When all is done and dusted OR Musings on IPL and Cricket

And so it has ended - this Lent-long vigil of mostly underwhelming and mediocre cricket. At the denouement there were so many distractions that the actual play appeared incidental. Perhaps fittingly the final - and this is from those who watched it and not from a prejudiced twerp like me - turned out to be mild; soporific, even.

Let's return to the original premise - that 2020 is the 'new' face of cricket, that it is the version  that youngsters and housewives are interested in. I hope not. Whatever little that one saw of IPL, the lasting impression was that a large part of the audience was not really interested in the game of cricket - they were there to be seen in the company of the film stars and other glamorous people; they liked to be part of the glitz and the festivities. One hopes to be proven wrong - I hope that most people watching IPL were there because of their love for the game. And it is in the hope that cricket shall prevail that I wish to make several random points; and an random points go, these appear here in no particular order:

1. For 2020s and IPL to be taken seriously by all (i.e. the godforsaken lovers of Test Cricket) it is imperative that the dumbing-down is stopped forthwith. (duh!) Well, that means no short boundaries, no cute breaks, no rechristening (pardon me, fair Christian folk!) of Sixes and catches and hits to the box. Let's not dick around with the game. There, I have said it.
2. That Sachin is an all-time-great player, but is not, is not, is not a leader of men in the traditional sense. (remember! I said random points). He is a fine example of arrested boyhood and also of an exemplary cricketing brain. But it does not, does not, does not translate to him being a great captain. And I say this as a devotee who writes to praise him, not bury him that let us not burden him with attributes that he does not have.
3. That in Mahi we have a captain who is grounded, clever, decently skilled, brave and amazingly lucky. It won't surprise anyone if he ends is career with a high win-loss ratio - let me stick this neck out - a ratio above 60%
4. That showing a battery of ill-clad white girls doing hoops is not innovation. In passing, don't know about you, but it struck me to be a deep case of racism to have only white, girls dance. (Hope you noticed the comma, pregnant with meaning between white and girls) 
5. That commentary is an integral part of all sports; more so in cricket - for it is blessed with a vocabulary so rich and eccentric that it is absolutely, insanely criminal to let loose upon the unsuspecting public the likes of Sidhu (it would be ok if he meets with an accident that robs him of his speech. Just saying, mind you, not wishing!), Morrison (drown him, please!), Bedi (Angad, not Ms noodlestrap - and I honestly do not know who is the worse of the two; and that is saying a lot!), et al. To be honest, even a seasoned speaker like Shastri was reduced to being a buffoon and an all-time great cricketer and a sober commentator like Gavaskar was annoying more times than decency warrants.
6. If there is to be innovation then bring it in the game. An example: allow one catching mitt to the fielding team - let the captain decide which fielding position should have it. This will bring a semblance of balance; after all, every rule favours the batting side nowadays. So it will be a treat to see 99 out of the 100 of those impossibly high, curling catches being bagged.
7. Let ricochets off the stumps be declared as dead-ball in 2020. There have been some cricketers who have mooted this idea - and I think it is only fair. If the administrators are reluctant to adopt this universally, let it be made operational in 2020s at least.
8. I'd like to see another change in 2020 - let the bowling team have the right to bring in their brand of balls. As long as it is a standard issue and meets the regulations I don't see why batsmen should have all the advantages of bringing Mongooses and Civets into the game without giving a similar option to the bowlers.
9. Captains finishing their overs slowly, for every 5 minutes delay they should be fined the equivalent of one over worth of runs scored at the highest run-rate that the batting team achieved in its 20 overs. And of course, also the stiff fines. If 2020 is meant to be fast and furious cricket where there is only time to react, then no side should have the advantage of getting free-time to think and ponder and delay
10. If BCCI is the coffer for the game and its shepherd, then let it be a good shepherd! Let it not be a bully that steamrolls cricket into a dish that is neither fish nor fowl. How I wish that BCCI would first fill the calendar of the years to come with test series, then ODI and then 2020 (if it must!). The rock, the pebble and the sand...then the cup of cricket shall not run over with bad tidings; it will sound a sonorous, melodious ring and spread unalloyed joy to all! Amen! 

Us Indians

Here is a lucid account of the status of water-sharing between India and Pakistan. The author, John Briscoe sums with minimum fuss the practical issues and also points to possible solutions. He cites the example of Brazil, and how it has chosen to be generous towards Bolivia and Paraguay, poor neighbours both; he hopes that India too will show such generosity.

