Changing morality of humour

Saw this movie- 3 Idiots the other day. Its an interesting movie and can be discussed on a number of lines. For example- What makes it a hit, The use of emotional moments, The actual issue on education that it deals with, Super performance of the artists, Average music scores etc etc.

I feel like expressing my thoughts on the changing morality of humour over a period of time. In the years to come i will try to keep pace with changes and how they stand on the axis of time.

What struck me in the movie was the fact that it didn't have any bounds on what can be laughed at. For one, funny teachers (or masterji) with a chari in his hand has been a subject of humour since b/w movie days.

• A paralytic father being shown in a humorous way
• Friends poking fun at each others parents
• Poverty in the home of one of the characters has been depicted humorously though actually speaking there is really nothing humorous about poverty or else people would have loved to experience it regularly
• Middle class norms have been very blatantly laughed at e.g. daughter waiting to get married for want of dowry
• A speech where the word 'balatkar' (meaning rape) has been inserted in the wrong place excites huge laughter in the crowd
• Ritual of immersion of the last remains of one's life
• Certain social beliefs like wearing rings for a safer tomorrow

The acceptability of humour in aspects which actually are not fundamentally humourous can mean the following:

• Increasing acceptability of humour in 'holy cow' areas indicates mark of a more broad minded and liberal society. Assuming that society is equally broadminded when something it holds dear also gets scoffed at publicly
• Mark of a society that needs to just let-go when it comes to entertainment

We are talking about shift of times of mid 50s when there would be a seperate comedian in the movie accompanying the hero. The hero would always be wise and responsible like Guru Dutt (how can he be a subject of laughter? :))  to gradual shifts where the key protagonist becomes comical like in Chupke Chupke, Andaz Apna Apna, Golmaal or Namak Halaal to raw below the belt humour which is quite common these days to broad based humour that we see in a movie like this one- where anything can suddenly inspire laughter.

If this movie is just an indicator of the two factors stated then probably it seems innocuous. But does it also somewhere serve as an indicator of a society which is gradually losing its sensitivity. In a metropolis, witnessing insensitivity is a norm. In fact seeing display of sensitivity becomes an event especially in public places. Can we imagine the impact of such humour on kids?

Or does it somewhere imply mocking of the shells that have enveloped and defined our identity since several years of hollow unchallenged practices like women should not be financially independent, an economy growing at 2.4% for decades hence majority remained poor etc.  Does this humour somewhere echo with the changing mood of the economic growth of the country and the upwardly mobile youth of today who wants to laugh at his own past and just come out of it? Is that the right way to do. Is there a moral question that we can't skip answering?

As someone expressed in an article that i read, are we also, in the process somewhere becoming part of the larger joke or probably it just means that the author of this blog has a weird sense of humour.

Anything can be true :)

Which way will the Lotus tilt?

Being the only national party in the opposition, it is very important for BJP to get its act together. Since its clear defeat in National elections in May'09, we are yet to see any concrete change in the outlook of the party. Leadership roles have been revisited but the its connect with the RSS ideology has not gone through the lens of critique and objective enquiry.

In this recent speech of Mohan Bhagwat, where he makes some pertinent points on the issue of identity based politics (ironically) and also on the fact that we should learn to milk nature for our economic needs but not exploit  it. The same point on the attitude we need to have towards nature has been expressed by eminent international thinker like Fritjof Capra in his book Network Connections where he makes a strong case for nature to be seen and related to as a mentor.

But at the same time, the comment can actually be made without talking about the Hindu culture or else criticising the Western style of living. The moment religion is interspersed with political debate at any level, we run the risk of losing the capacity of our own eye for loopholes that exist in our own backyards. Not all Hindus in India believe in a life of 'thoda hai thode ki zaroorat hai'. In fact you will find the most greedy and selfish of people thronging temples at specific occasions - in all parts of the country. If religion and its implications on behaviour are not at all clearly expressed in our social behavior then who are we to criticize  certain other group.

Are the principles of democracy an Eastern product? Are the principles of economics that sustain the society today an Eastern or Hindu principle? Where does the fountainhead of technology and high quality education lie? Why doesn't BHU produce the most excellent scholars?

Secondly, the more you try to talk about religious stand point in things, people would tend to ignore you in the name of being communal though there may not be anything communal in the particular thought- just like the thought on sustainability. Also, why is the party not able to understand that the youngster today one doesn't seek too much to get into understanding religion (which has other negative implications) and secondly, he is not really able to get too excited about religion based hysteria that has been very successfully generated by the same party in the past. This can surely be stated about the youth which is staying in the metros. The reasons for this are umpteen, primary being the lack of capacity of this hysteria to bring about fundamental change in our economic well being.

Nitish Kumar has learnt the right tune for Bihar and no wonder he got recognized for his efforts and his life now is going to be much easier if he only plays the tune of development in the way that he has been doing. Its going to be really difficult for the opposition to challenge him.

While at the same time BJP is not really recognizing the vantage point from where it needs to really challenge Congress. Its struggling with its legacy and is not able to realize that the strategic repositioning may call for questioning some very fundamental assumptions. The risk being that if the same is not done now, then 2014 results also may not be too different.

