On Respect, Recognition, Biasedness and Overreaction

Recently, I came across clippings from a television interview of Mary Kom on 'Aap Ki Adalat with Rajat Sharma'. The interview attracted widespread criticism, largely due to the tone she adopted and certain remarks she made while speaking about her ex-husband. As someone who has long admired Mary Kom, I found the interview deeply disappointing.

Mary Kom’s achievements need no reiteration. She is one of the most accomplished athletes in Indian sporting history: a six-time World Amateur Boxing Champion, an Olympic bronze medalist, Asian Games and Commonwealth Games gold medalist, and a recipient of India’s highest sporting and civilian honors, including the Padma Bhushan, Padma Shri, Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna, and Arjuna Award. Beyond boxing, she has served as a Member of Parliament and is widely regarded as a pioneering figure who helped bring visibility and acceptance to women’s boxing in India. 

Several of Mary Kom’s major awards and victories came after she became a mother, and this is widely regarded as one of the most remarkable aspects of her career. Her journey from humble beginnings in Manipur to global sporting acclaim is inspiring enough to have warranted a biographical film. I have been a big fan of Kom.

It is precisely because of this stature that her remarks felt jarring. Publicly discussing personal disputes is rarely dignified, and in this case, it seemed unnecessary. More troubling was the manner in which she questioned her ex-husband’s role and contribution, making statements along the lines of “what kind of man lives off a woman’s money,” alleging that he withdrew money without her consent, and mentioning that he never had a successful career. These remarks were tasteless.

One could argue that this was a case of being caught off guard by the media. People who are not media savvy, can get sucked into a drain in front of cameras. Television seeks headlines and can exploit personalities; Mary Kom did seem to have been drawn into that trap, which did not favor her long-term reputation. However, after watching the clips, it is difficult to attribute everything to lack of media training. The remarks did not seem accidental; they appeared to reflect genuine beliefs. There seemed to be a clear lack of respect for her ex-husband as he did not earn much and, during their marriage, remained dependent on her earnings.

The videos and comments of Mary Kom triggered several thoughts and emotions. For example, it immediately reminded me of a remark made by actor and stand-up comedian Chris Rock that “Only women, children, and dogs are loved unconditionally. A man is only loved under the condition that he provide something.”

It also raised a hypothetical question. What if the comment was made by a successful man for his wife who, quit her job and set aside her passions to take care of home and children? What if the man had said that his wife was not successful and had belittled her contribution? What if the man had questioned her for withdrawing money or spending money without his permission?

All hell would have broken loose. The backlash would have been swift and severe, ...and rightly so.

This also brought to mind a personal anecdote involving two people I know. One of them is an entrepreneur - intelligent, driven, and successful. After a strong career in financial services, she pivoted to start her own business, which is now doing well and receiving media attention. She is married to someone I know, and both are part of a common WhatsApp group. Lets just call her - Sierra Kilo.

On one occasion, Sierra Kilo shared a news item or media coverage related to her business in the WhatsApp group. It naturally triggered a wave of congratulatory messages. Everyone applauded her success. One member of the group – the second character in this anecdote – congratulated her 'and her husband' in his message. In my view, it was a jovial, light-hearted, and seemingly harmless comment, likely sent out of courtesy since Sierra Kilo's husband is also a member of the group...though it certainly could have been avoided.

He referred to the husband as a “sleeping partner,” which, in my interpretation, served a dual purpose: to include the husband and at the same time, not take anything away from Sierra Kilo. I DO NOT believe the term was used in a formal business sense (Sleeping partner (also called silent partner) refers to a person who invests capital in a business but does not take part in its day-to-day operations or management). She, however, did not appreciate the message and objected on the WhatsApp group, clarifying that the business is a 'sole proprietorship'; she is the 'only Founder' and she runs it 'single-handedly'. 

It did not need clarification but its okay.

However, the matter did not end there. She subsequently wrote a 200+ word LinkedIn post on the subject. In it, she questioned why, when a woman entrepreneur succeeds, people say, “Congratulations to you and your husband.” She questioned why “educated, well-meaning individuals struggle to fully acknowledge a woman’s independent professional journey?”. In her words, “I was taken aback. But only briefly. Because, truth be told, this isn’t new. So I did what I always do – tuned out the noise, focused on the work, and kept going.”

