The last few days have forced me to wonder about the value of life in our country.
We lost 200 people to an air crash, we lost another 150 people to a train accident and another 50 people to a bus accident. I am not even counting the "normal" deaths which occur on a daily basis without making it to the national TV.
Why do we have such apathy towards the value of human life? The air crash probably could have been avoided, the train accident definitely could have been avoided and probably same is the case for the bus accident. However, why is it that these incidents do happen and happen on a regular basis?
It is amazing to see how an unnatural death in most of the other countries is seen really like that - unnatural while we don't even miss a beat and carry on our daily business as if nothing has happened. We are so used to disasters. I am sure it cannot be because we have too many people. I hope the logic of surplus is not being applied to people because each individual life is an irreparable loss.
Could it be because of our disregard for basic safety norms?
Could it be because of our dilapidated and archaic infrastructure?
Could it be because of our belief in the "chalta hai" attitude?
Could it be because of our disregard for rules?
Could it be because of lack of rules?
Could it be because we don't know how to protest decently in a country where nonviolence was unveiled as a powerful weapon?
What?
How many more need to perish for us to raise these questions and find some answers...
Monday, May 31, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Reflective...
Everyone knows, appreciates and possibly understands the realities of human life - the birth of a life is inevitably followed by the end of the life but once in a while these realities touch each one of us when we least expect them...today was one such day.
My daily dose of emails had an email from a colleague informing me that he is not going to be in office as he had just become the proud father of a "prinz". For good measure he had the pix of the new born attached. :-)
There was another email from another colleague informing me that he is not going to be in office as over the weekend his father passed away. :-(
Since then have been in a reflective mood..
My daily dose of emails had an email from a colleague informing me that he is not going to be in office as he had just become the proud father of a "prinz". For good measure he had the pix of the new born attached. :-)
There was another email from another colleague informing me that he is not going to be in office as over the weekend his father passed away. :-(
Since then have been in a reflective mood..
Sunday, April 18, 2010
What's in a designation?
Please excuse the play on the Shakespearean adage but had a nice animated discussion with folks a couple of days back on the topic of designations and the importance they play on a person's professional life specially in the IT sector.
The way I look at it - the value of designations is driven a lot by the socio economic environment in which the job / role is located.
Typically, in America it seems to me that it is easier to get fancy titles. People with not that much of experience in the profession do call themselves Directors, there are lot more hierarchies between the Director - President level etc. Maybe that's driven by the fact that there is lot of entrepreneurial focus in States and of course when one is running his / her own business one can decide to call himself / herself what one wants. The other reason could be that everybody prefers a shorter job life i.e. one prefers to retire earlier or get out of a job mode earlier and do what one wants to do.
In Germany, on the other hand I find that the designations have lesser value, hierarchies start much lower, middle management is bloated etc. I believe one of the most important reason for this is the fact that the job life of an individual is longer. People are typically risk averse and when they join an organization they tend to retire from it. Maybe the entrepreneurial spirit is lesser as compared to other places. Also people concentrate a lot on quality of life where they really value their free time and sometimes prefer not higher designations or responsibilities concerned with the fact that it might affect their time for themselves. People do value the work they do and believe a lot more in perfection even if it means that they are doing repetitive tasks.
In India I notice there is extreme importance laid on designations. Here India is more like US but the difference is that the hierarchies are more extensive. Maybe that is got to do with the fact that designations back home are linked to the professional success of an individual. Unless every 2-3 years a person gets a vertical growth he / she is not seen to be good. Maybe it is got to do also with the fact that the work which is done is not that high in the value chain and to retain talent organizations depend on titles. Many things like marriages, house ownership, social standing etc. are all linked to titles too and hence they have critical need for people. Typically job lives are longer in India but people do change many jobs and one of the important criterion for talent acquisition or talent retention is designations. With entrepreneurial opportunities growing there is the trend coming up that designations in previous jobs also influence the ease with which people get funded for their ventures.
Of course some of the things which i wrote are controversial but they are my own observations. Do let me know what you think about it.
The way I look at it - the value of designations is driven a lot by the socio economic environment in which the job / role is located.
Typically, in America it seems to me that it is easier to get fancy titles. People with not that much of experience in the profession do call themselves Directors, there are lot more hierarchies between the Director - President level etc. Maybe that's driven by the fact that there is lot of entrepreneurial focus in States and of course when one is running his / her own business one can decide to call himself / herself what one wants. The other reason could be that everybody prefers a shorter job life i.e. one prefers to retire earlier or get out of a job mode earlier and do what one wants to do.
