Does Your Start-up Need to Grow Up? http://wp.me/pAcdh-ja
Avatar

HyperActiveX

Vcard Download vCard   what is this?
Rss_icon

Recent Activity


Filter by:
All
  • While on vacation ...

    Vacations are about being, not about doing. Work is about doing. Play is about doing. 

    The soul needs some time to come abreast with all that the mind and the body have been doing, at work and at play. That's what vacations are for - vacant spaces for the soul to catch its breath. 

    Being, not doing.

    Permalink | Leave a comment  »

  • Ceci n'est pas une pipe

    Shashi Tharoor is no scam artist. He doesn't look like a scam artist, doesn't talk like a scam artist and doesn't walk like a scam artist. Scam artists are people like the boorishly crude Madhu Koda and the unctuously cunning Ramalinga Raju to name a few scamsters from recent times, and opportunistic stock market fraudsters like Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh from yesteryears. All from different walks of life, but hey -- you can never suppress true art in any sphere. The only thing Tharoor did that went horribly wrong was to try and help a friend of his get a sweet deal as a stock-holder in a business venture he was mentoring. Compare that with Raju, the founder of the IT giant he named Satyam, after the Sanskrit word for Truth, who overnight made it a one-word oxymoron by revealing the truth (or part of it) behind its financial position. A five thousand crore scam is a scam that people would consider to be of a respectable order of magnitude. Seventy something crores, that too in the form of 'paper money', and that too accruing over several years, is peanuts, even assuming that Tharoor was after the money (which I seriously doubt -- he is too much of what Bengalis call a 'bhadralok').

    In any case, you may ask, what's wrong with trying to get a friend a sweet deal? Don't we all try to help our friends? The answer to that lies in a detailed analysis (which I am not going to get into in this post) of a scandal that has been dubbed Tharoorgate. In short, it started with him mentoring a bunch of entrepreneurs who won the bid for the Kochi franchise of the IPL, in the interests of promoting cricket in his home state of Kerala. And then Tharoor managed to squeeze in a plum position for his friend, with a sweet sweat equity deal in that enterprise. And so the friend, a lady friend as it happens, ended up with a pretty decent stake in the venture, with a great upside and almost no downside, in return for helping them with branding, marketing, event management and such. All of which said lady friend has proven expertise in and is well known for, we are told. (A bit ironic, if you ask me, that we need to be told that she's famous -- wouldn't we have heard of her already?)
     
    And what a lady friend! The voluptuous MILF-like Sunanda Pushkar with her pouting lips and her coiffed hair qualifies to be the personification of Savita Bhabhi to any young Indian male or in fact any male. I can bet that if she were a frumpy blowsy matron, this scandal would've just blown over, assuming it took place at all. But then who are we kidding? Would she have been Tharoor's girlfriend if she were a fat, ugly, dowdy, curmudgeonly widow? Or if she were a man? Would Tharoor have worked his mentoring magic to do her (or him) a great big favor? These may be politically incorrect questions to raise, but you know the answers as well as I. 
     
    The media wasted no time in flashing pictures of Tharoor cavorting with Pushkar at art exhibitions and other social events, but the woman has remained mysteriously silent (except for issuing just a simple and short statement denying any wrong-doing and expressing outrage at being projected as a proxy for Tharoor on the board of the Kochi IPL franchisee). Either she doesn't have the balls to come out and face live news cameras, or the ever so gallant Mr Tharoor has played protector and ensured that she is shielded from such ignominy.
     
    And that's how the luscious Ms Pushkar came to be Mr Tharoor's bete noire. For a mindset that requires men and women to sit in different sections of the hall in a wedding reception, the sex angle in this drama is a bit too much to take. She's an attractive young widow with a successful career and he's a dashing, much-accomplished man of the world, a Minister and member of the Indian parliament, twice married and now single and eligible. It's a bit imprudent of someone like him to gallivant with someone like her, and then use his good offices to promote her business, knowing what kind of a gallery of rogues he has walked into in his present job as minister and how thirsty they are for his blood. India's self-righteous right wing, already piqued by Tharoor's earlier misdemeanours and his ability to slip out of tight corners by leveraging his mastery over the art of nuanced articulation, pounced on the glib Mr Tharoor this time, grabbing him by the short and curly. The left joined in too, for good measure, looking for a good slug-fest and some more Congress-bashing. 
     
