Increase in Intolerance? Or Increase in Voice?

 Occupy Wall Street movement began in New York City in September 2011 and spread to more than 1500 cities globally. Arab Spring began in Tunisia in December 2010 and spread across a dozen nations in the Middle East. Anti-corruption movement in India began in 2011 and spread throughout India.

Three different movements held across three different continents

One common theme: social media.

Add to the above list the popularity of Why This Kolaveri Di, and the brouhaha caused by comments of some ‘khaas-aadmi’ and many ‘aam-aadmi’ in recent times in India, and the common theme remains the same: social media. Recent debate around tolerance-intolerance and comments of Aamir Khan are the latest addition to the list of events/controversies in which social media has played a critical role.

Social media provides a unique platform where even an aam aadmi, and not just a khaas-aadmi, can create, exchange, and share content with people they might or might not know. And it is essentially this ability to create and share content which makes social media so powerful. Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, Blogger, and Google+ are few examples of social media platforms.

What sets social media apart from other communication platforms such as radio, newspapers, and TVs is that unlike these platforms, communication happens in both direction, often in multiple directions in social media. What makes impact of social media even more powerful is that all this can be done without any significant time lag. An individual can not only be a recipient of information but also a generator of information. This ability to create information on his own extremely crucial, because what it does is that it lends ‘voice’ to all, including aam aadmi, who earlier did not have an equally powerful platform to air their thoughts and had to rely on opinions or information from khaas-aadmi.

It is these three distinct features of social media: i) ability to create information: ‘voice’ ii) ability to share information, and iii) ability to do so without any time lag, which makes social media so powerful.

Social media makes democracy stronger by giving voice to one and all, rich and poor, urban India or rural Indian, of any religion, and of any gender. Social media is helping our institutions become more democratic and providing a feedback mechanism for the institutions and for the elected representatives, whether they are at panchayat level, district level, state level, or national level.

Social media is not only limited to protests and demonstrations (case of the song 'Why this Kolaveri Di' illustrates that well). Information and opinion about new product launches, new electronic gadgets, and sporting events can and is increasingly being shared with all at once, redefining existing customs. Social media, is and will increasingly provide voice to consumers and also shape their demand patterns. 

Exponential increase in number of mobile phone users in India (up from 6.7 million in 2002 to about 900 million today), advent of smart phones, and rapid growth in internet users in India have fueled the increase in voice. This voice does not have any rural or urban segregation as on social media, users in rural India have as much access to any news or content as users in urban India, and have equal chance of getting their voices heard. This ‘voice’ can be created anywhere and anytime, and can be heard anywhere and anytime. What earlier used to be discussed and talked about in closed doors or chowks is now being talked about and debated on social media. 

And in recent months, it is this voice that has increased (In mathematical terms, ∆ voice = non-zero).

India was, and continues to remain tolerant (In mathematical terms, ∆ tolerance = zero).

PS: A version of this post appeared earlier on this page

Analyzing Election Analyses

The year 2015 started with a state election which continues to be talked about even today 2015 end.
The year 2015 will end with a state election which continues to be talked about since 2015 beginning.

The states may be different but the nature of election analyses by "experts" remain the same.

Prior to Delhi elections, the "experts" made us believe lots of things such as

'why BJP will win Delhi election',

'why inducting Kiran Bedi in BJP is a sign of Amit Shah's tactical genius',

'why Arvind Kejriwal will have a tough road ahead',

'why it will be a closely fought battle between the AAP and the BJP'.

Post elections, the "experts" again made us realize lots of things such as

'why BJP did not win Delhi election',

'why inducting Kiran Bedi in BJP was not a sign of Amit Shah's tactical genius',

'why Arvind Kejriwal did not have a tough road',

'why it was not a closely fought battle between the AAP and the BJP'.

