Internet was hailed to be a successor to television broadcast as it allowed people to pull information from the cloud rather than being pushed by broadcasters.

The freedom to choose content along with the boundless variety of content available was a great combination. Comparatively, television broadcasting was a top down approach with certain people sitting in offices in metros deciding over coffee, moolah, and smoke what is interesting for them, and, for the consumer across the length and breadth of vast countries. The moolah, specially restricted the choice of content.

The assertion is completely incorrect.
During the earlier days, internet was not much different from the television as information was made available on portals such as rediff. Quiet good in the initial stages. But, slowly the content stared to increase. As people realised the value of a free pubishing platform with global reach, more and more information was now put online – current affairs,debates,commerce. Gradually, the content increased beyond the comprehension and indexing capacity of the human mind. Then came Google with its search engine which dethroned humans in the editorial board, with its coding algorithms . The algorithm skillfully indexed the wide variety of information available . The search engine now selects, or, tries to guess what is best for the consumer.Thus, bringing the freedom and the variety to choose from in a neat package. This revolutinised flow of information. All was good, until the content was produced by some select group of people/organisations on some topics that were widely believed to be of interest.

Soon the story got a new twist, social networking came into vogue, and the amount of content exploded. Moreover, the internet is now used for information warfare and people do not rely on what Google puts as the top link normally. And it takes a lot of time to come up with the best story.

This is bringing the humans back into the editorial board. If you look closely at the new products such as Google Waves, Google Side Wiki and the now ubiquitous and famous Twitter you will find how people are again relying on individuals they trust to select and share the information that they find valuable/interesting. These individuals are respected matter experts who know where information on the subject/experts will follow from. To illustrate what I mean – If you browse through Google News – you see 100s of links on a particular news topic, but if you go to Twitter, and see what the expert matter on the topic is sharing and reading you know what to read and where to spend time on.
To be contd..

Over a meeting with a friend I happened to discuss the role of morality in life. The friend wanted to be convinced that morality is going to produce the best results finally in long term. This conviction would propel him like Gandhi to never waiver from the path.

Rather than battling out over what exactly is morality, and if it is subjective, we defined it in simple terms – the set of rules which does not infringe on the right of others to equality and peaceful existence. I think we in India are in a sense feel victimised by pursuing of morality by Gandhi and later Nehru. The Gandhi model did give us independence but it is too difficult to practice and asks for super human courage. The Nehru model resulted in a defeat from China and isolation in cold war. Thus, one always starts with a position that it is too theoretical and lead to back stabbing.

We decided to take two new examples, one was the ascent of Dalits and the decline in the status of tribals. One is manifested in the rise of Mayawati and other is manifested in the escalation of conflict against Naxals.

The dalit movement has been successful because it fought within the framework of the constitution and the right guaranteed to it by the Indian Parliament. The reservations propelled them to a manifold upliftment in their status over the last sixty years (although, further improvement can be made possible if they could deal with the corruption). This is similar to the peaceful movement fought by Gandhi on the basis of Truth and for the rule of law and both of them have been very successful.

The movement spearheaded by Naxals is violent and tries to transgress on the rights of one section of the society for the benefit of the other. The movement runs on the premise of revenge and intends to reverse the victimisation. Perhaps, they should have adopted peaceful means to gain power democratically and like Nelson Mandela/Desmond Tutu’s Peace and Reconciliation mission taken a magnanimous position. They would have had a chance to acheive their ends.

But, the problem is that no one respects you until you have strength be it intellectual, social, physical and financial. The reason why Gandhi was respected was that he had a huge influence on the mass of the Indian population which gave him a lot of strength to make himself heard. It was his moral solution that gave the results fast and sustained. Had the solution been immoral the British Government wouldn’t be afraid to go after him. And it is here, that Nehru’s morality failed. We wanted to make ourselves heard but did little to take a pragmatic view of our strength and build over it to lend credibility to our voice. The fiasco was simply because we were like a hollow drum which sounded loud but didn’t have the strength to withstand blows leave aside giving back a couple in return. Equality comes from respect and that has to be created on building moral, financial, social and physical strength. And probably why Naxals started to build their military strength – but they should have taken morality into account.

One can argue, that in an immoral world there has to be a tit for tat. It should be kept in mind that the tools are not by themselves immoral. One needs to build strength in all spheres, but to what use they should be employed is to be thought carefully. Physical strength to secure equality in elections Yes. Physical strength to take revenge and kill – No.

In corporate world, one can see the gulf between Reliance and Tata. In public perception, one is seen to do underhand dealings and other works on a strong set of moral principle. One is perceived to be corrupt and other is respected for the investment in society made by them.

Thus my conclusion was that Pragmatism and Morality need to go hand in hand to have a sustained solution fast.

Moral Unpragmatic Solution – Never takes off (NAM, AFSPA, Ann Suu Kyi)
Immoral Pragmatic Solution – Not sustainable, future costs are high (Iraq war, Shell Africa, Climate Change)
Moral Pragmatic Solution – Sustainable and Least cost (Tata, Gandhi, Dalit Movement)

PS: Equality is a simple concept that includes in it the seed of honesty of conduct in public life and, hence, death of corruption, but also the notion that there should be an equality of opportunity in life for all sections of the society.

