Numb3rs: TV series

Oh yes, I'm watching many T.V. series now-a-days. Numb3rs is an FBI detective T.V. series that ran between 2005-2010. Agent Don Eppes is an FBI agent in Los Angeles and handles crime cases that occur in the L.A. area. In this work, he is assisted by his brother, Charles Eppes, who is a professor of Applied Mathematics in the (fictitious) CalSci university. Charlie (as Charles is fondly called) tries to apply his mathematical and statistics knowledge to come up with probabilistic solutions about the crime and about persons involved in it.

Now, here is a professor, who is involved in solving crime for the FBI, using all the knowledge of mathematics he has. Moreover, the FBI officers are portrayed to take his methodologies seriously, even if the conclusions may some times seem wrong or absurd. This  portrayal of a mathematics professor does help in creating a positive image about professors in research universities. There is a big prime-time audience watching this programme.There are many parents and teens in the audience. These are impressionable minds. If they see a particular character being portrayed positively and in a heroic manner, they would certainly develop a liking towards such a character. Remember, how as kids, being a policeman meant having the ability to bash up the bad guys and create piece for the good ones. This is partly because many Bollywood heroes (especially Amitabh Bachchan) were portrayed as positive inspectors. Or like Iftekhar, who invariably was the DCP or DIG in almost every movie. Or how we didn't want to be the lala or sethji since they were portrayed as someone who lives off by making poor people suffer.

 Can something similar be replicated in India? I'm not talking of a detective series alone, but a serial where college professors are shown to positively contribute towards problem solving. Can the 'consulting' aspect of professors be woven in to the story? Today, in most TV series in India (and even movies) a professor is portrayed either as a caricature or some one who is always too theoretical in his/her approach to anything in life. People, therefore, tend to view a professor's career too, in a similar manner. So, while parents complain about the deteriorating quality of teaching, no positive image of professors/teachers is being created, which would motivate young children to take up those jobs. The 'soft-power' of the television needs to be harnessed effectively. Someone in the film/television industry must help out with this. Anybody listening?

Undercover Boss: TV series

I began watching this TV series Undercover Boss on Netflix just a few days ago. I get to watch the  American version of this show on Netflix. So, the story line of this reality show is that the top boss (usually CEO, but in some cases, the COO, marketing head, legal advisor, etc.) of a particular company go undercover (under a disguise) for a week and work at the lowest level in their organisation, in different locations.

The workers, with whom they 'train' for their job, are (generally) told that this person is one amongst the two who are competing in a reality show for filling one open position in the corporation. They (the employee) have to evaluate his/her (the CXO's) performance on the job. The selling point of the show is that a wealthy CXO, who lives in a mansion, has expensive club memberships and jet-sets around US (perhaps the globe), is willing to reach employees at the lowest rung and work with them to understand the company better. At the end of the show, (s)he is supposed to announce what is being done to make the company a better place to work.

Of course, the show was meant for prime-time viewing, which means there has to be lots of drama and emotions thrown in. Human beings have a somewhat irrational reaction towards emotions and reality shows take complete advantage of this. So, the boss is sent to work with people who have struggled a lot before having this job or who have a family crisis or issues, which strike an emotional chord with the boss (and more importantly the viewers). In almost every show, the boss come out realising the (s)he cannot deliver with the same efficiency that those workers have been delivering (Oh, give me a break! Even I cannot do someone else's job with the same efficiency, but same hold true the other way round). And it also dawns upon them about how those employees are the ones who have made the company successful.

