On the Gift of Time

Masroof zamana kyun mujhpe,

Waqt apna barbaad kare?

-Kabhi Kabhi (1976)

(Why should this busy world waste its time on me?)

Premise

24 hours in a day, 7 days in a week and 52 weeks in a year. In a world increasingly beset by inequalities, time is an equal opportunity provider. It does not care if you are rich or poor, party-animal or recluse, slacker or workaholic. Warren Buffet, Elon Musk and I, all get the same amount of time. There is no new technology, no app, that can (yet?) increase the time available to us. There is however plenty that modern technology has done to place increasing demands on our time. The choice of things to do available to anyone with a smart phone is enormous: from playing candy crush to writing a book; offering almost endless possibilities to amuse and entertain ourselves. All these possibilities make it very difficult to value time.

A commonly used measure of value is money. The money value of time suggests that the time of a high-flying corporate executive is much more valuable than of a retiree. But the retiree could spend his time watching a movie instead of indulging his/her grandchild. To the extent that our individual valuations are affected by options available, in recent times the premium on everyones time has gone through the roof. There is always something 'better' that we could be doing, learning, being more productive, watching a movie, playing a game, browsing Facebook. 15 years ago, if there was no good show on TV at 6pm in the evening, the most common way to pass-time was to go meet friends (real people, not the show). Today, they could just look up re-runs of friends (the show).

People and Time

Spending time with people is messy business. In some case the complaints never seem to end, in others unbounded enthusiasm and zest for living seem to be based on distorted sense of reality. Either experience may trigger a negative evaluations of our own lives. People can also be terribly boring, not all of them funny and almost no one seems to get the idea that timing is the essence of humor. Then there are the troubles of trying to figure out what is appropriate and what is not, leading to many an awkward silence. There are those insufferable know-it-alls, the ones who just cannot stop arguing over trivial matters, the ideologues and if you have spent any time in the US recently, those who cant stop talking about trump. People also seem to have this tendency to impose negative externalities; shrill voice, second hand smoke, body odor, farts, grumbling stomach sounds. Spending time with people also imposes compromises. Its Tuesday and the special at this Chinese place is always great, but no one else seems to like it and so the Thai place it is.

All of this is made infinitely worse by the possibilities offered by a computer. The comic timing of all the characters in (your show/movie/game of choice) is always spot on. They do not bore you with their problems in life and even when they do, the drama is exquisitely scripted. You can eat anything you like (and can pay for) while watching them and there are no awkward silences. And if a show is too preachy, or a movie is too slow or a game is not engaging enough, its not much effort to change to a different one. You could also choose to be productive instead, why bother with characters when you can gorge on knowledge. Sate your curiosity with something that places no demands on you. You can still eat anything you like (and can pay for), zone out as frequently as you like and wikipedia still lets you click your way through millions of pages of information. Better still you could use the time to make sure that you do better at your job, write a better academic paper, get your PhD quicker. In fact, given how difficult and frustrating it is to spend some time with another human-being compared to the alternatives, it is astonishing to think that we evolved as social creatures.

The gift of time

By now this may seem like another bleak prognosis of the impact of technology on human society. But I am trying to address a much more important question: What is a good valentine's day gift? Is a bouquet of roses the best expression of your love? Or if you are the sort who does not restrict their celebration of valentines day to romantic love, how expensive should a greeting card for your mother be to adequately convey your love for her? Maybe it should it a sari this time, given that you have started earning. Or maybe given your recent wanderlust, a package tour to (fill in a fun/interesting place). How about your friends? A message on the Whatsapp group should be enough. To the really special ones, maybe a pm on Facebook, maybe even an email if its been a while.

In fact these concerns are not specific to valentine's day. We frequently struggle with the general problem of valuing relationships. How do we convey to someone that we value them and conversely, how to we figure out how much others values us? My contention is that only reasonable way to convey how much we value a relationship is with time. No amount of money or hard-work will make 1 hour of time less than 1 hour of time. This is specially true today when there is so much else that we could be doing with our time. Every moment spent talking to someone is time that could have been spent watching your favorite show or learning how to program better or working towards that big promotion.