I very much doubt it. We may be a tiny bit benevolent to Bangladesh or Nepal even; Pakistan is not a country that makes the milk of generosity flow in Mother India. For one, Pakistan has been foolishly aggressive. Kargil is impossible to forget - the TV has ensured that it will endure at least another generation of viewers. Second, unlike Bolivia and Paraguay, Pakistan is a dangerous country that is capable of causing serious harm to India. Brazil is lucky to be in an altogether salubrious neighbourhood.

As I pointed in my earlier blog on Bangladesh, India must repair the relationship with the rest of the neighbours. Being generous is only the beginning. The first few movements with Bangladesh suggest that perhaps we can hope for a better future there.

The second point that Briscoe makes - about the media in India - that is a serious and valid criticism. I am often dismayed at the lack of rigorous enquiry by the media towards what the various arms of the government do. The media in India is obsessed with trifles and on sensation; on melodrama and bathos; the level of debate on our weaknesses and our holy cows are so mild and staged, it makes me feel very ashamed indeed.

But the most devastating reality that I have had to face after reading the comments of the Internet community in India and Indians is that the young Indians today are so belligerent and so full of themselves - not ready to engage anyone who happens to differ in opinion. As an experiment try this: engage a couple of young adults, say 21 to 30, on any topical issue - be it the women's reservation, Pakistan and US, the state of infrastructure, food prices, education - chances are that they will not have a clue, or they will not be too concerned beyond their immediate issues. Any criticism of the current icons and any attempt to talk about the deep disparities in our society will immediately bring in the most vulgar kind of discourse: religious hatred, caste based hatred, language and region based hatred.

Sometimes I feel that the Internet and the TV have not brought the noble and the civilized in us. Reading the interactions and watching the audiences one would think that we are becoming closed and intolerant, unread and uncouth, shrill and surly.

Perhaps these are the sign of times? Perhaps this too will change and the tide will turn.

3 Idiots

Went to see it with trepidation: a 40 year-old lead masquerading as a college student was a recipe that was sure to go horribly, predictably, utterly, irredemiably, excruciatingly, writhingly-embarassingly wrong.

So as penance the least I can do is give a constipated smile here :-\

There. I was wrong.

Loved every moment of it - almost. Loved the oh-so-real contrast of Chatur. Loved the downplaying of mushy-mushy moments. Loved the absence of cynicism. Most of all, loved the unabashed idealism; not the preachy Swades kind, but a more believable kind of let's-go-about-it-and-let-the-devil-take-the-hindmost-kind of glowing goodness.

The childbirth sequence is painful, but it is a small price to pay. The only other crib: why make the prospective dulha, the Wildesian guy-who-knows-the-price-of-everything-but-value-of-nothing, a caricature? (Sigh! I'm in the mood for hyphens today. Well, let me make the most of it)

To me the standout thing about the movie was the attempt at mainstreaming hitherto obscure elements of India and Indians. Wangdu is the unlikeliest of names for a hero in Hindi commercial cinema. Here it was slipped in without a whiff of majority-smarminess that we often see when dealing with any minority issue. The Muslim character and his family are not built-up as a shining beacon of secularism - they are a regular family with regular problems who happen to be Muslims. Chatur could have been seen as a madrasi-from-uganda jester who mixes up his tenses and genders while wafting in noxious farts; but we see him as a desperate anally-retentive man who takes himself so seriously that he loses any sense of proportion that might have given him a peaceful night's sleep. We don't make fun of him. We want to shake him by the scruff of his Hugo Boss jacket and drill some sense into him.

The Director played by Boman Irani teeters on the edge of caricature but redeems himself as only an artiste can. It is not difficult to find such people in our campuses and schools - isolated from the world by years of cotton-balled environs, so devoid of a sense of otherness! I know of headmasters and teachers and lecturers who are uncannily like the character we saw - maybe each with different tics and idiosyncracies, but vivid in their colouration and exotic as a menagerie.  

All of these elements mingled in this film and they crafted a story for us that was both overdue and is boilingly-hot. After this film one should not now be surprised to see many more youngsters in our IITs and IIMs and RECs questioning the relationship between career and desire. They have found an ally and a tongue. However, it is not just Kapil Sibal who is responsible to open the windows, it is actually the parents and teachers and employers who need to look out of this opened window and realise that the horizon really meets at infinity.