Well, well. Where was all this knowledge hiding till now? When you are chasing quarterly results, busy trying to impress Wall Street and shareholders, employees' happiness and well-being tends to take a back seat. But, at the end of this show, the CXO is supposed to realise what is not working in the organisation. (S)he has to attempt to fix the flaws that are stagnating or contrary to overall employees' growth. But you almost never see that happen!! On an average the CXO works with 4-5 employees in different locations and doing different jobs. Each employee narrates a set of problems (s)he is facing in life. Some are personal and some are professional. Some professional problems are a result of personal issues, while some personal problems arise from professional (on the job) issues. The CXO in almost all episodes seem to address the problems of individual employees. So, as a reward the employee sees his/her problem being addressed in the form of a vacation or a one-time cash grant. But then, doesn't this leave other employees, who were not selected to work with the CXO, unhappy? They could have problems far more serious than those selected. Besides, by announcing personal reward, how does it benefit the organisation? Where are the policy changes? Of the more than ten episodes that I saw, there have hardly been 3-4 policy decisions compared to almost 60 personal rewards. Or will there be policy decisions behind the camera? If that's the case, how will the prime-time viewer know whether the company is actually doing something for its employees? And the intention of the show is to demonstrate that the top management is willing to actually look into employees' problems and not just indulge in improving the top-line and golfing!!

The mockery of sentiments

Our elected representatives were at it again. What would have remained confined to the eyes of a few, had they not raked it up, came out in the open for every one to see. And why did they rake it up? Because, they felt that the incident would hurt sentiments of certain people.

The cartoon of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and Jawaharlal Nehru, sketched by Shankar in 1949, would have remained confined to the field of political science. But, our MPs didn't realise this and raked up the issue in the Parliament, saying that sentiments would be hurt. Thus, with the widespread reach of electronic media, the cartoon was now known to all and sundry, including those, who would have never even thought about the relations between Nehru and Ambedkar. Bowing to 'popular pressure', the government decided to withdraw circulation of the books that contained the cartoons. And going overboard, they decided to remove all political cartoons in NCERT textbooks!! 

Where is our society headed? A cartoon hurts the sentiments of people. But, failed promises by politicians don't!! Election after election, politicians have failed to live up to the promises made in their election manifestos. Till date, they have failed in ensuring the implementation of the most important functions of the government. But, this doesn't hurt peoples' sentiments. The Parliament is disrupted at will, bills are past without engaging debates. But this doesn't hurt peoples' sentiments.

This year, many parts of the nation are staring at a drought. This has led to migration of the village folks to cities in search of work and water. The nation has spent crores of rupees on sold called irrigation projects. But we haven't been able to guarantee adequate year-round supply of potable water. Forget the national level, even at city level there is no guarantee of adequate supply of potable water. This, doesn't hurt peoples' sentiments. Scam after scam is being unearthed. But those accused in such scams do not display any guilt. Instead some are promoted and most are backed by their respective parties. Such acts, do not hurt the sentiments of the people.

What hurts people is a cartoon, which was symbolic of the situation in 1949!! That's the claim of our elected representatives. But respected sirs and madams, what about you hurting our sentiments, when the government has failed to provide even the basic needs of millions of ordinary citizens across the country? Will Parliament be ever disrupted on this issue? Will crowds need to vandalise offices of MPs because manifesto promises were not fulfilled? Or have the MPs not yet understood what our true sentiments are!!

India's Iran oil imports and US persuasion

Hillary Clinton, the U.S. secretary of state, is on a visit to India, her last one before the term of this government ends. The Hindu reports the following about one of the points on the agenda of her visit

In the run-up to the Indian leg of her visit, agencies have reported an official of her delegation as saying Ms. Clinton will once again persuade Indian leaders to cut down their dependence on Iranian oil. The official noted the stepped up Indian purchases of oil from Saudi Arabia which, he believes, means lower procurement of Iranian oil.

She can afford to give advice. Because, as of 2009, USA produces around 9200 bpd of oil. This is out of its consumption of around 18000 bpd. Which means, US domestically produces around 50% of its crude oil requirement. Moreover, their natural gas production (as of 2010) is approximately 21500 billion cubic feet (bcf), which is around 87% of their total requirement. Of its imports, the largest contributor is its neighbour, Canada. And the remaining they get from friends like Saudi Arabia and Brazil. Plus, it has loads of shale oil and gas reserves, which if it exploits to the fullest potential can lead to US ceasing oil imports.

