Ten Years Hence

Ten years have passed. Reconciliation is the theme that surrounds two important events of the last decade. Looking back, at the decade gone by, is an opportunity to see why after a decade long effort, reconciliation becomes a theme. One such opportunity presents itself now. At the beginning of the last decade, United States invaded Afghanistan. Though the intended outcome of the famous invasion is yet to be realised, United States has been making every attempt to spend the last few years by finding peace with Taliban. In India, we have been a witness to one significant ten year spell- Narendra Modi as the Chief Minister of Gujarat. Why do I mention these two different events, located in two different geographical spheres, together?

Many parallels can be drawn here, if one attempts to look deeper. If I further my freedom of imagination, these two events appear alike in many ways. Odds against evens. Turning odds into evens.

When Obama took office, presidency inherited unstable economy and Afghanistan as the biggest worries. Ten years hence, Afghanistan still remains a troubled area. Independence from Taliban, so achieved, has limited meaning in several different parts of the country where druglords still have an impact. With no independent defence machanism, it looks as fragile as it was in 2001. Recent assassination of a former president, killing of Karzai's half brother, incidents like these neither instill confidence nor offer solutions. As the war looked long term affair, United States managed to get international community on board. In the process of taking the war further, it found friends and few foes. US spent dollars, soldiers, political capital, but no concrete results achieved. All in all, war hasn't brought the change that America wanted to see. War only added to already declining status of US. Now as it appears, United States doesn't want to keep spending money in defending the decision of invading Afghanistan. So, it seeks an exit.

Coming back to home, Narendra Modi has acquired the front page in almost every business newspaper in the country since 2002. All known business leaders in India have endorsed his development of the state. If we go by business reports, Modi has turned Gujarat into a model of growth for other states to follow. Ten years into Chief Minister's residence, Modi is still dealing with what he inherited from his first term. He is still surrounded with number of riots court cases. Despite Gujarat's highest growth across all states in the country, Narendra Modi still waits for an acceptance as a leader, both within and outside his party. He is still trapped in an image that refuses to die down; image that still denies him US visa. All in all, development alone has not been able to bring the change Modi would want to see. Modi, it seems, doesn't want to keep spending time defending his 'no-role' during 2002 riots anymore.

As the decade ends, US and Modi both seek to put an end to the image that reminds them of the horrid part of their past. So much has already been invested in defending those misdeeds. Both, as it appears, want to eliminate what both see as a nuisance that overshadows their achievements in the last one decade. United States doesn't want to lose its authority as superpower. Narendra Modi doesn't want to lose an opportunity to become Prime minister someday. Hence, we see display of reconciliation.

In the end, it appears, both United States and Narendra Modi seek one common virtue- "Sadbhaavna"..

Free market, imprisoned minds

If asked to suggest a viable economic model for any 'X' entity, chances are that most of us would advocate a model of free market economy, based on demand-supply equation. As newer products acquire shelf space around us, we are more encouraged towards free market theory, as it increases competition, reduces price, and offers quality. A competitive market - where only best survives. Many of us can safely argue in favour of one product over another, based on personal experience. It is universally accepted principle- whoever offers best shall survive, and survive happily. Not many can deny the benefits of sticking to this model, based on fair competition.

But I have a contention here. My contention is in close relation to the professional sphere. Why is the free market belief forgotten in professional sphere, when we keep advocating it?

As organisations offer annual appraisal to their employees, different reactions follow. Some are satisfied; some are not. Those who are, hail their belief in competitive free market theory- where only best are rewarded, and how it works best for them. Those who are not, denounce the free market theory, arguing injustice. "I contributed so much, I think I truly deserve the 'X' percent hike given", a satisfied employee reasons. An unsatisfied one cites his own reasons for being unhappy.

Free market economists often argue over governmental intervention in pricing mechanism of many commodities. The common contention, in their arguments, is how governmental intervention discourages producers, reduces production, and raises prices. This intervention usually becomes visible when, in an attempt to save one industry, government compromises good prospects of another. That is the story visible.

We witness something on those lines in professional sphere. While deciding percentage of raise in salary, why organisations do away with principle of free market? Why is it that significant contributors end up on the same scale as the lowest? "There are different reasons in that decision", a senior explains in response to my query. He adds that work contribution has limited role in deciding increase in one's annual remuneration.

So, the free market belief- best reward to biggest contributor, takes a hit. One with highest contribution faces the heat in terms of comparative increase in remuneration. It is like a PSU that contributes maximum in revenues, but remains low on returns in terms of bonus, capital for expansion. The argument of helping sick on the expense of healthy follows inevitably. That eventually leaves healthy on the path of falling sick in near future. Sick industry, helped on the expense of a healthy industry, eventually ends up spreading sickness further.

