The Voice of Dissent is Not Disrespect

In professional environments, the voice of dissent is often misunderstood. I firmly believe that sometime the most valuable person in the room is the one willing to say, "I disagree." Not because they enjoy conflict. Not because they want to undermine someone. But because they genuinely believe that an alternative point of view needs to be heard.

Over the years, I have had a few situations where I felt it was important to express an uncomfortable opinion honestly. But is honesty always accepted and appreciated? I want to share a couple of examples and also reflect on how people reacted to dissent in each case.

A few years back, I was speaking to an entrepreneur friend and his founding team. They had been working on a venture for the last few years. They had managed to get some angel investors on board, which put some fuel in the tank. The initial funding helped them get started.

But over time, the venture gulped up truck loads of money. The angel investment was gone and the founders themselves had spent more than double that amount from their own pockets.

I had been observing their journey closely. To their credit, they had indeed come a long way. But in MY opinion, they still had miles to go. More importantly, I was not convinced that continuing further made sense anymore.

My concern was partly financial. The venture was becoming financially draining for the founders. But there was another concern as well.

The service they were building was heavily dependent on technology. While the founding team understood the industry and the problem they were trying to solve, they had very limited understanding of the technical complexities involved. It was a tech-heavy business being driven largely by non-technical founders.

In my consulting career, I have seen several entrepreneurs make one common mistake - they fall too much in love with their idea.

There is nothing wrong with passion. In fact, passion is often necessary to survive the brutal journey of building something from scratch. But there is a fine line between believing in an idea and becoming emotionally inseparable from it.

Sometimes good ideas fail. Not because the founders lack intent or work ethic, but because timing, execution, capability, market realities, or a dozen other factors do not align. And at some stage, one must be able to assess objectively whether continuing to invest time, money, and energy still makes sense.

As Kevin O'Leary often says on Shark Tank, sometimes you need to "take it behind the barn and shoot it."

During the discussion, I did not hold back. I felt the founders needed to hear an uncomfortable perspective, so I expressed my thoughts without mincing words.

One person in the team, especially, was deeply attached to the venture. It was his idea. He had spent countless hours building it. Compared to others, he had probably spent 100x more time, emotion, and effort on it.

Imagine someone questioning something that has consumed years of your life. Imagine someone asking you to let go of a dream you built from scratch.

Yet, what stood out to me was the maturity with which the disagreement was handled. The discussion remained calm. He explained his point of view. I explained mine. There was disagreement, but there was also mutual respect. No bitterness. No hostility. No personal attacks.

Now lets look at the second incident, which happened some years after the first incident. I found myself in a very different disagreement.

At a company where I was working, there was an issue regarding the designation of a team member. When the individual had originally joined the organization, there were no formal bands attached to designations. She had joined as Senior Consultant, but due to an error in official records, her designation was incorrectly reflected as Consultant.

Later, when the company introduced structured designation bands, the incorrect designation evolved into Consultant Tier 1 in the system. After spending couple of  years in the system, she finally noticed her designation. Her designation was updated to Senior Consultant Tier 1. Up to this point, there was no disagreement. Correcting an error in records was a no-brainer.

However, one of the fellow leaders - let us call him Person ABC - wanted the designation to be elevated further to Senior Consultant Tier 2. And, he wanted this change to happen without it being treated as a promotion!

That was where I disagreed.

My disagreement was not about the individual employee. In fact, I had no issue (hmmm...lets say - almost no issue) with her performance or capability. My concern was about organizational consistency and the precedent it would create. Promotions had already been announced and a sudden change in someone's designation could have raised eyebrows and led to uncomfortable questions. The argument from Person ABC were not invalid but I did feel that selective points were being considered. Like a defense lawyer.

I also felt there was a practical issue being ignored. This individual wanted to be elevated and if the change in designation was not officially classified and communicated as a promotion, the employee herself could have questioned it. And she would still expect or demand a formal promotion in the next cycle. 

I expressed these concerns openly during the leadership discussion. It was a difference in opinion and nothing more. I was not obstructing the decision, nor was I unwilling to go with the majority view eventually. I simply believed that the implications needed to be discussed properly before a call was taken.

During the course of the discussion, it eventually emerged that Person ABC had already promised the higher designation to the employee. Personally, I felt that should never have happened. Since the promise had already been made, the rest of us agreed to proceed with the change.

In my honest opinion, this was a much smaller issue than the first incident.