The differences in these ex-ante (before the event) and ex-post (after the event) analyses are interesting to note. Even now in case of Bihar elections, such ex-ante analyses are finding their way to various media channels (televisions, newspapers, social media etc.) and many similar ex-post analyses will find their way post the elections.
The differences in the two analyses could be due to a lot of factors, one of which is the presence of 'bias' in the individual carrying out the analysis.

For an individual, it is normal to have sets of beliefs/prejudices/biases.
But for a researcher/political analyst, it is imperative to shed those biases before carrying out the research/analysis.
Juggling between the two facets is not easy and often individual biases find a way to affect the research design and/or the analysis, leading to incorrect interpretations of findings. Presence of biases can and does often lead analysts to present results which they want to present rather than what flows from the analysis.

In case of election/political analysis, absence of individual bias would require a person to be apolitical before starting with the analysis. Apolitical here is defined as someone who has similar (or zero) preference for all political ideologies/thoughts/entities.

From TDR Reject to TDR Refund #Indian Railways #IRCTC

I had booked a rail ticket for journey from Lucknow to Bhopal on 21st April with  ticket PNR (Passenger Name Record) 2746347552.
However due to some reason, I was unable to take the trip to Bhopal and instead traveled to Kolkata from Lucknow on the same date around same time in another train with ticket PNR 2204688065,

I could not cancel my train ticket to Bhopal in time and I instead filed TDR (Ticket Deposit Receipt) online according to the rules of Indian Railways and IRCTC. According to these rules, if a passenger is unable to commence his journey and wants to cancel e-ticket (ticket booked online) after the reservation chart for the train has been prepared, then TDR has to be filed online before the scheduled departure of the train from that station. The Railway norms stipulate that once the train reaches its destination, the TDR claim will be sent to respective Zonal Railway (under which the train operates), who will then communicate to IRCTC about the veracity of the claim. Based on that IRCTC proceeds to either refund the amount (50% of ticket fare) or reject the TDR claim.

Since I had filled the TDR as per rules, I was fairly confident that my TDR would be processed at the earliest and that I will get the refund soon. However to my utter surprise and shock, on 29th April I found that my TDR claim has been rejected by Central Railways (the Zonal Railway for my train to Bhopal) with the reason given as "As per chart, passenger has traveled".

My first reaction was that this wrong rejection could be due to a) lack of proper verification of my claim by Central Railway, or b) error on the part of IRCTC, or c) oversight by the TTE (Travelling Ticket Examiner) who would have allotted my seat to someone else without taking money but omitted to make the changes in passenger chart, or d) inappropriate conduct of the TTE by allotting my seat to someone else in exchange of money and deliberately not marking it in the passenger chart.

My next reaction was to draft a mail to be sent to Central Railways and IRCTC. I checked the website of Central Railways and noted down the email IDs of three key officials, Divisional Railway Manager (DRM), Officer on Special Duty (OSD), and Senior Divisional Commercial Manager (SRDCM). I sent the mail on April 29th. Shortly after that I got the Gmail error mails that two of the three email IDs were not-functional and therefore my message could not be delivered.

I waited for a few days and then forwarded the mail, with minor revisions to another set of email IDs. This time before sending the mails, I tried to submit my feedback on the Feedback link provided on the website of Central Railways. On clicking the link, we get the following message:

"It all began one fine summer day on 16 April 1853. It was a single step of 34 kilometers from is not in the proper format."

I then tried calling some of the numbers given on the website and luckily for me, some of my calls were answered and I came in touch with two key persons, one from the Central Railways and the other from the IRCTC. What followed over the next 4 weeks was a sequence of telephone calls, reminder telephone calls, unanswered telephone calls, being asked by X to contact Y and on contacting Y being asked to contact X, e-mails and reminder e-mails. Frustration was slowly beginning to build inside me but against all odds,

I remained hopeful that my endeavour will result in refund. I mention 'against all odds' since in a similar incident like this, one of my relatives found his IRCTC account deactivated by IRCTC on the pretext of "false TDR claim"!