On the other hand, as of 2009, India produces 835 bpd of oil domestically. This is barely 28% of our total requirement of 3008 bpd. Which means, we import around 72% of our oil requirement. Moreover, with oil being priced in US Dollars, the US does not take a hit on currency fluctuations. But, we in India, are susceptible to both, fluctuation in crude oil price and currency fluctuations.

Hence, it is important that we tread cautiously on Hillary's demand to reduce imports from Iran. She would be delighted (at least in the media) to see us completely halt imports from Iran. But, we have to be aware of the risks involved. Moreover, we are a sovereign democracy and do have the right to decide on who our trade partners will be. And if we oblige to Hillary's demands, what do we get in return? China will march in and persuade Iran into giving huge discounts on crude oil and won't even care a damn about what US or its European allies have to say. Will Hillary return favour by doing away with the arbitrary rise in rejections of business visas and reducing the visa fees to an acceptable level? Will she promise (and deliver) complete access to technology related to power generation using nuclear energy, which they have been trying to restrict through some back door measures or the other?

RTE and the government's responsibilities

With the Supreme Court of India upholding the constitutional validity of the Right to Education (RTE) Act (2009), many human rights' and social organisations are cheering out loud. This, they say, will allow children of economically weaker sections to study in private schools, where tuition costs are definitely higher and perhaps not affordable to all those who are meritorious enough to deserve them. But, the main hurdle, like all other laws of our country, is how to effectively implement this act. The implementation should not unduly burden those students' parents who are legitimately paying their wards' fees, through their hard-earned (and well deserved) salaries. How will the government ensure this?

The government imposes a 2% education cess on all the taxes that we pay (income tax, service tax, etc.). Thus, all those who pay taxes, are already sharing a certain amount of the burden. So, isn't the ball now in the government's court, to put this money to its stated use? If schools begin to pass the burden of those students whom they admit under the RTE Act provisions to the others who have already paid full fees, this situation will lead to double taxation on the families. The Minister for HRD, Kapil Sibal, has said 

...under the RTE Act schools which have not taken any benefit from the government will be compensated by the government...

 But, what has not yet been clarified is what would constitute these 'benefits'. Most education institutes have received land at concessional rates from the government. This is the basic government policy, so that infrastructure costs get lowered and the cost of education does not spiral skywards. Thus, the government has to clearly list the items which would render a school ineligible for such compensation. In the Times of India, HRD Minister Kapil Sibal has written

Reimbursement provided by government, therefore, will be adequate to meet the costs of educating children from weaker sections in such schools. But states must put in place open and transparent systems, preferably online, for reimbursement in a time bound and efficient manner.

Granted that the institutes will be reimbursed student expenditure at a rate decided by the government. But, what is the guarantee that records will not be fudged? Though Mr. Sibal says that most education institutes are run by charitable and religious trusts, many such trusts are headed by politicians, who were part of formulating the RTE Act. Recently, the Maharashtra government decided to conduct an actual head count of the number of students enrolled in government-aided schools. Unsurprisingly, it found that the head count was inflated, in some cases, by more than thrice the actual number of students attending, thereby siphoning government money into the pockets of the schools (and 'charitable' trusts). With these charitable trusts being headed by political persons, we can now realise, where the government's money goes.

In many countries (especially in the developed ones), school education is the state's responsibility. The provincial government runs the schools and functions like the educational institutes in our country. Thus, with the government partially (or fully) subsidising primary education, this reduces the financial stress on parents. Providing education is definitely the responsibility of the government. This has been the case since the beginning of civilisation. In ancient India, education of all sorts received infrastructure and operating support from the state. The sages built and lived in ashrams, which were developed with help from the king/emperor. Universities used to run on support from the empire and the wealthy in the community. This is because an educated society definitely has a better outlook towards life. Educated people can take informed decisions and also realise what it takes to lead a better life. That is why education should be a social issue, not a privilege. By asking unaided schools to share the government's burden the government is trying to shrug off its responsibility. Instead, it should improve and strengthen the government-run schools by introducing better infrastructure and increasing the accountability of the teachers employed.