The post got some ‘Likes’ and supportive comments, predominantly from women.

I found the <over>reaction immature, over-the-top and reflective of a tendency to frame the situation through a victimhood lens, while simultaneously projecting an image of being brave and unfazed.

What about the common phrase men have heard for generations: “Behind every successful man, there is a woman”. This has been said about business leaders, sportsmen, and almost every man 'who made it'...if he had a female partner. It has even been suggested that gallantry award winners from the military could fight for the country as there was a woman taking care of the home. How many men have posted about it and tried to play the ‘Victim Card’? How many say that why are you taking some credit away?

I feel that whenever it is said that “Behind every successful man, there is a woman”, it is meant as a compliment for the woman, acknowledging their emotional, domestic, or logistical support. I admit it is a big support and must be acknowledged. That is why, most logical men would never take offence, whenever they hear this.

This brings the discussion back to Mary Kom. Was her husband not providing similar support? I cannot claim personal knowledge of their marriage, but in several earlier interviews, Mary Kom herself openly credited her husband, Onler Kom, for standing by her, managing the household, and caring for their children while she trained and competed. She had repeatedly said she could not have achieved what she did without his support.

Why, then, does that support no longer merit acknowledgment? Is it because they are no longer together? Because the gap in their public and financial stature has widened? Or because personal grievances have reshaped her perception of his role? Whatever the reason, it appears that she is no longer comfortable sharing even a fraction of the credit she once willingly attributed to him. That is entirely up to her but she has no business mocking him in front of millions.

Let me make it very clear that the intention of the post is not to bash women (yeah right...too little too late) but I admit that I am getting dangerously close to that territory. I am just sharing my views on avoiding over-reactions, acknowledging your partner (if and wherever possible), being respectful and .....not having the 'Feminism ka Suleimaani Keeda'. (Oh no! I was this close to de-escalating the situation and I screwed up again!!)

On a serious note, my observations are not about any particular gender; I fully acknowledge that men are often insensitive and frequently discount women’s contributions, at times quite blatantly. Another real-life example illustrates this, involving people I know (examples, it seems, are closer than we often think).

A woman I know is married into a family that appears to be well-off (not certain as I am yet to ask them for their bank statements). They are into several businesses - including a two-wheeler dealership, possibly with multiple outlets. She and her husband slogged their asses off to establish and grow the two-wheeler business. While it may have appeared to several people (or they assume) that the husband has done everything, I know for a fact that she also managed several aspects of the business along with managing home and kids. I am not alien to the automotive industry and I had several discussions with her and was always impressed by her understanding and inquisitiveness. They were also planning to expand into a four-wheeler business, and both devoted immense effort over the years to make it happen.

Despite her relentless work and juggling of responsibilities, which included businesses, home, children, husband’s health, in-laws, another person (I know him too) repeatedly made disrespectful remarks. He would often suggest that she is all set, what does she have to worry about, she can chill and enjoy the fruits of her husband’s hard work and enjoy his wealth. 

Highly insensitive (Buddy, you make all of us look bad). In this case, a question similar to the one asked by Sierra Kilo - why educated, well-meaning individuals struggle to acknowledge a woman’s hard work - is entirely valid.

So, stupidity clearly has no gender.

Anyways, much has been said already. Ultimately, this discussion is not about taking sides or keeping score. Contributions, whether professional, emotional, domestic, or logistical, should neither be belittled nor exaggerated to suit a narrative. Acknowledging a partner’s support should not feel like a dilution of one’s own achievement. Genuine insensitivity should be called out but at the same time, if you do not like a comment, do not over-react turn it into a public outrage. 

The real maturity lies in balance: recognizing effort and support where it exists, calling out bias where it is real, and resisting the urge to turn every imperfect interaction into a larger battle.

(NOTE: If you are curious about how the individuals in the two anecdotes responded, here is what followed. The man in the first instance chose not to react to Sierra Kilo’s response; he was taken aback but decided to let it pass. In contrast, the woman in the second instance addressed the remark directly and firmly at an appropriate moment. She is no abla naari - in fact she is quite the opposite - which is precisely why I fondly refer to her as Jwaala Daaku!!)

