May I sit down, sir?

I did have my doubts before returning to India - my experiences with Indian HR had not been pleasant. I had never been promoted in a single Indian company. During performance review periods we were expected to submit essays about why we deserve a raise and promotion. To me, it was a throwback to English class in secondary school. I would labor over the review essays for a week, consult a dozen people and submit a patchwork of "achievements". Then HR would return it back to me and ask me to work further on it. I remember spending whole nights working on my essays.
My first experience in company W was instructive - I waited two hours in the lobby. Then the guy offered a hasty apology about the waiting and proceeded to dismiss my salary expectations as unreal. Then came the standard question - "Why did you return back from the States?".
Now, this question bothers me; I can understand the question, "Why did you leave your company?" The question about my return seems to suggest that there is an ulterior motive behind the dumb guy that was "sent back" from the States. Who in their right minds would leave the States of their own volition?
I always end up offering labored explanations that involve my patriotism, the ills of capitalism, globalisation and my wife's studies. People are not really interested in the answer. An unsettling question is supposed to throw the candidate offguard and show their "true" nature.
Much of the famed HR interview is about this clairvoyant, X-ray visioned super men that HR has become and their power to gauge if the candidate will go psycho in the middle of a project. Hence the offensive questioning. See, these guys should fight crime.
Remember in Victorian English novels (including Sherlock Holmes) the author or the narrator always determine strength or weakness of character by the width of one's chin? HR in India is in that stage. You think I am overreacting? Wait till I describe the other interview.
Anyway company W never responded after the HR interview. So, I put my profile in naukri.com. I got a call one day from a consultant (recruiter). He wanted to setup an interview with his Boss. I had to interview with the Boss before I interviewed with the client.
I land at the Boss's office. I walk in, the guy gets up, I shake his hand and say "Nice to meet you" and sit down. Little did I know this would cause a chain of events that would keep me jobless.
The guy asked the usual questions about my background. He apparently had a background in HR for a long time. Suddenly he said, "I am saying this like a father or an elder brother - why do you present yourselves as so aggressive?"
I was surprised by this.
Then he said, "When you walked in you were stiff and unsmiling. Why didn't you say 'May I come in sir?' or 'How are you?' or 'May I sit down, sir?'?"
Since he said he was talking like my father, I readied myself for a beating. Usually that followed the mere talk.
He asked me, "Didn't your wife or mother-in-law say something about this to you?"
Why would my mother-in-law be involved?
Then the guy went on and on about positive thoughts and how I radiated negative thoughts, first impression being the best impression. Then he mentioned body language. Aha! Now I understood where he came from.
I knew that there was a book about Body Language that came out when I was in college. Just as "The Secrets of Positive Thinking" (Norman Vincent Peale) had convinced a generation to try control their thoughts, Body Language had given Indian amateur psycholgists (the same guys who read "How to Win Friends and Influence People") a splendid opportunity to pre-judge others. The book promised that you can gain insights into the "other" and predict their actions and thoughts from their unconcious body language. It was the modern equivalent of the width of the chin
measurements.
Why is the other an enemy? Why would you want to predict their actions, influence their thoughts?
Anyway, this guy was one of those body language specialists. He started talking about the way I leaned forward, I leaned back and I leaned sideways. He also offered to counsel me on these issues.
The last thing I needed was counselling from an amateur psychologist. So I left and never returned.
The other thing I noticed about Indian companies is that your experience does not matter. They still want your Secondary School marks.
One of the "proofs" they want is your passport and photograph. When company W asked for these prior to my interview, I refused. I am sure asking for your date of birth before an interview is illegal. But Indian HR is the master of all they survey - after all they are the providers of invaluable jobs, Air-conditioned cubicles and promotions. Where would we be without them?