A rich/spendthrift partner or spouse maybe able to splurge on trip. Does that mean that they value you more that someone who is poorer/stingier? Is the friend who gets you a job a better friend than the one who is struggling to hold onto his own? On the other hand; we all have time, we all have fixed amounts of it and it has become more valuable to everyone given the choices that we have today. Time offers a better way to both convey how much we value someone and to figure out how much someone values us.

The uncle who spent hours indulging you, the mother who gets up an hour early to make the breakfast you like, the father who spends his evening teaching you how to play cricket properly, the friend who finds time for a call, the sibling who suffers your long stories are the people who are more likely to value you and the relationship you share with them. We are all difficult people to spend time with and its tempting to sit by your computer browsing through valentines day catalogs to find gifts to give away. But this valentine's day gift some time to the people you love, see how that goes.

PS: In fact sometimes how much we value a relationship maybe determined by the time we spend on it. Like any precious resource, there is always risks related to investment of time. But the payoffs maybe high, how much of risk taker are you?

On the weak Indian state and Demonetization

In recent times, the current Indian PM seems to have become a proxy for the state for both his supporters and detractors. While such a simplification might be useful for the rhetoric used by both the sides, it does little to hide the fact that despite being used often, the concept of the ‘state' remains nebulous in India. When negotiating compensation for acquired land, PSU officials (even those from private firms in some instances) are presumed to be state actors. While on the other hand, our movies have been telling us for years that the ineffectiveness of our police is down to the ‘system’ (a common pseudonym for the state) being flawed, implying that the police is somehow separate from the state.

The many discussions on what the state is, its constituent elements and the many forces and counter-forces within it, can at times obfuscate the reality of the Indian state being very weak. The limitations of state capacity are apparent in its inability to ensure that teachers turn up at government schools and that doctors are present at health care centers. The state struggles to provide basic amenities like roads and electricity despite spending huge amounts of money on grandiose projects. This sorry state of affairs in the country has far too often been blamed on the lack of willingness of behalf of the state. But as I have argued before (refer On Tolerance: Intention and Verification), assuming mal-intent where ineptitude is more obvious is more an indulgence for our love of gossip than an exercise of our logical faculties.    

If the state lacks the capacity to implement, what good are policies, irrespective of the intent behind them. This creates a conundrum for a government democratically elected on the promises of better governance and crackdown against corruption. Corruption is endemic due to poor governance structures and governance is poor due to corruption.  A vicious circle ensues, which (even if the government has good intentions) is almost impossible to break. In this vacuum of policy options before the government, enter demonetization. 

Fiat currency works purely on trust. I accept a Rs. 100 note because I am certain that when I give it to someone else, he/she too will accept and value it at Rs. 100. The problems of counterfeiting aside, this system of trust works because the state (central bank) provides a guarantee that even if no one else honors a currency note, the central bank will. Therefore, if the state revokes this guarantee for some currency denominations, the trust that underpins its acceptance breaks down. Therefore demonetization offers a the government with a policy alternative which does not rely on the state’s enforcement capacity. The act of announcing the strategy (withdrawing the central bank guarantee) ensures that it will be enforced (at least in the medium run). 

Does any of this imply that demonetization is a good policy initiative? No, it does not, that’s an empirical question. This article merely offers a view on how this could be one of the few enforceable/implementable policy decisions that are available to a weak state. As for whether it will achieve its stated goals, or if it will cause more harm than good, that is a discussion for another day. 