In the first case, I was asking someone to reconsider years of effort, passion, sacrifice, and truck loads of money invested into a venture. In the second case, it was merely a disagreement over a designation band in an HR context. No one's dream was collapsing. No existential crisis was involved. The practical impact on the employee was limited.

Yet when I look back at both incidents side-by-side today, what fascinates me is not the disagreements themselves, but the reactions to them.

In the first incident, despite the emotional weight attached to the discussion, the dissent was received with maturity. The entrepreneur heard me out, calmly shared his perspective, and there were no ill-feelings afterwards. In the second incident, despite the issue being relatively minor, Person ABC reacted emotionally, said things rudely, and eventually stopped speaking to me!

And perhaps that is the real lesson about dissent.

Dissent itself is not rude. It is not disrespectful. It is not disloyalty. It is not negativity. It is simply the willingness to express a different point of view honestly and present strong arguments (and not disagree just for the heck of it). 

What truly defines individuals and leaders is not whether they face dissent. Everyone does. What defines them is how they respond to it. Some people can hear uncomfortable truths without taking them personally. Others perceive even minor disagreement as an attack on their judgment, authority, or ego. 

The irony is that the people willing to dissent are often the ones most invested in preventing mistakes.

Healthy organizations, strong leadership teams, and mature individuals do not eliminate dissent. They create space for it. 

Because progress rarely comes from rooms where everyone agrees. 

Breaking News: Good Orators Don’t Automatically Become Good Actors

Yesterday, I watched the movie Kartavya starring Saif Ali Khan, Sanjay Mishra, Rasika Dugal, Manish Chaudhari, Saharsh Kumar Shukla, Zakir Hussain and journalist-turned-actor Saurabh Dwivedi. The film itself was extremely mediocre. The storyline felt weak and too predictable with very little that could engage the audience.

So why am I wasting even more time and writing about it? 

Though one must be kind because it is his first movie, I simply could not stop myself from writing about just how disappointing Saurabh Dwivedi’s performance turned out to be. He is an exceptionally gifted speaker and has built a strong reputation through his lengthy and compelling monologues on 'The Lallantop', which he has now left. Naturally, I expected him to carry at least some of that effortless command and screen presence into cinema. Unfortunately, the opposite happened.

Dwivedi appears in only a handful of scenes, despite being positioned as the film’s principal antagonist. More importantly, nearly all his scenes are shared with seasoned performers like Sanjay Mishra, Manish Chaudhari, Saharsh Kumar Shukla and Saif Ali Khan. The contrast is brutal. Against actors with such natural rhythm and command over dialogue delivery, his performance feels even more fragile and unconvincing.

Almost every line he speaks sounds rehearsed rather than lived. There is no conversational flow, emotional spontaneity or screen instinct. His expressions appear stiff, his pauses unnatural and his dialogue delivery painfully artificial. In many scenes, it genuinely becomes uncomfortable to watch. His performance can be used as the case study of what not do in acting.

The director deserves equal criticism here. Either Dwivedi was miscast from the beginning or he was not directed properly enough to hide his limitations. It almost feels as though the makers themselves realized midway that the performance was not working, because his screen presence appears noticeably reduced as the film progresses. Whether that was due to editing choices or a conscious attempt to minimize damage, the result is obvious on screen.

I am not sure whether he has more films or web series lined up, but I hope he improves as an actor. Though, based on this performance, I will not put my money on it!

The Mirror You Handed Me

You are telling me, “Thanks for showing me the mirror and my true worth.”

First - see how well I know you, because I had already written about this exact reaction.

Second - isn’t this the pot calling the kettle black?

In the last episode we had, I told you very clearly that there was something I did not like. I told you that you insulted me. I told you that I am hurt. And what did you choose after that? Sarcasm. Silence.

So that is MY exact worth in your eyes, isn’t it?

That I should not have a voice? That I do not have the right to feel hurt? After all, who am I?

Moreover, you are telling me that I showed you your true worth - after reading my last blog!! After the episode where you weighed my worth in monetary terms? But Raja Saab ko toh sab maaf hai, isn’t it?

Before the latest episode, I come and hugged you so many times because I missed you. I have told you what you mean to me. I have stood by you. I have defended you. I have categorically refused to throw you under the bus and prevented others from doing that. I have always tried to be there whenever you needed me. I have cried for you. I have cared. I have prayed for you. I have counted on you.

I neither have the intention to tell you your worth nor the right to do that. 

But yes. I am showing you the mirror. Someone needs to. I do not have the right. But its not the first time nor the last time. That is because I care. 