Equate it to professional sphere around. Highest contributor, labouring under the anticipation of rewards, sees limited increase in remuneration. The lowest contributor takes away part of rewards. "But government cannot just think economically", Finance Minister’s usual justification on aiding sick units. What happens when a sick unit is supported by subsidy, extracted out of profits of healthy unit? What happens when the lowest or zero contributors are rewarded, on the expense of highest contributors? We have seen numerous examples in government run institutions to this effect. Such examples are available in private organisations as well.  

So, productive individuals are compromised to accommodate unproductive ones. As sick units are assured with minimum funding, productive units start losing vigour. Thereby, reduction in productivity. Soon this reduction becomes visible.

No organisation will be better off with non-performing assets for long time. If contribution is the only parameter to offer good appraisal, why sudden need to accommodate “the experienced” gains importance? Why does it not matter whether "the experienced" is making any significant contribution to net result? It just does not end here. Government goes one step further to define productively again. PSUs, managing good balance sheets, get revised targets to meet. Anything short of meeting that target allows government to divert capital to aid sick units. Government attempts to give life support to those units which are, essentially, dead, or should be declared dead. If an individual is only engaging one chair, why the organisation is paying him? And if the payment is being made without much thought, what is the contribution?

An economy goes into recession when it accumulates too many non-performing assets. It is a simple economics principle. We are aware of the side effects of having NPAs. But the plea, seeking attention for contributors, reaches no one. When the balance sheet is observed, troubled finances are talked about. Blame game follows. Who got the economy to these troubled levels? Why does the competitive environment, so created, is forgotten while offering appraisals? 

Another principle of free market theory, giving equal opportunity to all, takes a hit. One rupee extra to sick unit is one minute less productivity of healthy unit. Production will surely suffer. Delays will be frequent. Ignorance of these non-performing assets brings most important question to the surface. Why do organisations keep aiding these sick individuals at the expense of real and significant contributors?

Two natural consequences follow.

First- Individuals, with higher or real contribution, start losing vigour in performing day after day. Individuals, with next to nothing contribution, still survive with no fear of losing anything. So, bad loans keep rising. Government, with certain benefits in mind in aiding sick units, gives rise to NPAs. Government insists banks to offer credit for sick industry. Banks follow orders, only to realise that there are too many unpaid receipts.

Two- the overall productivity reduces. The healthy units focus more on partial treatment meted out. Idea of expansion is forgotten. Desired productivity is never achieved. NPAs become difficult to handle. At the end, organisation's growth suffers. 

When simplicity becomes rarity

Why subject the subject to subjectivity?

If the above question makes you feel sick, do blame me. I would welcome if anyone pins blame on me for being sick with that sentence. First, let me admit that I do not know anything about universally accepted linguistic principles. Now, Who would want to listen or read lines like subjecting the subject to subjectivity? It is an imaginary sentence that has no specific origin or usage. The reason for writing it is actually making an attempt at chasing this new trend in news language to its extreme. With the current trend, the above line may one day find place in some TV channel. We do listen or read unique lines everyday through our newspapers or television news channels. I, as many others, follow what I get to listen or read through available resources. Mostly related to current affairs, I do come across this new trend in the language everyday. It is part of my daily professional requirement. In the process, I inevitably raise questions to myself- Why take away simple words from language and fill the space with 'complex invention of unnecessary phrases'? Why hate simplicity of language if that is the magic of it?

History books tell us that human race evolves over time, so does the language of human race. Hence, changes or modifications are seen in all walks of life including the language we speak or write in. Every language has its grammar. So you stick to the grammar as much as you can. Sometimes you take liberty from specified rules and make it more convenient for yourself. This modification is also known as adaptation. And it is a natural process. It can also qualify as linguistic innovation.

But many people, mostly from news business, do not seem to believe in natural evolution of language and its traits. Therefore, forced evolution takes effect. Even if provided with the best of conditions, a fruit takes its time to ripe. It can ripe days before its natural time, if forced by a chemical conditioning. But we know how a fruit would taste if the natural growth is advanced by applying artificial means.

Television journalism makes fruit ripe even before existence of that fruit is established. I will again make the same request. Watch TV news and observe the language used. Why do we replace simple words with more complex, newly invented phrases? Why do we pretend to be masters of language when we are not? Why the simplicity of language condemned and complexity preferred? Is there any benefit out of it? As I see it, there is none.

At least in India, we see inflation of already crowded news vocabulary. For instance, Why write "big blow" when blow is what you mean? Why say "massive loss" when loss is what you report? Why say "big tragedy" or huge tragedy" when tragedy alone suffices? Look around, you will observe, these words have influenced language as used in daily lives. Television channels take liberty to be flexible with grammar. This liberty has done more damage to language. Unwarranted modifications have replaced rules.

