Lying while leaving IT companies

A few days back, a fresher (2009 batch) came to meet me at home. A month earlier, he had started working for a huge MNC in Chennai. He had been looking for work more than an year and finally this clicked.
Except that they had him attending training in QA instead of his core interest - database programming. He had a certificate in Java. [Nothing wrong with QA. Just that this guy was not interested in it]
In the meantime, a company which had actually offered him in campus (but then had made him wait through the recession) came back. They were recruiting again and they could have him working in Java.
The fresher faced a dilemma - he had attended work at the MNC for a month, in pretty much pointless training. He wanted to quit. He had not signed any bond. He wanted to know if he could resign; and whether there would be any problems.
I advised him to tell the HR in the MNC the truth. Tell them you were bored with testing and you had decided to leave. Let them know the situation and then leave.
He went and told them the truth.
I will tell you what happened at the end of this post. But before that let me rant about IT companies a bit.

The Lying Culture
I had posted earlier about a white guy who asked me if lying was in the Indian culture. I have seen HR and line managers in IT complaining that people are not honest. "Why don't they just tell the truth about leaving?", they say.
You know why they don't tell the truth? Because you can't handle the truth.



IT Employees lie when they say grandma is dying and they are moving back to the village and tilling the field; when they say (I am not making this up) resigning and starting an MBA school; when they say they are moving to another city and starting a company for selling churidaars.
They lie and say anything to get away from YOU.
Because they know you are power hungry. You have THE POWER - to ruin an employee's life by lying in background checks. They know how vindictive you are - that if the management asked you to go after someone you would do that. You would call up people you know at the destination company and ask them to "be warned" about this "nasty developer you have just recruited". They know you will delay the (legally mandated) relieving order. They KNOW you will exercise your power.

I know all of this happens; we all know all of this happens. Yet HR and Managers have the gall to complain about lying when we leave a company. Of course, we lie. We lie so that we can leave in peace. In any culture, people do not come after you if you are bereaved about a death. So we have to say that our long-dead grandma is dead again.
If we just said, "I am leaving your company and joining the company over there", would you all shut up and bless us with the sacred relieving order?
No, you would talk to us for 15 days about staying, going onsite, giving a promotion, threatening to talk to our parents (believe me, has happened), and so on and on.
In India sane IT employees do not let you know which company they are joining next. When a bunch of people behave that way, it is fair to ask the question why? To say "It is cultural" means you are a moron. The answer is, of course, that we are worried about the nature of people with power, some power, any power.
Because people with power always choose to exercise it.

My Experience Not Lying
I resigned from a big Indian services company when I was in the USA. I had been with them for 2.5 years. I decided to stay in the USA, while they wanted me to go back offshore and work on a project.
I had completed ALL the transitions for my onsite work. The offshore team was already set up for 6 months. If I left, it was not a big loss. I was not leaving at a critical time - it was a maintenance project. I had done all I could (along with the excellent onsite lead) to operate the project smoothly.
I resigned by email and let them know I was giving two weeks notice. I told them I was joining another company.
The Account Manager onsite called me and harangued for 2 hours. He said it was unethical for me to leave at all (nice try; it was not). He insulted me to his heart's content. I said I was available for the two weeks notice period. But he said it was not necessary.
Did I deserve the call or the insults? No, but I am sure he enjoyed it.
I met one of my classmates last week and he tells me that the idea around my former company was that I had "ditched" the company. I was surprised because he had joined a few years after I left, and I am not that famous a person. But I got confirmation from a couple of other people.
So, to recap - I had resigned; given notice; and left. That is ditching. And it is so bad as to make an example out of it.
What I should REALLY have said to the Account Manager is this: "My grandma in the USA has died. In her last will she wanted me to leave your company. How can I ignore that?"
By the way, the Account Manager "ditched" a few months later.

What happened to the Fresher?

The fresher (you should read from the beginning) went and told them he was leaving them and HR freaked out. They found out that they had not got the bond signed. So they asked him to stay back for two months - although it served no purpose;he was in training, and no revenue would be gained.
He went the next day and said his father was sick and they HAD to move to Bangalore because his father's whole family was there. They shut up.
If HR will shut up only on hearing lies (that everyone know are lies), that is what HR will hear. You don't have to dig through culture to find that out.

My Grandma and the movie Gentleman

When television first spread across Tirunelveli, there were people who frowned at the development. Television viewing was a community endeavor - you could expect half the street to be at your home for the Sunday movie.
My father got a television in 1986 - it is still at his home.
At that time people would visit other people's homes and find that they were not welcome. They were not as interesting as "Vayalum Vaazhvum". If you went to someone's house between 7:30 and 8:30PM on a Friday (Oliyum Oliyum or Chitrahaar time), you would probably have a lifelong enemy.
Now, from the safe distance of 25 years, I can see that we were going through a transition to more nuclear communities. Nothing wrong with that, but it created some tension.

The Idealistic Balu

During that time, my father was associated with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). It was a tumultous period, about to get more tumulty between 1989 and 1992, a period that ended in the criminal demolition of the Babri Masjid.
High ranking Tamil Nadu VHP cadre would visit our home pretty often.

There was a young VHP member named Balu stationed in Tirunelveli at that time. He was a extremely polite, nice person. His family wanted him to marry and settle down. But Balu was a nationalist. He (along with many others in the "Sangh Parivaar") had no plans to marry. He was waiting for Akhand Bharat (a future plan of the RSS in which India, Pakistan and Bangladesh will reunify and form a mighty nation of software programmers).
Balu visited our home often. He had a lot of respect for my father and mother. They tried to tell him to marry, but he was not convinced.
Then my father bought a television.
Initially we had Doordarshan, Hindi, telecast from Kodaikkaanal. Our family still maintained a rule - if a visitor came in, we were to switch off the television. The switching off was easy in 1986 - while watching the news with Rajiv Gandhi's face plastered all the time.
The next year Tamil programs started coming in from Chennai. Balu still was visiting our home, but my father had a noticeable disinterest in Akhand Bharat, or in reclaiming the Dalit-Muslims of Meenakshipuram. He was talking about avoiding "social commitments".

The Ringing of Temple Bells

Soon we left Tirunelveli. My father was slowly disengaging from VHP and RSS contacts. But the fires of communalism were burning bright across India. Apparently not everyone had bought televisions. Advani started going around in Raths, pretending to rescue Lord Ram from a 500 year old affront.

On Dec 6 1992, a couple of my classmates came to meet me at home. They wanted me to accompany them to the nearby temple; apparently there was to be a peaceful protest by ringing temple bells for the Ayodhya temple at 12 Noon.
What really happened in Ayodhya at 12 Noon was far from peaceful. That is now history. But why didn't I accompany my classmates to the temple-bell-ringing?
Because there was a new movie on the cable channel at 12 Noon.

My Grandma and the movie Gentleman

Cable television had just arrived for the Chennai middle class. Music director A.R.Rahman had also arrived on the scene. Mani Ratnam was at his peak. The Chennai film institute cameramen had just begun to kick butt.
That was the early 90s.
From that time on, my family was completely hooked on cable. There were several new channels within a couple of years. Further, we all were proud that "our" cable channels telecast even the newest movies immediately. We had no idea about piracy or copyrights. We just thought the new cable technology guys were hooked with the movie makers and all of them were telecasting arabic sub-titled Tamil movies in our television purely out of benevolence.
Time to introduce my grandmother.

My grandma was the bestest grandma in the whole wide world.
She was smart, the sanest one in the family. She was around 90 and managed most of her tasks herself - even though she was blind by then.
I had a habit of narrating world events (she was completely briefed on the First Gulf War). I kept her abreast of the progress of the Agni missile. Our only point of difference in politics was that she believed the Nehru family were royal. I tried to educate her about democracy (she had voted many times in her life). But she was very emphatic on that.
Apart from these, I also told her stories of the movies I watched. She usually did not like the stories much. She would listen to the whole thing and then say "Bad story" and walk away.
When the movie Gentleman was released, we all went bravely to Vetri theater, Chromepet; fought in the crowd; got tickets; and watched the debut of director Shankar. As you all probably know, that movie cannot be "seen with family". It had too much eroticism, and was not subtle. But the movie is very, very fast. It is just spectacular.
I came home and narrated the story (editing out the nasty parts) to my grandma. Surprisingly, she liked the story. She had a lot of sympathy for "Kicha" as the lead character was called. She also understood that the very rhythmic song "Ottakatha Kattikko" was from this movie.
Within a few days the cable company announced they will be telecasting Gentleman that Sunday afternoon.
Sunday afternoon, I asked my father and mother and brother to sit together and watch the movie. This rarely happens; we all usually end up fighting. But that day we were all ready and it seemed that we could watch the movie without beating each other up.

The doorbell chimed at 12 Noon.
It was Balu.
Balu who? Yes, the same Balu who was the tireless worker for VHP, whom we last met running around Tirunelveli.
After five years, Balu had finally gotten married. But he was still passionate, I think. He had brought along his new wife to meet his ideal family.
Unfortunately the television was on. And Arjun was beating up people in it.
We all sat down. The conversation was mostly one-sided. Nobody switched off the TV.
Balu kept talking and we all kept watching television.
I think he was slightly disillusioned. His wife fidgeted in her seat. Surely, Balu must have thought, there must be some remnant of that old dignified family.
Then "Ottakatha Kattikko" started. There was commotion in one of the inner rooms. The door slammed open and my grandma came feeling her way to the living room.
She said, "Is it Gentleman?"
I said, "Yes, Grandma"
"Oh, that poor Kicha. He tries so hard, but the police is after him", said Grandma.
And then she started keeping time for "Ottakatha Kattikko".

Balu left and we never heard from him again.

It makes you wonder - If everyone in the country had cable television in 1992, that old Masjid may still be standing.

The issue of banning Tamil speech in schools

I had a chance to interview my esteemed nephew, Arjun - he was transitioning from 8th std to 9th std. In the middle of his very busy schedule of watching TV and listening to "Singh is King" songs, he allocated ten minutes for me. I will write the detailed interview later, but for now, I wanted to highlight something. The interview started with him asking me a question about writing in Tamil.
"Why would you write in Tamil? Write in English and a lot of people will read it", he said.
I said, "I have tried writing in English. It is not my native language and I write Indian stories, which sound stilted in English. My English is not fit enough for first class writing."
He understood this to mean that I had scored low in English. He said, "I get lots of marks in English."
I said,"But think about it...by your logic everyone around the world should be writing in English. There should not be any Spanish, French or Turkish writing at all. That is not the case, right? There are enough people to read those languages and that is so in Tamil too. There is no real first or last in languages. Every language is equally good."
He responded with this: "If what you are saying is true, why does our school prevent us from talking in Tamil, ever?"
I was stumped.

A couple of days after this discussion the school near my home had announcements. It was the opening day and the principal gave a long, rambling talk as usual (in bad English - I have written about this here). This was the person who had banned facebook and promised to put cameras in every classroom.
In the middle of her talk she said this:"I don't want my students engaging in bad activities, such as talking in Tamil. I don't want that."
There were many parents standing at the door, since it was the first day of school.I wondered what they thought of this.

Where does this come from? Why is this not called fanaticism? How could any sane society tolerate that its schools ban its own native language?
I have wondered about this, but failed to come up with any good reason. It requires a bunch of sociologists to figure out what is going on here.

