A big mess

Last week, the worst fears of Aditya caterers came true. For long, Messrs Aditya and co. had felt that they will be able to avoid the limelight that inadvertently follows a reputation of the most healthy and tasty food served in a community mess anywhere in India. Keep in mind that this is not just any community, but postgraduate students (and a smattering of undergrads mixed in there, that is when they feel too lazy to pick up the phone and order a Domino's or call Laksmi) of IIT Bombay, people who live and die by good culinary habits. It is no mean feat to serve a staggering 2000 men with burgeoning appetites that correlates with their hunger for class notes. And because of that, I bow to thee Aditya!

However Murphy was not a man of discrimination, and in their attempt to refine the tastes of these hungry men, Aditya and co. fell into his trap. A dinner of chinese food went horribly wrong, and next day, 500 (that is only 25% statistically speaking!) landed up at the doorsteps of another landmark at my alma mater, the IITB hospital. Of course, the hyperactive Indian media couldn't resist itself from shoring up some attention through another story linked to IITians (remember when a fake IITian story was hyped by TOI for days?), and food poisoning became the new buzzword for parents inquiring from their wards staying at the campus. Yes, a story about food poisoning at IITB grabbed more print space than the newly implemented biometric attendance system. If one was to probe the economics of running a mess at any educational institute, especially places like IITs where students feel entitled to better things (not that there is anything wrong with being aspirational), it is not difficult to realize that these messes are being fueled by a magic lamp than anything else. The mess advance is Rs. 10,000 per semester, and the amount actually charged for food is something around Rs. 1500 per month at hostel 13 (figures not adjusted for inflation). In this rather paltry amount, which many students would outspend on movies and weekend jaunts, the caterer is expected to serve a 4-course meal replete with essential nutrients. You get my point!

Of course, my friends and myself went wild on FB poking fun at survivors we left behind at H-13. Who doesn't like having some enjoyment at the expense of a re-hydrated friend? The big question was lost in the lurch. At a time when the honorable HRD minister is going all out to prove his bravado to a bunch of pandering journalists, whether it be proposing a 6-fold hike in the fee or scrapping the benchmark exam we love to remember as JEE, it might be prudish to solve the bigger infrastructural problems plaguing IITB. Among them, ghost-house-sque hostels, crumbling furniture in classrooms, and not the least, incandescent bulbs. A rationalization in the price of mess food, while being unpopular in the short term, will go a long way in making sure that a repeat of food poisoning grabbing headlines doesn't happen. Otherwise, the residents of these hostels are only abetting their caterer to serve them cheap food fast, and not better. Cooking (for myself) is actually a big chore, so my sympathy has shifted from friends back home to the cooks who do the labor. You don't get it till you actually do it! 

PS: The chinese-style dinner was never popular in any case, but I remember long queues in front of the 'extras' line serving butter chicken for dinner. Perhaps a swap would work! Yeah, that was wishful thinking.

Came across this group recently and must I say, they are pretty good!

A game of thrones, or picking bare bones

Every time I check one of my trusted sources of information about my mother land, scandalous updates flash out like one of those dumb characters in 'Jersey shore'. Sadly, and believe me, I say this with great regret, it feels that somehow Indian political space has been morphed into a shady version of the Mahabharata since I shifted base. This is not to shunt out any objections that Indian politics was never sane in the first place - there is a reason why young men and women don't want to enter politics despite the steady flow of popularity and property it offers. It has undergone more than a cosmetic change in the last 3 months, ever since Anna and his activist troupe managed to make the hapless UPA II government eat crow and accede control of parliamentary traditions. The murmurs have turned into scowls, the game of one-upmanship has become so crafty that some of the contenders we have might want to try and turn it into a legitimate sport. In other words, we are entering an era of 10 Caesars and 100 Brutus'. 

Politics has long been an art of pretense, where you are expected to belie expectations, and abetted by such shameless pandering of your minions, have to show that you exemplify the core of all human ethos. The agenda is therefore narrow, and more often than not, opaque to popular aspirations of the electoral college. Our leaders seem to be holding strong to the adage. In circumstances where the economy is stagnating, the rupee is sinking to a fresh low everyday (much to the joy of desis desiring to make a killing when they exchange dollars back home), and reform is stuck at the gate, all eyes have turned to a general election which is still 3 years away. I watch the madness unfold everyday in America, where politicians out-compete each other to who can be more mundane, and spout rhetoric like a vending machine at Starbucks. To be fair to them, the presidential election is an year away and show(wo)manship helps. But 3 years!