There is no dearth of words in english language, if the only objective is to multiply the significance of news by putting a word here and there. Won't  the usage of the phrase "Racism beyond shame" categorise racism as a lesser crime? Or an acceptable act? Then how will one define "racism under shame"? Racism itself is an unacceptable act, why set boundary and re-define it? But 'racism beyond shame' becomes acceptable. Simplicity is treated like contempt of complexity. Usage of simple verb, adjective qualifies as poor linguistic calibre.

As I said above, we are not in the business of amending the existing grammar. Though Innovation in language can be accepted without much argument. But how can an unwarranted invention be acceptable? People who have brought news vocabulary at this juncture see nothing wrong with the degradation of language. Not because they don't care, but because they do not know that the degradation has already begun. In fact,  they are playing an active role in it. Not that anybody is bothered, but by the time remedy is thought about, wounds spread to every part of the body.

When you read 'a subject is subjected to subjectivity', you inevitably take note of it. It makes one think whether there is any dying need to add adjectives, edit verbs, play with nouns, when simple verbs can be trusted with the job. Every language has its own grammar. Not to decorate the language, but to maintain the uniformity.

Linguistic discipline is the backbone of this profession. Simplicity is the first lesson. If it is not respected, we will end up with new dictionary every year that neither has the right word nor the right meaning. Editorial immunity, guaranteed under the constitution, can not become a reason for hitting new low everyday. The current trend neither decorates the language we use, nor does it help in maintaining uniformity of any kind.
Since linguistic complexity has become daily business, simplicity of language has become an asset. If you possess simplicity of lanuage, cherish it.

Ping-Pong- Game of mutual understanding

A Politician/Journalist has a 24/7 working hours. I do not know the origin of this statement, but I can testify as witness as I see it through cameras everyday. With whatever understanding I possess, I can surely say that the statement is not wrong. There's catch here- do they work for each other? Difficult to understand whether politicians keep media busy or media keeps politicians busy. Is there a mutual respect treaty that makes working for each other a mutually agreed framework ?

For instance, since the day Anna Hazare, Baba Ramdev have started their respective movements against corruption, both Congress, BJP address press conferences everyday accusing each other of playing politics. Those who believe that only Cricket is played in India need to see this game of politics as well. Press conference was not a daily phenomenon till few months back. It has become a daily event only recently. Answering accusations, raising questions through media has turned press conferences into Monday to Friday Television soup with a garnish full of twists every week. Shoe throwers have added flavour to it. I wonder when I see political press conferences everyday, only to issue a rebuttal. 

Spokespersons have a tough job as they are assigned to issue clarification for something they weren't  involved in. Hence, more than offering party's stand on an issue of public concern, or a clarification on some faux pas, leaders from both the parties look like playing ping pong. A hit from one side has to be answered by a more clever hit from the other side. A simple ping pong principle.

Do not take it as politician/journalist bashing. This ping pong does not exist between the politicians alone. Journalists have their own clever hits in between. The real ping pong is played between politicians and journalists. It is a game of balancing both the sides for convenience. Get a comment from one side and balance it by getting a harsh comment from the other side irrespective of the requirement. Doing things irrespective of the requirement can qualify as pro-active measure as well. It is win win situation of sorts. When leaders from both sides fall in the well laid trap, absolve yourself completely. Put words in mouth, declare it as war, and call it war of words between politicians. Colonial cousins- the way we do it.

This mutually agreed framework has created new breed of politicians on both sides who love to talk on any issue whenever opportunity knocks. It has also led to the creation of new breed of journalists (professional compulsion does not allow me to name one) who survive on this act-react theory everyday. Just visit a party office, extract a comment, create a news story. Follow it by getting a rebuttal of the comment. Comment seekers started seeking reaction, reaction seekers started seeking rebuttal. If someone acts, somebody else will surely re-act. Isaac Newton must be happy that Indian politicians are addressing press conferences everyday to prove his third law of motion right.

That somewhat shifts the dynamics of politics and journalism. This ping pong turns the table. Politicians act like journalists. They keep raising questions for their brethren in the other party instead of answering themselves. Journalists become spokespersons. They keep giving clarification and reactions through their sources as to why a party/leader did what it did. At the end, it is a mutual respect that drives both politician and journalist.

Imagine a situation if scribes stop entertaining every silly comment offered by a politician. Imagine spokespersons stop entertaining every silly question asked by news hungry journalist. What will happen ?

Torturous, unnecessary news stories will be thrown out of every TV channel. Every spokesperson will answer instead of raising questions. Every journalist will ask instead of answering questions quoting poor sources.

Cut out of that quick imagination and observe what you see. You save me, I save you. At the end, the ping pong continues.

(P.S.- I am part of this game).

Pakistan- A "media friendly" nation

Given the service it does to the international community, Pakistan should be listed as most favoured nation by United Nations. I am sure of getting support from every nation on such a proposal. International media will definitely come forward in turning this proposal into reality.