Language, Politics, and Education: Finding Balance in a Diverse India

I am not sure what I am writing about as I am covering two topics here. First is Language, which has become a hot and highly politicized topic evoking a wide range of emotions. There are debates over 'National Language' and India's 'Three Language Policy'. The whole country is now divided into 'Hindi-Speaking States or Hindi Belt' and Rest of India (largely the southern states). The Hindi-speaking states (largely northern states) do not understand the regional languages especially the languages spoken in the South Indian states and now, several people (not everyone) in the states in South India as well as the state of Maharashtra suddenly do not want to hear anything except their mother tongue. 

This is a highly politicized debate. I feel that when political parties run out of ideas, they start creating divide among people and resort to 'we vs. them'. For example, Raj Thackeray does not like people from UP and Bihar and wanted them to be kicked out of Mumbai. Why? As per him, people from UP and Bihar take away the jobs from Maharashtrians and also pollute the city, commit crimes and what not. Economically backward people in UP and Bihar migrate to bigger cities in search of opportunities and do odd jobs that help them feed their family. They work as security guards, sell vegetables, drive taxis, work as cleaners, plumbers, etc. Yes, some of them may be engaging in crimes, but are crimes committed by people from UP and Bihar only? When we look back at the history of underworld in Mumbai, the involvement of Muslims and Tamilians is significantly high. Why not speak against them? And as far as taking away jobs are concerned, Mumbai being the financial capital, attracts a lot of people from various parts of India - especially Gujaratis, Marwaris from various states. Why not speak against them? Mumbai is such a cosmopolitan city that you would find people from all parts of India. Then why single out people from UP and Bihar? Because they are poor, they do not have a voice, and they are soft targets. Such topics are raised by politicians without a meaningful and productive vision and they use it to get easy and quick mileage. Does not help much and for too long. Look where Raj Thackeray is.

Language debate is similar. Suddenly we hear about incidents in Karnataka, Maharashtra, etc. about arguments and even fights over mother tongue. A delivery boy from north-east India was beaten up in Bengaluru for not being able to speak the regional language of that state. My friend, travelling with his family, was asked to get out of a taxi in Bengaluru for the same reason. Another friend's car was hit by a biker in Pune and instead of apologizing, the biker started arguing about why my friend cannot speak Marathi!! So why is all this happening? It is because political parties are telling people that Hindi is being forced upon them, and they should only speak their mother tongue. 

I completely agree that people in South India (or in any non-Hindi speaking state) must not be compelled to learn or speak Hindi and they should have the freedom. Knowing Hindi would indeed help - especially if you are in transferrable jobs, administrative jobs (IAS), military etc. however, it must not be forced.

But is the story complete? Is it one-sided where only Hindi is being pushed down the throat of people in non-Hindi-speaking states? 

That brings me to the other topic that I want to cover. Education. 

I keep reading about how Indian education system is outdated. We are not promoting practical knowledge and as a result, today's generation is highly unemployable. In today’s day and age, when information is available at the click of a button, we should not compel our children to learn by rote. Instead, the focus should be on topics that would are relevant today and tomorrow. The focus should be on practical knowledge. The focus should also be on life skills.

But what are we doing? In several parts of India (especially the non-Hindi-speaking states), an entire subject is effectively being wasted, which is deeply concerning. Education is extremely expensive, and more importantly, a 'forced' subject could be replaced with something far more useful or better aligned with a child’s interests and aptitudes. 

You may be wondering what am I talking about? Okay, let me take a step back and explain.

Due to the politicization of 'language' (as covered above), several schools in Southern States (and few others. E.g. Maharashtra) are compelling students to learn regional language. For example, I stay in a Southern State and in my daughter's school, she has to learn English, Telugu and pick one between Hindi or Spanish. I could also argue that just like 'Hindi should not be pushed down the throat', regional languages should also not be made mandatory in the respective states. This is politics at the cost of education system and the future of kids.

I acknowledge that it is reasonable for children (native or non-native) within a state to be 'encouraged' to learn the regional language, as language plays an important role in culture, social integration, and local identity. However, concerns arise when such learning is made mandatory rather than encouraged. This issue is further compounded by the reality of frequent inter-state mobility driven by employment for many families.