Letter on Intelligent Design published in the Metro

This is the text of the letter written by me to the Philadelphia Metro magazine and published on Oct 4 2005:
This letter concerns Christine Flowers' column about
the Dover "Intelligent Design" trial(Metro -
09/30/2005).
Christians should realise that no other religion in
the world has problems with teaching evolution. Even
"fundamentalist" Islamic countries teach evolution.
Thus, the issue is not simply a separation of church
and state. It is about the separation of the Christian
church and state. Teaching intelligent design in
schools is thus not a matter of religious freedom, but
actually of religious discrimination against other
religions.
The same goes for the Pledge of Allegiance. I am a
Hindu and believe in a Goddess, and thus the pledge's
"Under God" statement is an infringement on my
religious beliefs. In fact, my religion lets me
believe in multiple gods and goddesses. To accomodate
the beliefs of all religions in this simple pledge
would be impossible.
Religious Christians should stop representing these
issues as a matter of religious freedom: It is their
usual zealotry to force their beliefs on others.

My letter to The Metro, Philadelphia

This is the text of the letter by me, published in the
Philadelphia Metro newspaper, dated Aug 5 2005
They removed the reference to Vietnam.
--
This letter is in response to the comparison between
Bush and Saddam Hussein that offended a reader(August
2).
Americans seem to assume that being a democracy
assures that their perspective would be right in all
wars. In their perspective, Saddam was a psychotic mad
man killing Kurds and Shiites. But from an Iraqi
perspective Bush's attack on Fallujah was as psychotic
a overreaction. The difference was only in the number
of people killed. What Americans may assume is
"legitimate" collateral damage, would be mass murder
to Iraqis (and the rest of the world).
Lying to attack a country, killing 10000 innocent
people - most of them women and children, making sure
all rebuilding contracts go to American companies and
building 14 permanent bases in that country - these
are not acts of the "psychotic mad man"; they are the
actions of a democratically elected "leader of the
free world".
Being a democracy does provide immunity from mass
murder on own soil - it does not prevent crimes
against the rest of humanity.

Hindi movies - why do they suck so much?

Update: If you read this article, you may be interested in my latest take on Bollywood - http://ramsrants.blogspot.com/2010/06/bollywood-is-not-about-movies.html

After watching biological weapons stored in what looked like a janitor's closet in the Hindi movie "Qayamat", I decided I would wait for judgement day before I watch Hindi movies again.
I have made such resolutions before and broken them when I read the exciting promos for Hindi movies.
Nowadays every Hindi movie has a English tag name. Sometimes, these tags are just translations such as "Baaz - The Bird" or "Khel - The Game". Then they innovate. Here is one - "Fareb - Twisted Love". I don't know why they come up with these tag names. They are so cheesy.
Then there are interviews by "script" writers. For the movie "Khakee" (tag name- The Khakee) Sridhar Raghavan, who co-wrote the "script" gave an interview in rediff. I read the interview and was overwhelmed by Sridhar's words. Sridhar talked about the "premise" and other knowlegeable sounding words. Then I watch the movie - God, what a piece of crap. I renewed my vow.
Hindi movie "industry" is all about making someone watch the movies. Nobody in the industry is worried about providing good movies. I was convinced that the problem was with North Indians and NRIs - until "MunnaBhai" was released. This movie did NOT have a tag. Nobody knew about this movie until it hit the theaters and then what a huge hit it turned out to be! I would watch MunnaBhai (and Gracy Singh) over and over.
Then all the Bollywood fraternity turned out and pretended that it was their victory.
Here are a few things Bollywood needs to STOP doing now:
1. Stop talking about the "script". Stop saying how "taut" the script is and how it was a "bound script" and how good the script writer was. When I was growing up there were very good movies in Hindi (including Sholay, Arth and Mirch Masala) and nobody talked about the script so much. Stop pretending your movies are script-based. Munna Bhai was, Dil Chahta Hai was, Lagaan was - not any of these John Abraham, Dino Morea, Bipasha Basu starrers.
2. Stop having premieres. I mean, is it not enough for you to copy Hollywood "scripts"? Where did you come up with premieres and red carpets? The media dutifully covers these, and reports "world premieres" for what are basically soft-porn movies.
3. Stop pretending you are an "industry". If you are, you are in worse shape than government run industries. 9 out of 10 Hindi movies flop - in spite of premieres and bound scripts. Stop calling yourselves Dream Factory.
4. Stop starring star children. Amitabh Bachan says Abhishek has "succeeded" without his influence. Amitabh Saab, how many new comers to Bollywood can star in 6 consecutive flop movies - and still get acting offers? Stop the dynasty. Actors in your idolized Hollywood go to acting school. In Hindi India if you are a model or you are a star-child - you got yourselves a career. While there are hundreds of poor theater actors trying to get a break.
5. Stop showing an India and Indians that do not exist. Palatial buildings in which party-goers land on helicopters do not exist for ANY Indians - not even for the taxi drivers in NYC. The Indians we see in daily life are not people to be ashamed of. The India we live in can be shown in movies - as regional language movies so successfully do. Nothing wrong in showing a normal sized home or a poor person.
6. Stop talking about International attention. Sanjay Leela Bhansali and Subhash Ghai are big culprits in this. Bhansali's Black is full of cheesy, corny English dialogues that are plainly there so that Bhansali can "move on to the International stage". Where did realism go? What about an artist's honesty? Bhansali's Black is set amidst colonial mansions and snowfalls - so it would appeal to white people. Subash Ghai even said he is targeting his movies solely towards NRIs and foreign audiences. For that, his movies repeatedly flop.
7.Stop taking credit for the achievements of other Indians - Night Shyamalan in American. Gurinder Chadha is British. They are not part of Bollywood.
8. Stop making movies with New York City and stop talking about the "spirit" of NYC. You spent 2 hours in the airport - that does not make you an expert in the "spirit". There are other spirits in India to worry about.
9. Stop making movies about "relationships". These movies look like "Seventh Heaven" reruns.There are plenty of social messages to deliver.
10. Stop copying scenes from other movies and calling it a "a nod". You are not nodding - you are stealing.
Now, I don't think there is anybody really listening; the current situation is advantageous to talentless people and the star dynasties. It is an aristocracy in Bollywood. I am personally happy with Tamil movies - inspite of the fat actresses.