Fixing the Fanaticism
There is an important issue in balance here. You see, schools have a right, as private entities to fix any rules they deem necessary, as long as they submit to the education departments' requirements. The government cannot directly go ahead and legislate out Tamil hatred from schools.
There are two questions:
1. Why did we reach this stage?
2. How can we fix the underlying reasons?
It is easy to call the school principal an idiot. She is ignorant, sure, but she is responding to some kind of pressure or confirming to some social tradition, when she bans Tamil.
Where exactly is that pressure coming from? Is it coming from the parents? They are the demand side, the "buyers" of education. Are they expecting that schools completely ban Tamil within the campus?
May be to a certain extent, but education is a seller's market. A parent is constrained a lot in shopping for a good school - it is not like shopping for a product in a store. Your school has to be close to home, for example. It is not as if a parent would seek out a school and then can AFFORD to decide, "No, this school bans Tamil. I won't admit my child here." They can't, that is why there are long lines in front of every school.
Sure, we have reached this stage starting from colonial times. Knowing English was no doubt an advantage then. But what happened after independence? In particular what has happened in the past 40 years when ostensible Tamil lovers have ruled this state?

The Failure of English Education
Here is my shot at an explanation:
You start out first with the fact that your range of jobs immediately expands if you learn science and technology in English. We are a developing country and not at the forefront of research and development in most fields. The words that we use at work (Kalai Chorkal in Tamil) are generally in English. The process of translating Kalai Chorkal to Tamil is slow (although it continues to be done by admirable people). You are a better hire if you know learn technical subjects in English. This explains why schools offer two streams, Tamil and English medium, with English medium charging more. That is just Economics at work.
The next step is to speak English fluently - not just knowing technical terms or understanding documents. Ideally, (think about this carefully), your school education would be SUFFICIENT for this purpose. That is, if you took English as a language in your school, then that class education should make you fluent in English.
We all know that is not the case - just as that is not the case with any subject in our system.

If English is to be taught as a foreign language, then it should be taught right - with practice sessions and interactive classes - not as you would teach any other subject like History. If English was taught correct, it will be enough to learn it in the English class.


My point is that the school principal near my home forces kids to talk all the time in English because she KNOWS that her own school curriculum is INEFFECTIVE in teaching good English. If her school was effective, she won't care what language the kids speak outside of English class.

Thus, the myth has taken root, that you can talk English fluently ONLY if you talk in English all the time. That is what the schools are attempting and they do seem to make it a selling point.

So, my theory (I could be wrong) is that schools force kids to speak in English all the time because they have no faith in their own English teaching system. But you can't blame them. They are probably right in their belief. As I have explained before (in this article), the examination system decides how you educate students. I believe the examinations are all wrong. So that is what you get in your education.
How then, can we go about correcting this situation?

One way is simply a blanket ban by the government on such rules by schools. But it would be thrown out of court, at least for minority institutions to whom the government has no right to dictate. I believe that such a ban would also be an infringement on the rights of private institutions - who knows what else the government will ban next?

Second is to focus a lot on English education - this is completely paradoxical. But if you had excellent resources and require good English education standards at the English SUBJECT level, schools simply may not feel the need to ban Tamil. I realize this sounds very contrarian.


I also think that the Tamil Nadu government should do a LOT more to save the language from extinction. It IS the government's responsibility in this country. But that is for a separate post. Two related points here:
1. Modernise Tamil education too - stop the stupid "Manappaada paattu".
2. Teach some post-modernist thoughts at school. There is a common view that languages (or music or art, for that matter) are hierarchical and that there is a single path to modernity. The past forty years of post-modernist thought has completely broken this view, but it is not yet taught - as a concept - in our schools.

PS: Tamil society, in the world outside school, has fought against such school bans. There is a reason words such as "Peter" or "Mary" entered popular Tamil lexicon. In school and college the kids who spoke in English all the time (without reason) were thought to be uncool, when I was growing up. I don't know how it is now.

Bollywood is not about movies

I will make a case below but let me lay out my conclusion first - Bollywood is not the Hindi film industry. Films are simply ancillary to it. Bollywood is a brand, a brand that helps corporations sell products using a small clique of new aristocrats. It is really about manufacturing artificial demand, by a tie-up of big media, consumer goods producers and film corporations. The movies and their release are at best ancillary to their purpose. The original Hindi movie industry has been taken over and supplanted by these corporations.

A Voyage of Discovery
I remember watching the Hindi movie "Kuch Kuch Hota Hai" in Devi theater, Chennai, back in 1999. This was Karan Johar's first directorial venture. The movie release was preceded by the usual promotions. One of these was an article in the magazine India Today. The magazine had a photograph of a college lobby with lockers for students and Sharukh Khan walking bouncing a basketball. The article said Hindi films were going through a resurgence in costumes, artwork and stories (I guess in that order). When I watched the movie I could feel it. The college in that movie seemed "like in America". The students had individual lockers (while my college barely had a bathroom). Kids went to a giant summer camp and the actors went from country to country. You would be forgiven for thinking that colleges in Bombay actually looked like the newer ones in the United States.
Later I learnt that the movie was a big hit in the United States and UK. Nothing critical came to my mind while watching the movie.
A few months later India Today again published a "puff piece" (as journalists call it) on the Hindi film world. It said that the movie industry was attracting the interest of corporations, both in India and abroad. The article mentioned that story discussions were now done using powerpoint presentations! There was talk of bound scripts and market analysis and such. The article thought it was a great thing. What could go wrong with that?
This corporatisation of that industry was more and more associated with professionalism. There was excitement that our movies would now be as "good" as Hollywood movies - after all Hollywood movies were made by corporations and now, so are ours! People talked of "genre" movies and much was made of Ram Gopal Verma's "Factory" production house.
Ten years later, there is not much to show for that corporate revolution. The powerpoint presentations seem to have made the situation worse. But I am getting ahead of myself.
Soon I was in the United States and the flood of promotions even there was astonishing. The movie Devdas was on the (desi) airwaves, television and online all the time. The movie did not do well in India, but it did well abroad. Suddenly we were in Cannes, for no good reason. Our movies were still bad, but Aishwarya Rai was on the red carpet...you know, the carpet reserved for white people! Who designed Aishwarya's wardrobe? and so on.
Initially this was amusing but me and many of my friends were annoyed that Hindi movies were so "westernized". A standard movie started like "A guy and a girl are sitting in the Waterloo station, London, talking..". Most Hindi movies that we came to know about (that is, that were promoted) were very weird, to say the least. Almost all the movies were set abroad. Even if they were set in India, it was an India that most of us had not seen - it had palatial buildings in which NRIs landed in helicopters, for one. You would not see a normal road or tea shop.
Even "Dil Chahtha Hai" which was a great story, showed a "global" Indian - a person who flew to Australia and went to operas.
It would be fine if there were a couple of movies like this, but every movie was this way. It was as if the stars will not act in "local" settings.
It revolted me and many of my friends so much that most of gave up watching Hindi movies.
To make fun of this trend, I wrote a blog post four years back - here. That post is still one of the most popular posts in this blog. But I believe I got it fundamentally wrong.

Post 2006
In the last few years, the Hindi movie industry increased in its weirdness - which they now called escapism. Watching a movie like "Black" or "Saawariya" or "Jaane tu ya Jaane Naa" or "Kabhi Alvidha Naa Kehna" was excruciatingly painful. They all acted like they were born and brought up in the West, while talking perfect Hindi. The colleges, costumes and everything seemed..incongruent. It did not make any sense.

Please note that in the last ten years, Bollywood, in spite of its insistent rebranding and propaganda (that is what it is), is still a loss making industry. They mostly depend now on a nostalgic NRI community. Most Hindi movies flop.
You have to wonder, then, what is going on. I had noticed these trends:
1. That the national film awards committee now gave more awards to Bollywood movies and presented more of those movies in foreign award shows.
2. That the actors and actresses were generally drawn from a small pool of models, celebrities or star children. There were rarely any "normal" actor who was promoted. This is unlike, for example, the Tamil of Malayalam movie industries (although the trend is noticeable now in Tamil).
3. That the movies rarely addressed any "real" issues or social issues. They showed, at best, relationship problems. There were no comments on caste, or women's issues or even traffic.
4. That the stars rarely seem to suffer from a flop - they simply act in another flop movie and then another and so on.

Realization sets in
I decided early last year that I would look for economic reasons for people acting a certain way, instead of blaming individuals or culture. I wrote a long post on this here.
What are the incentives for Bollywood? That was the question I wanted to answer. In my post making fun of Hindi movies, I had assumed that their "imitation" of the West (that makes movies look like fancy dress competitions) was born out of foolishness. I thought they were simply like the idiots who wore flowing gowns to coffee shops.
But what if they were not? What if we are the real idiots?
In other words, what are the incentives that makes Bollywood run the way it does? How can they make so many flop movies and survive on the same cycle of incongruent stories, huge promotions and finally bad letdowns?
The answer came from a close friend. She asked me to look up the term "brand ambassador" and a few actors' names.
For example, if you search for Abhishek Bachchan and brand ambassador, you see that he is promoting Videocon DTH, Motorola, BIG 92.7 FM, Idea! and so on.
Hrithik Roshan, who has been giving out flops for a long time, is the brand ambassador of Acer, Provogue, ITCis John Players, Reliance Mobile and so on.
Well they are established actors, after all.. how about new comer Ranbir Kapoor? He has only acted in three movies of which two were flops, right?
He is the brand ambassador for Pepsi, Nissan and Panasonic India!
Where am I going with this?
The "actors" are not really actors. They are really fronts for an elaborate corporate game.
What has happened is this:
1. Corporations move into making movies
2. They realize, quickly, that instead of going the hard route of actually making good movies, they can make a lot of money for themselves and the stars by USING the movie as a way to sell merchandise, music and consumer products.
3. The actors now can make more money by making advertisements than in movies (By the way, in spite of all the talk about Hollywood, Hollywood stars do not act in many advertisements). Indian movie actors have become, basically, advertising models.
4. The actors tie up with products, the movie corporations tie up with products - and so people make money whether the movie is a flop or not.
5. Then they sell the movie for television viewership and make a lot of money there too.
Shyam Benegal described this in a recent CineBlitz interview - the focus is on becoming a star, because as a star you can make money sheerly out of a "brand" name. All that you need is name recognition. You do NOT need to have acted in any successful movie.
In other words, the movies are actually "events" which help companies launch product prmotions. They do not signify ANYTHING more than that. What we look for, story, screenplay, acting, camera - all of these are really irrelevant for the ECONOMICS of the Bollywood industry.

Hence, I present you the retard looking Ranbir Kapoor, the unibrow Imran Khan and the building of a brand.

In a giant tie up between corporate media,corporate production houses, consumer goods sellers and corporate PR firms handling each and every aspect of an actor as a brand - the Hindi film industry is now taken over by a bunch of carpetbaggers.

You know this - look at the amount of propaganda unleashed on us by the media houses prior to the release of, say, Gajini or recently, Kites. There is such a network of product tie-ups that is difficlut to untangle.
The sole purpose, now, of a Bollywood movie is to launch advertising campaigns. It has NOTHING to do with a movie.

This explains some of trends I commented on earlier.
1. It explains why the star pool is open to a small clique - because the members of the new aristocracy have better connections and better name recognition. If all that you cared about was branding, why would you use a nameless actor from Bikaner?

2. Very importantly, it explains the SUBJECT matter of these movies - if your whole goal is to increase consumption and promote a lifestyle that "looks" rich, then you can see why Bollywood movies focus on relationship issues in New York or action sequences in the Bahamas. Why would they ever show actual issues? Why would they ever show caste or communal issues? Most movies look like an American teenager's (a particularly stupid one at that) fantasy. This is not escapism - they have simply called it escapism to justify their path.

3. Also, it is pointless, given this, to accuse movie makers of copying other movies. If your core problem is that your movie industry is about selling products rather than movies, then who cares if those movies are copied?

The corporations have taken over the mantle of all those who came before them, in an actual movie industry and then replaced them with Public Relations images. And they have sold those images to us.

Who is the loser in this? The Hindi movie audience has been had for suckers.
Ten years after the much-hyped corporate entries, this is the result.