BJP needs disruptive change. Though politics in India has never been about disruptive changes. How to make it happen is the biggest question for Gadkari as he assumes a very important position.

To me it appears the most difficult leadership problem for BJP at this stage.

Hillary Clinton's speech on US approach towards the development sector

This speech by Hillary Clinton given at Center for Global Development makes some very important remarks on the way US intends to approach development challenges in countries which is intends to support through its various programs.

I really liked some of the points along with the q & a at the end of the session:

• Important to understand how to channelize the dollars. To new countries or to countries which can act as regional anchors to development
• The importance of understanding the context of problem in each geography and to come out with local solutions. There is no formulaic approach to development
• Model of development based on partnership and not patronage
• Engender local leadership
• Not to help those who are able but not willing to help themselves
• Aid chases need while Investment chases opportunity. Hence have a keen eye for investment
• Work together with agencies so that we don't become redundant or duplicative
• Work so that the 3 Ds of Development, Diplomacy and Defense get reinforced
• Convergence of areas where the organization would focus its resources and skills
• Looking at development not just from a moral stand point but as a strategic, economic imperative important for global stability and sustainable growth
• Investment in technology and innovation
• Further focus on women and girls since they are key to social, economic and political upliftment

Openness towards private sector expertise

Have a look at the following postings in key Government positions that have been confirmed in the last 8 to 10 months.

• Dr Sam Pitroda - Head Knowledge Commission and former head CDAC and other important institutions was appointed by GOI as Advisor to PM on Innovation, Infrastructure and Information
• Nandan Nilekani- Ex CEO of Infosys- Chairman of the committee responsible for the implementation of UID program at a PAN India level 
• Kaushik Basu - Former Chairman of the Department of Economics, Cornell University, US. He was also the Professor for Centre for Analytic Economics and Program on Comparative Economic Development at the same university.- Chief Economic Advisor to GOI
• Arun Maira- Ex CEO Boston Consulting Group, India.  - Member Planning Commission and recently appointed as the Head of the committee required to figure out changes that need to be brought in at Planning Commission to make this very important division of policy formulation more effective
• Subir Gokarn- Former Chief Economist for Standard & Poor Asia Operations along with other private sector portfolios- Deputy Governor RBI

There are few inferences that can be drawn from the above:

1. Indian government is opening its minds to get quality talent from lateral positions
2. The private sector leaders are willing to occupy highly responsible positions in government divisions
3. Positions at the top in governmental divisions will be more attractive for private sector high performers as compared to middle rung where there would be a lot of sloth, inefficiency and also low income opportunities

I guess its a welcome sign on the part of the government to show indications of getting expertise from areas where government surely needs specialists as against the the generalist babus. A big change which is yet to be seen in the government human resource approach would be when the policies would allow people from the private sector to actually move in to government sector and vice versa. This osmosis might allow a lot of best practices of the private sector to be shared with government bodies and would help in strengthening the human resource machinery which is far from perfect requires fresh ideas and energy at various levels. The challenge would also be to make the culture at governmental divisions attractive enough for people who are more comfortable with the MNC work culture and professionalism.

The pace of change is too slow to be noticed or talked about but the fact is that these may be good trends which might gain momentum in the years to come. 

Google's view on Openness

This post on Google's belief in openness by Senior VP from Google is special as you get to understand the philosophical base of the organization, his understanding of historical trends and capacity to envision the future, understanding of technology and as a result of it all, most importantly a clear understanding of the future of their business.

These special people make this organization so unique.

Business climate

Do check out this map depicting ease of doing business in different parts of the world

What corporates can learn from NGOs

This is what some of some of us (happy to find myself too:)) had to say about what Corporates can learn from NGOs.

For want of a symbol?

Whenever I read about terrorist activities being perpetrated in the name of religion and specifically when it comes from Islam, I get intrigued whether a presence of a religious symbol that would have depicted peace and love would have been of any value for people who really can't understand abstract thoughts.

Abstract thinking such as internalizing the subtleties of universal brotherhood are really not easy concepts for a raw mind. Its very very difficult to go beyond the confines of the structures and historical events that impose a certain kind of perspective on the minds of people. While just emulating the symbol in some form can help in a very simple way.

Certain religious symbols inspire a certain kind of virtue. Eg. the deep stillness and highest form of sacrifice in  Jesus's image encourages one atleast not to ignore these values if not emulate them on a daily basis. Similarly, Buddha's image in meditation inspires the need for internal deep dive. In Hinduism, Lord Krishna's image goes to a large extent in encouraging the virtue of dharma and prosperity- (though the latter ideal is what is generally seen to be understood by the simple minded and the former conveniently ignored).

At times I would say that if the image doesn't inspire the actual act it surely challenges the contrarion line of thinking. For example not all Christians may believe in sacrifice and surely not in living a life of non-materialism but the symbol would surely contest any feeling on the contrarion side, of say killing others in the name of religion. Similar would be the case with symbols of other religions. Which means that just because Hinduism has symbols doesn't imply that all Hindus embrace love and peace. But surely it mitigates and challenges people who want to perpetrate violence in the name of religion.