For example, consider a boy who moves from Delhi to Pune and takes admission in Class 6. He is suddenly required to study Marathi and, understandably, struggles initially. Over time, he manages to cope and even develops some interest. Subsequently, his father takes up a job in Hyderabad, and the child enrolls in Class 7 at a new school. He is then required to study Telugu, and the struggle begins again. What does he ultimately gain? A limited knowledge of Marathi that he is unlikely to retain without continued practice or practical use. I do not even want to take this scenario further where the kid had to move to Delhi in class 8^th or 9^th because - even though it is an imaginary kid - I don't want him to commit suicide in my imagination!!! 

The point is that when each state (or some schools within the state) mandates its regional language as a compulsory subject, children who move often are required to repeatedly start new languages, which can limit continuity and result in only surface-level learning rather than proficiency. It brings me back to my earlier point regarding the broader concern about the relevance of education to future employability. Industry leaders regularly highlight the gap between academic curricula and practical skills. The focus should be on subjects that are relevant today and in the future. Emphasis should be placed on practical knowledge, as well as on the development of essential life skills. 

I hated it when my daughter was compelled to choose between Hindi and Spanish. I want her to know Hindi like people from South India would want their kids to know their mother tongue. At the same time, learning a foreign language is not merely cultural, but a functional/technical skill with clear value in a global economy. Restricting choice by forcing students to choose between Hindi and a foreign language reduces their ability to tailor education to their long-term goals. The impact of such policies is also uneven. For example, students native to a South Indian state can often study English, the regional language, and a foreign language, while students from outside that state must study English, the regional language, and then choose between Hindi and a foreign language. This creates an imbalance in opportunity.

Encouraging regional languages is important but making them compulsory without flexibility does not fully account for modern mobility or the need for choice. Instead, a more balanced approach would promote regional language learning while allowing families the flexibility to decide what best serves their children’s future. Though I am thinking on the go, policymakers and educators can think of giving some benefits or merit points for knowing a regional language that is not your mother tongue. Something like, if a student from Bihar knows Tamil, he/she would get an additional attempt in UPSC or would be considered for a slightly lower cut off or something like that. Some system can always be worked out, and it would definitely be better than the current one. 

In the end, I would only say that India’s linguistic diversity should make us feel proud and not divide us. We should not allow our languages to become a political instrument or a compulsory academic burden as it would only cause both social harmony and education to suffer. Language should function as a bridge, not a barrier created by short-term politics.   

RIP King Shane

Greatest spinner ever. A true showman. Rajasthan Royal's victory in IPL under his captaincy is a story worthy of a movie. 

RIP King Shane. Do not know why...but it feels like a personal loss...

Arguments against CAA and NRC: Are they valid?

A section in India is protesting against CAA and the 'yet to be drafted' NRC. In the past couple of weeks, I have had discussions with some people, who are against CAA and NRC. I have made an attempt to understand their reasons and reservations. Following are some key reasons that have been expressed during such discussions;

Reason # 1: CAA is against Indian Muslims and it would take away their citizenship

Fact: CAA is not about taking anyone's citizenship. Instead, it is about granting citizenship to minorities (not limited to Hindus) from certain countries in our neighborhood. There is no way that CAA would take away citizenship of existing Indians.

Reason # 2: Thousands of people would come to India due to CAA. In present economic environment, it is not advisable to bring in more people

Fact: CAA will not grant fast-tracked citizenship to anyone who comes to India today or in future. It is about giving citizenship to people who are already in India since 2014 or before. 

Reason # 3: It is derogatory towards other religions (for example Muslims) staying in those countries