    The nation has other far more compelling issues before it at this time. Moreover when it comes to punishing the corrupt and the deviant, there are far bigger fish we should be frying than the soft-spoken, well-meaning Tharoor, whose biggest crime -- other than a few careless tweets he threw about in a cavalier fashion some time ago (which even a nobody like me has critically blogged about), is merely the fact that he's got a soft spot for attractive women and tries to help them out in their professional pursuits. 
     
    The only good thing this scandal has done is to blow open the lid on the Pandora's box that contains all the really murky goings-on behind the closed doors of the IPL, involving some real crooks. Hopefully, we will learn more as the various authorities proceed with their investigations.
     
    But Tharoor? Vraiment, ceci n'est pas une pipe!
     
     

    Permalink | Leave a comment  »

  • The Truth About Cats And Dogs

    I came across an interesting quote from Alfred North Whitehead a few days ago: 

    If a dog jumps in your lap, it is because he is fond of you; but if a cat does the same thing, it is because your lap is warmer. 

    In the wake of the recent passage of the health-care reforms legislation architected by the Obama administration, I couldn't help likening the pattern and structure of this rather astute observation to the two different kinds of attitudes towards the subject of distribution of wealth -- If the conservatives believe in distribution of wealth, it is because they want to avoid being guillotined; if the liberals believe in it, it is because they find it difficult to live with the guilt of gross inequity.

    And an observation on the side to go with that, as a corollary -- There are those who believe in reducing economic disparities because they hate the rich and there are those who believe in it because they feel for the poor.

    Goes back to my view in an earlier post about how what really makes sense is to rise above the emotional and moral plane on which these arguments have typically been fought, and take the issue of distribution of wealth to a more transcendental level, where the only thing that matters is focusing on the goal of sustainability as a design goal for society.

     

    Permalink | Leave a comment  »

  • Reservations About Reservations

    At the time of writing this post, it seems unlikely that the Women's Bill will be passed into Law today, on International Women's Day. I have mixed feelings about this Bill, as I do about anything that involves social reform through the creation of quotas. This usually applies to the historically underprivileged / exploited / abused / oppressed sections of society, and we try and make it good by reversing the discrimination against them through discrimination for them, by law.

    As a people we represent a rich social and cultural diversity, but we have not yet learned to embrace this diversity. Instead we have deepened the divisiveness, be it on the basis of caste, creed, ethnicity, race, gender, religion, language and even physical or mental ability. And sometimes we've set out to do good and ended-up making it worse. According to me, reservations and quotas are like that. My heart goes out to the oppressed but my head remains unmoved when it comes to special considerations for them. Here's my logic, laid out over 4 simple statements:
    1. I do not believe in discrimination of any kind
    2. Reservations and quotas, by their very definition, differentiate one group of humans from another
    3. They are therefore yet another form of discrimination
    4. That is why I do not believe in them
    For once, I am not sure what I would wish for, as far as today's outcome in Parliament is concerned.

    Happy Women's Day (though I have mixed feelings about that too, but maybe we'll talk about it in another post).

    Permalink | Leave a comment  »

  • My Answer to the Teaser

    First of all, a big thank you to all who've had the patience to read and comment on my previous post over the weekend. As promised, here's my answer to the teaser:

    No, because (A) implies acceptance of what is perceived to be a perpetual truism while (B) challenges the status-quo, questions what seems to have been taken as fact so far, and implies that it is time for change.  
     
    A question of the form "Why did (something) have to be (this way)?" is semantically equivalent to the statement "Granted, (something) has to be (this way)" followed by "But why?" which may either represent genuine curiosity regarding causation or a rhetorical question that makes (A) sound like an anguished lament on the state of things (as in "Why, Oh Why?")
     
    A question of the form "Why does (something) have to be (this way)?" is semantically equivalent to the statement "Sorry, I reject the proposition that (something) has to be (this way)" followed by "And even if it is, or has been, are there any compelling reasons that require that it continues to remain (this way)?"

    Most responses that came in through comments on the post appear to be more or less along similar lines. Not much of a brain teaser, then, and perhaps Flyweight might have been its more appropriate weight class, given its lack of intellectual heft. But do remember that the teaser was designed not just as a brain teaser but also a teaser-trailer, to whet your appetite for discourse on the larger issue. Which is a good segue into my next point.