Maafi Hukum 🙏

Dagger in the back

I once believed I could read people the way sailors read stars.

So when the room grew heavy and my name became a measure of efforts and contributions, I expected the familiar constellations to hold.

• The newest bond became a shield. Defended me. Even fought for me. 

• The classmate/friend took a swipe at me.

• But the oldest bond - the one that I trusted and thought I understood - joined hands with the classmate/friend. 

This is when I have been safeguarding the interest of these two very individuals to the extent possible and create a balance that makes sense for everyone!

Funny how betrayal is rarely loud. Sometimes, it arrives as silence where 'friendship' should have spoken.

Learnt a valuable life lesson today. And I did not even know about this battle!!

(Disclaimer: This is not a work of fiction. Any resemblance to actual events or persons, living or dead, is entirely intentional)

The Friend You Used to Be

You were once someone rare to me.

Not because you did grand things - though you did, and I don't deny that - but because you noticed me when most people didn’t. It felt that you understood me. In a world where presence is often loud but shallow, yours was quiet and real. That is what stayed with me. That is what mattered.

And it still does.

I’ve thanked you many a time. I still do. And I have meant it each time. May be you won’t understand why, but you mattered to me in ways that had nothing to do with what you could give. I of course never had much. I am not a man of means - I never was - but I have always tried to show up in the only way I knew how: by being there. Emotionally. Physically. Honestly. Consistently.

But now, may be in the last couple of years and definitely in the last one year, it feels that things have changed. I feel that you have changed and I guess you feel that I have changed. 

The person who once felt warm and genuine now feels distant and 'calculated'. I am sure that when you do things for people, you do not expect much. However, now very frequently, I hear that I did 'so much' for XYZ and I did not get anything in return. And invariably, that 'so much' is materialistic, expensive things. I have found it both strange and different. After all, friendship and generosity are not 'investments' and people's emotions cannot be 'returns'.

That shift is hard to ignore.

Another change is in the people you spend time with. They can be put in three broad buckets (and I am not including women; that's a very different subject). 

There are those above you. These are the ones you seem eager to impress, to emulate. I’ve watched you around them. You stop being yourself. You put up a performance. You are often quite fake in front of them. And I really do not think they respect you the way you think they do. I genuinely hope I am wrong.

Then there’s the middle ground - new friends who are similar to you in status. Comfortable, safe, predictable. No imbalance there, so no tension. You like spending time with them.

And finally, the ones who’ve been around the longest. The ones who knew you before all of this. The ones who care. This group also includes people who have not made it and probably never will. At least they would never achieve the definition of success that you have. You meet them but off late, it feels that you do not respect them. Their value seems negligible. Their voices are inconvenient.

Isn't it strange how the people who stood by you the longest now seem to matter the least?

The past couple of years have made this even clearer. You went through difficult times. To a large extent, it was self-created. From one bad habit to another (let us call them that as I really do not want to be specific). When you felt low, sad, depressed, angry - I was there. Not perfectly, not always with the right words, but I stayed. I questioned you when I had to because I am a friend and not a 'Yes Man'. I supported you when you needed it. I didn’t walk away, even when you tried to push me out. 

During this period, you made several choices. Some of them, extremely hard to defend. Harder to watch. I remained by your side.

I tried to be the 'voice of conscience' and told you the right thing to do. You never did. I still remained by your side.

You hurt people. You dismissed them. You subordinated everyone and everything - work, family, friends, me and - above all - your pride and self-respect. That's the part that hurts me the most because I took pride in you and respected you. I tried to stop you. You distanced yourself, proudly declaring that you no longer care what anyone thinks - that you’re finally living life for yourself. 

Well...you are succeeding. And I genuinely hope you are happy.

You pushed everyone away. Even those who once stood firmly beside you. You’ve drawn lines where there didn’t need to be any. And yet, when those same people feel bad and step back, you act surprised!!! Hurt, even!!!

That part is almost poetic.

I can already imagine your reaction to all of this - something along the lines of, “After everything I’ve done…”

And that’s exactly the point.

Not everything can be bought. Not loyalty. Not respect. Not self-worth. Contrary to what you might believe now, not everyone is transactional. Not everyone trades dignity for gifts, or affection for favors. Some people still hold on to things like pride and self-respect. Outdated concepts to you perhaps but they matter to people. 

For what it’s worth - I never stayed because of what you offered. Not the gifts. Not the gestures. Not the things you insisted on giving. Take back everything you have given and more....but return my old friend.