Fact: There are documented proofs that the minorities under the scope of CAA have faced discrimination and religious persecution. Yes, others may also be facing issues in their countries. However, have they come to India? (Remember, India is not inviting people but fast tracking citizenship to certain people who are ALREADY in India). People who did come - e.g. Adnan Sami - receive citizenship after undergoing certain formalities. Some may even be fast -tracked, depending on the case. India is not saying that people from other faiths will not be given citizenship. However, they would have to follow the 'regular' process i.e., the process that has been defined by statutes and have been followed by all past governments. Now some of the those political parties are questioning it!! If they have an issue, why did they not change the law earlier? And even if the point that 'Why not Muslims' is considered, why are people *OPPOSING* CAA. Why are they not requesting for inclusion of Muslims? Consider this example. Suppose 100 people from different religions/faiths came to India from Pakistan in 2012. Out of that, 60 were Hindus/Sikhs/Parsis/Jains/Buddist/Christian and 40 were Muslims. CAA says that India would grant fast-tracked citizenship to 60 and would consider the request of remaining 40 in due course. Those 40 would go through the *usual (nothing additional)* documentation/formalities and depending on the case, they will either get citizenship or would be denied citizenship. That is the process. It is similar to getting a visa. Some people get visa, some do not. The first 60 would become citizens of India and would have documents to prove it. They can lead a normal life and also pay taxes. Now, if nothing is changing for 40 but you are making a positive impact in the lives of 60, why should anyone have a problem with that? If people want CAA to be rolled back then essentially means that they do not want positive changes in the lives of 60. If people want 'everyone' to be included in CAA then they should demand exactly that. But my question to them is *where were they earlier?* Were they talking about the remaining 40 before this? No, they never talked about them. They never protested or signed petitions to grant citizenship to those 40. Why is it an issue only NOW? Is it because non-Muslims are going to be benefited? If yes, then those protesters are the ones who are dividing India. But I do not think that is the reason for MOST. Most people are protesting against CAA because they have fallen for the false narrative that has been created by leftists, commies, Muslim fundamentalists, opposition parties and their sponsored media. And it is going on and on because (a) of recent decisions on 370, Ram Mandir, Triple Talaq and proposed Uniform Civil Code and (b) Delhi elections are round the corner. AAP will almost certainly win Delhi elections - most people know that. It is thanks to the freebies given by them. But now, when they do win, the narrative would be that Delhi has said no to divisive politics of BJP. One must understand that BJP is not the party in power in Delhi. It last formed a government in Delhi more than 20 years ago. So, they are not 'losing' the elections. However, that is the picture that the media and opposition parties want to paint for next elections and beyond.

Reason # 4: If not CAA, NRC would take away the citizenship of Muslims

Fact: Nationwide NRC has not even been drafted yet. Assam NRC is a different matter altogether. The need was different over there. Nationwide NRC would be nothing like Assam NRC. So, if people are protesting against NRC, they are protesting on the basis of speculation and fear-mongering. Someone even said "people are not scared of what would be there in NRC but they are scared about who (BJP) is proposing it"!!! That is absurd. If I see 10 Muslims sitting and talking in a corner and I attack them on the basis of a speculation that they must be planning a terrorist attack then people would say (and rightly so) that I am insane and bigoted. The argument that nationwide NRC, whenever it is drafted, would be against Muslim - just because BJP government would be proposing it - is equally absurd.

Reason # 5: Present government is fascist and is trying to silence the voice of students. The violence against students is uncalled for and is not acceptable

Fact/Response. Firstly, it is not a reason for opposing CAA/NRC but is a response to what happened afterwards. Police beat protesters in Jamia but they were burning buses and pelting stones. They pretty much invited the wrath of police. Reports suggest that the group of protesters included several non-students from nearby areas. So it was not an action against students. It was an action against vandals. Yes, may be some innocent bystanders may have got hurt but in such cases, we can not blame the cops. They cannot ask for student ids while lathi-charging vandals. And they have no way of figuring out who pelted stone or burnt the buses and who did not. If you be near a violent mob, there are high chances that you would become a collateral damage through one of the parties involved. What happened in JNU had nothing to do with CAA/NRC. It was a university fight and something which must not have happened

Article 15: Does the director believe in it?

Recently watched the much talked about movie 'Article 15'. For the uninitiated, Article 15 of the constitution of India says 'Article 15 (1) and (2) prohibit the state from discriminating any citizen on ground of any religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them'.

The movie discusses the important topic of caste discrimination, which is rampant and is a major social evil in India. The plot is 'based' on a true incident but has been tweaked to suit the views of the maker. The movie has great actors and they have delivered powerful performances. Overall, the movie is interesting and I did not feel bored at any point of time.