Google Games

An interesting fact from the google pages - as this article shows, Google shows Arunachal as Chinese to users in China; Indian to the users in India; and disputed to the rest of the world.

I thought I'd check it for myself at the maps.google.com instead. Here's what I see: All of J&K is shown as disputed, all of AP is. However Tibet is shown as Chinese and Taiwan is left to interpretation as it is not on mainland, hence no contiguous boundary. As it happens, google maps don't show international maritime boundaries. So there is no way of knowing.

Tomorrow if India were to claim Bhutan as it's own, would it be seen as disputed by Google? After all, one sovereign nation, India, thinks Bhutan is her's.

Another case: Srinagar is shown as India, Gilgit as Pakistan; and funnily enough, Siachen too is shown as Pakistan!

Further afield, in Palestine, the land between the '49 Armistice and the '74 Ceasefire line is shown under Israel, and not as disputed. It is occupied by Israel.

So, what to make of it all? Siachen is occupied by India, but is shown as Pakistan. But Ein Zivan, for instance is occupied by Israel but not shown as Syria.

Clearly, there is evidence to show that Google it towing the US line - it is in alignment with the overt and covert US foreign policy. It cannot be termed as business sense; it is anything but that. It is jingoistic.

So why can't India, a country that has some clout, not make it difficult for Google? China has. Israel has. Why should India be seen as pusillanimous? I'm all for making it tough for companies like Google - companies who, in the military parlance, are nothing more than mercenaries; ronin.

They should be treated as one.

India's 'new' military doctrine

This article by Dr. Maleeha Lodhi raises some interesting points.

The summary of the thesis is that India has over-reached and has aspirations that it cannot possibly meet in the future. This has been translated as a show of arrogance and misplaced self-importance.

There is merit to this argument. It is not for the first time that Indian foreign policy has been discussed  by people who should know better and by people who ought to be discreet. Our FO mandarins have never shied away from bombast. Pity! It does not behoove a country of India's pedigree to allow such loose talk from its elite.

It would have been far more effective to not discuss the specifics at this stage and to bend all the powers of the mind, statecraft and the military to achieving the vision.

However, let's examine the main points of the new strategy. First the cold-start doctrine. It's been in place since 2004. This doctrine is totally Pak-centric. And that is my first objection. When we sat down to craft a Pak-centric strategy, why did we not at the same time sit to design a China-centric strategy? Surely we have the thinkers in this country and enough experts in geo-politics and military strategies? It seems inconcievable that the only foe which has defeated us does not figure in our primary strategy. Well, perhaps the think-tank is and has a strategy; maybe it is chary of revealing it. If it is so, then kudos, well done!

The cold-start strategy itself has its pros and cons. The ultimate idea of creating smaller and more mobile 'Integrated Battle Groups' (IBG), capable of being deployed on the western front within 96 hours is a laudable one. Since it is being seen as an integrated exercise, the Navy and the Air Force will also bring their respective strengths on board. Whether or not we will even exercise this option and attack Pakistan is very moot. Perhaps a combination of political and tactical events may make it necessary - example: another Paliament-like/Mumbai-like attack by Jihadis and with Al Qaida being chased on Pakistan's western borders, India might think it is the right time to do large-scale damage to specific targets in Punjab or Sindh.

However, I doubt if we would ever think of a controlled strike as a strategy to retaliate against the game of attrition being played in the Kashmir vale - as this article from Walter Ladwig suggests. That game has become far too complicated.

Second, to the articulation of a 'two-front war' - Ms. Lodhi has a pathogenic dislike to anything that the Indians might want to say about themselves that throws them in good light. Is the 'two-front war' only a rhetoric meant to boast about our military prowess of handling two formidable foes at the same time? Is it not a reality for India that there could be a situation in the future where China and Pakistan gang-up on us? Is that too outre? I don't think so. In which case, is it not a smart thing to be prepared for that eventuality? If Raja Mohan is to be believed, the strategic think-tank has not been too active in making these plans. In fact, he raises a far more disturbing point: that under the current political dispensation we have lost at least two opportunities to stake our leadership in this region.

Either way, if there is a move to articulate our defence and offence strategy for the northern border it ought to be welcomed. One only wishes that not too much is divulged - or only misleading bits are divulged. We need to be far more crafty in dealing with China - we need to believe in Chanakyaneeti. The buff and raucous way that we behave in dealing with such matters needs to change, or it needs to be part of a brilliant side-stepping strategy to pull several fast ones. If the latter is true then even as I write and as we speak, we are being out-flanked by the FO mandarins. In which case, FO guys (and gals), Good show!