I stayed with you because of who you were. You used to care. You used to listen. You used to understand without needing explanations. That version of you - that’s the one who mattered. This version… now feels unfamiliar. 

I am hurt.

You know that. Not because you understood. Now, I no longer expect that from you. You know that because you asked, "are you mad at me for something"? And I told you. And then what? You chose silence over conversation. I would never do that to you because this is not what friends do.

But ya, it’s an interesting choice - to walk away from someone who doesn’t need to ask if you’re hurting, because they already know. You have said that to me. I understand when you are hurt, sad, angry, depressed, anxious. I get that by looking at you. I get that from your voice. If I have to ask you then I have failed as a friend.

I am someone who stayed. I am someone who cared. Someone who, despite everything, still does.

But I don’t expect anything from you now. Not explanations, not apologies, not a sudden return to who you were. High hopes, isn't it??!! What am I even thinking? I know your reaction if and when you read this would be what I said earlier, "Wow...after everything I’ve done, this is what I get...."

I just hope - genuinely - that whatever path you’re on keeps you as happy as you believe it will. That the bubble holds. That the wonderland doesn’t crack under its own weight.

And that your 'Pursuit of Unrealistic Happiness' turns out to be worth it. Because it did cost something. More than you realize - or may ever be willing to admit.

Take care. I mean that. Even now. 

You have hurt me immensely. You know that - unlike you - I do not have many friends and when I needed anything, I have always turned to you. Thanks for taking that away. You have shown me, with remarkable clarity, how little I matter.

But I still care and...I always will. I have not given up on you. It is not in me at all. I still hope that one day you will stumble your way back to senses and understand your priorities and the people who genuinely care. Will wait...

Et Tu, Brute?

I recently ordered a grapefruit from one of the instant delivery apps . In the picture it looked bright, juicy, and extremely inviting. I also realized that I might never have actually tasted a grapefruit before. Since I love citrus fruits, I decided it was time to try one.

Within minutes, the fruit arrived.

I requested my wife to bring it to me because I was eager to try it immediately. She went to the kitchen with the fruit and returned a moment later with it neatly cut into smaller portions and arranged on a plate. 

She placed it in front of me and casually said, “It’s very tasty. sweet and refreshing.”

That made me suspicious.

You see, I have a long history of playing a particular trick on her. My wife absolutely hates sour food. If she ever asks me to taste an orange or a grape first she tries it, I will take a bite and - even if it is painfully sour - I would calmly say that it is very nice. She then takes a bite and immediately regrets trusting me. The expression that follows is priceless.

So when she told me this grapefruit was “sweet,” I was not entirely convinced.

At that exact moment, my daughter walked into the room. She saw the plate and said she wanted to try some. She took a small piece, popped it into her mouth, and instantly said, “Wow! This is really nice. Very sweet.”

That changed everything. I will ALWAYS doubt my wife. But my daughter, my little angel, my little bundle of innocence? NEVER

Feeling reassured, I picked up a large piece and confidently put the entire thing in my mouth.

The next few seconds were… unforgettable.

The fruit was extraordinarily sour. Not mildly sour. Not slightly sour. It was the kind of sour that makes your eyes close automatically, your teeth clench, and your entire face rearrange itself into a very dramatic expression.

When I finally recovered and opened my eyes, I looked at my wife.

Then at my daughter.

Both of them were laughing uncontrollably.

At that moment, I realized something historic had occurred. My daughter had joined forces with my wife. This was not just a prank. This was a carefully coordinated act of deception.

This incident should always be known as one of the greatest betrayals ever executed in the history of mankind.

I may have lost this round, but the citrus wars are far from over.

I Asked for an Image, Got an Experience

Creating images with AI can be both amusing and frustrating. While clear prompts are essential, even precise instructions do not always guarantee the desired outcome. In a recent attempt to generate an image using Gemini, I found the process unexpectedly cumbersome, frustrating but also hilarious! Below is my actual chat with Gemini, which illustrates the challenges I encountered during the image-generation process.

Me: Create an image of 2 friends running away from a shop with soft drinks bottles in hand. They are nervous. There is a scooter (lambretta) in the parking lot.Two male friends. One tall and one short. Running away from the shop. Each has a soft drinks bottles in hand.

Gemini: 

Me: Only one bottle each. Glass bottle.

Gemini:

Me: No. Each guy has only one bottle

Gemini:

Me: One guy is holding 2 bottles. Please remove one bottle

Gemini: 

Me: Now his hand is gone. Please fix that

Gemini:

Me: 😡😡😡 

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.