Corruption and Gestures are the two principle things that politicians in India deal with. It is alarming to see the kind of inequality, poverty, lawlessness here. It is appaling to see that none of the checks and balances of our democracy and constitution are functioning. Is it a case to go for an overhaul of constitution? Might be!

But the problem is endemic because the gestures politicians indulge in. Govt announces various hand outs for poor sections of the society, but shies to put in place a proper infrastructure for poors themselves to work their own way out of poverty. These gestures are taken in by hungry, illiterate public with open arms, accentuating the problem. What is required is an informed society that guides people on what is right and then forces the Government and Politicans to incorporate their concerns. However, such a technique is less likely to work as the independent press and enlightened journalists have failed to bring accountability into the system.

The other idea is to restrict voting to the educated and informed. This will ensure that the entire mass of India gets educated by the time we have 2019 elections.

The role of the government has to come down to good governance only. They need to scale back otherwise corruption will kill the body politic of India and the youth force will move out leaving behind a wretched state.

Poverty, Illiteracy, Child Mortality seem distant and difficult to recognise when one sees it all around from childhood. The average is closer to the normal. One gets the real experience after coming from abroad or living in a city like Gurgaon. The scale of inequity is exponential. High towers neighbour small dingys and slums. Naked children prostate on the bonet of air conditioned cars begging their share of the prosperity.

The inequities are huge with the development indicators for some of our population as low as that of sub-saharan Africa and others as high as that of a developed OECD region. The complex question is how can one single individual assist in removing these blots in a sustainable manner. The question becomes complex as the sheer size of the numbers who are in need of help is quiet large. A drop of water rather even a complete tanker of water in the barren deserts will not be of any help.

The problem is structural and needs to be tackled accordingly, I have always believed that funding people directly is not a good idea and not sustainable. Creating a framework that allows multiple generations to become self sufficient and further spread the reach is essential. But the next question is what is that framework? Is it to create entrepreneurs through micro financing, to initiate education in the region, to bring guaranteed employment to the people, to provide health care facilities? Which one of these have a maximum impact and start a chain reaction that alleviates the evils? How can technology help?

I am fascinated by Delhi and its history. From middle ages (possibly ancient times) to the modern times the city stands testimony to the stories of empires, nations, people and cultures. As you start following these stories you are led deeper into the ever more entrancing alleys of eras gone by. Interconnected scripts written by legends.

I feel it in the air when I visit safdarjung, lutyens, old delhi. I never ever felt this tide of time that had shaped the city, the sense of history that emanates from its various monuments, the culture – a foreign and ingenious blend – while reading in textbooks or during my annual visits in summer holidays.

It is quiet hurtful that a rich and colourful past, the wisdom of ages gone by, lies neglected and decaying. History is extremely important for people to know where they came from and where they are going. To have their moorings so that change does not make them fickle. I wish if someone takes it into his hand to plot the text book on the lands of India and restore history to its right place and value.

I have loved this poem from the time I read it in 12 years ago on a sunny afternoon. At that time, I didn’t understand it fully but loved the basic theme of being on one’s own and pursuit of knowledge. Overtime the understanding has grown and has added to the happiness that I get from reading it off and on. This is I think the stuff what classics are made of: ever relevant and deepening with time.

——————————————————————————————————-

Ulysses
Alfred Lord Tennyson

It little profits that an idle king,
By this still hearth, among these barren crags,
Matched with an aged wife, I mete and dole
Unequal laws unto a savage race,
That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me.

I cannot rest from travel: I will drink
Life to the lees: all times I have enjoyed
Greatly, have suffered greatly, both with those
That loved me, and alone; on shore, and when
Through scudding drifts the rainy Hyades
Vest the dim sea: I am become a name;
For always roaming with a hungry heart
Much have I seen and known; cities of men
And manners, climates, councils, governments,
Myself not least, but honoured of them all;
And drunk delight of battle with my peers;
Far on the ringing plains of windy Troy.
I am part of all that I have met;
Yet all experience is an arch wherethrough
Gleams that untravelled world, whose margin fades
For ever and for ever when I move.
How dull it is to pause, to make an end,
To rust unburnished, not to shine in use!
As though to breath were life. Life piled on life
Were all to little, and of one to me
Little remains: but every hour is saved
From that eternal silence, something more,
A bringer of new things; and vile it were
For some three suns to store and hoard myself,
And this gray spirit yearning in desire
To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
Beyond the utmost bound of human thought.

This is my son, mine own Telemachus,
To whom I leave the scepter and the isle
Well-loved of me, discerning to fulfill
This labour, by slow prudence to make mild
A rugged people, and through soft degrees
Subdue them to the useful and the good.
Most blameless is he, centered in the sphere
Of common duties, decent not to fail
In offices of tenderness, and pay
Meet adoration to my household gods,
When I am gone. He works his work, I mine.