PS: There is a possibility that someone would read this whole piece and decide that the issue is really that I am culturally backward or anti-Western or even anti-Corporations. I will just point out a couple of things for such people:
There are many movie industries around the world that are run by corporations. Although they do have issues sometimes in quality and some bias in favor of corporatism, none seem to have reached the low-point of our industry. The Hindi movie industry was not at a very high standard even during the 90's. There was already nepotism in the industry. But the corporations took all that and made it the current monster (The only consolation seems to be that the movies still suck but at least they show London around). Reflexively cheering corporations was wrong.
The incentives now are set up to ignore good movie making. They think that is INCIDENTAL to the "product" success.
When I say good movies I do not mean "Pather Panchali" type. I know people jump at that. I mean commercial movies like Munnabhai, at least. Do not pass of Krish as some kind of great movie so that we all feel happy that "our" India made a super hero movie. That is all I am saying.
Finally, before you accuse me of being anti-Western, anti-progress (people think both are the same) and all that, hold on. I just don't think there are ANY colleges in India where the kids look, dress or dance like in the movie "Jaane Tu Ya...". I would love such colleges, believe me, I would hang out there all the time. It is just that the movie looks like it is a fancy dress competition where you say, "let all of us pretend that we are all in an all-Indian Ivy League college somewhere in the UK and that we are all born and brought up there and talk in Hindi and our parents are all Indian but let us just say we have English customs...and so on".
That is not escapism, it is pathetic. As I explained, that movie was really about launching another set of product promotions and making Imran Khan a brand so that he can become another brand ambassador.

My post in DailyKos on Israel and the USA

The below post was originally written for dailykos.com. The article and comments on it can be found here.

After watching the coverage of the flotilla incident and the Israeli attack, in the blogosphere and on television, I could not understand initially why there seemed to be so much complexity in the debates in the United States. Here is my shot at an explanation. (I am an East Indian, and I could be wrong about some American history here).
The history of 20th century and the lessons that we should learn from it are a big part driving the flotilla and the blockade narrative in people's minds. And the media, government and intellectuals in the USA are UNIQUELY incapable of learning certain of those lessons.
Why?

Because the USA (as far as I know) has never been an Imperial country that maintained colonies and faced broad enough anti-colonial forces against it.
So, we have a) Britain, France, Italy etc who were colonizers and who faced very successful anti-colonial struggles on the one hand.
We have b) China, India, countries in Africa and West Asia, colonized countries that fought against such colonizers.
And then we have c) the USA, the current global power.
Countries in sets a and b know this to be true: that the twentieth century had SEVERAL great struggles - NOT just the one against fascism.
Thus as an Indian I know that the big fight that our country faced was not our small but significant participation in WWII. It was the fight against colonialism that really determines the lessons we learnt.
I think the British or the French also see the 20th century as fights against fascism (on which they were on the right side) AS WELL AS fights against colonialism (on which they were in the wrong).
This means that we both consider the lessons and history of colonialism to be important.
But this is not the case with the United States. Intellectuals in the USA seem to give singular importance to the fight against fascism and totalitarianism, while completely being ignorant of the behavior and lessons of colonialism. The American people I talk to are certainly ignorant that there is a point of view on issues held by the formerly colonized peoples around the world, and that point of view is VERY, VERY significant.
What has this got to do with Israel?
Simply that the tactics and rhetoric used by Israel "smell" very similar to a colonizer to an Indian, while the Palestinians come across similar to ourselves and our predicament hardly 60 years back. We "get" Palestine - while intellectuals in the USA (even those who support Paestinian statehood) seem to be engaged in a rhetorical quagmire.

The actions of the Israeli government or the Gaza blockade are not at all that subtle or complex to explore - collective punishment, extreme responses to individual incidents and ritual humiliation have ALWAYS been tactics used by colonizers. To explore this further, I have chosen the incident of Jalianwala Bagh massacre or the Amritsar massacre on April 13, 1919 in Amritsar, Punjab, British India.

You can read a summary of the incident here.
The restive city of Amritsar was under martial law in April 1919 because of an attack against an English woman by a mob earlier. A group of peaceful unarmed civilians gathered in the grounds of Jalianwala Bagh on the day of Baisakhi, the spring festival.
General Dyer commanded a group of fifty soldiers who opened fire on the crowd for 10 minutes.
The casualties estimates range from 379 by the government to 1800 by the Civil Surgeon.
Now, given that incident what tactics of colonizers can we learn?
1. The propaganda that the Palestinians only understand force
All the below are based on this article in wikipedia on the Jalianwala Bagh massacre and Reginald Dyer:
General Dyer, perpetrator of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar, Punjab 1919 wrote an article in the Globe of 21 January 1921, titled, "The Peril to the Empire." It commenced with "India does not want self-government. She does not understand it." He went on to write
* It is only to an enlightened people that free speech and a free press can be extended. The Indian people want no such enlightenment.
* There should be an eleventh commandment in India, "Thou shalt not agitate."
* The time will come to India when a strong hand will be exerted against malice and 'perversion' of good order.
* Gandhi will not lead India to capable self-government. The British Raj must continue, firm and unshaken in its administration of justice to all men.

2. Extreme responses to certain incidents:
Brigadier Dyer designated the spot where Miss Marcella Sherwood was assaulted sacred and daytime pickets were placed at either end of the street. Anyone wishing to proceed in the street between 6am and 8pm was made to crawl the 150 yards (140 m) on all fours, lying flat on their bellies. The order was not required at night due to a curfew. The humiliation of the order struck the Indians deeply. Most importantly, the order effectively closed the street. The houses had no back doors and the inhabitants could not go out without climbing down from their roofs. This order was in effect from 19 April until 25 April 1919. No doctor or supplier was allowed in, resulting in the sick being untended.

3. The disputing of certain facts:
After the firing was over, hundreds of people had been killed and thousands had been injured. Official estimates put the figures at 379 killed (337 men, 41 boys and a six week old baby) and 200 injured, though the actual figure was almost certainly much higher; the wounded could not be moved from where they had fallen, as a curfew had been declared. Debate about the actual figures continues to this day.
....
In 1997, the Duke of Edinburgh, participating in an already controversial British visit to the Amritsar monument, provoked considerable outrage in India and in the UK with an offhand comment. Having observed a plaque claiming 2,000 casualties, Prince Philip observed, "That's not right. The number is less."

4. The support of the democractic people of Israel:
On his return to Britain, Brigadier Dyer was presented with a purse of 26,000 pounds sterling, a huge sum in those days, which emerged from a collection on his behalf by the Morning Post, a conservative, pro-Imperialistic newspaper, which later merged with the Daily Telegraph. A Thirteen Women Committee was constituted to present "the Saviour of the Punjab with sword of honour and a purse."

and so on.

I am not comparing Jallianwala Bagh to the flotilla incident. I am comparing it with the blockade and such ritual humiliations and violence perpetrated on the people of Gaza.

Now, if the USA had actually maintained a set of colonies the way Britain did and then faced stiff anti-colonialism, then it is likely that some of the above defenses and actions of Israel would be seen for what they are - after all the history of the last two centuries is mainly about colonialism (for the majority of the people on the planet).
It is not hard for most people to recognise it for what it is.
Instead there is an exclusive focus among American intelligentsia on the struggle against fascism.
It is natural, if you use that struggle ALONE as a guide to view 20th century politics, to swear to defend Israel in any way you can.
But unfortunately that is not the actual case. There were many actors in the 20th century world and the world was not so simply split between fascist dictators and democracies as American intelligentsia seem to represent.

This is why I have thought of the "defense" that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East curious. What does that statement mean? Democracies have been known to colonize and punish colonised people, and otherwise engage in severe inhumanity. Why do American media think that a democracy somehow is incapable of such behavior?
The answer is clear - if you look at the world solely through the prism of a struggle against fascism (because you happened to be on the right side of it), then of course, a democracy can do no wrong.
It is just that this is a very narrow view of world history (and, shall I say, very convenient for the United States and Western Europe).

தாடகா வனத்தில் ஒரு நாள் - Tamil Short Story

தாடகா வனத்தில் ஒரு நாள்
----------------------------------
இராமையா அரியா

நானும், ராமனும், ரிஷியும் அடர்ந்த வனத்துக்குள் புகுந்த ஓரிரு நாட்களிலேயே சற்றே பயமுறுத்தும் காட்சிகளைக் கண்டோம்.
பாழடைந்த ஒரு பிரதேசம். பாறைகள் அங்குமிங்கும் உருண்டிருந்தன. செம்மண்ணில் வெயில் தகித்தது. அங்கங்கே பெரிய மரங்கள். சில இடங்களில் முள் காடுகள்.
இரண்டு மூன்று இடங்களில் சில மண்டை ஓடுகள் கிடந்தன. ரிஷி சுற்றுமுற்றும் பார்த்தவாறே நடந்தார். நான் ஆவலுடன், "ஏதோ யுத்தம் நடந்த மாதிரி இருக்கிறது?" என்றேன்.
"இலக்குவா, தாடகை என்னும் அரக்கியின் உறைவிடம் இது",என்றார் ரிஷி. அந்த மண்டை ஓடுகளைச் சுட்டிக் காட்டி, "அவளுடைய இரை ", என்றார்.
என் உடம்பு நடுங்கியது. "மிதிலைக்கு இந்த வழியாகத் தான் சென்றாக வேண்டுமா?" என்றேன்.
சற்றுத் தள்ளி கோணல் மாணலாக ஒரு எலும்புக் கூடு கிடந்தது. அதைக் காட்டி, "என் சிஷ்யன் பிங்கலன்", என்றார் ரிஷி.
அன்று இரவு ஒரு பெரிய மரத்தின் மேல் ஏறி படுத்துத் தூங்கினோம்.

மரத்தின் கடினமான கிளையில் படுத்தவாறே நான் வாழ்க்கையைப் பற்றி யோசித்தேன். பல நாட்களுக்கு முன்னால் அயோத்தியில் வில்லையும், அம்பையும் வைத்துக் கொண்டு மாங்காய் அடித்துத் தின்று கொண்டிருந்தோம். இந்த ரிஷி வந்து அழைத்துப் போனார். எனக்கு என் தந்தை தசரத மன்னர் என்னை அனுப்பி வைத்ததில் ஆச்சரியமில்லை. அவருக்குப் பாதி நேரம் எனக்கும் என் இரட்டைச் சகோதரன் சத்ருக்னனுக்கும் வித்தியாசமே தெரியாது. இன்னும் யாரை அனுப்பினோம் என்று அவருக்குத் தெரிந்திருக்காது.
ஆனால் ராமனை, பட்டத்து இளவரசனை எப்படி இந்த தாடி மீசை முனிவருடன் காட்டுக்கு அனுப்பி வைத்தார்? ராமன் மேல் அவருக்கு அடங்காத பாசம். மிகவும் நல்லவன் என்று ஒரு நினைப்பு.
லேசாக நான் கண்ணயரத் தொடங்கிய நேரம். வானத்தில் கொக்கு போலிருக்கும் நட்சத்திரக் கூட்டம் நேர் மேலே மிதந்தது. சில நேரமாக உயிரே போவது போலக் கத்திக் கொண்டிருந்த கோட்டான் கூட அடங்கி விட்டது.
'கரக்' என்று ஒரு மெலிதான சத்தம், ஒரு கல் நகர்வது போலக் கேட்டது. நான் தூக்கக் கலக்கத்தினூடே உற்றுக் கேட்டேன். மறுபடி அந்தச் சத்தம் கேட்கவில்லை.

**********************************************

ரிஷி பொதுவாக அதிகாலையில் தானும் எழும்பி, மற்றவர்களையும் எழுப்பி உயிரை வாங்குவார். 'பிரம்ம முகூர்த்தம்' என்பார். தேவையே இல்லாமல் இருட்டில் குளிர்ந்த நீரில் இறங்கிக் குளிக்க வேண்டும். பிறகு அவர் சொல்லும் மந்திரங்களைத் திருப்பிச் சொல்ல வேண்டும்.