In Germany, on the other hand I find that the designations have lesser value, hierarchies start much lower, middle management is bloated etc. I believe one of the most important reason for this is the fact that the job life of an individual is longer. People are typically risk averse and when they join an organization they tend to retire from it. Maybe the entrepreneurial spirit is lesser as compared to other places. Also people concentrate a lot on quality of life where they really value their free time and sometimes prefer not higher designations or responsibilities concerned with the fact that it might affect their time for themselves. People do value the work they do and believe a lot more in perfection even if it means that they are doing repetitive tasks.
In India I notice there is extreme importance laid on designations. Here India is more like US but the difference is that the hierarchies are more extensive. Maybe that is got to do with the fact that designations back home are linked to the professional success of an individual. Unless every 2-3 years a person gets a vertical growth he / she is not seen to be good. Maybe it is got to do also with the fact that the work which is done is not that high in the value chain and to retain talent organizations depend on titles. Many things like marriages, house ownership, social standing etc. are all linked to titles too and hence they have critical need for people. Typically job lives are longer in India but people do change many jobs and one of the important criterion for talent acquisition or talent retention is designations. With entrepreneurial opportunities growing there is the trend coming up that designations in previous jobs also influence the ease with which people get funded for their ventures.
Of course some of the things which i wrote are controversial but they are my own observations. Do let me know what you think about it.
Friday, April 16, 2010
its fine for sustainable practices to not be altruistic
Yesterday while watching the televised debate between the UK Prime Ministerial candidate I happened to view a TV spot announcing a new contest known as "World Challenge" which focuses on sustainable practices which are today changing the world.
One of the first contestants to be featured was a vegetable market from Indonesia. Now whoever has been to a typical vegetable, fruit market ( not the supermarkets ) would easily recognize that on a daily basis these markets produce a humongous amount of organic and inorganic waste. Apart from the fact that most of this waste makes its way to open landfills where it rots and releases greenhouse gases like methane, it is also a breeding ground for diseases. The solution which the Indonesian market has come up with is to segregate the organic waste, process it and convert it into fertilizers. This is used locally by the farmers and the crop yield has grown by almost 30%. The produce from the local farms is then sold again in the local markets setting up a cycle of reuse and thus a sustainable business model.
This is one example which goes to show that many times sustainable activities also make sense economically and when ever they do they are adopted faster by people. The example I quoted was from Indonesia but I believe the model could be replicated in many places and probably is being followed in other places in some form or the other.
As a foot note, I found the UK Prime Ministerial debate very dignified. Should something similar be initiated in India for the next general elections? Interesting thought but might be difficult logistically as there are so many parties in our country.
One of the first contestants to be featured was a vegetable market from Indonesia. Now whoever has been to a typical vegetable, fruit market ( not the supermarkets ) would easily recognize that on a daily basis these markets produce a humongous amount of organic and inorganic waste. Apart from the fact that most of this waste makes its way to open landfills where it rots and releases greenhouse gases like methane, it is also a breeding ground for diseases. The solution which the Indonesian market has come up with is to segregate the organic waste, process it and convert it into fertilizers. This is used locally by the farmers and the crop yield has grown by almost 30%. The produce from the local farms is then sold again in the local markets setting up a cycle of reuse and thus a sustainable business model.
This is one example which goes to show that many times sustainable activities also make sense economically and when ever they do they are adopted faster by people. The example I quoted was from Indonesia but I believe the model could be replicated in many places and probably is being followed in other places in some form or the other.
As a foot note, I found the UK Prime Ministerial debate very dignified. Should something similar be initiated in India for the next general elections? Interesting thought but might be difficult logistically as there are so many parties in our country.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Fly to or into the Everest
China again proved it can do what it wants to do with absolute no disregard to anyone else.
First it was the road to Everest and now read today that an airport has been opened up at Xigaze. Why do we make absolute perfect effort to spoil everything pristine? China wants to make this area a climber's paradise but did anyone ask the climbers whether they want this "luxury" possibly at the cost of environment.
First it was the road to Everest and now read today that an airport has been opened up at Xigaze. Why do we make absolute perfect effort to spoil everything pristine? China wants to make this area a climber's paradise but did anyone ask the climbers whether they want this "luxury" possibly at the cost of environment.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Thank God I am a Woman!
No I didn't get a sex change but it's the catch line at the launch of the Spring/Summer Collection of a woman's clothing brand.
Today while watching news I saw the shocking news of female infanticide still prevailing in Rajasthan. In today's world where we as Indians are talking about the great progress we are making as a nation news like this makes my head hang in shame. Will we blame the government for this? Well yeah if anybody wants to take the supposition in that direction then sure as usual we can blame it for this too by contending that not enough is being done towards education improvement in the hinterlands of the country. However, I believe government cannot do everything in this matter. It is the society and the people which have to make the paradigm shift in thinking and break these chains which are termed as traditions. Its the new generation of Indians which have to break out of these molds in which some of our archaic unreasonable "traditions" try to bracket us in. Keeping our cultural traditions alive is absolutely fine but basic human emotions, human right - the right to live can never be sacrificed in the name of demonic practices camouflaged as "traditions".