However, such movies make you think. That per se is not an issue. Every movie on a real issue should make you think. But this one also makes you think about the intentions and motives. There is a background to it as well. I have watched the previous movie ('Mulk') of the director and have also watched several interviews. He seems to have certain views against the major religion in India and takes a consulting-like approach to narrate or weave the story. He develops hypotheses and then creates a narrative to prove that hypotheses. 

I really liked his previous film - Mulk. It talks about targeting Muslims and thinking that every Muslim is a terrorist. That is incorrect and it must be said. The film did show an Islamic terrorist but the director spent only few minutes on that. The rest of the movie showed how the family of the terrorist was targeted, asked to move to Pakistan etc. I would not say that it does not happen. I also agree (and firmly believe) that every Muslim is not a terrorist and that it should not even be discussed. However, the fact also is that >90% of the terrorists follow or claim to follow Islam (the reason I say "claim to follow" is because I firmly believe that most Islamic terrorists (and their handlers and religious leaders) do not even understand Islam). But it is a fact that over 90% terrorists are Muslims. Will the film-maker make a movie on that? No. Because then he would be scared of his life. 

These days when the critics appreciate a movie, I start doubting the movie and the intentions. These days it has become fashionable to talk against Hindu religion. Any movie which shows Hinduism or a certain political party in bad-light gets good reviews from critics. Take for example the movie 'Mukkabaaz'. It is a good movie about a boxer of lower caste fighting against the system for his career and love. However, there are two scenes in the movie that I found questionable. In one scene, the goons target the boxer and his coach by falsely accusing them for consuming beef. While I agree that there is an actual case which got a lot of attention from media, pseudo-seculars, so-called liberals and of course political parties. However, there is no case where someone from Hindu religion was targeted in such a manner. The goons could have targeted the boxer and coach in many different ways but the maker (another guy who seems to hate Hindu religion and was quite vocal about the case) chose this as it could  have given the movie free publicity. There is another scene in which the protagonist unnecessarily and repeatedly says "Bharat Maata ki Jai" while bashing the villain - who is a prominent local politician - in front of the cops. While the intentions were not absolutely clear but may be the film-maker tried to show that you can get away with anything by saying that. This in my opinion was a cheap tactic to garner free publicity for an otherwise good movie.

Article 15 also primarily bashes the Hindu religion or upper caste Hindus. I am not at all denying that in several parts of India, such caste-based discrimination is rampant. However, caste based discrimination is not specific to a religion. Have you not heard about the term 'Dalit-Muslims'? Although Islam does not recognize any castes, Muslim communities in South Asia (especially India) apply a system of social stratification. It is developed as a result of ethnic segregation between the foreign conquerors and the local converts. Why was that not correctly portrayed in the movie? Because it would not fit the hypotheses? 

It is important to make socially-relevant movies but it is equally (if not more) important to ensure that it is portrayed in a non-biased way. Else it would only stem (or rather further escalate) communal tensions. Such movies also suggest (or at least fails to suggest otherwise) that majority of upper-caste Hindus think like this. It is as wrong as thinking that majority of Muslim are terrorists. That goes against the very intention behind Article 15.

Trust???

When he put down his papers, the HR told him that the company would hold to 1.5 months salary, "as per company policy". When pointed that the policy is for 1 month, the HR representative asked to "trust the company". 

You are holding on to salary, you have held back variable component, you have blocked sites like Gmail, LinkedIn etc., you have blocked USB drives and you are asking about trust!!!???!!! Hilarious!!!

Legal Battle: Team A vs Team B

Team A presented some 'facts'. Charges were found to be partially incorrect and were shot down by Team B as well as some neutral eye-witnesses. 

As per Team A, Team B has been making false allegations. That claim could not be verified.

As per Team A, Team B has been using unparliamentary language. Team B is found guilty.

As per Team B, Team A has always lied. That claim could not be verified.

As per Team B, Team A has always used Team B. That claim could not be verified.

As per neutral eye-witnesses, Team A could have avoided the situation.

-----------------------------------------------

Based on all the facts presented in the case, this self-appointed judge makes the following observations. 

• Team A should avoid such situations
• Team B should try not to overreact
• If there is a dispute in future, Team A and B must try NOT to create a scene in front of others
• Team A and B are rarely on the same page and are rarely cordial. They should steer clear of each other
• Beyond this, the judge does not give a f**k!!!

Bahut Yaraana Lagta Hai!!!