மரத்தில் நாங்கள் படுத்துத் தூங்கிய மறு நாள் வெகு நேரத்திற்கு யாரும் மரத்தில் இருந்து இறங்கவில்லை. காலைத் தொங்கப் போட்டுக் கொண்டு கீழே பார்த்தவாறு இருந்தோம். எந்த நேரத்திலும் தாடகை பாய்ந்து வந்து காலைக் கடிப்பாள் என்று பயம்.

விஸ்வாமித்திரர் கடைசியில், "ஹூம்.. இந்நேரம் தூங்கியிருப்பாள். இலக்குவா, நீ முதலில் இறங்கு", என்றார்.

"அண்ணா, நீ தான் பெரியவன். நீ முதலில் இறங்கு", என்றேன் ராமனிடம், பயபக்தியுடன்.

ராமன் பயப்படுவான். ஆனால் முகத்தில் காட்ட மாட்டான். அவன் முகம் எப்போதும் ஒரே மாதிரி இருக்கும். எனவே சிரித்தவாறே என்னைப் பிடித்துக் கீழே தள்ளி விட்டான்.

மூன்று பேரும் காலைக் கடன்களைக் கழித்து விட்டு வில்லை இறுக்கிப் பிடித்தவாறே நடந்தோம். ரிஷி சற்று முன்னால் போன பொழுது ராமன் என்னைப் பிடித்து நிறுத்தினான். நாங்கள் தூங்கிய மரத்தின் அடிப் பகுதியைக் காட்டினான். அந்தக் கடினமான அடிமரத்தில் நான்கு கோடுகள், ஆழமான கிழிசல்கள் தெரிந்தன.
"கரடியா ?" என்றேன்.
"தாடகை", என்றான் ராமன்.
நாங்கள் ரிஷியைத் தொடர்ந்தோம்.
நான் சற்றுத் தைரியத்துடன்,"ரிஷியே, இவள் யார்? இவள் ஏன் இப்படிச் சாதுக்களைத் துன்புறுத்துகிறாள்?" என்று கேட்டேன்.
ரிஷி தொண்டையைக் கனைத்துக் கொண்டார். பிரமாதமாகக் கதை சொல்லுவார். "ஹூம்.." என்றார். "உங்கள் குரு வசிஷ்டன் இருக்கிறானே" என்று தொடங்கிச் சற்று நேரம் வசிஷ்டரைத் திட்டினார்.
தாடகை உண்மையில் மனிதப் பெண் (பூர்வ ஜன்மத்தில்). பயங்கர புத்திசாலி (இதுவும் பூர்வ ஜன்மத்தில்). வசிஷ்டரிடம் வேதம் பயிலச் சென்றிருக்கிறாள். வசிஷ்டர் தத்துப்பித்தென்று ஏதோ சொல்லித் தர, அவள், "மந்திரம் தப்பு" என்று வாதிட்டாள். பிடி சாபம். பார்த்தால் அடுத்த ஜன்மத்தில் ராக்ஷசி.
ராமன், "பூர்வ ஜன்மம் என்று ஒன்றே கிடையாது என்று ஜாபாலி சொல்கிறார்", என்றான்.
"அவன் ஒரு மடையன்", என்றார் ரிஷி.
"கார்கியும் அப்படியே சொல்கிறார்".
"அவள் ஒரு மடச்சி. பூர்வ ஜன்மம் என்று ஒன்று இல்லா விட்டால் இந்தத் தாடகை ஏன் இப்படி அரக்கியாக, மகாபாவியாக வந்து பிறக்க வேண்டும்?"
நான் ஆச்சரியத்துடன், "உங்களுக்கு எல்லோருடைய பூர்வ ஜன்மமும் தெரியுமா?" என்று கேட்டேன்.
"வந்தது, வரப் போவது எல்லாம் தெரியும்."
எனக்குப் பல நாட்களாக இருக்கும் சந்தேகத்தை இவரிடம் கேட்டால் என்ன?
இந்த நேரத்தில் மரங்களின் அடர்த்தி மிகவும் குறைந்து விட்டது. இன்னும் பல பாறைகள் உருண்டு கிடந்தன. நாங்கள் மேட்டுப் பாதையில் போய்க் கொண்டு இருந்தோம். ராமன் சுற்றிப் பார்த்தவாறே முன்னால் சென்றான்.
நான் ஆர்வமாக, "நான் எப்போதாவது, ஒரு நாளேனும், ஒரு நாட்டுக்கு அரசனாகும் வாய்ப்பு உண்டா?" என்று கேட்டேன்.
ராமன் சிரித்தான். "நீ எல்லா ஜன்மத்திலும் என் தம்பி தான்", என்றான்.
"ரிஷியே, சொல்லும்" என்றேன் நான்.
ரிஷி, "இங்கிருந்து தெற்கே வெகு தூரத்தில் குரங்குகளின் மஹா சாம்ராச்சியம் ஒன்று உள்ளதாம். கேள்விப்பட்டிருக்கிறேன்", என்றார்.
ராமன் மறுபடி சிரித்தான். "இலக்குவா, நீ கட்டாயம் குரங்கு மன்னனாவாய்" என்றான்.
திடீரென்று அவன் சிரிப்பு மறைந்தது. வில்லைத் தரையில் ஊன்றிச் சுற்றிப் பார்த்தான். "அது என்ன சத்தம்", என்றான்.
நான் திகிலுடன் உற்றுக் கேட்டேன்.
மெலிதாக மரத்தை அரம் அறுப்பது போல ஒரு ஒலி கேட்டது.
ரிஷி, "சிறிது நேரத்தில் நீங்களே பார்ப்பீர்கள்", என்றார்.
நாங்கள் நடக்க நடக்க மேட்டின் உச்சி தெரிந்தது. சத்தமும் பலப்பட்டது. உச்சியில் இருந்த ஒரு பெரிய பாறை அருகே ரிஷி நின்றார். கீழே சுட்டிக் காட்டினார்.
நாங்கள் பாறைக்கு பின்னாலிருந்து மெதுவாக எட்டிப் பார்த்தோம். கீழே கிடுகிடுவென்று இறக்கம். அதன் முடிவில் பல பாறைகள் அரண் போல நின்றன.
அதில் ஒரு பாறை ஏறி ஏறி இறங்கியது.
நான் உற்றுப் பார்த்தேன். அது பாறையே அல்ல. ஒரு மனித உருவம் தான். அங்கே படுத்து நல்ல வெயிலில் குறட்டை விட்டுத் தூங்கிக் கொண்டிருந்தது.
நான் ரிஷியிடம் திரும்பி, "தெரிந்தவர்களா?" என்றேன்.
"தாடகை", என்றார் ரிஷி.
*************************************************
மூன்று பேரும் பாறைக்கு பின்னால் பதுங்கி உட்கார்ந்து கொண்டோம். ரிஷி அவசரத்துடன், "ராமா , உச்சி வேளை. நல்ல நேரம். அவளைக் கொல்", என்றார்.
ராமன் சந்தேகத்துடன், "நாம் ஏன் இவள் இருப்பிடத்திற்கு வந்தோம்? காட்டைத் தாண்டி மிதிலைக்கு அல்லவா போகிறோம்?" என்றான்.
ரிஷி பெருமூச்சு விட்டார். சற்று யோசித்தார். பிறகு, "ராமா, உன்னிடம் உண்மையைச் சொல்ல வேண்டிய நேரம் வந்து விட்டது", என்றார்.
குருகுலத்தில் இப்படி யாராவது சொன்னால் பொய் சொல்லப் போகிறார்கள் என்று அர்த்தம் என்று சொல்லி கொடுத்திருந்தார்கள்.
"ராமா, இவளுக்குச் சாபம் என்று சொன்னேன் இல்லையா? அதற்கு விமோசனம் உண்டு. உன் கையால், தசரத புத்திரன் ராமன் கையால் இறந்தால் இவளுக்கு உடனடி மோட்சம்", என்றார்.
ராமன், "நீர் சொல்வது நம்புகிற மாதிரி இல்லையே", என்றான்.
"சத்தியமாக", என்றார் விஸ்வாமித்திரர்.
ராமன், "இவள் ராக்ஷசியாக இருந்தாலும் பெண். என்னை எந்தத் தொந்திரவும் செய்யவில்லை. எனவே நான் அவளைக் கொல்ல முடியாது", என்றான்.
"நீ சொல்வது தர்ம நியாயம். அது ராட்சதர்களுக்குப் பொருந்தாது. அவளுக்கு நீ வெறும் இரை. காட்டு மிருகத்தை, புலியை இப்படிக் கண்டால் விட்டுப் போவாயா?"
நான், "ராமா, ரிஷியே...", என்று தொடங்கினேன்.
"நீ சும்மா இரு" என்றார் ரிஷி.
"இல்லை...குறட்டைச் சத்தம் கேட்கவில்லை..அது தான்..", என்றேன்.
*****************************************
மூவரும் காட்டு வழியாகத் தலை தெறிக்க ஓடினோம். நான் தான் முதலில் ஓடிக் கொண்டிருந்தேன். சிறிது நேரம் கழித்து ஒரு இடத்தில் இளைக்க இளைக்க நின்றோம்.
ராமன், "கவுசிகரே, நான் அவளைக் கொல்ல மாட்டேன். இது அவளுடைய நிலம். இங்கிருந்து எம்மை வெளியே அழைத்துச் செல்லும்" என்றான்.
"சரி. உன் இஷ்டம்" என்றார் ரிஷி.
"ஓடிக் கொண்டே பேசலாமே", என்றேன் நான்.
******************************************

அன்று கிட்டத்தட்ட ஒரு காத தூரம் ஓடியிருப்போம். விஸ்வாமித்திரர் முன்னால் வழி காட்டிக் கொண்டு போனார். அந்தி சாயும் பொழுது ஒரு சிறு கானகத்தருகே வந்து சேர்ந்தோம்.
ரிஷி தரையைச் சுத்தம் செய்தார். இரவு தங்குவதற்குத் தயாரானோம். அரணிக் கட்டையைக் கடைந்து தீயைப் பெருக்கினார் ரிஷி. நானும் ராமனும் பார்த்துக் கொண்டு உட்கார்ந்திருந்தோம். கால்கள் வலித்தன.
"தாடகை கட்டாயம் இங்கே வர மாட்டாளே? பேசாமல் மரத்தின் மேலேயே தூங்கி விடலாமே?" என்றேன் நான்.
"சூரர்களே! நாம் அவள் எல்லையைத் தாண்டி வெகு தூரம் வந்தாகி விட்டது. எப்பொழுதும் மரத்தில் தூங்கிப் பழக வேண்டாம்", என்றார் ரிஷி.
சாப்பிட்டு விட்டு கால்களை நீட்டிக் கொண்டு தீயைப் பார்த்துக் கொண்டிருந்தோம்.
"இந்த ராட்சதர்கள் இப்படிப் போகிற வருகிறவர்களை எல்லாம் பிடித்துத் தின்கிறார்கள் என்று தெரியும். வேறு வழி இல்லையா?" என்றேன் நான்.
"ஆஹா! அருமையான கேள்வி! நீ கேட்ட கேள்வி எனக்குப் புரிகிறது."
"அப்படியா?"
"சாதுக்கள் வாழும் இந்த உலகத்தில் ராட்சதர்களைக் கொன்று சாதுக்களை யார் காப்பது? நல்ல கேள்வி."
"அப்படி அல்ல. காட்டைச் சுற்றிப் போக வேறு வழி இல்லையா?"
ரிஷி என்னைப் பொருட்படுத்தாமல்," சாதுக்களைக் காக்கத் தான் காக்கும் கடவுள் விஷ்ணு இந்த உலகத்தில் அவதரிக்கிறான். அசுரர்களைக் கொல்வது அவன் கடமை", என்றார் ராமனைப் பார்த்து.
"நான் கடவுள் அல்ல", என்றான் ராமன்.
"ராமா, நீ விஷ்ணுவின் அம்சம்."
நான் ஆத்திரத்துடன், "நான்? நான் யாருடைய அம்சம்?", என்றேன்.
யாருமே பதில் சொல்லவில்லை. ரிஷியும் ராமனும் முறைத்துக் கொண்டே தூங்கச் சென்றார்கள்.
நான் மரவுரியை விரித்துப் படுத்தேன். வானத்தைப் பார்த்தவாறே தூங்க முயற்சி செய்தேன். வானத்தில் கொக்கி போன்ற அந்த நட்சத்திரக் கூட்டம் தெரிந்தது.
கண்ணயரும் போது அந்தக் கோட்டான் அலறியது.
"க்க்க்ரீச்"
நான் திடுக்கிட்டுக் கண் விழித்தேன்.
காலையில் தென்மேற்காகச் சென்றோம். பிறகு தாடகையின் உறைவிடத்தில் இருந்து விரைந்து சென்ற பொழுது எந்தத் திசையில் போனோம்?
நன்றாக யோசித்துப் பார்த்தேன். எனக்கென்னவோ மறுபடி வடகிழக்கில் வந்திருக்கிறோம் என்று தோன்றியது.
காலையில் கிளம்பிய இடத்திற்கு மறுபடியும் வந்திருக்கிறோமோ?
**************************************************