On Tolerance: Intention and Verification

There has been a spate of untoward incidents that have caused astute analysts to question everything in Indian society; from its social mores to the intentions of its elected government. Accomplished authors are returning awards, famous media persons are crying them selves hoarse, news-apps (they are the closest I can get to figuring out whats in Indian newspapers these days) are full of opinions and counter-opinions on the existential crisis that faces the country today. Mob-lynching, ‘Inking’ faces, even targeted killings of supposedly blasphemous writers. These are dangerous times we are told, intolerance is on the rise in India. 

The dire assessments may seem reasonable to some, given recent events. To others it may seem that the pitch of protestations is not high enough, ‘secularity’ of the country is under threat and the apocalypse is nigh. But despite all the signs that the seals of hell are being broken, there are still those who are are celebrating the recent turn of events. Whatever else the general elections of 2014 might have accomplished, it succeeded in polarising the political spectrum in the country like never before. There is name-calling, mud-slinging, grandiose claims of knowledge about internal machinations of the other side, their ulterior motives and then more name-calling and mud-slinging. There is plenty of excitement there, enough for the news to qualify as a masala-sitcom for the politically inclined. If however, your ideological inclinations are less certain or dedication to the subtle art of classifying and categorising political views not obsessive, you might find that the reportage is not very helpful. The fear mongering inherent in playing up the motivations for a crime (communal instead of murder) surely makes for good drama, but it hardly serves the purpose of informing the public (startling headlines are moderated by usage of words like ‘alleged’ in the body of the article) or of holding the government responsible (for ensuring law and order instead of their clarifying their ideological positions).  

This inordinate focus on the motivations of the criminal or the Government is not a mere an annoyance, its disingenuous and has it has real consequences. It encourages identification with factions, fosters perverse reasoning and inhibits any real analysis on what needs to be done to improve the situation. Consider the following bit of news, according to National Crime Records Bureau 2014 data, the charge-sheeting rate in crimes committed against Dalits is 92.3%, while the conviction rate is 28.8%. This piece of data can be interpreted in multiple ways, but the most obvious inference of a dismal conviction rate must be ineptitude of the police. Now, it may be the case that that many in the police are casteist bigots or it could be because they work hand in glove with the perpetrators of the crime, it may even be due to many senior members of state governments forcing the police to do their bidding. But in espousing these causes, there is an implicit assumption that the police are adequately trained to do their job and that they are well versed with the laws they are charged with upholding. If only the ‘system’ would let them, they would rid the country of crime in a matter of days. Neither of these implicit assumptions stand up to scrutiny. 

The police are not trained well, they are unaware of basic investigative techniques and are sloppy when it comes to gathering evidence. Many judges have reprimanded the police for their inability to conduct an investigation and build a case. Cops routinely flout laws (and all norms of decency): suspects get beaten up, many complainants are harassed and alleged perpetrators of crime heckled at the whims of the local police. In claiming that the ineptitude of the police is a matter of choice (bigotry or doing favours for political masters), the lack of policing capacity goes unquestioned and with it go the calls for for better training and/or recruitment of better qualified candidates. The reality of the lack of state capacity in enforcing the rule of law is buried under the avalanche of allegations concerning the ideology of the incumbent government.

The implicit acceptance of this limited state capacity is showcased in previous instances of governments deciding against taking on perceived public anger: books have been banned, authors/painters have been asked to leave the country or not to enter it, goons burning books have been let off the hook etc.. All acts of governments concerned about not being able to deal with ramifications of dismissing demands that trampled on the constitutional rights of its citizens. The history of modern Indian republic is littered with instances of governments being eager to defend the right to be offended. If that is the case, how are any of the recent events a shock to us. We have implicitly (or explicitly in some cases) accepted the idea that mobs will violently protest if their demands are not met. Do we then have any right to be surprised when the law is broken by people who think they have been left behind in the race to get governments to acquiesce to their wishes? 