There lies the port; the vessel puffs her sail:
There gloom the dark broad seas. My mariners,
Souls that have toiled, and wrought, and thought with me
That ever with a frolic welcome took
The thunder and the sunshine, and opposed
Free hearts, free foreheads you and I are old;
Old age had yet his honour and his toil;
Death closes all: but something ere the end,
Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.
The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks:
The long day wanes: the slow moon climbs: the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,
‘Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in the old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are,
One equal-temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

One of the best ways to bring fast and effective governance to people would be by engaging in more open public participation in legislation and execution of key decisions especially those related to governance. This not only keeps the government on toes by keeping it under a true public check but also builds on the talent of individuals outside the government machinery. Moreover, the consensus building that the process would enable will be unprecedented.

The information revolution has made it possible to do this now then ever before. Linux and Mozilla are examples of two famous software that were developed from “crowd sourcing”. Nokia, Apple and Microsoft have websites that invite people to contribute applications that run on their device/OS.

Implementation
The government just needs to make ad-hoc panels like the National Knowledge Commission (NKC) to include various stakeholders and to come up with solutions with in deadlines. The deliberations of the group should be put on a website for public participation. And this step will bring power truly to the governed!

Only Downside – People who get left out might hinder in decision making process as no doubt there will be some people who will be adversely affected. But then these can be accommodated too by providing some minimum period in legislations and support.

Wishful Thinking?
The best part is that I don’t think that it is completely new idea for India. We have written our own constitution through such an exercise by getting people from all walks of life to participate.
The constitution was not written by a group of people specifically asked to write it, but, by an open assembly of intellectuals and representatives. The process has been more open than any other since.

Moreover, the intent has been there and Governments in principle have been advocating decentralisation of power. There has been a thrust to get the panchayati institutions run on the ground and empower municipalities. Alas, these ideas have seen maximum action on paper only.

Finally, its an idea whose time has come. Obama during his candidacy advocated the need for an open Government and criticed Bush era secrecy.
He started boldly by appointing a CTO for his administration and coming up with the agenda for his Government in this regard: White House Press Release

However the idea is facing problems in getting implemented. A

A recent report by Judicial Watch charges the administration of not doing enough to put its word into deed.
“Obama’s administration hasn’t become any more open since his Inauguration. He has placed great importance on FOIA, but his administration has already failed time and time again to provide information to the American people. What happened to his completely transparent transition process, or his campaign promise to post bills online for the public to see a full five days before signing? The 1,100 page Economic Stimulus Bill was made public for only thirteen hours before being voted on.”
The entire article can be viewed here

Coming back to India I think it is going to be a tough road because of two reasons:
It brings the power directly to people and make executive and legislature a funnel for the ideas; a follower of the people. This will be quiet a remarkable and uncomfortable change for them as they have traditionally seen themselves as the lordships who decide and lead but not follow.

Second and more fundamental is the increasing intolerance that one generally sees on fresh ideas and new interpretation of events. The irony is that the people who run the largest democracy in the world are autocratic within their party and outside. Congress, BJP and Left have all moved to a closed group where they harp on old ideas and look to guidance from the party high command/politburo. When only a few people can always be correct, and idol worship is prominent – there is a slim chance for an open participation.

I am of the view that there are certain fundamentals in an industry that allow a certain business model to flourish. By industry, i do not mean only the industrial process but the wider competition that a company faces in the market.

To give two analogies – an air conditioner company and a coffee chain both sell a commodity. They have to distinguish themselves on the brand recall and the service they provide to the consumers. So, these companies have to become service oriented or value-add oriented.

Second, a lot of the companies that face stiff competition in the market in terms of price and quality differentiation earn profit from consumables – mobile companies in Europe expensive airtime/subsidized phone sets., hp/canon subsidized printers/expensive ink, bottled water filter, dish TV etc.

I think the arguments need to be fleshed out in detail. but i believe that a certain orientation of competitive forces in the industry allow us to have certain business models. I understand that nowadays companies follow multiple business models to maximise revenues the most public example that comes to my mind is airtel.Then, we have companies which change business models when they enter a new market. The most prominent model i recall is GE in healthcare.
So, what exactly is it that drives a certain business model in a certain market.

Really interesting article from Shekhar Gupta, Chief Editor, Indian Express.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/a-new-project-pakistan/499501/

One has to suppress oneself to other’s temperament or working style to do work in teams and get along with people. At times, one feels very strongly about certain things, or wants things to be done in a particular way, however, in the interest of overall output one must allow people to experiment and come with new ways of working.

The oe thing that one should avoid is receding ground to a bully or tolerating arrogance and sloppy work. A bully should be handled as a bully. And arrogance should be squarely dealt with at the first instance.

This is no doubt an normal case scenario, crisis scenario definitely needs situational leadership and people are required to implement strategy as directed.

Another connected point that I have been thinking about is the dress code and other formalities companies use while interacting with each other. Reflexively and Objectively, I think that dress codes are not required. One should be smartly turned out but wearing formals every day to work is important. The culture is reinforced by the quality of interaction of people in the company and not by the superficial dress code. However, I think having a dress code is a least painful position to ensure people are turnedout smartly in the office. But still dont like wearing neckties on shirts..