Crappy stories

I know nobody reads tamil magazines anymore unless they give free bottles of water, but has anybody noticed the really crappy stories they publish now?
One story called Masala Dosai (in Vikatan) was about a divorced woman who hooks officers at work to spend a night with her by offering Masala Dosai.
The Masala Dosai was supposed to be a very smart allegory of - you got it - SEX. Ignoring the implications about divorced women and their tendency to jump in with anyone, this story was the worst written ever! Here is Vikatan, after boosting the careers of the likes of JeyaKanthan - now publishing Masala Dosai.
Then there is Kalki - my magazine of choice - vastly improved, beacon for new writers. At least 5 pages in the magazine are gone to the teachings of different gurus. Kalki's short story competition last year awarded the second prize to a story about two former lovers who marry different people. The female marries a good guy, who understands her. The male marries a bad female. All the females in the story are unsure and talk a LOT. The men are either wise or harassed by their women. And this story was written by a woman!
Here is my problem: Writers in the whole wide world are good when they are liberal. Conservative comedians and conservative writers suck. But somehow tamil magazines (except for Kumudam) seem to publish stories with conservative values again and again. This is not just limited to story writers. Kalki's position on the dress code controversy in colleges and Kushboo's virginity comment was anti-women and anti-rights. None of the magazines come out and take a liberal position on any issue.
The field therefore is left to literary magazines like KalaChuvadu, Uyirmai and Theeranadhi. But how many people read these magazines?
Coming back to crappy stories, why is every story about bad sons and their sad parents?
There was this guy, Shankar Babu who wrote some really cool stories in Kalki. I wonder why he does not write anymore. One of his stories - Pinnorgal - is a comedy classic.
Anyway, I am not any closer to getting myself published. I guess I should write a story called Idli. Tamils like stories about food items. That is how you reel them in. Remind them of food and get them to read. Most ancient Tamil literary works are filled with references to good food, I think.
Anyway, Idli it shall be.
It will be about this old couple who always make Idli for their son. He eats them all. They would starve. Then he gets married. Ill-treats his parents. Then finally Idli somehow makes him come to his senses. I don't know how, but it will come to me.