There is this girl in the office. She started in a different team but - owing to insufficient work in that team - she was transferred to our team. Not sure if the move was purely due to insufficient work or it performance issue also played a part. In our team, she started with another reporting manager and continued for ~1 year. Later, I was asked to manage her efforts. I could detect some performance issues but more importantly, I spotted serious issues with attitude, behavior and discipline. I let the concerned people know about the issues. I was feeling that - after already trying to  accommodate her in multiple teams  - they would probably outcounsel her. However, to my surprise, they are prepared to try her in another team! I asked a colleague why such a long rope is being extended in this case. As per the colleague, there are other - unofficial & unprofessional - reasons involved.

From now on, I'll call her Arun Jaitley!!

Bitter Taste in the Mouth

Sometimes, one just loses the motivation. Isn't it? 

In my career, I have come across multiple working styles and dedication levels. Most people put in the minimum effort required. Out of those, most feel bad when increments and incentives are announced. In my opinion, they do not deserve to crib. Others, who master the art of licking asses, get good increments, incentives and promotions. That, even after putting in minimum effort. Not that, they are outstanding or they get things done smartly. They are just good lickers.

Then there are people, who are driven. Driven by the want to excel, driven by the recognition, driven by monetary benefits, driven by resume-value. The driver could be anything. These people put in a lot of smart as well as hardwork. Such people should be recognized and it is the job of their managers to keep such people motivated. Unfortunately, that does not happen most of the time. 

If you are subordinating and screwing your family time and health for your work, you hate it when your efforts are not recognized. There are some qualitative recognitions. "You are a perfectionist". "You are the best consultant that we have".  That is all good. But when it does not translate into something meaningful, you feel bad. You do not necessarily feel jealous with others who got better deals but you do feel bitter. That is exactly what I am going through. I am feeling bitter, I am feeling cheated and I am feel demotivated. I hope this is a passing phase. I do not like this phase as I seldom feel demotivated about work. I hope that I would be able to come out of this state of mind very soon. Till then, *&^%$#@

Why 'Stuart Little' Binny?

I like the look of India's test squad for the tour of West Indies. I agree with most of the selections, barring one. I fail to understand the repeated selection of Stuart Binny in the test squad. In West Indies, genuine pacers are required. 'So-Called-Allrounders', who are neither reliable batsmen nor a good wicket-taking option, are a luxury that the selectors should have avoided. Chief selector should have kept aside his personal biases, emotions etc while doing the all-important job.

I do understand that India lacks genuine allrounders, especially fast bowling ones. Hardik Pandya is not test material (not even one day material). Irfan Pathan is a spent force. Rishi Dhawan is not good enough as well. If the options for allrounders were limited, they should have gone ahead with a specialist bowler. Probably someone who added a new dimension to the bowling options. For example, Kuldeep Yadav, a chinaman bowler, could have been tried. He did not get too many opportunities in IPL 2016. However, he did impress in the few chances thag he got. There are several options which could have been better than Stuart Binny, S/O Chief Selector.

Disappointed but still wish each one of them the best of luck.

Hate Such Arguments

Today, I received the following message from someone on Whatsapp;

"We may not be aware of the existence of this noble and great man, Kalyanasundaram honoured by US Govt. I feel equally ashamed that India Govt has conferred 'Bharat Ratna' on Sachin Tendulkar, who seeks and gets exemption of customs duty on a 'Ferrari' which he got free, who reportedly earns crores of rupees(in hundreds) every year.

Mr.Kalayanasundaram worked as a Librarian for 30 years. Every month in his 30 year experience (service), he donated his entire salary to help the needy. He worked as a server in a hotel to meet his needs. He donated even his pension amount of about ten lakh rupees to the needy.

He is the first person in the world to spend the entire earnings for a social cause. In recognition to his service, the American government honoured him with the ‘Man of the Millennium’ award. He received a sum of Rs 30 crores as part of this award which he distributed entirely for the needy as usual.

Moved by his passion to help others, Super Star Rajinikanth adopted him as his father. He still stays as a bachelor and dedicated his entire life for serving the society.

All our Politicians, Film stars, Business magnets, cricketers Press and we all Indians should be PROUD and also should be ashamed of ourselves. American Government has honored him but we Indians even don't know that such a personality exist amongst us.