Pakistan has been consistently serving as content provider of news media across globe. BBC, CNN, ABC, Reuters are all grateful to Pakistan's intelligence agency ISI. It is only ISI that makes sure that the international media has something to telecast, write every day. ISI ensures that the international reporters, who have been spending their life thousands of kilometres away from their families, get something to report back home and justify their salaries.

Since 2000, Pakistan has been consistent in providing news to every media house in the world. Journalists who cover Asia for BBC, CNN, NYT are more relaxed than Washington or London court reporter. From Christopher Amanpour to Barkha Dutt, all owe some amount of their success to Pakistan.

ISI does not believe in discriminating against its own. Hence, it provides content not only to ever hungry International media, but also to its own news media. One day it is about possible army coup, the next a terror attack. There is always some story keep floating involving ISI, Pak army, Pak government. There is always a conspiracy at work. Long before Osama Bin Laden was killed in a mansion in Attotabad, Pakistan had started providing some news story to all media houses across globe. Former Pervez Musharaf had said it several times that Osama Bin Laden may be dead. He had said it on several occasions. That was his way of providing story to news media. So, contribution extends from terrorists in the country to the President of the country.

Looking for some good story on Monday morning, newsroom feels confident that friend Pakistan will not disappoint. They no more need to be anxious about their editor's possible anger because Pakistanis are on the job. Look at any Indian newspaper archive from last 10 years for instance, there will be atleast one news story related to Pakistan. BBC, CNN cannot have a South Asia news bulletin without mentioning Pakistan in it.

ISI has built a very unique way of keep serving their international brethren. If the administration is on leave, it arranges Pakistanis in other countries to fill in. It not only gives news from Pakistani soil, it has also started contributing from other nations where Pakistanis are residing. This contribution deserves to be honoured. From Durand line to Chicago courtroom, Pakistan is serving newspapers, news channels regularly without charging anything. It is only because of Pakistan that many people in media business are surviving.

ISI is so committed that if it fails to provide fodder, it keeps people like Shahid Afridi, Veena Malik, A Q Khan as back up.

ISI is unique, only they can be so

First, they do something that becomes news. Second, they deny it. Third, evidence says that they did it. Fourth, they are targeted. Fifth, they are acted against. Sixth, they admit. ETC...

 At the end, it is Pakistan that helps.

There are innumerable instances of Pakistan dominating headlines, in turn, editorials in the newspapers. It is only Pakistan that can sidetrack stories of Middle East uprising. It provides page one story with an article on edit page and one on an OP-ED page.

Pakistanis have become more important than any star in any other country. A country with negligible growth rate, no tourism can still generate news on regular basis. The contribution is not limited to journalists, Pakistan also takes good care of publishing houses. There are new books on Pakistan every year. It is only because of Pakistan that authors earn their royalty. Many think tanks get funding because they concentrate their study on Pakistan. Many strategic experts owe their luxurious lives to Pakistanis.

From media, authors to cricket, everyone is covered. Army, ISI have all elements for daily news. Pakistan is so committed in its duty of serving media, it also compromises its sovereignty for it.

Pakistan is the only consistent performer who never failed any one. Taking Pakistan's sincerity on this front into consideration, IMF, World Bank, and ADB all should create a separate fund for Pakistan. All major economies should pledge annual amount to this great nation.

Pakistan has been created to help society in many different ways. Only Pakistan has the potential to do it. Most fortunate is world news media that is being benefited almost on daily basis. One can say that India or many other countries can qualify in the same category, but unlike Pakistan, these countries lack consistency and variety. They lack masala.

Given the contribution mentioned above, Pakistan needs to get the honour it deserves. All institutions in that country need attention. It should not surprise anyone if Pakistan starts charging for this uninterrupted contribution in the welfare of governments, authors, and journalists.

The Leader and his Henchmen (Part-2)

 Account, ability & accountability

(They rise to the occasion, but only till leader catches their rise. They apply rules only till leader keeps an eye. They hide their inabilities behind their raised voice. They rely on leader for royalty in exchange of their loyalty.)

Henchmen start briefing newcomers about the kind of approach they need to adapt to in order to survive in the organisation. To make their point clear, they cite themselves as an example of being an exceptional soldier. "It took me number of efforts to reach where I am today", one henchman declares. As the leader fulfils henchmen's demand of more heads to get the work done, henchmen start creating a coterie out of newly available heads. The competitive henchmen start taking competition as a challenge to show the leader that they are committed to further his agenda. Competition between henchmen takes centre stage. As the coterie will be constituted by picking people from the newly available lot, every henchman tells newcomers that they should be strictly following his/her orders. Every henchman seeks maximum out of the new lot. They even start identifying people from the new lot who could win them some points over other henchman.