Treasure Hunting

During the 2003 fall of Baghdad invaluable artwork dating back to the origins of human civilization were stolen. This was attributed to the lack of security for the Baghdad National Museum, at the time of war. Following this widespread looting, the Interpol formed a team to track down the art and antiquities. The Interpol made this announcement after a panel of antiquities experts said it suspected some of the looting had been "commissioned" by collectors who had anticipated the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.[ http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/04/18/sprj.nilaw.artifacts.interpol/]
Further U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft also suggested that organized crime was involved. "There is a strong case that the looting … was perpetrated by organized criminal groups — criminals who know what they were looking for," Ashcroft said, praising Interpol's efforts.[ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/13/iraq/main549143.shtml]
U.S. Senator John Kerry also criticized President Bush during their first televised debate that the U.S. military guarded the oil ministry building in Iraq, but not the national museum.
Where did the stolen art go?
Again CBS news reports: [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/06/iraq/main552458.shtml]
Lynne Chaffinch, manager of the FBI Art Theft Program, says..” the thieves will attempt to sell most of the stolen pieces in wealthy countries such as the United States, Britain, Germany, Japan, France and Switzerland. People in the United States already buy about 60 percent of the world's art, both legal and illegal.”
News magazines also covered the role of the American Council for Cultural Policy’s (ACCP) role in the looting. “Before the war began, the ACCP met with Pentagon officials, declaring their great concern for Iraqi antiquities. What that concern means is evident from the remarks of William Pearlstein, the group’s treasurer, who also describes Iraqi laws on antiquities as “retentionist.” The ACCP deny that they want Iraqi laws changed, but the looting of the museum and library will effectively circumvent that problem if U.S. law on stolen art objects and archaeological material can be changed.”[ http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/may_03/may_03_11.html]
In spite of the fact that most of the Iraqi art stolen is going to end up with private collectors in the developed countries, there have not been major questions raised at the U.S. administration by the media (which has already forgotten this story) or from the public. Chicago University experts say between 50,000 and 200,000 items were stolen from Baghdad museums after the city fell to U.S. forces. This should definitely rank with the destruction of the Library of Alexandria in 48 B.C.
My contention is that much of the developed world’s officials and public still view artwork and natural resources of the developing world as “treasures”, legitimizing a “treasure hunt” mentality. This desensitizes the citizens of the developed world to violations of sovereignty of the states of the developing world and their ownership rights over artwork and natural resources.
A search in the net for the British Museum and Egypt brings up thousands of web pages marked as treasure. These “treasures” rightfully belong to the Egyptian people and yet even Egyptians have to travel a thousand miles to Britain to view them. Items include the Rosetta Stone and several mummies. One website describes the British Museum thus: “2003 marks the 250th anniversary of the British Museum. Back in 1753 the treasures that had been brought home to England from its many colonies around the world found a home in this palatial building.”( http://www.texasgypsy.com/London/Museum)