The only way to figure what is the reality would come from mapping the strategy to the purchases and from the recruitment and from the slow and invisible changes in the command-structure. I'll post something about this later - at the moment I don't even have the starting data. Readers are welcome to direct my attention to links and web resources.

On Avatar

The special effects are so dazzling and the digital world of Pandora is so bewitching that one postpones the niggling feeling that this is a story that reeks of Judaeo-Christian simplification of a heathen world. Poor, simple-minded, artless children of nature, tramelled under the foot of a superior race of humans (all Americans, mostly white).

Whilst the innocents talk environmental cliches, the one neat trick all Pandorans have is the tassled synaptic ends that act as USB connectors to a massive Central Consciousness Centre (Oh! Sri Sri, we missed your gabble!), which later reveals itself as a large tree built with Faerie Lights. This idea is a cool one and would have been plausible had the contrast between the simple-mindedness of the ten-foooters and the sophistication of the inter-synaptic connections not been too great. Imagine! The Pandoran Pterodactyls, the 6-footed horses (more like Threstals, really), all were instantly docile the moment the mutual tassles connected; imagine the transformation of the 'soul' from a human - an alien race - to an ten-footer (though Sigourney Weaver does not make it): breath-takingly advanced. (One curious aside: I don't remember any Na'vi eating in the film. There is only a brief shot of the gurrl drinking off a Pandoran lily and that was more to show her limpid eyes and trembling lips than victualising)

To then imagine the same people to go into that chanting trance like the chak-chak dancers of Bali and to seek a messiah to emerge from the enemy race. Of course it had to be the Human who would tame the red Pandoran pterodactyl! (How could we have doubted that!). Ah! finally a person who shows the poor natives what the real stuff is about. Poor duds, what did they know! Well. dunno about you, but I found it a tad too similar to the telling of the history of the heathen world from the eyes of Roman Catholic conquistadores. A history that still helps the West stereotype just about everything that is Eastern, and hence by default, Dionysian.

Look also, at the other actors: the military commander of evil intent - he seemed to have not a single redeeming bone in his body - the glowing facsimile of Lucifer. Along with Ribisi (Phoebe's kid-bro from Friends) they were more the Judy and Punch from the neighbourhood Pantomime. There is a moment where Ribisi is shown to be in two minds, he seems unsure. Hopefully it is meant to portray an inner turmoil. We have no way of getting any deeper for this nano-second of insight has not been developed further. The commander suffers from no such pussy-footedness. He is of the brawny Republican mein - perhaps a Cheney in one dimension?

What boggles the mind is that such majesty of technical sophistication in the film was matched with the characterization that only a Jellyfish would consider nuanced (hang on! perhaps that's insulting to the Cniderians, maybe the amoebas then?). The story could still have been a simple one (well, there's only so much one can absorb after being bedazzled with such digital artistry), but surely some realistic layers could have been introduced in the Humans and the Na'vis? Some controlled nuances of the heroes and villians? (did you see a baaaaad Na'vi? No, only one who is jealous and blinded-by-love). It would then have been a memorable movie.

In the end, all one remembers is the awesome spactacle of Pandora seen through 3-D glasses. Nothing more.

Rajkot Drama

825 runs scored in under 8 hours. 15 wickets given scoring them.
One team lost by 3 runs.

A remarkable match. Because in the end it was not the 414 that India scored that won them the match. A huge score by any reckoning. Yet, one cannot say that it was the scoring of 400 that led us to win.

Nor was it the 411 that SL scored chasing. Under any circumstances one would have thought that a team scoring 400 would have won. Well, they didn't.

India won because it held its collective nerve in the last two overs. So it didn't really matter to all of us who were watching if the score was 400 or 200. The important thing in the 50th over was was that Ashish Nehra should not give a 4 and should preferably take a wicket every ball. I did not think of 414. And I bet you didn't either. It was all about Nehra bowling those yorkers and SL not being able to score of the last 6 balls. The actual score was inconsequential; it could have been anything!

However the match will always be remembered, not for its close verdict, but for the two teams that scored 400 apiece. In a way it is fair - after all, we have seen so many close matches with all kinds of scores. But nail-biters with 400 runs apiece? well, just 2! This and the one that SA and Oz played in 2006.