None of this is to suggest that any government should let be let off the hook, although it may seem so to some. It is small attempt to sieve out the noise from the continuing outrage, my illustration of what a more reasoned debate would look like. While having a government that responds to questions asked of it is our right, asking the right questions is our duty. We spend too much effort inferring and ascribing intentions and too little in keeping tabs on things that can be observed. Claims about intent can be easily dismissed with counter claims, neither of which are verifiable with certainty. Observed and verifiable outcomes on the other hand are tougher to put a spin on. So when we say we want a more tolerant country, what we must ask for is a country with better enforcement of law and order as prescribed by our constitution.  

On Measurement problems in Education

This piece had been languishing for 3 years. Not particularly insightful, but I need to move on to things I find more interesting at the moment.

The ability to think describes existence; it determines thoughts, actions, participation in society, view of self and of the world. Education is the process that develops perspectives, imparts tools and provides frameworks that are needed for an individual to develop and regulate their abilities. Amartya Sen calls it an enabling factor, though even this rather broad description does not do justice to the central importance that education holds in the world that we live in.

These insights on the importance of education are nothing new and have been acknowledged for very many ages. Hence, universities and schools developed to formalize the methods and mechanisms used to impart education. However, while institutionalization of education is not a modern creation; the interaction between the institution and an individual desirous of getting a education through the market is. Herein lies the construct (primarily with reference to higher education) that shall be presently the object of attention.

Economists and other social scientists often emphasize the role of 'information asymmetry' in workings of the market. The concept is very simple: information about quality of the commodity or service being supplied to potential customers is private to the producer,  or at least it is not available for public consumption. It for this reason that firms (or individuals) go to great lengths to provide assurances of quality to their prospective customers. The financial sector attempts to resolve such problems through credit rating agencies; manufacturing and processing sectors by creating benchmark certifications and offering replacement warranties. 

Aside:  The limitations of private provisioning of such information were exposed during the economic crisis of 2008. The contradictions built into the credit rating mechanism became apparent showing how the sytem could be rigged. Such privately owned rating services are usually paid for by the supplier (directly or indirectly) and thereby the ratings can hardly ever be expected to be based on a fair assessment.

The provision for education in a modern economy, suffers from problems of a similar nature. In societies where the university system has matured over a long period of time (which is not to say that they dont have serious problems of their own), the quality is signaled by perceptions associated with individual institutes or universities. However, in relatively younger systems of education, with new institutions coming up everyday, consumer (students) decisions have to made without the luxury of being able to rely on years of historical performance as measures of quality. Therefore developing mechanisms to convey quality are of far greater importance. To further complicate matters, such markets are characterised by a demand-supply mismatch, whereby there are many applicants than there are positions. So not only do potential consumers suffer from information asymmetry, the intense competition for places might mean that most might not have a real choice in where they get their education from. Given this situation and the importance of education the onus of resolving this issue usually falls with the state. 

The state in its attempts to assure quality is likely to create some system of regulation. In India, there state funded accreditation agencies, along with licensing authorities who are responsible for ensuring the quality of education institutions. Given the enormous demand for education there are plenty of private entrepreneurs willing to set up schools and colleges. But a license-permit regulatory system makes these entrepreneurs potential targets for rent seeking as also potential sources of future employment to be cultivated by bureaucrats at the agencies. The problems are akin to the general malaise that afflicted the pre-liberalisation Indian economy.  

While licensing institutions leads to graft and nepotism, accrediting and rating educational institutions comes with its own set of problems. The process of imparting education does not lend itself well to evaluation. It is almost impossible to generate a list of criteria that can be objectively measured for purpose of evaluation. Education is what would be called a complex process, where following the same recipe twice may not result in the same dish. There are no detailed blueprint of a method that can ensure a high level of learning. Whats worse is there are no concrete outcomes of the process that can be measured. There are many proxies: placements, salary, alumni network. But measuring these is confusing being 'successful' for being educated.  Is someone who became a high school teacher any less educated than an investment banker? This serves to  show that the measurement problems in education production process further complicate the problems arising from information asymmetry.

