Boman Irani meets Narayana Murthy

Boman Irani asks N.R. Narayana Murthy on the Achievers' Club program on Star World why he does not want to run for public office. The answer is vintage NRN. Logical, data-driven and to the point.

NRN says he does not understand why politicians must not have a retirement age when bureaucrats and private sector employees do. He mentions that Mathematics problems that used to take him an hour to solve in his younger days now take him three. He further adds that he does not have as much energy as he once did. And here's the kicker. He thinks he may meet the minimum threshold to do certain things in life, but doing things in life must all be about being the best and not about meeting bare minimums.

Mr. Murthy's logic does make you smile. How nice it would be if our MLAs and MPs take up a math test before filing their nomination. Or take up a 100m sprint to measure their energy level. Or heck, maybe just read a joke so that they honestly ask themselves how long it took for that to sink in.

Setting a retirement age for the political class is a pipe dream. No politician will pass a law that restricts him. The closest to a 'restriction' that has been conceived thus far is the term limit, but that works only in the presidential form of democracy.

But once in a while, it does feel nice to indulge in such entertaining fantasies like R.K. Laxman's Common Man and laugh off the humor. Plus ponder over a wonderful recipe to ensure fewer bare minimums....

Women's Advancement in the Age of Mayajaal

We humans are an interesting bunch. Someone suggests a visionary way forward and we say that it does not meet the ground reality. Another points out how things are changing on the ground and we question the larger purpose.

Women must relentlessly advance and be on par with men. This statement is wishful thinking for some who point to orthodox Islamic societies or primitive Indian rural enclaves as examples of being anything but empowering. Others question the meaning of such advancement when women in general do not feel safe on our streets. They argue that advancement does not matter when life is in danger. 

It seems we constantly like our Top-Down vs. Bottom-up debates....

The Pentagon yesterday approved women to serve on the front lines of combat. A former Marine in the Wall Street Journal questions the wisdom. You can read it here (warning: some parts are graphic). When hygiene is compromised - he asks - should we not follow societal norms? Guests on Morning Joe that I watch online every day think otherwise. Women, they argue, have been on the front lines of combat for a while. This move just formally recognizes it. 

So I ask you. Is the Pentagon move a top-down approach where the agency's vision allows more women to get into combat roles? Or is it a bottom-up move where a vision blesses an already operational activity?

On Sep. 11 2001, a bearded extremist unleashed terror. His view was that women must not interact with men in public and must remain in the household. It turned out that his relentless pursuer is an American CIA woman (name unknown and called Maya in the movie Zero Dark Thirty). It is Maya who repeatedly clings to - and relentlessly pushes - the idea that the path to Bin Laden must lie through his personal courier when others think otherwise. (Note to Bin Laden: An American woman got you. Howzzat?)

So I ask again. Was there a Maya because the CIA changed rules to allow women in clandestine roles decades ago? Or did the CIA already have women in such roles before the agency formalized it?

And we can forever extend these questions to women in leadership roles,women in labor-intensive jobs  who just want to make ends meet, and to countless women who are not even allowed to step out of their households. Such debates can be emotional, spirited and occasionally frustrating.

But it is in the intensity of such debates that we miss the broader point. In our search for absolutes, we forget that the evolution of human action is much like economics (nobody understands a thing until some PhD cracks it decades later to win the Nobel Prize). Life always has been a combination of top-down and bottom-up. And does the approach really matter? After all, rudimentary laws allowed men and women to work once upon a time. When women entered the workforce in large numbers, laws were enhanced to guarantee equality. Some pockets remained regressive resulting in a soul-lifting Malala Yousufzai or a tragic Jyoti Singh Pandey. In response, the society will evolve with better laws and tighter enforcement.

This is called development. It is chaotic but forward leaning, and imperfect yet relentless. Improvise we must, but never should we lose heart.

Where is my India going?

Introspection, debate, anger, and anguish. India has had plenty over the past 2 weeks. The recent violent rape has shaken us all. A lot of people say this is a turning point. Others contend that nothing would change. Some ask for retributive justice. Many want 'comprehensive' change without quite comprehending the extent of comprehensiveness. The nation cries for action.

Media personalities talk about the falling standards in public conduct. There is a debate whether the Indian movie and music industry should 'self regulate' when it comes to its depiction of the Indian woman. An article in New York Times the other day mentions how India calls certain acts of sexual harassment as 'eve teasing' as if it is a shade better.

Hearing regressive feudal voices feels like rubbing sandpaper on a blackboard. A member of Parliament wants to ban skirts in schools. A scientist questions why the rape victim was out at 10 PM. A khap panchayat leader opposes death penalty for rapists. If you have found yourself saying "things have gotten worse" and asking "where is my India going?", you are not alone.

But India, to me, is going somewhere, and definitely for the better. For a few years now, we have at least been acknowledging, talking and debating the issues of the day. At times, we have no answers. At other times, answers come aplenty. The journey over the past decade has been chaotic, noisy and frustrating.

But evolved we have. Urban India is no longer willing to put up with nonsense. Rural India is speaking up. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan's classic question "Are you better off today than you were a decade ago?", the answer is a resounding Yes. And adding fuel are today's 20-somethings who clamor for meaningful change. (Why ever not? This is a generation that grew up in the age of instant phone connections; if you tell them that things take time, they instantly ask why.)

The inept politician does not realize this yet. Nor does the feudal lord. They assume that these movements will fizzle out. That we will go back to 'chalta hai' times.

But we won't. From Jessica Lal & Nitish Katara to RTI & anti-corruption marches, the tolerance levels of the common man has changed. The demographic shift of the nation is steadily apparent and increasingly activist. India - both urban and rural - is rising. The rotten apples within the political class, law enforcement, judiciary, and business who choose to ignore this lesson do so at their own peril.

Yes - it will be a happier new year 2013.....