    Also as promised, I shall soon present my take on the topic of benevolent dictatorship being an oxymoron at my 'main' blog since it's a bit too long for this mini-blog. At the time of posting this, I'm still working on the draft. It will be there soon, I promise. Look for my updates on twitter and facebook -- the title of that post will be the question (B). My special friends who are not active on either will receive an email. Once it is up there, do feel free to jump into the debate and post your comments.

    Oh and meanwhile, if you disagree with my answer to the teaser as outlined here above, I'd love to know why. So please comment right here below!

    Permalink | Leave a comment  »

  • A Bantamweight Teaser Around One Word

    Here's a bantamweight teaser, for bright minds that are very bored on a Saturday afternoon.

    Articulated below are two questions that are almost identical, except for one word. If you think they both mean the same thing, respond with a "Yes" in the comment box, else respond with a "No, because ___<state your reason here>__". I must hasten to add that I am not looking for what my MA 201 course instructor in IIT used to call a "trivial" resolution, such as: (A) is in the past tense and (B) in the present tense. Let's go a step beyond that and look at the big picture.

    (A) Why did benevolent dictatorship have to be an oxymoron?

    (B) Why does benevolent dictatorship have to be an oxymoron?

    Remember to focus on the teaser here -- the main question, which is: Do (A) and (B) mean the same thing or do they mean different things? In this post, I am not soliciting your opinion on whether or not you think benevolent dictatorship is an oxymoron. We will have that discussion in the next post, which will open with my own answer to this teaser, and then present my take on the oxymoron in question, inspired by an interesting comment thread that unfolded on my facebook page over the last day or two.

    OK! Go for it!

    Permalink | Leave a comment  »

  • The Lighter Side of (Anti)Social Enterprise

    These days one hears a lot of talk about innovation and social entrepreneurship. A passing glance at recent activity in this sector brings out several interesting models that combine creative ingenuity with the spirit of enterprise. But I would never have imagined that something like stone pelting can be a serious business. Surprise Surprise. According to some sources, stone pelting is already fast becoming an industry. (Since social enterprise doesn't seem appropriate, though it qualifies on several grounds, let's call it antisocial enterprise.)

    This news item could well have qualified for a "in more WTF news" kind of tweet on twitter, but I thought it deserved better treatment than just "tweetment", so this post marks my humble debut in political satire. When I saw the news-flash that the stone pelting king-pin was apprehended, in my mind's eye I had already started envisioning a fictitious TV interview of the CEO of "Rapid Lapidators Pvt. Ltd." (with the tag line "We lapidate to liquidate"), a Srinagar-based start-up that has already got its first round of funding from an Af-Pak based foreign director investor. It goes something like this ...

    [Headline: Your TV Channel now brings you exclusive Antisocial Media coverage of the birth of the stone pelting industry, the first of its kind in Antisocial Entrepreneurship]

    [On one side of the screen there's a 5 second clip of a mob pelting stones at policemen, in an infinite loop. A watermark bearing the TV Channel's name followed by the words "Exclusive Footage" is running as a continuous ticker tape across the screen]

    TV Channel: Sir, this is the first time you are being interviewed by any TV channel, so we are honoured that you chose to give an exclusive interview to just our channel. Could you tell us a little bit about your business?

    CEO: Sure. First of all, let me clarify that stone pelting is not as easy as it looks. Our roads these days are always littered with stones, thanks to all the maintenance activity that is perennially going on on our roads. So on one hand it seems like any old Patharphekar can pick up a stone and throw it. But to do a really good job, you have to realize that this is an art by itself. One has to be a trained stone pelter and one has to have the knack for stone pelting, to be able to make a career out of it. Everything is important right from the selection of stones to the technique of throwing to the actual harvesting and recycling of thrown stones.

    TVC: What about yourself? How did you get started?

    CEO: Since childhood, I was fascinated by the act of throwing a stone at some symbol of the establishment. I threw my first stone when I was just 4 years old and it hit its target - the windscreen of the then district collector's white ambassador. My uncle complimented me and said - nephew, you will one day become a great stone pelter. As I grew older I developed my skill and started winning trophies at local stone pelting competitions. Those days it was just a hobby for all of us, because we just enjoyed throwing stones. Then one day I said to a couple of my friends - Yaar, why not we make this a business, yaar? This can become a lucrative business in the valley yaar. After all, we could always hop across the border to a hostile neighbouring country and get some unfriendly neighbourhood GO (state actors) or NGO (non-state actors) to fund us and LeT us launch this antisocial enterprise. And we did, and since then there's been no looking back. This has become yet another outsourcing innovation for our country, with our vast resources of unemployed youth. A little bit of research in your own news archives will tell you that there's huge demand for stone pelting outsourcing.