ராமன் தூங்கி கொண்டிருந்தான். தூங்கும் போதும் அவன் முகம் அப்படியே இருந்தது. நான் அவனைத் தட்டி எழுப்பினேன்.
தூக்கக் கலக்கத்துடன் எழுந்து உட்கார்ந்தான்.
"என்ன?"
"என்னுடன் வா", என்றேன்.
அவன் கேள்வி கேட்காமல் வந்தான். எரியும் தீக்கம்பு ஒன்றை எடுத்துக் கொண்டேன்.
ரிஷி இன்னும் தூங்கவில்லை போலும். "எங்கே போகிறீர்கள்?" என்றார்.
"எனக்குக் கழிக்க வேண்டும்", என்றேன்.
"துணைக்கு அண்ணனா?" என்று சிரித்தார்.
"காக்கும் கடவுளாயிற்றே", என்றேன் நான் நடந்து கொண்டே.
கானகத்தின் உள்ளே புகுந்தோம். ராமனுக்குத் தூக்கம் போய் விட்டது. "என்ன விஷயம்", என்றான்.
நான் பக்கத்தில் இருந்த மரங்களைச் சுற்றிப் பார்த்தேன். ஒரு பெரிய மராமரம் ஒன்றின் அடியில் சென்று பந்தத்தை உயர்த்திப் பிடித்தேன்.
அந்த மரத்தின் அடியில் நாங்கள் காலையில் பார்த்தது போலவே நான்கு நகங்கள் அழுத்தமாகக் கீறியிருந்தன .
"ரிஷி நம்மைத் தாடகையின் எல்லைக்குள் சுற்றி அழைத்து வந்திருக்கிறார்", என்றேன்.
ராமனின் கைகள் உடை வாளை நாடின.
**********************************************

நாங்கள் திரும்பி வரும் போது ரிஷி எங்களைப் பார்த்துப் படுத்திருந்தார். ஆனால் அவர் விழித்திருப்பார் என்பதில் சந்தேகமில்லை. தாடகையின் காட்டில் எந்த மனிதனுக்குத் தூக்கம் வரும்?
"ரிஷியே, எழுந்திரும்", என்றான் ராமன்.
அவர் கண் விழித்துப் பார்த்தார்.
"ஏன் இப்படிச் செய்தீர்?" என்றேன் நான்.
ரிஷி பெருமூச்சுடன் எழுந்து அமர்ந்தார்.
"ராமா, இலக்குவா, நீங்கள் சத்திரியர்கள். உங்களுக்குப் புரியும் என்று நினைத்தேன்", என்றார்.
"ஏன் தாடகையைக் கொல்ல இப்படி ஒரு அவசியம்?" என்று கேட்டான் ராமன்.

***************************************

தாடகா வனத்தில் இருந்து ஒரு யட்சனைப் போல வானில் எழுந்து, இரண்டு யோசனை உயரச் சென்று நின்றால் கீழே என்ன தெரியும்?
வட கிழக்கில் வெகு தூரத்தில் மலை அரசனாம் இமவானின் ராச்சியம். பிறகு பெரும் காடுகள். அவற்றின் முடிவில் முதல் நகரம் அயோத்தி. அந்த நகரத்தினூடே ஓடும் சரயு நதி அயோத்திக்கு அருகே சிறிது தூரத்தில் கங்கையில் கலக்கிறது. கங்கை தென்மேற்காக வளைந்து சென்று ஒரு சிறு மலைத் தொடரைத் தாண்டி மிதிலையை அடைகிறாள். மிதிலை, விஷாலம், ராஜகிருஹம், பொன்னால் கூரையிட்ட அரண்மனைகளைக் கொண்ட பாடலிபுத்திரம் - பெரு நகரங்களும், ஜனசங்கங்களும் பரந்து விரிந்த ஆரியவர்த்தம் மிதிலையில் இருந்து தொடங்குகிறது.
இவை யாவும் ஒரு காலத்தில் யட்சர்களும், நாகர்களும், ராட்சதர்களும் வாழ்ந்த காடுகள். நாகர்கள் கிழக்கே ஓடி விட்டார்கள். கடைசியாக மிஞ்சிய யட்சர்களின் நாடு அயோத்திக்கும் மிதிலைக்கும் இடையே இருந்த - மாலடம் என்று ரிஷிகளால் அழைக்கப்பட்ட - தாடகா வனம்.
இரண்டு யோசனை உயரத்தில் இருந்து உற்றுப் பார்த்தால் அயோத்தியில் இருந்து ஒரு பெரும் சாலை ஒன்று கிளம்புகிறது. தசரதனின் பாட்டன் ரகு பாவிய அந்தச் சாலை கங்கைக் கரையில் வந்து நிற்கிறது.
தென் மேற்கே, அது போலவே மிதிலையில் இருந்து ஒரு சாலை ஒன்று கிளம்புகிறது. அதுவும் தாடகா வனத்தின் மரங்களிடையே மறைந்து விடுகிறது.
யாருமே பயன்படுத்த முடியாத அந்தச் சாலைகளின் நடுவே, மலையும், முள்ளும், பாறைகளும் அடர்ந்த அந்த வனத்தில் யட்சர்கள் தம் கடைசி யுத்தத்தை நடத்துகிறார்கள்.
யட்சர்களின் தலைவன் சுகேதுவும் அவனுடைய மருமகன் சுனந்தனும் திரும்பத் திரும்ப மிதிலையில் இருந்தும், அயோத்தியில் இருந்தும் வரும் ரிஷிகளையும், அவர்கள் பின்னால் வரும் படைகளையும் தடுத்து நிறுத்துகிறார்கள்.
தாடகை சுகேதுவின் பெண். குகைகளில் தன கணவனுக்காகவும் தந்தைக்காகவும் காத்திருக்கிறாள்.
யட்சர்களின் அந்தப் போர் நல்லபடியாக முடிய வழியே இல்லை. தாடகை பயந்தது நடந்து விட்டது. ஒரு நாள் சுகேது கொல்லபட்டான். சுனந்தனின் தலை அயோத்தி கோட்டை வாசலில் ஏற்றி வைக்கப்பட்டது.
சுற்றி அயோத்தி மக்கள் கொண்டாடினார்கள். மிதிலைக்குப் போகும் சாலை, ரகு வம்சத்தின் பல தலைமுறைக் கனவு நிறைவேறும் என்று நம்பினார்கள்.
அவர்கள் தாடகையை, கணவனை இழந்த அந்த யட்சியின் கோபத்தை எதிர்பார்க்கவில்லை.
யுத்தம் அவள் தலைமையில் தொடர்ந்தது. இருபது வருடங்களாகத் தசரதனின் சாலை தூங்கிக் கிடக்கிறது. பல யட்சர்கள் இடை விடாத யுத்தத்தால் தளர்ந்தார்கள். ஆனால் தாடகை அயரவில்லை. இன்னும் கங்கையின் கரையை அவள் கண்கள் பார்த்தபடி இருக்கின்றன.
பெரும் படையுடன் யட்சர்களை மோதிப் புண்ணியமில்லை என்பதைத் தசரதன் கண்டான். அயோத்தியில் ரிஷிகள் தசரதனுக்கு யோசனை சொன்னார்கள். தாடகைக்கு வயதாகி விட்டது. சிங்கக்குட்டி போல, வில் வித்தையில் கை தேர்ந்த ராமன் இருக்கிறான். அவன் விஷ்ணு அம்சம். சப்தவேதி - ஒலியைக் கொண்டே குறி பார்த்துக் கொல்லும் வித்தையைக் கற்றவன். அவன் நம்மைக் காப்பான்.
துஷ்டர்களை அழிப்பது காக்கும் கடவுளின் பொறுப்பு.
எனவே, யட்சர்களின் கடைசி ராணியைக் கொன்று போடத் தாடகா வனத்தில் இரு இளைஞர்களை அழைத்து வந்தார் ரிஷி விஸ்வாமித்திரர்.
வந்த வேலையை முடிக்காமல் எப்படி மிதிலைக்குப் போவது?

**********************************************************

ராமன் ரிஷியை அருவருப்புடன் பார்த்தான். "யட்சர்களை விரட்டிச் சாலை கட்டுவதற்காக நான் ஒருக்காலும் ஒரு அப்பாவியைக் கொல்ல மாட்டேன். அவள் பக்கம் நியாயம் இருக்கிறது. இலக்குவா, வா போகலாம்", என்றான்.
ரிஷி, "ராமா, நில்", என்றார்.
அந்த நேரத்தில், காட்டு வழியே, தூரத்தில், அந்தகாரத்தைக் கிழித்துக் கொண்டு ஒரு பயங்கர உறுமல் கேட்டது.
எனக்குப் புல்லரித்தது. மூவரும் காட்டில் உறுமல் வந்த திசையை உற்றுப் பார்த்தோம்.
"அவள் வருகிறாள்", என்றார் ரிஷி.

