what you do when you run out of ideas. Avoid this and just say 'I beleive' (you declare that the propositon is now an article of faith) or just say 'I disagree'.
• Reasoning should follow good practices like using sound inference patterns. (As logical as you can get) The least expectation is that the arguments are coherent. (To me it includes listing all the premises so there is no disconnect and special semantics of words if any).

So much for critera.

At the outset let me mention that I have nothing to do with any of the political parties and would be willing to listen to all sensible arguments. I would include Sonia Gandhi's "Enemies of nule deal are Enemies of developement" as name calling. She may have her so called compulsions. But surely there are better ways. My reason for asking for avoidance of name calling in all forms is not because of moral compulsions but to avoid the rounds of name calling and attendent obfuscation of the actual issue. (If Obfuscation is the goal then I am sorry I regard it as not democratic).

I have closely monitored the times of india and the T.V channels for some time. The discourse is full of Name calling 'Chineese agent' ,'22-karat imperialism'. 'nuclear weapons hawk's' (the BJP),'peaceniks' (Cant that be kept neutral and refer to the intended group- may not sound pejorative off the context but definitely derogatory in context). I think the problem perhaps is that it is the established journalistic practice--Sensationalize.

As to unreasonable inferences there are a plenty. Here is an example ."Exercising power without responsibility was what the Left established, with remarkable success, as its style of doing its best for India. It first used a piece of paper called the ‘common minimum programme’ as a sacred text to virtually halt all attempts at implementing progressive economic reforms. And now, it has stopped the government from pursuing an independent foreign policy."(TOI editorial 14th oct)

The author implies two things that

1. Exercising power without responsibility is bad. (note the sarcastic "doing its best for India" ).So did The father of the nation, Jayaprakash Narain Vinoba bhave and so does the electorate,and the media . Others claim that Minority is holding the majority to ransom.To claim that it is bad you have to add at least one consequence of Exercising power without responsibility that is actually or potentially bad for people. Style perhaps but the satire and the disconnect don't help. Besides the left could as easily have threatened to quit even if it was in the coalition government. (counter argument) This has happened often enough in state governments.
2. ‘common minimum programme’ has stopped the government from pursuing an independent foreign policy. Note the disconnect and underspecification 'independent foreign policy' ( independent foreign policy statement in what context? Actually I suspect the author intended Nuke deal-an issue rather than policy). 'common minimum programme’ is what the left said it's support is meant for as per yechury's T.V interview. If that is so then it acts as a constraint on the Government's Law making capabilities domestic or foreign. That is part of the baggage that comes with coalition. Should the minority view be stifled by name calling, hoodwinking and hijacking the actual issue.

The Media style is perhaps to obfuscate and sensationalize rather than enlighten -hardly anywhere near liberal democratic. I thought only the politicians obfuscate to further their ends. Sadly I guess I have to add the Media in that category. Exercising power without responsibility is bad is well illustrated by the case of uma khurana who was hounded by the police based on media reports.