Some Individuals from the newcomers do not wish to follow what they are being dictated. Not even through with their introduction to the work and environment, they find becoming a part of henchmen's coterie unnecessary. They refuse to choose sides. That creates opportunity for these competitive henchmen to create coterie within the coterie. Those, who choose to stay neutral in the henchman versus henchman battle, are implicated in artificial controversies. Creation of artificial controversy is the easiest job for henchmen. They are the masters of this game. Disgruntled newcomers, thinking about immediate relief, knowing that they have to be part of some coterie to survive, choose to go with least troublesome henchmen.

An assigned task, which the leader hails as the most important part of the duty, falls on henchmen who, at the first place, were never eligible to carry out such a task. As the henchmen are the ones who have been promoted to perform this 'most important' duty, start complaining about non-cooperation by people other than their coteries. They start telling leader about the non-cooperation being the only reason for the objective lying unfinished. They even convince leader that how his orders can't be implemented due to non-cooperation by these 'other' people. "It is only because of them that your vision is hampered", they reason. Henchmen's dislike for these 'others' starts soaring. They now identify names, to be implicated, when leader demands answers for not following the standards set by him. When leader starts accountability business, henchmen do not hesitate in naming people. Henchmen hate these 'others' more as these 'others' are the ones who point out their mistakes in the presence of newcomers and the leader.

When leader starts accountability business, he points only to the people other than his henchmen & their coteries. Fearing that he may lose loyal henchmen, he holds only 'others' accountable.

To satisfy henchmen, leader, raising his voice, defines objectives again. He re-issues already issued order about following his objectives. The leader publicly declares that those who are not co-operating (with his henchmen) will be taken to task. He doesn't listen to others' side. He knows listening to “others” will mean taking action against his henchmen. He also knows that once henchmen are accused of wrongdoing, his leadership will be questioned too. As the drama unfolds, 'others' once again become victim of public humiliation.

First coteries are formed. People who refuse to take side or who just wish to focus on work are implicated whenever the opportunity knocks. Leader, least interested in looking into the whole saga, appoints most loyal henchman to deal with other henchmen. This person, who is expected to clean the mess, creates more mess by creating one more coterie of people who become his eyes and ears. Enjoying the proximity to the leader, this person becomes self-appointed leader of all henchmen.

Leader, on the behest of loyal henchmen, holds everyone other than henchmen & co responsible for failure. He asserts how he has been let down by 'others'.

Witnessing this game, the whole population loses hope in leader's ability in dealing with this mess. Leader even forgets the very principles he fervently propounded two weeks earlier. He even refuses to acknowledge the hard work done by people other than his henchmen & co.

Principles forgotten, people ignored. Leader even cuts down his connection with these henchmen on daily basis as the voice of foul cry grows. He does not want to be seen declaring his henchmen idiot. He finds another way of balancing the situation. He gives henchmen power of attorney. "These attorneys, with power in their hands, plead for themselves".

First they dictate, second they run, third they start taking decisions, fourth they start ruling.

They know nothing. They lack vital ingredients to operate at senior level. It is the henchmen who run the show now. If something goes wrong, it is because of these 'others'. If the show is a success story, it is because of leader's vision, henchmen's hard work, and coterie’s loyalty. Leader honours his henchmen, henchmen appreciate coteries.

It becomes daily business. Henchmen, in turn, become leader. Coterie, in turn, becomes henchmen.

(Concluded).

The Leader and his henchmen (Part-1)

 Plan & Implementation

The leader believes only in 'proposing plans’, issuing orders. He does not talk about its implementation. He assures everyone that the proposed plan is a radical step. He authorizes people to implement the “plan”. Implementation is closely monitored by the leader himself. Individuals, appointed as the bright kids in the class, first look at the selection in the “implementation brigade” as an obstacle in their peaceful life. Though, they treat the selection as a nuisance, their inner soul is satiated, treating the selection nothing short of a long deserved honour.
The leader, sitting on the high ground, looking at the implementation, sticks to the plan. The leader re-asserts himself that the plan is revolutionary. Individuals seek to make maximum out of this implementation, for it holds the key to their luxurious future. Justifying the selection as right and unquestionable, People, so authorized, become competitive. Selection in the “implementation brigade” is defended at the cost of proper implementation of the plan. Over the period, these people focus less on plan, more on their voice reaching the leader. To prove they are on the job, implementation brigade shouts, yells. Hearing his "authorised people" yelling, leader becomes confident about the plan.
Leader, hiding his plan behind this proposed plan, feels satisfied that he can further his authority as he pleases. As the implementation brigade is complimented by the leader, these individuals from the brigade start justifying their acts, words, moods. As the Excitement of successful implementation of the plan takes over, people start suggesting amendments to the leader’s plan. Leader, focussing only on his plan behind the proposed plan, ignores the amendments. Brigade, observing leader's ignorance, further their amendments. Rule changes again.
The set of amendments start replacing the original plan. Amendments become "new plan". As the amendments become acceptable, popular within the working population, leader starts feeling erosion in his authority. Leader, keeping quiet on the amendments, takes charge again. Brigade becomes confident with amendments as new plan. Leader re-asserts his authority through new ideas to an already amended plan. As the brigade feels humiliated by leader's intervention in the amended plan, they propose to continue with their amendments to the original plan. He tells everyone, including the implementation brigade, that his idea was never understood. Leader orders roll back of the plan. Leader orders "back to basics".
As the drama unfolds, leader realises that his plan behind the plan worked. His idea of dismantling united opposition was a success. Brigade, having relied upon the implementation of the plan as the guarantee to successful future, feels disappointed. Disappointment increases as the leader is seen appreciating underdogs. Underdogs do not take the appreciation on its face value. For, they know the leader is again proposing a well crafted plan.    
   