The cynic would say that there now is no need for the bowler. They anyway get carted for boundaries. They might as well have bowling machines instead. Yet while watching this match, it is impossible to imagine India winning had Zaheer and Ashish N. not bowled those yorkers in the last two overs.

However, the credit, 100% credit, to make this match a nail-biter goes to the SL team. As Sanga said, they did not, 'roll over and die' (haha, Oh! the wit of a budding lawyer) thinking of chasing 414. They matched India blow for blow and held a slight advantage at the 35 over mark.

Which is why I would have given my MoM to the 160 by Dilshan. Maybe the adjudicators could have been cheesy and given it jointly to Viru and Dilshan? This SL team is a proud team and Sanga is the most gracious of leaders. Perhaps is is better to not rub in the salt and give this the flavour of a 'consolation' by going joint or giving it to Dilshan. You know what? I think, it's fine that SL walk away with the head held high and without people throwing scraps at them.

It is amusing to see Mahi do the deliberate nonchalant act after we win. He does this after every match of consequence. It looks cool. Suits Mahi.

One last thing. I don't want to make a big deal out of this. But I can't help mentioning that the last two Test matches and this ODI were far more riveting and satisfying than the two 2020s. I'm just saying...thats all.

:-)

Well, in the end we won. Good for us.

Thai Pavilion after the makeover

I had dinner last week at the Thai Pavilion. Long had I wished to go, and this article by Vir Sanghvi tipped it over. I had to go. At least to see the coloured glasses by Super Potato. It's not fair to talk about the decor - after all Thai Pavilion is known for its food. The coloured glass jars - rows and rows of it filling up an entire wall - seem to be 3/4th filled with rangoli powder. Cute.

Now to the food.

The build-up was immense. Just last week I had read that it is the top five destinations in India - with Bukhara at the top and TP third. Till the last week, the only Thai places I had eaten were: Thai Ban (several times), The Thai Restaurant next to National College in Bandra Linking Road (now closed; I forget the name), A Thai joint in San Dimas, Calif, US; and a few Chinese eating paces that also serve Thai.

The water being served was directly bottled from the Himalayan springs. So much for the build-up! Tom Kha first, then Som Tam. The soup was nice; bland-ish, not hot enough and the veggies were - well, normal. Did not spot anything that surprised me (pleasantly!) and made me say, 'mmmmm. hhh, mmmm'. I did that on 5th Dec. when served with the T. Kha at Thai Ban.

A decidedly tepid start, I thought.

The papaya salad was, again, ok. Nothing that one did not expect a posh and famous place to serve. It was again bland-ish. The the papaya gratings could have been a tad finer and perhaps the peanut a little less coarse. Definitely more lemon juice, and a little bit of magic perhaps. Well, I had to rely heavier that I would have liked to on the sauces provided.

The portion was small considering it cost INR 500. (In fact all the portions for whatever we had that night were just under what one would expect. Hmmm. Not that we are big eaters. One likes to see a surfeit, I guess! After all there are doggie bags to consider)

By this time I was apprehensive that the meal was going only in one direction - down!!!

Then came the raw mango and water chestnut salad. Nice. But too simple. Just two basic tastes and two basic textures: the mango and the water chestnut; sour and bland. One thought it could have been made faaaaar more interesting. After all a Thai kitchen probably has the most astonishing array of condiments, sauces, dips and relishes. Once again, we all got too busy with the (four, yes, only four) sauces at the table. I asked for more - and was given a bowl of garlic in chili oil. Nice, but not Thai enough. The nam pla, though, was excellent!

By this time the main course had been ordered and we were looking at each other with trepidation. Oh Lord! What a disappointment!! I was already making mental plans - perhaps it's still not too late to nip in to Thai Ban.... perhaps one should call them, just in case...

Then came broccoli in some kind of a black-bean based gravy - very dry and aromatic. It was delicious! It went just perfectly with the plain rice. The black bean paste was flavorful, light and it did not have the bitterness that the Chinese one has. The garlic was just right. The dish was sweet and succulent and lovely!

Revived, at last!

Then came the old favourite. Green curry with veggies. It was fantastic! The best I had eaten. It had pieces of okra, plantain, barbatti and it has lots of flavours that kept popping and bursting in my mouth.

I left it mid-course to try the Phad Thai, thinking that it would be good to leave the tastiest for the last. Well the rice noodles was terrific as well. The textures were varied and perfect, the taste was fresh, the gravy was savoury enough to satiate my Indian palate. It was great! Only complaint - the portions! Oh! Did I already say that the portions were small?