During the British occupation of India many priceless artwork and jewelry were taken to adorn the British Museum. Among this are the peacock throne, the throne of the Mughal kings, and the Koh-i-Nur one of the largest diamonds in the world. The Koh-i-Nur resides in the Tower of London among the Crown Jewels of the House of Windsor. It was acquired by the British in 1849 after the Second Sikh War. In spite of repeated requests from the free Indian government, after Independence, none of these have been returned to the rightful owners. In fact any attempts to ask for these are routinely met with derision in the British media(http://www.g21.net/do148.htm).
One of the beliefs widely held in the Western world is that the Industrial Revolution was somehow the indigenous byproduct of the ingenuity of the Western thinkers. On the other hand: “At this time, large amounts of silver and gold were being plundered from the Americas. This not only furnished the money that is credited with starting the Industrial Revolution, it seriously devalued Turkish money required to buy the tools of war. Thus the treasures gathered for centuries by the people of the great Aztec, Mayan, and Inca cultures were transported to Europe” (Jack Weatherford, Indian Givers [New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1988], p. 16).
The ACCP’s Professor John Merryman of Stanford Law School says in International Law and Politics vol.31:1:”The existence of a market preserves cultural objects that might otherwise be destroyed or neglected by providing them with a market value. In an open, legitimate trade cultural objects can move to the people and institutions that value them most and are therefore most likely to care for them.” What Professor Merryman is implying is that Iraqis are not fit to take care of their art and that art is better transported to the living rooms of the rich in the developed world.
This is the same attitude shown towards natural resources, such as oil in the developing world. A few policy statements made by public officials in the U.S. administrations are chilling.
“We have 50 per cent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality ... we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation.”
-- George Kennan, U.S. State Department Policy Planning, Study #23, 1948
These sentiments find echo in the current administration’s war on Iraq. U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney’s comment on Iraq, when he was the CEO of Halliburton: “In the 04/01/96 edition of Petroleum finance week, then-CEO Cheney blithely dismissed the ethical concerns of doing business with brutal dictators, saying, "The problem is that the good Lord didn't see fit to always put oil and gas resources where there are democratic governments." [http://www.prometheus6.org/2004/02/you_know_the_usofa_has_oil_deposits_too.php]
Seeing the developing world merely as a provider of oil, artwork for the rich and cheap labor leads to public apathy over casualties in the developing world as the developed world pursues these objectives.
“The South is assigned a service role: to provide resources, cheap labor, markets, and opportunities for investment and, lately, export of pollution. For the past half-century, the US has shouldered the responsibility for protecting the interests of the “satisfied nations” whose power places them “above the rest,” the “rich men dwelling at peace within their habitations” to whom “the government of the world must be entrusted,” as Winston Churchill put the matter after World War II.”-- Noam Chomsky, Year 501, (South End Press, 1993), Chapter 2
A substantial push for revamping the public mentality can only be done through education – by showing that being poor does not mean the developing world’s populace is somehow bereft of dignity and the right of ownership.