Chdamabram and Mukherjee have been so detrimental to each other's cause that one of them might as well join the opposition benches in the parliament. While there skirmishes over appointments to secretary posts and the handling of home affairs has been well documented in the past, fresh muck has been unearthed. Turns out that Pranabda wants to give Dr. Subramaniam Swamy a shot in the arm by suggesting that Shri Chidambaram should've seen the 2G scam coming when he was the finance minister in the erstwhile UPA I government. Not to start a debate here, but apparently even Mrs. Gandhi didn't see it coming, and we all know that if anybody knows anything in our country, she does. With Rahul baba failing to work his magic in the recently concluded assembly elections, and his series of gaffes which have turned him in to a fodder for the 24x7 media (remember the parliamentary speech on the Jan Lokpal bill?), the congress might score a self-goal if he were to contest for the post of PM in 2014. So journeymen like Mr. Mukherjee and a certain Mr. Digvijay Singh can sniff their chance. On the other side of the fence, Advaniji is set to unleash another of his dreaded Rath yatras upon us. Considering how the NDA suffered an embarrassing defeat in 2009 when he was the prime ministerial candidate, he should've taken his cue and retired to the background. But old habits die hard, more so if they involve traveling across the country in a motorized vehicle and comparing it to a chariot marshaled by Lord Krishna himself. It's time for Gen-next to take over, not Gen-ex to still parade shamelessly. 

But why should I care? 3 years is a long time, and I have full faith in our media that by then, the character assassinations would be as complete as India's whitewash at the hands of the English.

PS: I posted a REM video last week, and today they announced the end of their glorious 31 years together as a band. I hope the same fate doesn't bequeath this group.

The learning of science or the science of learning?

How would you define learning? I know, probably not the best idea to ask a question right off the bat, but I want you to think along, because the question is open-ended. If the orthodox definition is to be considered, development of new memory fits the paradigm of learning. So when people use words like 'learning from your mistakes', it basically means that you have developed an imprint of that fallacious happening in your mind. However, if you gravitate towards science, the idea of learning cannot be limited just to development of new memory. Sure, one of the objectives behind teaching and learning of science is development of memory, based on the give-and-take between the teacher and the student. But memory is not related to intuition or thinking. That would be like saying that I watch a Nat Geo video of Mt. Everest expedition, learn every single step and hike, and then set out on my own to conquer it. Learning therefore goes beyond the simple idea of memory development.

So how can you define learning in a more pragmatic sense? A reasonable assertion can be that uncoupling learning from fact-checking ought to be able to satisfy the question behind creativity. And surely we can agree that creativity is a benchmark for learning, as a well-learnt concept leads to a more creative output. Also, in terms of science education, sufficient challenge to redundant concepts and hypotheses, which are taken for granted more often than not, is a must in order to develop independent thinking, or as the jargon goes, a critical bend. Therefore, as you proceed on the educational ladder, questions should get tougher and hypothesis should become bullet-proof. 

Personally, the initiation into grad school has been a pretty exciting experience so far, because as grad students, we are supposed to challenge any idea, no matter how big or small, prominent or subtle, irrespective of its publishing pedigree. So scientific education has suddenly being molded from taking copious notes and reading material a day before the exam, which I was doing as late as 5 months ago (I officially stopped studying for endsems like most of us did, except for THAT one course!). Now, we go in well prepared to discuss publications, formulate ideas, and gain concepts from linking disparate ideas in class. And this I believe is learning in true sense, because intuition and creativity are both integral parts of this process. If we were able to merge this system into our school and undergraduate level coursework, students would be more primed for taking up higher studies, or at least they won't have the fear of the unknown. This modicum of reform can truly lead to a shake-up, or at least do some good in satisfying the innate creative urge, so essential to our existence as humans.

PS: If you are a Max Payne fan (the video game, not the movie, which I still believe does not exist), brace yourself for Max Payne 3. If not, it is never too late to start, for this game is more than just fancy guns in 3rd person style. It is about a man and his search of vengeance!

And the obligatory music video. How about some REM?

Think like a scientist, feel like a diplomat

'Publish or Perish' seems to be the general code of law as far as the scientific community goes. The idea, while being a relatively trite manifestation of knowledge for all, has come to be known as the single most dreaded facet of building a career in research. As you go up, the impact factor of the journals you publish in is expected to show a concordant rise. The instrument of knowledge is bypassed by the instrument of conformity. Is the evil of globalization to blame, or the competitive edge that has overtaken research the main reason? A bit of both in my opinion.