    TVC: That's interesting! Could you give us an industry overview? What about competition? What are your differentiators?

    CEO: As an industry sector, stone pelting is positioned carefully above the Shiv Sena brand of hooliganism but below Maoist insurgence. To those who are looking for the right degree of violence that is not so lethal as to provoke extreme reaction from the establishment, but yet causes enough damage to life and property, we offer the right solution. As a company, we are aware that there is considerable interest in this business in other parts of the country, such as the state of Andhra Pradesh. But we have a far superior offering than the pro-Telangana activists, and our pricing models are also very attractive. We have recently introduced a pay-as-we-pelt model and a outcome-linked model, as opposed to just FTE-linked charge-out rates. Our deliverables are highly visible, thanks to your channel, so transparency is never a problem. Our approach underscores our commitment to results and the fact that we're not just exploiting wage arbitrage opportunities, though all we hire are unemployed youth. We've invested heavily in R&D and have institutionalized the process of innovation - every pelter in our stable is an innovative pelter. We take special care in recruiting and training our staff and we go out of our way to keep the morale high. This is a resource-intensive business and a lot depends on the motivation levels of even our most junior team member. For example, we have an in-depth induction programme for new hires, which includes SPLC training ...

    TVC: Er .. what's that?

    CEO: Oh sorry - SPLC is a jargones (sic) for Stone Pelting Life-Cycle training. 

    TVC: You mean jargon ...

    CEO: Hahn, bus wohi ... You see, once you start studying this industry a little more closely you'll become better acquainted with our jargones (sic) because you see, us lapidators are technical people and technical people tend to invent a lot of jargones (sic). It means that we pay attention to every detail. Like I was telling you, it is important to select the right kind of stones. Some stones crumble easily, others have too smooth a surface - they are actually paybbuls (sic). We need stones that are hard but do not crumble easily, and they should have sharp edges also. In fact, our supply chain specialists have perfect the art of sourcing stones from the best pelting-grade stone suppliers in the industry. That's another differentiator, by the way. Also, we have a highly scalable model since we have access to vast pools of resources that are only too willing to get trained and get a job with us. Lastly, we are very environment conscious and after I returned from COP15 I've initiated a recycling initiative - we pay street urchins to harvest the stones we pelt, after the stone pelting incident. This has also resulted in considerable cost saving, which we pass on to our esteemed customers.

    TVC: Mr CEO, you seem very passionate about your business and I'm sure you would love to talk about it a lot more. But we won't keep you from your tight schedule any longer. Thank you very much for your precious time and for sharing your insights on stone pelting. We wish you the very best for the future.

    CEO: Thanks for having me and giving coverage to our exciting new business. Though our mission statement is "Everybody must get stoned" - a line we stole from the famous lyricist and Music Director Babu Dhillon, as a token gesture, if someone hires us to pelt stones at your TV station, we will humbly decline the offer. If they offer to pay us a heck of a lot more, then we will give you enough warning and wait till you leave the building before pelting. And we'll pass on some of that premium to you. We're professionals after all.

    TVC: Oh that would be wonderful! Your gesture is much appreciated!

    CEO: (beams all around) My pleasure entirely!

    Permalink | Leave a comment  »

  • Friends Like These ...

    My gut reaction to the Pune blast last night was a sense that it was somehow linked with the Shiv Sena protests against the release of Shah Rukh Khan's latest film. I first got the news through a couple of concerned messages from friends I am connected with on social media, checking on people they knew in Pune. I was a bit preoccupied with the blog post I was just finishing (which, uncannily, was about love and hate, among other things) at that time. I vaguely remembered catching the news earlier in the day that most cinema halls in Pune had chosen not to screen the controversial movie, out of fear of incurring the Sena's wrath, notwithstanding the security arrangements and the strong police deployment by the local authorities. But I did not expect things to get so bad so fast. So I hastily put my blog post aside and began investigating this breaking news story.

    As it turned out, this was a bomb blast, a planned attack by terrorists (suspected to be the LeT and/or IM). It wasn't a mob of hooligans on a "spontaneous" rampage (a specialty of the Shiv Sena modus operandi these days -- they've become very good at organizing spontaneous acts of vandalism). And so it wasn't something the Sena activists did, after all. They would not plant bombs and kill people. Not in Pune, for sure. But I could still see a clear connection all the same: my initial gut reaction was not altogether wrong. Quite simply, the Pune police force was too busy with the security bandobast around the many cinema halls where the movie was originally scheduled to show, and the enemy saw this as an opportune moment to strike somewhere else, at a location they had most likely been targeting all along. All they seemed to have been waiting for was the timing.