On my attempts at poetry

Strange as it may sound to people who have known me for any length of time, over the last one year or so, I have been able to pen down a few short compositions that vaguely resemble poems. While very crude and hardly works of any literary value, it is a personal milestone that I thought of sharing.

My first poem, penned (rather typed) after meeting an old friend for the last time:

Just for a brief moment in time,
 Fires were rekindled,
 Passions reignited,
 No dreams of the past resurrected,
 No glorious future imagined,
 In that lover's eternal last kiss,
 I was alive again and so were you,
 Just for a brief moment in time.

The most recent one, born out of sheer boredom (and inspired by Rudyard Kipling's excellent 'if'):

If you no longer feel awed by the sight of waves crashing on the shore,
If you cannot see the wonder in the eyes of a kid,
or the beauty in dew covered grass,

If you sit among friends and still feel lonely,
If you cannot muster the effort to call up an old friend,
or listen to the ramblings of a troubled brother,

If at 25 you find yourself longing for another chance at life,

If you cannot look at your past and smile at it,

or find it hard to imagine a future for yourself,

Yours is a world with nothing in it... 

On the Rebels with a Cause

Late in the night yesterday, I was having a debate with my father on the anti-corruption protests led by Anna Hazare sweeping through India. My contention being that the Jan Lok Pal Bill being advocated by Anna and his team is inimical to the interests of the society at large. Earlier today, after initiating a conversation on the issue at my work place I ended up being pillared for not supporting Anna.

There are many arguments that can be made against the creation of an unelected body overseeing the operations of all branches of government and the statute governing which, the civil society in general and Anna group in particular claims should be dictated by them to the parliament. I stand by the arguments that I have made in this regard over the past month or so and agree with most that I have heard from others who have similar reservations. But this post is not about these arguments, for today evening I saw something that has made me realise that these protests are not about what I thought they were.

As a young boy I rued being born in an age when my country had already won her independence. Despite being inspired by reading about the great acts of freedom fighters, there were no britishers for me to fight against. In fact my generation witnessed growth and increase in prosperity which historians tell us is unprecedented in the recorded history of the country. There was a feeling of being a rebel without a cause in those days, which I have since found was shared by many of my age.

I did take up cudgels when I eventually did come across something worth fighting for. I fought for having free and fair student elections, against homework, against stereotypes held my teachers and my fellow students, among others. But for the odd exception I found that it is difficult to garner support in a fight against the establishment. People are willing to (grudgingly) admire a rebel, but not to stand beside him. A similar claim was famously made by Nana Patekar in the iconic movie Krantiveer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-DNavQ5l9w).

Eventually I discovered that I did not have the stomach for such struggles, it requires too much effort, its too lonely, you can never please everyone and more often that not they dont have happy endings like in the movies. I retired to a more convenient life of relative comfort. In fact now I think I have become one of the arm chair critics that I used to detest so much, once upon a time.

Then again, most of us are arm chair critics, aren't we?

But the events of today evening have forced me, despite myself, to think beyond criticism. During a protest march of roughly 100 people, I saw a group of old ladies, most of whom I am guessing were troubled by arthritis, waving the Indian tricolor and shouting patriotic slogans and those in support of Anna, as enthusiastically as the younger participants. On route of the march were a group of 4 hooligans, who shared a thunderous round of laughter at the expense of the protestors. They were left alone and their mockery went unchallenged as I guess most of the well meaning folk thought it better than to waste their time with these rowdy boys. But the old ladies did not give in to any such considerations, they rounded up the 4 boys and gave a rousing lecture on why all this is for them. So that, when someday when they take their kids to a government hospital, they clerk will not turn them away with empty beds, someday they will have the freedom to drive to roads that are not riddled with potholes, someday they can ask for their rights with dignity and honour. As it all this was not enough, the boys hung their heads in shame through most of the monologue (although initially they had tried to run away from and later shoo away the ladies). They apologised, took the flags that they were offered and joined in. Now, I know these boys. There usual lair is the ground I used to football in and never ever have I seen them conform to any norms of civility.