First rule rules. Any mention of exception or talk of amendment is treated as contempt. Then rule is sacrificed to accommodate personal aspirations. Then rule is amended to give space to the ideological extension. As rule gives people other than leader an authority, leader scraps the rule itself. Now, Not following rule becomes a rule. It is only after few weeks that people realise that neither rule was important nor implementation mattered. Leader divided his opposition, purpose served.   

To be continued..

वॉट अ बॅड आइडिया सरजी

Message from Idea cellular (Dated- 15th March 2011)
Idea laye hai behtareen naya STD pack kewal Rs 37 mein, kare recharge RV 37 se aur kijiye STD calls UP, Bihar sirf 25p/min poore 30 din ke liye. Shartey Lagoo.

आइडिया की तरफ से आए इस मेसेज को देख ज़रा झटका सा लगा! एसटीडी कॉल के इश्तिहार के रूप मे आया ये मेसेज उत्तर प्रदेश और बिहार के लोगों को टारगेट ऑडियेन्स बना ये बता रहा है की एसटीडी कॉल काफ़ी सस्ती हो चुकी है! अपने अपने घर वालो से सस्ती बातचीत कर सकते हैं! मुझे झटका लगने की क्रिया स्वावाभिक सी थी! वो इसलिए क्योंकि इस तरह की बातें अक्सर राजनैतिक होती है! इस तरह की टारगेट ऑडियेन्स सिर्फ़ किसी राजनैतिक दल की होती है! भाई आख़िर २८ राज्यो वाले इस देश में एसटीडी क्या सिर्फ़ यूपी बिहार में ही लगता है ?

आइडिया मोबाइल मुंबई में अपने पैर जमाना चाहता है! वोडेफोन, रिलाइयन्स और एरटेल जैसे दिग्गज जब अपनी दुकान जमाए बैठे हैं तो आइडिया को कुछ अलग बात करनी होगी! बस इसी अलगपन को ढूँढने के चक्कर में आइडिया ने इस आइडिया का इस्तेमाल किया होगा! इस प्रमोशनल मेसेज को पढ़ खुद आइडिया का कुछ महीने पहले चलने वाला इश्तेहार याद आ गया! उस इश्तेहार में देश की विभिन्न संस्कृति से आए लोग आइडिया का इस्तेमाल कर देश जोड़ रहे थे! तब लगता था की "कॉर्पोरेट इंडिया" को डिवाइसिव पॉलिटिक्स से कुछ लेना देना नही है! पर इस मेसेज को देख लगता है की जब राज ठाकरे को उत्तर भारतीयो की वजह से किए गये अभियान से राजनैतिक फ़ायदा हो सकता है तो फिर "कॉर्पोरेट इंडिया" क्यों पीछे रहे!

आइडिया को अपने उपभोक्ताओ की संख्या बढ़ाने की ज़रूरत महसूस हो रही है! पर क्यों इसमे किसी राजनैतिक दल जैसी बात नज़र आती है! कोई भी नया राजनैतिक दल, पहले से मौजूद दिग्गाजो में, अपनी जगह बनाने के लिए लोगों में दरार लाना ठीक समझता है! इससे उसे चुनावो मे फ़ायदा भी होता है! ऐसे काई उदाहरण नज़र आते हैं! पर अब यही तरीका कॉर्पोरेट इंडिया के मार्केटिंग स्ट्रॅटजी का हिस्सा है! सेकूलरिस्म की बात तब करो जब उसका फ़ायदा हो! "लोकलाइट्स" की बात तब करो जब उसका फ़ायदा हो! तो फिर "डिवाइसिव पॉलिटिक्स" की बात भी तब करो जब उससे कोई फ़ायदा हो!


राज ठाकरे कम से कम इस बात को तो मानते हैं की वो लोकलाइट्स की बात करते हैं फिर वो डिवाइसिव पॉलिटिक्स है तो है!  हममे से कई लोग आज भी अपना वोट इन्ही विषयो पर तय करते हैं! पर कल अगर आइडिया से इस बारे में पूछा गया तो वो ज़रूर अपने आपको "इंडियन यूनिटी" की दुकान साबित करने मे लग जाएँगे!