I got a mail from IRCTC on June 6th that my TDR refund has been processed and Rs 0 will be credited to my account in the next 2-3 days. On seeing the figure of Rs 0, I wondered if this too was caused due to some error. I decided that I will wait for 3 days and after that I will prepare my case to take it further (either to Senior Railway Officials or Consumer Court).

Finally after all this, on 8th June, I got my refund in my account !

Lessons from this experience:
1) As a consumer, we must be aware of the rules of our right.
2) If needed, we must fight for our right and for what is right.
3) If we don't fight for our right, no one else will.
4) Always remain optimistic and hopeful. If nothing else, it will keep one cool and in good spirits.

Being Human: Let's be human for a change

Salman Khan, Virat Kohli, Rahul Gandhi, Narendra Modi, and many more.

What's common?
Well, they are all "Celebrities".

They have excelled in the field they have chosen. They remain in media and capture or have captured our imaginations at some or the other time. They have a massive following of 'fans' (those who will eulogize and idolize them) as well as 'anti-fans' (those who detest and demonize them).

And then there are also people like me who belong to neither category and treat them as they are: as humans.

Humans make mistakes.

And more importantly they keep making mistakes.
Celebrities make mistakes.
And more importantly they keep making mistakes.

In case of mistakes, shouldn't we be using the same yardstick to judge all humans? Irrespective of them being or not being celebrities?

It is important to understand the difference (or the lack of it) between humans and celebrities.

It is important both for us and for the 'celebrities'.

Why it is important for us?

Because, unlike humans, celebrities are social constructs. What it essentially means is that some humans are deemed the status of 'celebrity' by society and based on that status, they enjoy some privileges.  Unlike humans, celebrities are not born but made.

Not all humans are celebrities but all celebrities are humans. 

And just like humans make mistakes and keep making them, celebrities make mistakes and keep making them.

As fans, we often ignore their mistakes (committed intentionally or inadvertently) and in our obsession, justify anything and everything the 'celebrities' have said or done. We idolize them. For us, they can do no wrong.

As anti-fans, we often ignore their good deeds (committed intentionally or inadvertently) and in our obsession, castigate them for anything and everything. We demonize them. For us, they can do no right.

Why it is important for the 'celebrities'?

Because, it is dangerous to be trapped in either praise or criticism.

The moment 'celebrities' start believing the hype around them, they start forgetting that they are humans. They make mistakes, and often make more mistakes trying to ignore/cover those mistakes.

I am not listing down incidents related to 'celebrities' named above which can be categorized under 'mistakes' because the idea of this post is not to list those down.
The idea instead is to argue that celebrities are humans after all and should be treated the same way.
Neither as Gods, nor as Devils.

Let's be Human for a Change !

Certainty about Uncertainty

It is said that the only ‘Constant’ in this world is ‘Change’.

Language, customs, culture, rules, people, and just about everything changes with time.

On a similar lines, I wonder if the only ‘Certainty’ about life is its ‘Uncertainty’.

Constant about Change. Certainty about Uncertainty.

A sportsperson, Philip Hughes from Australia dies on the Cricket field after being hit by a cricket ball. Till that moment no one had ever thought or imagined that someone could die like that on a Cricket field.

It was reported later that had the ball struck a millimeter here or there, he would probably have been saved. Why did it happen to him? Why did it happen to anyone for that matter?

No one knows.

MH 370 simply vanishes from this world and notwithstanding the numerous conjectures, no can say for sure what happened to it. Did someone shoot it? Did someone kidnap it?

No one knows.

Nepal, India, and surroundings are rocked by an earth quake. They are rattled with another earth quake, albeit of a lighter intensity the next day. Will there be more? When will be the next quake? Where will be the next quake? Why did those people die? Why are so many people suffering?

No one knows.

 

As school children, we are exposed to so many subjects in school. One of them is Science. As students of science we often tend to believe (or are made to believe) that there has to be some ‘rationale’ or ‘logic’ or ‘scientific explanation’ for everything.

Science can explain everything. Or can it?