Scientific literature has seen a reversal of fortunes with advancements in information technology, and it suffices to say that it has been one of the cornerstones of the knowledge economy in the last 20 years. The digitization has resuscitated the field where journals would otherwise be forever lost in a library shelf of a university. The very fact that articles are now accessible in any corner of the earth at any time (of course, internet connectivity is mandatory, but e-journals can make up for the lack of it). The positives are there for all to see. A scientist working in a remote lab in Africa now has access to research coming out of the hallowed portals of MIT. It has provided scope for constant feedback on research, and erratum are more poignantly highlighted than a letter to the editor would have done in recent times. But somehow, some journals, either by sheer luck or careful selectivity, have risen to prominence as having more venerable research compared to another. 


This has led to an era of competition, where scientists are vying for limited print space in journals. Therefore, some research is considered more publishable than the other. And it is considered fashionable to print only in the big 4 because they seem to matter more. Sadly, a lot of researchers face a dilemma of prolonging their work or conducting more experiments in order to accentuate their chances of conquering the holy grail, or publish it instantly when the results are novel and exciting. The element of curiosity is being pushed to the back-burner, as post-college career is highly dependent on the publications on one's resume rather than the importance of the work. Now, this does not imply that the exclusivity of some journals is necessarily a bad thing. They are considered the cornerstone of cutting-edge research, a sort of a benchmark. Not just in science, but also in disciplines of engineering. It is more important to change the perception, to be able to differentiate between the quality of research and the impact of the journal. Especially in countries where publication record takes a backseat to everything else- the candidate's proficiency as a team player, extra-curricular pursuits, and basic qualities like presentation skills. 


Admit it, people go to graduate school because they love science. That's how it should remain throughout their career. More and more scientists are coming out and collaborating in order to better than chances of enhancing their quality of work. More such ideas are certainly worth probing. 


A must watch show coming this fall:



And if you haven't heard of Arcade Fire, here you go:

A sham masked as legitimate

Statement after statement emanating from 7 Race course road or the Congress headquarters speaks of the virtues of parliamentary supremacy and traditions, and how it is absolutely necessary to uphold them in the face of every vindictive attempt to drag their name into ignominy. There is a popular maxim in Hindi which goes like- Naach na jaane, aangan teda. Essentially, it means that if you fail at something, you try and find faults with the system which plays only a secondary role in your success. This is exactly what is going on in the ensuing drama between the government and the civil society leaders on the contentious subject of the Jan Lokpal bill. Many of us have been watching with bewilderment the brazen manner in which this current government, perhaps also one of the most corrupt and spineless in recent Indian history, is trying to stifle public opinion and protect the parliament's 'supremacy' over all matters related to national policy. Can you please get to the real issue?

As educated Indians, we are all in consensus that the parliament is indeed the seat of our vibrant democracy and a place for a billion people's voices to be represented in an organized manner. But any attempt to bypass those billions and forcing an oligarchic view of things that a group of parliamentarians see as legitimate, is rubbing salt into the wounds of the already hapless common man. Let's face it, irregardless of the reports from the IMD or the World Bank or McKinsey, Indians are facing an uphill battle to protect their right to a decent living right now. The poor are already overwhelmed; their misery cannot be sufficiently described in a blog post or a news channel debate. However, with rising inflation and all-pervasive corruption strengthening its hold on the system, even the middle class is starting to feel the brunt of government's inaction and blunders. All of us have had our tryst with corruption, while most of us await our tryst with destiny. It is a malaise that spreads like a cancer and preys on the minds of the corrupt and the corruptor.

And what exactly is this sanctity of the parliament that we are trying to protect. Last year, an entire session was wiped out due to a stand-off between an united opposition and an obdurate government. 2008 saw bundles of currency notes being displayed in the parliament as if it were a badge of honor. Scenes of disruption are an everyday sight. In fact, the government respects the parliamentary traditions so much that it objected to permission granted to the leader of opposition in the Rajya Sabha to speak on the issue of the Lokpal. Please, stop fooling us, stop this drama. Get on with business, or quit. We are more than capable of voting in a new government, albeit with a mandate of aspiration and transparency. Laissez faire can't go on anymore!

A better way

As I sit here in my living room, watching Watchmen, I cannot help but think about Dr. Manhattan's words-"The world is changing, and this new world is going to be hard to adapt to." The world is indeed at a precipice, where old ideas are being chucked out more rapidly than ever before. Therefore, it is prudent to identify the positives out of this as well as understand how some things are still unchangeable.