Hmmm.

Well, it didn't take long to finish the noodles and get back to the rice and the green curry. Thankfully, the rice bowls seemed to be like Draupadi's - the spoonfuls kept dropping on my plate. Usually, I eat till I'm just over a-half full. That night, I was maybe a little over that. So yes, it was a nice meal, in the end!

And BTW, the service was chaotic at times, but the main server was knowledgeable. He stopped me from ordering a perfectly ghastly affair of batter-fried squashes (I have a horror for batter fried stuff), and recommended this-and-that-and-the-other. Good!

Learning: Do not order starters in this new Thai Pavilion. Go straight for the jugular. Score: 3.5/5

Another angle to the Edwina-Nehru saga

Last week I read Pamela Mountbatten's interview and tried to map it to the generally-held view of the Jawahar-Edwina relationship. The general view is that it was an affair, kept under wraps, but plain for all to see including Edwina's husband. A film was almost made - and it may well be made in the future - about this torrid romance carried out in the heat and haze of Delhi.

Why would Pamela Mountbatten disagree with this version of truth and insist that it was not a sexual relationship but one brimming with love and friendship? For one, it may well be true. As in, really, really true. (Check this scene in Bend it Like Beckham, 2 mins into this youtube).

It is not a secret that there have been reports of Pandit Nehru having had gay leanings, at least while at school. Wolpert has written about it and many in India made a big deal out of it. Seen from that light, the Jawahar-Edwina relationship can be very well understood as that of a gay man and his fag-hag. It would have all the ingredients that Pamela has talked about - it would be intimate without being steamy, it would be deeply emotional, it would be physical as in hugs, and kisses and touches - but entirely without a tremor in the nether regions of either. It explains the equanimity of Lord Mountbatten, a handsome dasher if there ever was one, and an alpha male; casting an indulgent eye on the lady being frivolous with another good-looking man.

No one knows what the truth was. (Nor is it anybody's business, really. But it makes for interesting conjecture). I think it is sweet to imagine two grown-up people who are in love in the way that most people cannot imagine them to be, the fact that their friendship was 'more innocent' than what people thought it to be, and the fact that it probably suited the two (and the hubby) to let it be seen that way.

I wonder if a film will get made with this as the angle? To silence the critics who say it was sexual and to show how 'pure' the friendship was. How ironical would that be?

Am I the only one who thinks that this might be even more unpalatable to those who demand nothing less than perfection from our holy cows?

Generosity of companies

On the Thursday before Diwali night, I was given a box of chocolates. This brought back a flood of memories. My first 'meaningful' employer was Reliance and I joined the Patalganga factory as a trainee some 15 years ago. Within 2 months of joining, during Ganesh Chaturthi I received a bonus of 6000 rupees and a small box of sweets. During Diwali I received a bonus of 30,000, free coupons worth 7000 rupees (to 'buy' clothes, food, goods, et al) and a kilo of kesar kaju katli. We would also get regular supplies of Godrej towels (large ones), Cinthol soaps so that we could shower and clean up after getting our hands dirty in the plant. (I just took them home. Officers were not supposed to bathe in the factory like the 'common' technicians). Besides, we always got all the safety equipment that we ever wanted and uniforms (along with stitching charges). Plus we were fed every 2 hours, all 24 hours. late work meant getting dropped home in a car all by myself. This happened in all the four years that I was with them. The bonus amount kept mounting each year. I was a rich little bugger.

Since then I have been with 5 other employers, two of them for decent periods. Never have I seen that level of generosity. In fact, it embarrasses me to say that the other two places have been piteous, not just by Reliance standards, but by any reasonable standards of generosity. It left a hollow feeling of being seen as a burden. Such bitter aftertaste! It seems that generosity is now only shown to the top layer of leaders in the organization, who, by the way, are extraordinarily well paid and perked and who, seem to need the generosity least. I have always wondered how a 16 hour flight is more harrowing to the CEO who needs to travel first class. Must be some Vishnu-induced metaphysics where for the hoi polloi, it's merely a 2 hour jaunt across the Atlantic.

Have we, I wonder, outgrown the era of generosity? Have we entered, some would say re-entered, an era of gracelessness? Of course, I'm sure it works both ways. Employees too are so mercenary nowadays. It is the norm to be so.

Well! there you are! I meant this to be the post for Diwali.
Happy Diwali anyway!