While when we look at Islam, we find that being a monotheistic religion, it differs from Christianity in not having any symbol of worship. I would surely want to understand the reason of this design but I wonder if some symbol signifying the virtues of love, unity and universal peace would have done some good to the raw minds of terrorists and in turn impacted the larger world in several positive ways.

The most positive negative emotion?

Can there be anything 'good' about anything 'bad'?

A very meaningful message in the latest edition of Harvard Business Review where it is suggested that its fine to have regrets since thats what is going to give us better perspective towards good decision making in future.

Many a times people tend to pull others out of this mode without thinking that there is a time which is a must spend for actually critically evaluating a decision which has gone bad. Just stating that you need to 'chill' and forget is a probably the most naive way of dealing with any kind of failure in life. Its important to feel bad about one's own judgement (if it has gone awry), learn from it and then move on.

Just wondering if Tiger Woods has taken break from professional golf  for this reason?

Forces in favour of diversity

Finding Globalization another interesting theme to dwell upon particularly because of the way it influences economy, politics, environment, cultures and also values.  There are phenomenally interesting fall outs of globalization and it will great to delve into them gradually.

One of the reasons why people are becoming more and more tolerant towards diversity I guess is because people are seeking tolerance from others. When a person takes birth in a village or a small town and achieves not much in life other than one's title and the legacy of prestige that comes with it, we tend to hold on to it as our sole axis of identity in society.

This identity which develops on the basis of caste, creed, religion etc allows one to have a position of authority and some significance which doesn't seem to be bestowed naturally to the individuals otherwise.

As we go from that insular state to a more broader platform of work by reaching out to other cities and also countries (by virtue of a globalized economy) we meet new cultures, new languages, new systems of understanding people. And then the problem is turned upside down. At this stage, the person doesn't enjoy the luxury of placing oneself on the high social ground but has to make oneself accepted in the new environment so that he/she could enjoy the same respect that others in that community enjoy. For a person who had a low social grounding earlier finds him/herself in a position of relief since the original definition of social hierarchy is not recognized here.

This struggle for gaining the necessary respect or seeking of acceptance in new societies allows one to become more and more tolerant  and reasonable for the simple reason that as a person who is intolerant towards others can't naturally expect others to be tolerant towards his/her own self.

This is happening more in urban areas than probably rural areas but as the country drifts towards further urbanization, we can surely assume that acceptance of diversity would only improve with time.

Social changes are always difficult to be brought about through direct routes. Legal ways also don't run too far. Its only indirect or oblique forces which tend to challenge certain notions and give us perspectives which are much broader and larger than what we hold dearly through significant period of time.

What binds India

This image was taken when I was travelling in an auto rickshaw within Mumbai city.

The thing that struck me was the fact that this image of symbols of two different (Hindu and Islam)religions coexisting in the the 'office' of this auto driver indicates the strength that sustains our country and acts as an example of what acceptance (or probably tolerance) in religious beliefs is all about.

I am not sure how many people with limited education in other parts of the country would be able to have that degree of inclusiveness in their minds. You can quickly think about some countries randomly and come up with answers.

This ability to co-exist is the very strength that acts as a bulwark against the divisive tendencies of our politicians atleast to some extent.

The next degree of this evolution would emerge when there would be total negation and revolt against sectarian tendencies of the political leaders and that would lead to impact at the highest portals of power.

We have come a long way and there is still a huge distance to be travelled.

The debate on debate

I recently had an opportunity to chair a school debate competition organized by the British Council in Mumbai. The topic for the debate was 'Freedom of Expression in Art'. The debaters were quite young and mostly between the age group of 14 and 17 years and did a decent job in putting their points across though with some scope for improvement.

A thought that came to my mind when I had a discussion with one of the very interesting audience of the debate. He mentioned about how after the debate got over, on an offline note, one of the participants who spoke against the motion of debate stated that she was actually not so much against the motion.

The immediate thought that follows is, what is the purpose of this competition? I understand that the purpose of debate is to progress towards clarity after considering diverse view points. While what the judges are expected to judge is how well is the person able to defend his/her stand. In many issues it is likely that the person may agree to some points in favour and some points against the motion then does that mean that the debater is expected to maintain a stand with stubbornness just so that he/she appears well guarded in his/her defence.

Does that mean that the debate is not actually based on the principles of debating but simply the principle of not budging from one's point, no matter what. Or for that matter for those who adulate competition in all spheres of life, the spirit of competition is the key and debate is another arena just like say a sport.

If we look at the alternate view point, should there be points provided to the participant for revisiting one's thoughts in an objective light and again come back with a more balanced perspective. Will the debater in that case be 'judged' weak or will that be the true victory of debating as a means of clarity and maturity of thinking. What should be the parameters of judging in that case?

Isn't it funny that at times as we try to recognize someone's competence in one realm, do we give an altogether wrong message on the same subject but at a different end.

Probably the 14 year old might go back home thinking that he did a fine job in sticking to his point while actually he might have missed out on the core of what a sound discussion is all about.

But surely, he is not to be blamed. He becomes a victim of another system of evaluation