(अगर आप आइडिया कंपनी के किसी उच्च पदाधिकारी से मिले तो इस बारे में ज़रूर बात कीजिएगा! ).

The Leader and his Henchmen

Part One
More powerful the leader, less secure he feels. In choosing his circle, he chooses those who will least threaten him, who will best advance his agenda, who will secure his position. He chooses weak men and henchmen.

Part Two
The weaker the man, the more compromised he is, the more dependent he is on the leader. The more unscrupulous the henchmen, the more ruthless he will be on the leader's behalf. Weakness, vulnerability, unscrupulousness become qualifications.

Part Three
Henchmen will then create an artificial crisis. They will make the leader believe that b'coz of this crisis, his leadership comes under crisis. Once leader starts feeling insecure, henchmen offer their service. Henchmen, grabbing opportunity, project themselves as the ultimate saviours.

Part Final
Insecure Leader, anxious to keep the leadership intact, believes in the artificial controversy. Leader relies upon his henchmen. Henchmen raise their authority. Henchmen take control of leadership. Hence, every individual is bypassed, decision taken, henchmen starts ruling.

Is this Manmohan Singh's "Nixon" moment?

There is peculiar similarity between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and late US President Richard Nixon. During his second term as President of United States, Richard Nixon tried every trick in the book to cover up his connection with the Watergate episode. This included major public relations exercise. Before he could make people believe in his no-connection-with- Watergate theory, he had a tough task of making republicans believe in it. At the end, neither Republicans were convinced of his theory nor the people of United States.  

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, surrounded with number of scams, seems to be going in the same direction as Richard Nixon. The only difference, between these two leaders, is that the clean image tag on Manmohan Singh is still intact without challenge from any quarter. 


An effort of rebuilding his public relations, through an interaction with television editors, was seen recently. It was, indeed, a public relation exercise as no other reason can be given for a sudden willingness of an interaction with editors when files on his table are piling up. He had the same interaction with journalists in May 2010 which failed to yield any results. It may be well intended, but Press meet alone cannot rebuild the image.

Manmohan Singh managed to retain his position with an impressive electoral performance. No political editor or expert could gauge the wind in his governments favour. Richard Nixon retained his position with an impressive performance in United States’ electoral history. No political editor or expert could gauge that too.   

Manmohan Singh is the only one who can answer questions related to the corrupt individuals in his cabinet. No less than Prime Minister himself can convince people that all wrongdoing is limited to certain individuals. Not the entire cabinet can be blamed for it. Richard Nixon had people believe that he was not aware of the conduct of his associates. He had to tell people that Watergate was job of certain rogues in his cabinet and not the entire presidency can be blamed for it.  

Congress, the largest party in the government, has already distanced itself from government on number of issues such as price rise, 2G, CWG etc. We see Congress spokespersons unwilling to talk about anything which looks troublesome. That essentially leaves Prime Minister alone to answer opposition’s charges. Republican minority leader, after reading Watergate related transcripts, decided not to defend Nixon anymore. Republicans started avoiding commenting on everyday developments.  He was left on his own to talk on contentious issues.

Prime Minister wrote to A Raja asking him to follow auction process. Raja did not budge. Manmohan Singh could have asked A Raja to strictly follow his suggestion, but he only wrote one letter. That was the right time to act. Manmohan Singh chose not to. Richard Nixon was not involved in the entire gamut known as Watergate. He was not even aware of the purpose of Watergate burglary. He had those crucial moments when he could have asked his aides not to breach the boundary. Nixon chose not to.

Manmohan Singh, at the end of press meet, did say that he is not as guilty as made out to be. The message was clear to understand that there exists guilt. Richard Nixon addressed the nation three times after Watergate expose. His only argument was the same- I am not as guilty as made out be. The message was clear- there exists guilt.

    

Richard Nixon, while addressing questions from media on possible resignation, said several times that he has been given responsibility by people to govern.  Manmohan Singh said the same thing in as many words.

That leaves only one similarity, to be matched, between Richard Nixon and Manmohan Singh. Richard Nixon had to resign after an impressive tally in his last election. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

Time will fill that blank.    

  