We still have popular TV serials like "Is desh mai na aana Ladoo" which make the practice of female infanticide as their punchline. I don't follow the serial and maybe it carries a social message pointing out the evils of this social curse but the couple of episodes I saw I didn't get the message. Probably in matters like this subtlety doesn't work.
Yesterday I was sitting with friends and heard about colleagues at work who are still thinking in terms of "arey yaar meri beti hai. mujhey uskey liye bhi tu sochna hai". When we have city bred, highly educated professionals living abroad talking in these terms one can understand how deeply ingrained the malaise runs in our society.
Will we ever reach a stage where women in India would be able to say "Thank God I am an India woman" and not worry about being termed "manhoos"?
Today while watching news I saw the shocking news of female infanticide still prevailing in Rajasthan. In today's world where we as Indians are talking about the great progress we are making as a nation news like this makes my head hang in shame. Will we blame the government for this? Well yeah if anybody wants to take the supposition in that direction then sure as usual we can blame it for this too by contending that not enough is being done towards education improvement in the hinterlands of the country. However, I believe government cannot do everything in this matter. It is the society and the people which have to make the paradigm shift in thinking and break these chains which are termed as traditions. Its the new generation of Indians which have to break out of these molds in which some of our archaic unreasonable "traditions" try to bracket us in. Keeping our cultural traditions alive is absolutely fine but basic human emotions, human right - the right to live can never be sacrificed in the name of demonic practices camouflaged as "traditions".
We still have popular TV serials like "Is desh mai na aana Ladoo" which make the practice of female infanticide as their punchline. I don't follow the serial and maybe it carries a social message pointing out the evils of this social curse but the couple of episodes I saw I didn't get the message. Probably in matters like this subtlety doesn't work.
Yesterday I was sitting with friends and heard about colleagues at work who are still thinking in terms of "arey yaar meri beti hai. mujhey uskey liye bhi tu sochna hai". When we have city bred, highly educated professionals living abroad talking in these terms one can understand how deeply ingrained the malaise runs in our society.
Will we ever reach a stage where women in India would be able to say "Thank God I am an India woman" and not worry about being termed "manhoos"?
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Defining success is difficult
The other day we saw "3 Idiots".
The movie is a great fun to watch and in addition to the fun factor also brings out the problem with the Indian Education system which does not encourage innovation and out of the box thinking but is focused on regimented mugging of lessons in order to achieve maximum marks.
S and I started discussing the ending of the film and we both had the question as to how does one define success. If the ending had shown Amir Khan, one of the main protagonist, as being "just" a school master and considering the admiration from the students and the community he was working in as his "success" it would be too idealistic an ending for a "Tenties" movie. The actual climax where the schoolmaster's measure of success is depicted in the form that he has 400 patents and is being pursued by international conglomerates is the other extreme. The hidden implication is that the protagonist is successful from a material aspect too as he has money flowing in from all these patents and collaborations. The other friends are also successful as one has 5 books published in 4 years, one has a Lamborghini and a huge house in US, one has a very good job and is doing some research etc. which all reflect that in the material aspects they all are well endowed. However is monetary the only measure to define success?
It is an ongoing discussion between the two of us and it is becoming obvious that even in today's times it is as difficult to define success as it always was. Why do not you also join in and let us know your opinion?
The movie is a great fun to watch and in addition to the fun factor also brings out the problem with the Indian Education system which does not encourage innovation and out of the box thinking but is focused on regimented mugging of lessons in order to achieve maximum marks.
S and I started discussing the ending of the film and we both had the question as to how does one define success. If the ending had shown Amir Khan, one of the main protagonist, as being "just" a school master and considering the admiration from the students and the community he was working in as his "success" it would be too idealistic an ending for a "Tenties" movie. The actual climax where the schoolmaster's measure of success is depicted in the form that he has 400 patents and is being pursued by international conglomerates is the other extreme. The hidden implication is that the protagonist is successful from a material aspect too as he has money flowing in from all these patents and collaborations. The other friends are also successful as one has 5 books published in 4 years, one has a Lamborghini and a huge house in US, one has a very good job and is doing some research etc. which all reflect that in the material aspects they all are well endowed. However is monetary the only measure to define success?
It is an ongoing discussion between the two of us and it is becoming obvious that even in today's times it is as difficult to define success as it always was. Why do not you also join in and let us know your opinion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)