    Call it bizarre if you like, but it was almost as though the actors at two opposing ends of this horrific drama were colluding to act in concert. Almost as though these terrorists had partners in India whose task it was to create a big enough diversion that the entire law and order machinery would be compelled to focus their time, attention and energies on, exposing the soft underbelly of the city open to attack. I'm not trying to suggest that the Sena was colluding with the terrorists. But hey, with friends like these, who needs enemies?

    Permalink | Leave a comment  »

  • Attacks on Indians in Australia - A Project for Shashi Tharoor

    Is it so difficult to figure out whether there is a racial dimension to what appears to be a sudden surge in the attacks on Indians in Australia over the last year or so?

    Here's a thought (no rocket science involved): The governments of the two countries constitute a panel of sociologists and behavioural scientists (criminal psychologists / cultural anthropologists / ethnographers / urbanologists / whatever other types of relevant experts there might be) from both countries, and direct them to carry out a detailed study of all the reported cases of verbal abuse and/or physical assault and battery on people of Indian origin in Australia over the last few years. This should put an end to the speculation, claims, accusations, allegations and all kinds of name-calling that's been flying around in both directions. 

    If it turns out that racial / ethnic prejudice is the root cause of these attacks, then the Australian governance establishment should acknowledge it and try to fix the root cause instead of staunchly denying racial motivation. Conversely if it turns out that these are just regular instances of urban crime, averagely distributed over a normal cross-section of the population and not skewed in the direction of any specific race or ethnicity, then the Indian media should stop trying to whip-up public outrage by playing the race card every time they broadcast breaking news of a fresh attack.

    I wonder if Shashi Tharoor - arguably the most open-minded, level-headed, rational, sensible and sincere politician in the ruling party - might consider taking this up as a project, instead of getting himself into and out of inane controversies. Especially given the fact that his portfolio of responsibilities requires him to be directly concerned with matters that constitute 'external affairs', rather than with exploring how social media could be leveraged to air his own opinions on policy matters among the twitterati.

    Permalink | Leave a comment  »

  • Abstractionism on a Saturday afternoon

    Quizzers compulsively obsessing over data in a world of facts and figures

    Reporters persistently poring over information in a world of happenstance 
    Researchers relentlessly seeking knowledge in a world of explanations
    Philosophers inexorably aspiring for wisdom in a world of possibilities

    Permalink | Leave a comment  »

  • Woods. And the Sound of a Tree Falling

    Over the last week or so, much has been said and written about Tiger Woods and his recent 'transgressions'. The morally conservative have expressed outrage and disappointment over his infidelity. The more open-minded liberals, like my friend in his blog post, have taken a more tolerant view, drawing distinctions between his private / personal life and his sense of professionalism and commitment to the game, and questioning the sanctimoniousness of his critics. As for me, I do believe in the morality of not hurting people, but do not believe in the morality of sexual conservatism. I think it is OK to do pretty much whatever you like as long as you don't hurt people you care about by reneging on commitments that you've made to them. What that actually translates to in terms of degrees of sexual freedom (or constraints) is for you to work out with the said people in your life, whoever they may be.

    Agreed, a man's private life is nobody else's business, as my friend's post also opines. However, if the man is a celebrity who endorses big brands, who signs contracts that makes him accountable for his behaviour in some way or other, then it's a bit dumb to conduct his life in a cavalier fashion. Not immoral. Just plain dumb. Accenture summarily dropped Tiger Woods as their brand ambassador yesterday and this comes as no surprise. I mean .. duh .. what was he thinking?

    In the course of letting myself get a little carried away with the spirit of word play (thanks to all the metaphors, puns and other figures of speech that bloggers like my friend have been spinning around 'woods' and 'trees'), I was reminded of the old zen-like ponderable: If a tree falls in the woods, would it make a sound if nobody is there to hear it? I think celebrities who endorse brands (especially those where 'integrity' is an important brand value) should conduct their lives with this question in mind. They should make sure that the tree doesn't fall, and if it just has to, then they should make sure that nobody is around to hear it. That's the only way to ensure that private lives remain so.

     

    Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Next page