Atleast have the courtesy to pass this on and on till the whole world comes to know about this Great Good Samaritan.

Hat's off Kalayanasundaram.. We Indians are extremely proud of you and proudly say "THIS HAPPENS ONLY IN INDIA"

While there is no denying the fact that Mr. Palam Kalyanasundaram has made great (infact unbelievable) contributions, I hate when such cases are presented in 'why that and why not this' manner. Its alright to highlight the accomplishments and contributions of someone but it does not mean we should trivialize the contribution of others. Kailash Satyarthi has won Nobel Peace Prize yet he has not been conferred with Bharat Ratna. There are several others. That does not mean that the contribution of Sachin Tendulkar should be trivialized. His contribution in his field is second to none and he truly deserves Bharat Ratna. 

Review: Hyatt Place Candolim Goa

Some channels and politicians (usual suspects) are using this tragedy as an opportunity to press for the demilitarization of Siachen. 

Unki niyat mein 'Pakistaniyat' nazar aati hai.

#SiachenAvalanche #Siachen

Selective Outrage

Rajdeep Sardesai said that they could/did not cover Malda due to the "tyranny of distance". Yugpurush Kejriwal said that he cannot comment on Pathankot incident as he is the CM of Delhi and is only concerned with matters related to Delhi. 

One should not forget that he was the first political opportunist to reach Dadri and politicize the issue. With his demonic super-powers, he was able to pull Dadri inside the geographical boundaries of Delhi. And now, since he has commented on the issue, seems Hyderabad has been colonized by Delhi. 

So, commenting on and politicizing Dadri and Hyderabad is okay but Pathankot and Malda are irrelevant. Bhai Waah. 

For any issue in a BJP ruled state, state government is blamed and for every other issue, Modi to hai hi!!!

Tale of 2 Suicides

One week ago a social worker in a village in Muzaffarnagar district of UP, 150 km from Delhi, committed suicide after a video clip of her being raped was made public. It was not a news, because she was from the wrong religion, and her rapist was from the protected religion. No TV cameras reached her village, Rahul Gandhi did not visit her family, Kejriwal did not demand resignation of any ministers.

A student in Hyderabad university, who was suspended for beating a fellow student in his hostel room, committed suicide yesterday, and all the political vultures are flying to Hyderabad to milk the tragedy for all its worth.

All suicides are equal, but some suicides are more equal than others.

A Case of Wrong Information & Premature Ejaculation

This the post and picture that AAPtards were sharing a couple of days back. They were suggesting that, while Modi is busy with foreign trips, Yugpurush and his men have already taken action against Sheila Dikshit and have filed a FIR.

Till then, their law minister had only made a recommendation to his bosses to file a FIR against Dikshit and no FIR had been filed yet. But AAP, like always, started giving a wrong picture to the public and AAPtards started to have premature ejaculation.

Anyways....since then I have been eagerly and anxiously waiting for an action by AAP and today they did take an action. They removed their law minister!!! :P

They may still file a FIR later against Dikshit to avoid further bashing but they prioritized the action against their Minister!!! After all, how dare he suggest an action against the real bosses in Congress!!!!

AAPtards bhaiyon, maan gaye....aapke yugpurush aur aapki mand-buddhi....donon ko!!!

I do not give a rat's ass to political opinion of people who 'choose' not to  vote for anyone as standing in a queue is too downmarket for them. These pseudo intellectuals just crib about anything and everything. Present them with facts and figures and they discount them. They do not form governments and they do not bring them down. They do not matter!!! Another 'breed' that I do not care about is the one that forms opinions through ScoopWhoop.com!!! More often than not, its the same bunch of people in both sets!!! (Disclaimer: This is NOT a work of fiction. Any resemblance to actual events or persons, living or dead, is entirely INTENTIONAL)

Had 'discussions' with 2 'people' regarding the controversy over Modi's comment and his performance so far. After I countered them on each and every point and when they had nothing left to say/argue, one unfriended me and the other blocked me!!! Ok.....Good riddance!!!

Rajasthan forest authorities have found a suicide note written by a black buck "I am committing suicide, Salman Khan should not be blamed". (Source: WhatsApp) #GhantaBeingHuman