In that moment I realised, maybe a little too late, that this movement is not about Anna or the Jan Lok Pal Bill. Anna is the focal point around which the movement has gathered steam, but all movements need leaders. Jan Lok Pal Bill might be Anna's agenda, but that is immaterial. What got these old ladies to leave the comfort of their homes, was not any undying love for Anna (not that it would have played a part), but the want to create a better society.

Everybody in this country, at some point or the other has seen the ugly face of corruption, but so far, their indignation was hidden beneath the, by now famous, 'chalta hai' (anything goes) attitude. But this movement gives them hope that things do not always have to be this way. Maybe this movement will fail. Maybe this time agenda will trump the desire for real change for the better. But power of knowledge cannot be undone.

As I sit in the comfort of my room, I can hear the chants outside. As the blue billion rises, will I (and you) still be warming our chairs? 

       

On a Bunch of Problems

I wish to start this piece thanking the poor souls who have read my blog posts over the last couple of months. The stats available on blogger say that this blog has been viewed 290 times in the last one month (accounting for repeat views that should give us a reader base of about 30 people). Not a very impressive number, but enough to keep my hopes up. As one of my school teachers reminded me the other day, in the days gone by when driven by the romanticism of being a rebel, the energy that having a slim frame more often than not endows one with and naivete of a 16 year old; I would tell anyone who was willing to listen that - All it takes is small spark inside one individual, the rest will follow!

But times have moved on and though things dont look as simple as igniting a spark inside one individual, I still consider it a goal worth of aspiring for. While the goals might be praiseworthy, I realise that my writings suffer from a worsening short term memory, lack of energy and remnants of mild dyslexia. For these and other issues that you might have observed with these posts, I apologize..

A particular incident, thinking about which has consumed most of my waking hours this past weekend, concerned admission interviews at my current place of work. I had been asked to be part of an admission board which conduct admission interviews; though why someone who has barely taken7-8 classes be accorded such a privilege is beyond the realm of my understanding.

My opinions on being an interviewer was for a long time predicated on experience gleaned from the times when I was the interviewee and I had arrived at the conclusion that taking an interview would be a lot of fun. After having been part of three such admission interview board remains unchanged - taking an interview is a lot of fun. Though I am not sure but I think the release of endorphins is caused by the sadist inside me, or maybe by a feeling of gratification brought about by putting others through what I had been through or maybe it is the knowledge of the power that you command sitting across the table. However, irrespective of the source, I have found conducting interviews to be a very joyous experience.

This time however, I came across a student who woke my conscience, rather rudely too, from the stupor that it has fallen into off late. Visually he wasn't much, as unremarkable as they come, but rarely have I seen someone be so tense and calm at the same time. The first sign of trouble was signaled by his silence following the usual - please introduce yourself request. It was followed by a half hearted attempt by him to partially cover his face with sweaty and trembling hands.

I sat there, across the table (with the chair person of this 2 person board sitting next to me), transfixed,  unable to figure out what to so next. My colleague, who was apparently not so afflicted, continued his investigations and discovered that the boy had travelled for 2 days, on foot, car, bus and train to get to delhi from his small town somewhere in the great hinterland of India. He was tired, could not converse in english and had not known how to prepare for this interview as no one he knew had ever taken an interview. All of these answers came from behind the thin, sweaty and shivering hand that had created an inadequate veil almost as if to shield himself from us.

He was taut like a drawn bow string during the course of the interview, which lasted not more than 7-8 mins. He left dejected with our brief interaction, but did not seem disappointed, maybe he knew what would happen. I on the other hand, reflect on the incident with a lot of disappointment.

Did I pity the boy? Maybe. Did he pity me? Maybe. Should either of us pity each other or should we carry on reveling in the possibilities that our society offers for such interactions..