फोन नही ब्लॅकबेरी

हमारे देश में मोबाइल क्रांति शुरू हो अब पुरानी भी लगने लगी है! अब एक नयी क्रांति का दौर है! हम इसे ब्लॅकबेरी क्रांति कह सकते हैं! अपने आसपास देख लीजिए, पता चल जाएगा की ब्लॅकबेरी की क्रांति के दिन चल रहे हैं! ज़्यादातर लोगों के हाथ में अब फोन नही ब्लॅकबेरी नज़र आता है! कभी सिर्फ़ बिज़्नेसमॅन इसे खरीद पाते थे! वो लोग जो एक जगह बैठ कर अपना काम नही कर सकते, ब्लॅकबेरी खरीद लेते थे! अब यह खिलोना हर किसी के पास है! अगर इसे खिलोना कहने की वजह से कोई मुझसे नाराज़ है तो में माफी माँगता हूँ! जैसे साउथ मुंबई की आंटी अपने कुत्ते को कुत्ता कहने से बुरा मान जाती हैं, वैसे ही आजकल ब्लॅकबेरी को फोन कह देने पर ब्लॅकबेरी धारक बुरा मान जाते हैं! जो इसका इस्तेमाल करते हैं वो एक अलग सी श्रेणी के लोग है! श्रेणी अलग हो ना हो, कम से कम बाकी लोगों से अलग हैं ये दिखाने का मौका ब्लॅकबेरी दे देता है! फोन फॉर बिज़्नेस पर्पस की तरह बाज़ार मे आया ब्लॅकबेरी अब आपके स्टेटस का बिज़्नेस संभाल सकता है! कुछ साल पहले तक फोन होना भी एक स्टेटस था! धीरे धीरे एक अच्छा फोन होना स्टेटस बना! अब ब्लॅकबेरी स्टेटस है! चाहे जीन्स पहनो या पॅंट, ब्लॅकबेरी तो बनता है! अब क्या बिज़्नेस और क्या नौकरी, ब्लॅकबेरी एक ज़रूरत है!

ब्लॅकबेरी नये ह्यूमन पॅटर्न्स को जन्म दे चुका है! कुछ लोगो का समय अपने आप को व्यस्त दिखाने में जाता है! ये उनकी व्यावसायिक ज़रूरत है की वो अपने आप को व्यस्त दिखाए! ऐसे में ब्लॅकबेरी साथ देता है! अगर आपके बॉस ने आपको आम फोन पे लगे देखा तो आप पर समय ज़ाया करने का आरोप लग सकता है! ब्लॅकबेरी ले लीजिए, बॉस कभी शक नही करेंगे! इस्तेमाल किसी भी वजह से हो, आपके पास ब्लॅकबेरी है तो आप दुनिया के उन चंद लोगो में से है जो अपने आप में किसी पब्लिक फिगर से कम नही हैं!

बाज़ार में आने के बाद के कुछ दीनो तक ब्लॅकबेरी सिर्फ़ अपने पैसे से खरीदा जाता था! अब अभिभावक खुद ही बच्चो को गिफ्ट देते हैं! ब्लॅकबेरी ने काफ़ी लोगो का अकेलापन भी दूर किया है! अपने दोस्त का इंतेज़ार करते हुए ब्लॅकबेरी से खेलने से लेकर घर अकेले बैठ के अमेरिका वाली चाची से फ्री मेसेज मेसेज खेलने तक, ब्लॅकबेरी ने सबका साथ दिया है!

ब्लॅकबेरी क्रांति के कुछ और पहलू भी नज़र आते हैं! वो लोग जो एक पल भी बिना कुछ किए गुज़ार नही सकते, ब्लॅकबेरी को अपना साथी बना लेते हैं! सिगरेट पीते हुए पिछले पचास मेसेजस पढ़ना! कई बार पढ़े ईमेल्स दौबारा पढ़ना! कुछ लोगों को देख तो अंदाज़ा लगाना मुश्किल होता है उन्हे आदत सिगरेट पीने की है या ब्लॅकबेरी की! अब ब्लॅकबेरी लिया है तो फिर आसपास वालो को भी दिखाया जाए! जो काम साधारण फोन से भी हो सकता है उसे ब्लॅकबेरी से कर देना भी समाधान देता हैं! अपने पास ब्लॅकबेरी है तो सामने वाले से बिंदास पूछ लो- भाई कों सा फोन इस्तेमाल करते हो? अगर ब्लॅकबेरी हो तो मॉडेलो में अंतर पर चर्चा कर लो! और अगर दूसरा फोन है तो ब्लॅकबेरी होने के फ़ायदे गिना दो! बस आख़िर ये बता दो की ब्लॅकबेरी नही तो कुछ नही!

एक ब्लॅकबेरी धारक ने ब्लॅकबेरी के होने का मतलब कुछ इस तरह समझाया- यार ब्लॅकबेरी में बात है, हाथ में पकड़ के चलो तो आसपास के लोग ज़रा चमक जाते हैं! ब्लॅकबेरी ने मोबाइल फोन की तरह कई लोगो की ज़िंदगी आसान की है! ब्लॅकबेरी के इस सामाजिक रूप को भी सराहा जाना चाहिए! ब्लॅकबेरी के बारे में दिए कई तर्क किसी आम फोन के लिए भी दिए जा सकते हैं! पर ऐसा किसी ब्लॅकबेरी वाले से मत कहिएगा, क्या पता आपको अपना लेटेस्ट ब्लॅकबेरी दिखा ये साबित कर दे की ब्लॅकबेरी नही तो कुछ नही!