The first idea which springs to my mind is the communication revolution. Now much has been said and writers have waxed eloquent about the ever changing face of communication and its implications for the globe. I would like to go more basic than an optical fibre facilitated enhancement. 20 years ago, chances are that if you wrote a letter to a person in the next state, it may or may not get delivered. May or may not! That possibility was greatly supplemented by the fact the there was no tracking mechanism to check on the port-to-port delivery. So if I were to apply for a PhD in the United states 20 years ago, there is the possibility that I might have missed my shot due to a sorting error. Therefore, it is safe to say that manual errors are slowly becoming redundant. The era of the machines is here, or almost.

What are the other ways in which the world is changing? Ironically, the communication revolution and the detriment of barriers was supposed to unite the world into a more harmonious place. Yet we have seen more wars and insurgencies in the last 50 years than any documented time in history. The way I see it, with information being so easily available, it abets a nation to secure its interests in ways that were unheard of earlier. So you have things like cyber attacks on a country's information database, which is slowly replacing the conventional warfare as a more potent weapon. This is stuff of science fiction for now, but with the way technology is seeping into our daily lives, it is not ludicrous to believe that the future might be significantly different for the future generations. Once thing is for sure, education is going to be the currency of development, and investments will be earmarked for the national intellectual wealth.

And then, to the part which has remained static. The right to expression, our ability to speak our mind, has remain untouched, or rather, has been bolstered by the availability of tools both scientific and rational in nature. People today want to study tiny archaea, because they believe the answers to significant questions about life lie in there. And they go about doing it like nobody's business. The fact that basic science has braved the storm of application and commercialization is a fact oft overlooked. We as global citizens are also more empowered today, mostly because every vote is documented and every opinion is recorded. Dissemination of ideas is easier, and their harnessing is slowly becoming more inclusive. There is no single ownership to any idea anymore, a fact well illustrated by the IP wars being fought around the world.

So the changes are there to be seen and exploited. The end user will not care, the proprietor does not exist.

The Who and their generation!

Hello PM! Welcome to the orientation

Dear Dr. Manmohan Singh, I formally welcome you to your orientation as the prime minister of the Republic of India. I understand that you have not just assumed office, but surprisingly, have been at the helm for more than 7 years now. Therefore, as the famous maxim goes- Better late than never, we have decided to conduct an orientation for you to bring you up to speed with the fabrics of Indian democracy and parliamentary system. Well maybe we can leave out the latter, since that is all you and your cabinet seem to be adept at. But in our deliberations, we have concluded that it is of utmost importance that you also take some time out from your frantic consultations with Rahul baba to refresh your class 9th History & Civics.

Let's get started. So dear PM, it seems that you believe anything can only be done efficiently if it is completed in a time bound manner. Of course, your well grounded research of macroeconomic theory and your time at the helm of the Reserve bank of India can be attributed to have led you to this cementing of principles. Unfortunately, economics seems not to work that well in real life, as is evident from the runaway inflation plaguing the country at this moment. You also want to abrogate any attempts to impose pre-conditions on others, especially those who intend no harm to the country and are simply exercising their rights. You remember a certain man known as Mahatma Gandhi? He did it all the time, and the british, as gentlemanly as they were, never resorted to anything more than to arrest him and his followers. Yes sir, that is your government's prerogative, though you might want to balance it out considering we are an independent nation now.

Also, when you say that it is the parliament's prerogative to formulate policies and draft laws, you could not be more correct. But dear sir, as you must have been trained to do in your days as a grad student, you need to incorporate ideas to make them more effective. Your version of the Lokpal bill appears to be a portmanteau of what Raja would like and what Anna would dislike. You can't possibly be taking on two strong personalities, one who loves to taint his cabinet and the other who loves to serve his country. That is simply bad PR! And also, when you are giving important speeches, for example the national address, you must understand that you are not sitting in an auditorium of 50 people, all over 60, who came to discuss some deep lemma in the Keynesian model of economics. You need to show that you are the man in the driver's seat. For reference, check out Atal Bihari Vajpayee's speech on the Kargil war. You'll understand what I am talking about. And please, don't be shy of the media. They've made your party men stars, there is no reason you should allow your generosity to encompass the PM-public contact.

I hope that this session has been fruitful. The next session will be on how to keep a leash on the disruptive elements in your party, who like to have their foot in their mouth all the time!

Peace out.

PS: Arun jaitley shows Abhishek Manu Singhvi who's the boss.