*********************************************************

ராமன் கீழே கிடந்த வில்லை எடுத்துத் தரையில் நிறுத்தினான். நாணை நன்றாக இழுத்துப் பூட்டினான். காட்டில் மரங்கள் சலசலவென்று ஆடின. என்னுடைய நண்பனாகி விட்ட அந்தக் கோட்டான் காள்...காள் என்று கத்தியபடியே பறந்து சென்று விட்டது.
என்னுடைய முதல் யுத்தம் எப்படி இருக்கும் என்று சிறு வயதில் பெரும் கற்பனை செய்து வைத்திருந்தேன். குதிரைகள் என்ன, யானைகள் என்ன...சதுரங்க சேனைகளும் அணிவகுத்து நிற்கும் என்றும் , நான் ஒரு யானை மேல் அமர்ந்து பலப்பல வியூகங்கள் வகுப்பேன் என்றும் எண்ணியிருந்தேன். இப்படி நடுக்காட்டில் எவளோ ஒரு காட்டுமிராண்டிப் பெண்ணால் பிறாண்டப்பட்டு இறக்கும் நிலையை எதிர்பார்க்கவில்லை. ராமன் விஷ்ணு அம்சம்...எப்படியாவது தப்பி விடுவான். நான் ஏன் இந்தக் காட்டில் வந்து மாட்டிக் கொள்ள வேண்டும்?
காட்டுக்குள் பல பேர் ஓடி வருவது போலிருந்தது. நான், "யட்சர் படையே வருகிறதோ?" என்றேன்.
ராமன் உற்றுக் கேட்டு விட்டு, "இல்லை. அவள் மட்டும் தான். இது ஒரு அசுர தந்திரம்", என்றான்.
திடீரென்று ஒரு பெரும் மரக் கிளை எங்களை நோக்கிப் பறந்து வந்தது. ராமனின் நாண் ஒலித்தது. அம்பு பறந்து கிளையை அடித்து வீழ்த்தியது.
"பலே", என்றார் ரிஷி.
இப்பொழுது சட சடவென்று கற்கள் பல பறந்து வந்தன. நாங்கள் மூவரும் அவற்றில் இருந்து தப்ப அங்குமிங்கும் ஓடினோம். சில கற்கள் எங்கள் மேலே வந்து அடித்தன. வந்த வேகத்திலேயே கல் வீச்சு நின்றது.
நான், "ஏதாவது மரத்தில் ஏறித் தப்பலாமே?" என்றேன்.
"வீரர்களுக்கு அது அழகல்ல", என்றான் ராமன்.
சற்று நேரம் முன்னால் அவன் குனிந்து ஓடியதை மறந்து விட்டான் போலும்.
அதற்குள் சில மரங்கள் வந்து விழுந்தன. மிகவும் குறி வைத்து எறியப்பட்டது போலத் தோன்றவில்லை. ராமனின் அம்புகள் அவற்றை எளிதாகப் புறம் தள்ளின.
காட்டில் இருந்து பெரும் உறுமல் ஒன்று மறுபடி கிளம்பியது. நாங்கள் சலிப்புடன் ஆயத்தமானோம்.
ஒரு உரத்த அலறலுடன் தாடகை மரங்களின் உள்ளிருந்து வெளிப்பட்டாள். தீயின் மங்கிய வெளிச்சத்தில் அவள் உருவம் பல மடங்கு பெரிதாகத் தெரிந்தது. அவள் கையில் இருந்த ஒரு கூரிய கம்பத்தை எங்களை நோக்கி எறிந்தாள். வேகத்துடன் வந்த கம்பை ராமனின் அம்பு சந்தித்து அப்பால் விலக்கியது. அவள் காட்டுக்குள் சென்று மறைந்தாள்.
ராமன், "நம்மிடம் அம்புகள் குறைவு", என்றான்.
நான் வியப்புடன், "திட்டமிட்டுத் தான் இப்படிச் செய்கிறாளோ?" என்றேன்.
"அப்படித் தான் தோன்றுகிறது. எல்லா அம்புகளும் தீர்ந்த பின் நாம் வெறும் வில் குச்சிகளுடன் சண்டையிட வேண்டியது தான்", என்றான் ராமன்.
தாடகையின் உருவத்தை முதன்முதல் பார்த்தது என் மனதில் பதிந்து விட்டது. மிகவும் உயரமாய், பனைமர நீளக் கை கால்களுடன், அரை அடி நீளக் கோரைப் பற்களுடன் கனவுகளில் வரும் பேயைப் போல இருந்தாள். அவளை எங்களால் நிச்சயம் சமாளிக்க முடியாது. அகோர மரணம் எனக்குக் காத்திருக்கிறது.

மீண்டும் பயங்கரக் கூச்சல்...மீண்டும் கல்லெறிப் போர்...மீண்டும் ஓட்டம். ராமன் மேல் ஒரு கூரிய கல் பட்டு ரத்தம் ஒழுகியது.
நான் களைப்புடன், "நாமும் பதிலுக்குக் கற்களை எறிவோமா?" என்றேன்.
அவளுடைய மரக்கிளைத் தாக்குதலில் ராமனின் அம்புகள் முக்கால்வாசி தீர்ந்து விட்டன. எங்களால் நடக்கவே முடியவில்லை.
இன்னும் சிறிது நேரத்தில் களைப்பில் விழுந்து விடுவோம். எதிரி மேல் எங்கள் அம்புகள் ஒன்று கூடப் பாயவில்லை. தாடகை வென்று விடுவாள். ஆனால் எவ்வளவு நாட்களுக்கு? இன்னும் பெரிய படைகள் வரும். இளவரசர்களின் மரணத்தை அயோத்தி மக்கள் மன்னிக்க மாட்டார்கள். இரு அனுபவமற்ற இளைஞர்களை இப்படி எதிரியுடன் மோத அனுப்பிய தசரத மன்னரை யாரும் குற்றம் சொல்ல மாட்டார்கள்.
காட்டுமிராண்டி தாடகை இரு பச்சிளம் பாலகர்களைக் கொன்று விட்டதாகக் கதையைத் திரித்து விடுவார்கள். சிறிது சிறிதாக யட்சர்களையும் ஒழித்து, தாடகையும் கொல்லப்படுவாள்.
முடிவில் அந்தச் சாலை நிறைவு பெறும். மிதிலைக்கும் அயோத்திக்கும் இடையே வணிகர்களும் வண்டிகளும் போய் வரும் ராஜபாட்டையின் ஒரு திருப்பத்தில் எங்களுடைய சமாதிகள் சிறு வீரக்கல்லுடன் கவனிப்பாரற்றுக் கிடக்கும். நாளடைவில் அதுவும் அழிந்து போகும்.
எனக்குக் கண்களில் நீர் துளிர்த்தது. ராமனின் கடைசி இரண்டு அம்புகள் மிச்சமிருந்தன. எங்களைச் சுற்றி எதிரிகளின் தலைகளுக்குப் பதிலாக வெட்டப்பட்ட மரக் கிளைகளும் பல வகைக் கற்களும் கிடந்தன.
தாடகையின் உறுமல் சத்தம் அதிகரித்தது. ராமன் வில்லின் மேல் சற்றுச் சாய்ந்து நின்றான். ரிஷி, அவனிடம், "ராமா, நீ சப்தவேதி அல்லவா? ஏன் தயங்குகிறாய்?" என்றார்.
ராமன் அவரைத் திரும்பிப் பார்த்தான். பிறகு ஒரு அம்பை எடுத்து வில்லில் பூட்டினான்.
"அவளைக் கொல்லாமல் நீ இந்த இடத்தில் இருந்து தப்பிச் செல்ல இயலாது", என்றார் ரிஷி.
அவன் மெளனமாக இருந்தான். வில் வளைந்து குறி பார்த்தது. தாடகை மறுபடி உறுமினாள். அம்பு பறந்தது.
"ஓ" என்று ஒரு அலறல். தாடகையின் பெருத்த உடல் தரையில் "தொம்" என்று விழும் சத்தம் கேட்டது.
மூவரும் காட்டைப் பார்த்தபடி நின்றோம்.
"செத்தாள்", என்றார் ரிஷி.
"இல்லை...நான் அவளைக் கொல்லவில்லை", என்றான் ராமன்.
காட்டில் இருந்து எந்த அசைவும் இல்லை. பிறகு யாரோ, ஒரு சாதாரண மனிதப் பெண், தீனமாக முனகும் சத்தம் கேட்டது.
"போய்த் தலையில் ஒரு கல்லைப் போட்டு மோட்சம் கொடுக்கலாம்", என்றார் ரிஷி.
****************************************************

காட்டுக்குள் நாங்கள் நுழைந்தோம் - நான், நடுங்கிக் கொண்டே ஒரு தீப்பந்தத்துடன் முதலில் சென்றேன். எனக்குப் பின்னால் ரிஷி. கடைசியில் விஷ்ணு அம்சம். என்ன நியாயமோ.
எந்த நேரத்திலும் அவள் என் மேல் பாய்வாள் என்று முதலில் எண்ணினேன். ஆனால் அந்த மெலிதானப் புலம்பல் சத்தம் நெஞ்சை உருக்கியது.
ஒரு மரத்தின் மேல் சாய்ந்து தாடகை அமர்ந்திருந்தாள். அவள் காலில் அம்பு பாய்ந்து நின்றது. கீழே ரத்தம் குளம் போலத் தேங்கியிருந்தது.
அவள் எங்களைப் பார்த்து பயப்படவில்லை. முறைத்தபடி இருந்தாள்.
"ராமா, இன்னும் ஒரு அம்பு இருக்கிறது", என்று நினைவுபடுத்தினார் ரிஷி.
ராமன் கோபத்துடன் அந்த அம்பை எடுத்து முறித்துத் தரையில் போட்டான். "ரிஷியே, அவளை நன்றாகப் பாரும். என் தாய் கௌசல்யாதேவியைப் போல அல்லவா இருக்கிறாள்?" என்றான்.
நான் பந்தத்தைத் தூக்கிப் பிடித்தேன். உண்மையிலேயே தாடகை ஒரு மானுடப் பெண்ணைப் போலத் தான் இருந்தாள். மிகப் பலசாலி. ஆனால் மானுடப் பெண் தான். அவள் முகம் அயோத்தியில் உள்ள பல பெண்களைப் போலத் தான் இருந்தது.
ரிஷி மெளனமாக இருந்தார்.
ராமன், "உமக்கு யட்சர்களின் மொழி தெரியும் அல்லவா?" என்று கேட்டான்.
"ஆம்", என்றார் ரிஷி.
"நான் சொல்வதை அவளிடம் திருப்பிச் சொல்லும்", என்று என் கையில் இருந்த தீப்பந்தத்தை வாங்கிக் கொண்டான்.
"என் கையில் உள்ள அக்கினி சாட்சியாக, இந்த மாலடம் என்னும் தாடகா வனம் இனி யட்சர்களுக்குச் சொந்தம். அயோத்யாபுரிக்கு இந்த நிலத்தில் எந்த உரிமையும் கிடையாது. இது பட்டத்து இளவரசனான என் மேல் ஆணை. என் தாயின் மேல் ஆணை", என்றான்

******************************************************

தாடகையின் காயத்திற்கு மருந்திட்டுக் கட்டுப் போட்டோம். பிறகு அவளிடம் பிரியாவிடை பெற்றுக் கிளம்ப வேண்டி இருந்தது. எங்களுடைய மூட்டைகளைப் போர்க்களத்தில் இருந்து எடுத்துக் கொண்டு நடந்த பொழுது லேசாக விடியத் தொடங்கியது.
விஸ்வாமித்திரர்,"ராமா, என்னை மன்னித்து விடு", என்றார்.
"இப்பொழுது மிதிலைக்குத் தானே அழைத்துச் செல்கிறீர்?" என்றான் ராமன்.
"ஆம். கவலைப்படாதே. இருந்தாலும் எனக்கு உன்னைப் பார்த்தால் வியப்பாக இருக்கிறது. உன் பாட்டனார் காலத்தில் இருந்து போர் புரிந்து வரும் நிலத்தை எப்படித் தியாகம் செய்ய உனக்கு மனது வந்தது?"
நான், " நமக்குச் சொந்தமே இல்லாத ஒன்றைத் தியாகம் செய்வதில் நம்மைப் போல வராது", என்றேன்.
தூரத்தில் யட்சர்களின் சிரிப்பொலி கேட்டது.

*********************************************************

Update I:
Thaadaka's story as described in the Valmiki Raamyana is in the links below:

http://valmikiramayan.net/bala/sarga24/bala_24_prose.htm

http://www.valmikiramayan.net/bala/sarga25/bala_25_prose.htm

http://www.valmikiramayan.net/bala/sarga26/bala_26_prose.htm

The country that gave these songs cannot fail

I got an exposure to Pakistani songs in the USA, and through the Indian music talent shows. Recently I came across a few songs in Youtube that I wanted to share:

The below, "Aaj Jaane Ki Zid Na Karo" is by Farida Khanum. The song has very beautiful lyrics (which I will post in the end). It has many versions including one by Asha Bhosle. The original is a Pakistani movie song sung by Habib Wali Mohammad (which is also posted below).
Notice in Farida's singing that she simply renders the song with minimum embellishment and lets the lyrics stand by themselves. This is such a minimalist rendering and her voice and expression are very subtle. That must be the mark of a true artist. I wish I can write stories or blogs with such minimalism.



