Battleground of Relationships

On a hot afternoon in Coleman, Texas, a family is comfortably playing dominoes on a porch, until the father-in-law suggests that they take a 50-mile trip to Abilene for dinner. The wife says, "Sounds like a great idea." The husband, despite having reservations because the drive is long and hot, thinks that his preferences must be out-of-step with the group and says, "Sounds good to me. I just hope your mother wants to go." The mother-in-law then says, "Of course I want to go. I haven't been to Abilene in a long time." The drive is hot, dusty, and long. When they arrive at the cafeteria, the food is as bad as the drive. They arrive back home four hours later, exhausted. One of them dishonestly says, "It was a great trip, wasn't it?" The mother-in-law says that, actually, she would rather have stayed home, but went along since the other three were so enthusiastic. The husband says, "I wasn't delighted to be doing what we were doing. I only went to satisfy the rest of you." The wife says, "I just went along to keep you happy. I would have had to be crazy to want to go out in the heat like that." The father-in-law then says that he only suggested it because he thought the others might be bored. The group sits back, perplexed that they together decided to take a trip which none of them wanted. They each would have preferred to sit comfortably, but did not admit to it when they still had time to enjoy the afternoon.  This story is what management expert Jerry Harvey, termed as the Abilene Paradox, to explain why groups of people end up achieving outcomes which none of them wanted in the first place. The story is also reflective of the quintessential Bhaaratiya family and by extension, society. Though it is a paradox, this very concept of valuing emotions of the rest of the family members/society has held us, as a generic society, in good stead for a very long time. Thus, because we (barring exceptions here or there) are conditioned in a way to take 'one', 'two', 'three' and more for the team, we have refrained from getting into controversial or confrontational emotional scenarios at home or at work.

Greenwoods for the GDP

A very distant Left Liberal chachu (and I can't stress enough the importance of the word 'very') happened to remark how India was going to the dogs with a 23.9% YoY GDP contraction in Jun 2020. With all the bravado he could bring in while unable to hide the glee of India doing badly, he proclaimed how the  Titanic was sinking while Bhaktagan were busy playing the music. Having had a long experience now interacting with Left Liberals, I have been convinced that the only way to reach their minds is through green chutney demos and nothing else has even a remote chance of working. I subtly shifted the discussion from one black swan event (COVID-19 of 2019-2020) to another, i.e. the 2008 Global Financial crisis. I then took the discussion to this Left Liberal chachu being laid off in early 2009 because of the crisis and went on to remark how my dear chachu faced a record -90% YoY fall in his income for CY2009 having been unemployed for most of the year. The poor chap kept trying to defend himself all along offering one explanation or the other sharing terms like 'Act of God', 'External factors', 'company limitations', 'trying times for financial sector' etc etc. I stuck to my guns for a long time and finally he uttered the words I was patiently waiting for nearly twenty minutes, "Chaitanya, I was not working for 10 months of the year! How do you expect growth! Infact, there is going to be a contraction!". "Exactly!", I smiled! "The country was not working for some months, Chachu", I said and walked away praying he wouldn't miss the Greenwoods for the GDP!

Devil is in the Demand

In times of great trouble, more often than not, I have found that returning to nature & her laws can provide man with the requisite guidance to navigate choppy waters and ferocious winds. We are completing nearly two months of a differently regulated lock-down and we once again stand at an interesting junction that demands us to redefine our priorities and re-balance between immediate risk to lives vs. economic hardships (a longer term, more drawn out, more slow and equivalent in pain/loss if not more). As we step into a post-COVID world, Government of India is coming up with a slew of interventions & stimuli to reboot our economy. The announcements are being done in tranches and the broad theme of these moves has clearly emerged which I shall elaborate later. While some of us are upbeat, some are not glad with the announcements. During the course of this write-up, taking the Rs. 20 lac crore economic package as a context, I'd be pondering upon the role of the government, economic demand generation concerns, possible stable solution and few of the many questions that the outbreak of the #ChineseWuhanCoronavirus has possibly catalyzed. I am hoping that my loud pondering will assist the reader in exploring the events happening around and likewise aid my own thought process & development as well.

Fidayeens are Few

The marvelous side-effect of the #ChineseWuhanCoronavirus is the redrawing of definitions, priorities and boundaries of multiple living entities. From dolphins swimming in Venice to Elephants roaming in Dehradun, to deers frolicking on urban roads to birds chirping more sweetly than ever either on trees or while riding the travelators! In all this, humans have a chance to bond with their families, invest time in introspection/spirituality, ponder on 'what is peace' and more! Amongst all these jolly good opportunities of revisiting or redefining, lies an opportunity to revisit & redefine another misunderstood definition - it has been a bane to Indian politics and society for too long but nature has ensured that barricaded-at-home Indian populous gives it a thought, i.e. secularism. Now I'll leave that to each fellow Bhaaratiya to ponder as I move towards the focal point of my blog today which is the conundrum of 'a few'. Let me state outright that I consciously with a sound mind completely support and subscribe to the assertion "Not ALL Muslims are bad/evil! A 'few' of them are".  The point of divergence lies in a single word, 'few'. What do you mean by 'a few' ?

Joke of a Judiciary

We proudly claim India to be a democracy - rule of the people, by the people and for the people. It is but logical to conclude that in such a political set-up, the people's choice is the ultimate binding declaration or covenant. The people's choice is reflected by the legislative (Lok Sabha) and for all practical purposes or day-to-day national operations, the executive (PM, his cabinet and the administration). Theoretically so, the word of the legislative, i.e. law passed by the Parliament, is the final word on the matter. When that law is not upheld, the function of the third estate, i.e. the Judiciary, commences - delivering justice for violation of the law. However, what is to be done when the fence consumes the farm?