The politics of dynasties

Recently I have been reading Ralph Nader’s book on contemporary American civic society called “The Good Fight”. Mr.Nader describes how the “corporatization” of America has left consumers with few choices and ever increasing debt.
It got me thinking about the electoral scene in India. The last Lok Sabha elections, the recent Maharashtra elections all stand out in their total lack of choice to the electorate. In most states the incumbent always loses. The incoming administration talks about change, and then 5 years later gets voted out for sure. Ten years back intellectuals were extolling the virtues of a two-party system and sometimes even about a presidential form of government. Now, we virtually do have a two-party system, but nothing has changed.
Do the major political parties at least differ in policies and their implementation? Not exactly, as far as economic policy goes. The BJP bought into Congress initiated reforms. There is little difference between even the Communists’ policies in West Bengal and the AIADMK’s policies in Tamil Nadu.
Why should this be a matter of concern? We are the largest democracy in the world…aren’t we?
One of the important reasons why we should not consider ourselves a democracy is precisely this lack of choice. But there is another more pressing concern. This is the “corporate” behavior of our political parties. In these times, the term corporate has become synonymous with professionalism and efficiency.
But corporations are also profit-focused and in India, mostly privately owned.
Most of Ralph Nader’s complaints about giant corporations can also be made against our political parties. Increasingly India’s political parties have become privately owned, this ownership passed on from generation to generation. Political parties have become totally focused on power and profit.
The ticket granting power that the party “high command” possesses has been used for bringing inordinate pressure over local party committees. The Election Commission’s efforts to enforce inner party democracy have actually become a farce. Joining a political party or rising through its ranks is increasingly not a choice for any honest person. In fact, being a politician is such a stigma that we rejoice when a non-political person such as Dr. Manmohan Singh ascends the highest office. One of the qualifications for Sonia Gandhi is that she was not a politician till a few years back.
Let us think about how our parties should work ideally and then survey the current travesties.
Ideally political parties are supposed to represent people. This means that local party memberships should still be held by ordinary citizens not interested or not having the time for active political engagement. In each ward political parties should have membership drives. These lead to regular ward level meetings in which citizens participate. At the time of elections, the local ward level nominees have to be chosen by the people, not by the “high command”. People should at least have a power of veto if the high command chooses a nominee. This process leads to nominations at any level up to the legislative assembly.
The tragedy in India is that the commons of ward level political process has been ceded by the people to privately owned parties. One of the reasons is historical. Our political activism from the time of freedom struggle has been influenced top down. But post-independence, successive administrations could have corrected this by educating people about the necessity of their participation in local politics. Even now, this is not a part of our educational curriculum. This has helped political parties enormously, and they intentionally maintain the myth that citizens do not have any say in party functioning except at the time of elections.
A couple of months ago, when the “tainted” ministers’ controversy stalled parliament, the Prime Minister made the comment that corrupt legislators should have been voted out by the electorate. Since these ministers won the elections, he argued, people are actually fine with the corruption. Back to business. Again he is reinforcing the myth that parties can nominate or give tickets to anyone for elections; it is up to the electorate to discern the good from the bad. He is wrong. Political parties are supposed to be our first line of defense. Parties should NOT give tickets to anyone they please. Their argument: Do whatever it takes to win in a constituency. Political parties are playing in the game of politics to win. In the end ordinary people lose. See what I mean by corporatization?
It is the same with Sonia Gandhi’s leadership of Congress. The BJP focused on her foreign origin and at the end of last elections, we were told that people had voted for her and against the foreign origin issue. Is this true? Almost all of our voting is based on local issues; many people who voted for the Congress actually voted against the incumbent. Apart from this, the focus is not Sonia Gandhi’s foreign origin. The crime was committed much earlier, in 1997, when the Congress party leaders in all their wisdom, offered the leadership of the most powerful party in India to Sonia Gandhi, a political novice, with no demonstrated skills in politics, law, management or debating. The Congress Party’s answer: It is an internal party matter. No, it is not. Offering leadership to her demonstrated a total disregard or concern for ordinary citizens and sent a clear signal that dynasties were back in fashion.
The BJP and the communists are no different. If their leadership line is not dynasty based, it is still secretive. They still defend their decisions on un- principled alliances and criminal nominees.
Take a look around the Tamil Nadu political scene: The AIADMK has no second line leaders and is a totally individual owned party. The DMK which makes a show of inner party democracy, still nominated Dayanidhi Maran, the grandson of M.Karunanidhi, another novice and now he is a central minister. M.K.Stalin, son of Karunanidhi is touted to be the future Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The PMK leader Dr.Ramadoss appointed his son to the Rajya Sabha and he is now another central minister. G.K.Moopanar’s son Vasan is another political novice brought out of the blue to inherit the Congress Party leadership in Tamil Nadu. All too frequently, film stars are nominated so that they could win constituencies based on their popularity and charisma. How qualified are any of these people? What difference could they possibly make in the miserable lives of hundreds of millions?
We, as a people, watch this spectacle of ever changing alliances and unqualified nominations from outside, totally divorced from the political process. We laugh at the foibles of Lalu Yadav and Jayalalitha. We cynically comment on Pawar’s alliance with Sonia’s Congress. Then we carry on with our daily lives pretending that none of this has anything to do with us. Meanwhile, our cities are entirely unlivable, our air and waters polluted and millions prepare to die of AIDS and tuberculosis.
There are no shortcuts to take the parties back to the people. These parties now command huge private armies. I personally saw one of these gangs wreaking havoc in Chennai after Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, venting their “grief” on small shopkeepers. These parties have control over the police forces. They have the backing of the criminal underworld. They have access to huge amounts of slush money. Remember Sukh Ram, our former central communications minister who had 3 crores in cash at his home? He is back and being courted by all parties!
If we imagine that we can be globally competitive and be a technology “super power” without any kind of civic initiative, we are living in a dream. Good governance, stopping government waste, collecting taxes efficiently, improving the road and railways infrastructure – none of this can take place simply out of policy initiatives by the Central government. To be a true democracy, there is no way out but to take on private political parties by mobilizing civil society. This mobilization should at least be in the scale of our last freedom struggle. Then there was no internet, lower literacy, no telephones, no email, little respect for human rights, even lower life expectancy – yet see what our founding fathers accomplished!