Next, below is the original movie song, by Habib Wali Mohammad. I loved this too. Note how "Indian" the background music sounds.



Next is this very weird Punjabi song, sung by a singer named Humera Arshad. You can find a lot of her songs in the internet. She is very good singing live. This is a love song and has good lyrics.



The country that produces such great artists will survive their current crisis - they should for all of our sakes.

Translation for "Aaj Jaane Ki Zid Na Karo" (source):

Don't insist on leaving today
Keep sitting beside me.
Don't insist on leaving today
else I shall die, I shall be looted.
Please don't talk like this.
Don't insist on leaving today.

Give it a thought,
why shouldn't I stop you?
When you leave,
life goes out of me.
For your own sake, beloved
Just listen to this one plea,
don't insist on leaving today,
keep sitting beside me.
Don't insist on leaving today.

My life is trapped in time's bars,
just a few solitary moments are free.
And if you lose them too, my beloved,
you shall keep craving forever.
Don't insist on leaving today,
keep sitting beside me.
Don't insist on leaving today.

What an innocent colorful meeting this is
of beauty and love, they rule today.
Who knows what lies tomorrow,
Let's make this night stand still.
Don't insist on leaving today,
keep sitting beside me.
Don't insist on leaving today.

A few interviews

I interviewed more than 500 people when I was at Photon. The below stayed in mind. At the end I am providing one of my own stupidity.

The Microsoft Connection

1. I generally interviewed people on the Microsoft stack. I have noticed that only Microsoft stack developers provide the following answer:

Q: Have you worked with .NET 2.0?
A: I downloaded the Beta.

I don't know why downloading a particular software is a great skill, but I regularly get that answer, and only from developers in MS technologies. The only explanation I have is that they think it shows their initiative. It does not. It only shows their ability to click on a link.

2. It is my practice to ask developers in MS techs what they thought of open source technologies. The reason I ask that is to find out if they are too opinionated (more on this later). Usually they say they have not worked with them. But here was the classic (this interview took place in 2008):

Q: What do you think of open source technologies?
A; Two things. First, I don't think they will work out. Developers spread across the world working together to create software that is free - that is just stupid.
Secondly, I don't know anything about open source technologies.

I thought the second answer should be the only one given.

3. I was interviewing a particularly angry candidate. He said he worked with Microsoft on developing a framework. Since he was inexperienced, I was impressed. I kept digging until it turned out what really happened was:
2005 - Microsoft consulting had developed a framework for a shipping client in Norway.
2008 - Candidate had worked in Chennai for a company whose client was same shipping client in Norway. There he had used the framework.
Therefore, by candidate's logic, he had worked with Microsoft on developing a framework.

The Opinionated Candidate

There seems to be an impression among developers and architects out there that the more extremely frustrated and opinionated you seem, the more likely that you will be hired.
I saw this repeatedly:

Me: Have you worked with Microsoft ASP.NET Ajax?
(Candidate sighs. Throws up his hands. Shakes his head.)
Candidate: I don't know why Microsoft does this every time, you know, why it is just Microsoft...I have tried repeatedly explaining to them...why? (sighs again)
Me: (confused) You have not answered my question...How about Sharepoint? Have you used sharepoint?
(Candidate starts moaning)

This opinion virus has spread so much that you never get a straight answer to anything from senior people.

Slightly Above

We interviewed a candidate who had driven all the way from Pondicherry. French guy, he was extremely concerned about his golf appointment than the interview. Three of us sat down to interview him and the following exchange took place:

Q: So are you interested in mentoring developers? Building a team?
A: Sure, I can do that. But I am slightly above that level. That kind of work would be slightly below me.
Q: Oh, ok. How about design, architecture. Do you write technical specs?
A: Slightly above that level, I am afraid.
Q: Managing a vertical?
A: Still above.

It went on like that till he had to leave for golf. Till the end we could not find anything at his level - we were always slightly below and he was above.

My Interview 13 years back

I was interviewing for a C++ developer position. The interview was in Taj Coromandel, Chennai. I went in supremely determined to appear confident and gung-ho.
The first question in the interview was how I would rate myself in a scale of 1 to 10 on C++.
My answer? 11. It seemed like a very intelligent thing to say.
The next question was if I knew what virtual destructors were for in C++.
I closed my eyes and thought for a long time. Nothing popped up.
They asked me four different questions on C++ - medium level, and I had no clue. I was utterly unprepared.
At the end of the interview they told me to come back when I really reached 11 on the C++ scale.

Anti-Outsourcing ad - is this racist?

I found this youtube video of an ad against Bill Halter, candidate in the Arkansas Senate race. Tha ad says Bill Halter, who was in the board of directors of WebMethods (he left in 2006). In that time WebMethods opened an office in Bangalore. The ad criticises that Halter caused Bangaloreans to say thank you, while ignoring Arkansans.



I did not feel offended by it. It was... interesting. But it was called racist in DailyKos here.

Interview with a Lawyer on Labor law and IT employees

I interviewed a corporate lawyer a few weeks back. In a free-ranging discussion pertaining to labor law; rights of employees; long notice periods;bond documents; exit clauses; court procedure and so on. I will summarize my impressions in the end. I have been writing about corporations and employees for some time - this interview was an eye-opener for me. It pointed to the limits of the legal system to solve certain issues. It also led me to think an IT employee's union is more important than ever.

Note: The interview was not recorded. I am mostly paraphrasing below. But the lawyer has reviewed the transcript below and approved of it. All emphasis (capital letters) are mine.

Interview Transcript

RA: Layoffs and firings – what is the difference in labor law? I have seen companies such as TCS, IBM call layoffs as firings in public. Can an association of employees sue them?

Lawyer: Layoffs mean failure, refusal or inability of employer to give employment to a worker/employee on muster roll, on account of cancellation of a project contract, shortage of power or raw materials or accumulation of stock or lack of finance to run the business or natural calamity; An employer has to intimate the labor dept before laying off its employees as per the industrial disputes act. The obligation of the employer upon laying off its employees would be to compensate the employee so laid off.

Management Of Cholamandalam Software Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, I Addl. Labour Court, Madras And Ors. is a classic case wherein the applicability of I.D.Act to IT Companies has been discussed.

Unfortunately the judgment of the courts on whether IT Companies fall within the definition of an “industry” has not come to a finality..

Whileso the IT Companies make the most out of the situation and go ahead firing/discharging employees, which may not be that easy in any other industry. IT Companies during recession or even at will fire their employees rather than lay off their employees. Since the employees themselves are ready to swap jobs instead of being laid off, move out of an organisation without any protest. The irony is that such a situation gives the IT Companies a wide option in targeting an employee of its choice i.e an employee under probation could either be the target or maybe an employee drawing a fat salary.

In the case of freshers they are retrenched not because they underperform - but because freshers are usually in their probationary period and according to law, employees in probationary period can be fired at will .

In fact, in India IT companies fire employees in a very decent manner. They simply ask the concerned employee to sign his/her own resignation letter, requesting the management to relieve him/her “at the earliest”. When employees do this, the Company is in a WIN-WIN situation. The Company succeeds in retrenching the employee and they are not liable to pay in lieu of notice period. Under such circumstances, the employee loses his/her right to initiate legal proceedings on the company later.

A third party stranger, who is not aggrieved by such firing cannot sue TCS or IBM for such firings - only the affected employees can do that. [Ed. Note: This is a recurring theme in my discussion. You cannot sue a company "on behalf of" someone - only the affected parties themselves can do that. This is an important part of legal theory everywhere, and I could see the reason for it.]

RA: Notice periods in the IT industry keep lengthening and now stand at 3 months. Is this legal?

Lawyer: As long as the employee signed the Employee agreement with the notice period, yes, it is legally enforceable. Usually notice periods have exit clauses , where you can buy off the remaining period by compensating the employer for the shortfall in notice period.
When an employee resigns from a company, the company has to accept it. If they do NOT accept it, you can walk off at the end of your notice period.But an employee who has put in his/her resignation cannot unilaterally force the employer to concede to his/her wish in buying off the remaining months (shortfall in notice period) and cut short his/her employment. However an employee who has put in his/her resignation has all the right to negotiate with the employer for relieving –him/her even before the completion of the notice period. However the discretion to relieve the employee sooner is that of the Company.
Unfair notice periods ARE NOT enforceable - but it depends on the industry. For example, a few years back Indian Airlines pilots walked off to private airlines in droves. They had six months notice period, but they violated it. Indian Airlines sued to have them not take up alternate jobs. The court REFUSED to provide an injunction against the pilots. This is because the court thought six months was a very long notice period.
Now, the same has not been decided for the IT industry. No one has sued to make the matter decided by courts. Therefore in the IT industry, three months notice periods are legal.
I would also like to point out that this should be discussed by HR managers within the IT industry - if everyone sets notice periods at 3 months, then companies cannot pick up employees in a short duration for projects. Thus the industry's decision backfires on itself - if you recruit for a project, employee will not be available for the next 3 months. It seems industry itself should move away from this course.

RA:What is the legal status of employee agreements? Are notice periods enforceable? I mean in terms of precedent

Lawyer: Yes, employee agreements (terms and conditions of employment spelt out in the Appointment Letter/ Offer of Appointment) that have been accepted by the employee concerned are enforceable by courts.

RA: Can companies ask for very long bonds and enforce by holding original certificates? What is the nature of “one-sided” bonds?

Lawyer: First of all we have to understand what really a bond is and the reason behind employers seeking it from their employees. A bond is sought by an employer to retain an employee with the organisation for a longer period of time.

A bond is an extension arising out of an employment agreement/appointment letter. If only a candidate accepts the offer, a bone can be executed. Hence for executing a bond, the candidate should first be an employee of the organisation. An appointment letter shall contain a clause informing the employee on a bond that has to be signed by the employee. appointment letter should also necessarily have on exit clause for both the parties. Whileso the bond is an agreement within an agreement. The terms and conditions of the bond shall be in consonance with the terms and conditions of the appointment letter/employee agreement. Breach of such bond shall have to be compensated by the employee and such compensation shall be quantified in monetary terms. Breach of a bond shall arise if the employee wants to leave the organisation even before the accepted period. Under such circumstances the employer cannot unduly reject the resignation tendered by the employee. The option available with the employer is to get compensated as agreed. Violating a bond is NOT illegal - it simply means that you shift to the exit clause mentioned in the employment agreement/appointment letter .
An arbitrary bond that simply asks you to serve a certain number of years, without an exit clause is not valid. There should be an exit clause. An aggrieved employee can always go to the court if he/she fall in asituation discussed above. Whether you are willing to go to court is another question.
Even if a bond has a certain sum mentioned, it should actually link that sum to the money that the company has paid for your training etc. [Ed Note: I have seen such bonds; they mention the breakdown of sum in detail].Instead if the bond simply asks for money, without indicating any cost the company incurred for you, then that bond will likely be rejected by a court of law.
A company CAN ask for your original certificates as part of a bond. Itis a contractual arrangement between the employer and employee.
One of my friends was recruited as a Probationary officer for a Bank, to be confirmed and placed a Law Officer. They had his certificates. After his confirmation he was placed like any other officer and was asked to do all jobs. My friend simply went to the court, got an order saying he was offered a job that had nothing to do with the actual job; he got back his original certificates and moved over to another company.
If you know the law, yes, you can get back your certificates, if your reason is just.

RA: Can companies withhold relieving orders at all? How about providing wrong information on background checks?

Lawyer: If you complied with your side of the agreement, then they cannot withhold relieving orders or provide wrong information on background checks, legally. If they did, you can sue them.

RA:What circumstances will make a bond null and void? If you get cursed or abused by your boss, does that automatically release you from bonds?

Lawyer: How are you going to prove abuse? For example, you cannot record such conversations. Indian law does not consider audio recordings as material evidence. Practically it is difficult to prove such abuse.

RA:Practically, do all cases go through a court for labor disputes or is there any other redress such as arbitration?

Lawyer: Labour disputes are settled by initiating conciliation proceedings and then if the conciliation fails the matter is referred to the labour court.
There needs to be a specific term in the apploinment letter stating that the dispute between the employeer and the employee may be settled through arbitration. If so a neutral person will decide the issue on merits.
Since there are no trade unions in IT industry, matter affecting the employees do not reach the labour court. Rather the aggrieved employee if he/she wants to persue the matter takes it to the civil court.
Settlement of such disputes may take time say one year to even ten years.

RA: How long do such cases take to settle? Doesn’t it seem like companies have an unfair advantage in this regard? That they can depute subordinates and keep asking for postponements?

Lawyer: True and there is nothing to really do about it.

RA: Are Indian courts, in general, receptive to employees? Or do they enforce unfair agreements strictly?

Lawyer: Indian courts are very receptive to employees. They do form a check against employer abuse. For example, there is the case of a travel agent. He left the agency where he worked and joined another agency. The original employer sued asking that the agent not be allowed to work in the same industry (for non-compete purposes). The court decided in favor of the agent - it said that the agent's only known profession is to be a travel agent. So, they said it is unfair to ask him to not work in the same industry and deprive him of livelihood.

RA:What would be the typical cost of such a litigation? How long would it take? Are there law firms or lawyers that specialize in such disputes and can help out employees?

Lawyer: The cost can be high - actually the lawyers gain a lot. They go through multiple rounds and as the case drags on, they make a lot of money. It is in their interest to prolong the case. This is why most people are afraid of going to court. There are labor lawyers, but they vary in quality.

RA: Do we have punitive damages in Indian law? Will that help stop some abuse by corporations?

Lawyer: You can claim costs from the opposing party. But it is the discretion of the court to allow costs claimed by you. You can also file a suit for damages. The problem here is that you may have to pay court fees based on your claim. You will forebear such litigation because depositing court fees is a dead lock investment, the returns of which is not guaranteed. There is no such thing as punitive damages in Indian labor law.

RA:Some companies file false cases of property theft etc on employees. What are our rights under such conditions?

Lawyer: Practically companies do get away with such false complaints. For example, when someone files a complaint, the police will come to your home and take you to the station for a statement. At that time, it is better to have a lawyer with you - but it is unlikely that you are prepared with a lawyer for just such an occasion.
The police are supposed to produce you before a magistrate before 24 hours. If they wanted to harass you, they can keep you in jail for that time. They can potentially also take you in Fridays and keep you in for two days. ALl of this does happen in India.
Even if you had a senior lawyer, say, in the High Court, that lawyer cannot directly appear before (for example) the magistrate in Saidapet and argue your case. The lawyers in Saidapet will not allow it. [Ed Note: almost like a union]
The magistrate also knows the local lawyers better and therefore will be sympathetic to them. This is the current situation.
So, a company filing a false complaint can sometimes harass you more than enough. You can hit back by filing another complaint against the owner if you are inclined that way. [Ed Note: It seems the lack of punitive damages helps companies]

RA:Can employees publicly blow a whistle on companies’ internal policies? Let us say someone publishes such behavior and names the company, (assuming what they are saying is true), can they be punished by law?

Lawyer: You cannot make judgments about a company in a blog post or something. You can say that a company engages in some behavior - but you cannot criticize it publicly. You can be served a legal notice for that.

RA:Specifically, if someone was to start a fund for helping employees in such labor disputes, is that feasible? Is it possible to find lawyers who can capably help with such pro-labor suits? Are there such organisations right now?

Lawyer: Think about it - such an independent organisation will face flak from both sides - from the employee who may think you are losing the case (losing happens sometimes). And also the lawyers who may not want to complete the case because they are getting paid by you on each hearing.

RA: How do you think, then, that we can fight such abuses by companies?

Lawyer: Employees have to organize themselves and fight for their rights.

The interview ended there.

My Impressions of the Legal Recourse

When I went into this interview I thought the law will actually help stem abuses by employers. That is, I thought filing of enough suits will improve the situation. But it seems that we have the following issues:

1. The legal system is slow to act; time is on the side of employers.
2. It is tough for independent organizations to get involved.
3. Most importantly, the law sees employment as a contractual free agreement of two parties. Thus it impartially puts the two parties in the same level.
But, practically, we all know that a fresher from college has no means of negotiating with a company. In India there are fewer jobs and more people. Asking employees to INDEPENDENTLY negotiate, alone, with employers is like "asking the sheep to negotiate with the wolf". In many ways this is not unlike the situation you face with hospitals or schools - the common man in India seeking these services has no negotiating power.
This fact ALONE points the way at collective bargaining (in other words, organizing into trade unions).

4. I also wish punitive damages (damages that can effectively bring a company to its knees for wrongdoing) are awarded by Indian courts for abusing employees, such as filing false complaints.

To me it seems like filing suits will help, but not without a powerful IT Employee's Union. That alone will make sure that abuses such as wrong background checks, holding on to relieving orders, and keeping original certificates are brought to a stop.


References
Wikpedia Article on Layoffs

Indian Contract Act Explanation

Manupatra - website with legal opinions, judgements and so on for research (requires a subscription)

A Handbook of Labor Laws in India

Nano - I told you so

A couple of Nano cars have caught fire and I just feel like I have to pint out this long article by me an year back. The article argues that by taking the success or failure of Nano as a product AWAY from Tata or the market; and instead subsidizng the product heavily with taxpayer money as Gujarat does - is actually a violation of sound economic policy.
Let me quote from my article:

There are people who argue that job creation is primary goal. Some guy even calculated that in 10 years the government of Gujarat would get money back from the Nano plant because of tax payments by employees. But there is a vital flaw in such arguments:
What if the Nano is a failure?
Let us say that some design flaws make Nano a failure. Can the Gujarat government assure that the Nano will be a success? They can't - the factory is not even in their control. They have not studied the market or discussed the quality procedures or the thousand other things that can go wrong with a product. By tying themselves to a single businessman's product, the government has committed taxpayer money for something it has no capability to ensure or manage.
Instead sound economic theory requires that the Gujarat government create conditions for manufacturers in general and then wait for business to flourish.

I am not saying that the Nano WILL be a failure. Given the amount of propaganda surrounding it, Tata has ensured its sales. But, for Gujarat to have tied itself with that car and committing taxpayer money to a product that they have no control over is WRONG.
It means individual profits and socialized risk. That is what it is.

Perceptions of Indian developers in the West

I landed in the USA in late 1999. We were to take over maintenance and further development of a travel website. Me and a couple of colleagues were excited and awestruck by the skyline of Boston.
One day were discussing finding an apartment at work when one of the American consultants said, "You guys are going back - don't bother looking for apartments".
We actually became crucial for taking over the website and two years later the same person told me that he had never believed that offshoring or bringing in Indian consultants would work. He said he had no idea if we would even speak English. And he said he had been proved wrong (not just about the English).
Cut to the present - I was talking with one of my friends (a swedish guy) who is used to complaining about "the Indian way" of doing anything. He said he was discussing with a department head of a Fortune 500 company about offshoring when the head guy started complaining about not being able to understand Indians or whatever.

Twenty years after the software outsourcing boom started, it is obvious that the Indian developer, whether onsite or offshore generates a lot of hostility in the West. Just for a sample, read this article and its comment thread.

The question is why does this happen? We call this hostility "racism" but I dont believe in using imprecise, general terms. There are other issues at play here. The both sides of the offshoring game have to understand certain undercurrents:

1. For Indians - Offshore outsourcing is not a preference of middle managers in the USA - middle managers want control. The directives come from executive management and middle managers are meant to cede control and make it work and show results by cutting costs.

Digression:In many cases outsourcing is about more than cutting costs. The truth is that Indian companies present a very attractive package to enterprise customers in the developed countries. The degree of expertise that even medium-sized companies in India offer to such customers is high (this is from my experience for 11 years in the services industry). Even in terms of sheer process methodology Indian companies offer a lot more as compared to Western equivalents.
There are systemic reasons why this is the case: it is just that a considerable portion of the Indian economy is invested in the success of IT and therefore has spent a lot more time specializing in the services industry.I have worked in American services companies as a consultant - they are excellent, but they are simply rolled by bigger Indian companies.

The middle managers are actually led kicking and screaming to offshore work. They, therefore, are resentful and not much hopeful of success.
The resident developers, of course, have their jobs threatened.
Therefore much of the "racism" is not racism at all - it is simply hostility and fear of change.

2. For the Client - One frequent issue is the power that some clients feel about offshoring. This took several forms including making fun of Indian names in India itself. The idea seems to be that you can generally get away with saying anything at Indian managers or developers.
Let me give an example:
A developer in my old company had a normal Indian name. The clients were in a room meeting and asked him to come over. One of them (he thought he was funny), tried to pronounce the developer's name but could not. He then announced that he would call the developer "Sam". Everyone had a good laughover it - but they actually implemented it by calling him Sam every time.
A variation of the above scenario occurs in some offshore companies - the main reason it occurs is twofold:
- The degree of power a western client has over a small offshore company is enormous. He can cut off the spigot at any time. This level of power exists even if you outsource to a different company within the US or UK - but socially there is a taboo to exercising power in those societies. Thus the average American client would be very loathe to make such comments publicly about other people in their social setting.
When these people land in India, they basically feel free from such taboo. They do not think that appearing like a jerk before other humans matters. They let this liberation get to their heads and end up sounding like jerks. Not all of them, mind you, just a small minority.
- when a western client makes a comment like this or exercises power in such unusual ways, we do not know how to respond. Is it just normal humor in their countries? Or is this specific guy being an idiot? This is not surprising - after all the fault is not ours if a client behaves like an idiot. This non-response enables the client and leads him to try more such idiocy.
My advice to Western clients is to not be stupid and say something you won't dare say in your own home country. In short, don't be a dumbass.

3. For the West
The biggest issue, I feel, that lets Western technical people comment about the competence of Indian developers is this - they romanticise coding too much.
I have noticed that American developers, working even in the IT departments of crappy companies, have a very romanticised image of coding. I can understand the developers at IBM or Microsoft feeling this way.
Mind you, this is just an image - these develpers are not particularly competent. They just have a self-image of Ninja coders toiling away at solving the Turing Test.
They are convinced that only the superior education offered by their system prepares people for the tough challenge of building an Access based inventory list.
Again, this has nothing to do with racism. It is merely what they have been told from childhood.
The contradiction between this self-image and the discovery that their jobs could be taken away by a $5 worker shocks them. That, I believe, is the reason for much of
the animosity at Indian developers.

"Does offshore outsourcing work?" - this question has been answered in the affirmative for some time now. The particular experience for different companies may vary - as it should - but in the aggregate, it is like any other work outsourcing. There is nothing system specific that prevents it from working when Indian developers are involved.

By the way, there ARE specific examples of generalization and racism; I will close with a last episode that I faced:
A developer at my employer was onsite. There was some dispute between him and my employer, but he was well liked by the client. The employer decided to bring him back. They lied to the client saying the dev's father was sick.
The client came to know about the lie through rumors. At that time on of them was at Chennai. I was talking to him generally, when he narrates this lie and says: "Is it a cultural thing to lie like this?"
Get that? The evil brown people lie as a cultural trait. Pure white culture does not lie.

Disclaimer:
I hope I have managed to avoid writing some generalizations myself. I do not, of course, believe that most Western clients are prone to exercising their power in unprofessional ways. Some do. The vast majority are pretty decent. My goal was simply to point out that there are specific reasons why some may face hostility and that the hostility has little to do with racism.
And I do sympathize with the social cost of outsourcing - but I always think restrictions on immigration should be done away with. A lot of our problems will go away if we do not restrict human beings from travelling anywhere they want to.