Procrastinate is defined as 'to put off from day to day, to delay, to defer to a future time. As I read this, the word doesn't seem to carry a negative connotation. Then why is used in that sense? Another misused word, quoted out of meaning!
And in today's information overload environment, hectic work-style, procrastination is a necessity, and may be the right thing to do. With more technology, we are able to handle more. But demands have also increased manifold. We allow ourselves to be interrupted and disturbed in more number of ways than ever before. And reminders and follow-ups have become the norm.
If you don't procrastinate, you will have to act on all your deliverables, without assigning priority, and it will require us to multi-task. And there is nothing more inefficient that multi-tasking.
The word 'procrastinate' is so benign, so harmless, even necessary. But its usage is incorrect. However, that doesn't mean there is no problem. We have probably used the word to describe a wrong problem. In reality, the problem we are trying to describe could be one of lack of planning, inefficiency in execution. By using a word that means something else, we are actually misreading and misrepresenting the real problem.
So what do we do about it? Lets discuss that some other day!
Friday, December 4, 2009
New York! New York!
An exceptional Mumbai-bred mathematics student is convicted of threatening to kill George Bush and other ministers over his web post. The FBI has filed a case against him based on messages on a Yahoo site, and they believe that the statements calling Iraqis to avenge war on their country by America, were sent from his computer in his university.
That's Vikram Buddhi! He has already spent two and a half years in jail, and has apparently been the target of racially motivated violence. He is looking at 35 years, if convicted. And people believe he is innocent and wrongly held.
This is another example of a possible over-reaction by America post 9/11. A subject very well handled by a recent Hindi movie 'New York'. We saw that movie a couple of weeks back again when it ran on television. The treatment of the subject is very mature. And I like the character played (very well) by Irfan Khan.
Especially two lines. One where he says that it is only a person within the system can restore the confidence lost. And the other where he says that this is the country in which you can still expect a migrant's son to captain the baseball side. Somehow, the way it is said invokes a sense of belief and leaves you assured that things change for the better.
We may or may not agree with what is said. And what was said could be untrue. But in the context and presentation, it appears justified and logical, depending on how liberal your viewing lens are. The current episode of Vikram brought back memories, and gave another reason to not believe!
That's Vikram Buddhi! He has already spent two and a half years in jail, and has apparently been the target of racially motivated violence. He is looking at 35 years, if convicted. And people believe he is innocent and wrongly held.
This is another example of a possible over-reaction by America post 9/11. A subject very well handled by a recent Hindi movie 'New York'. We saw that movie a couple of weeks back again when it ran on television. The treatment of the subject is very mature. And I like the character played (very well) by Irfan Khan.
Especially two lines. One where he says that it is only a person within the system can restore the confidence lost. And the other where he says that this is the country in which you can still expect a migrant's son to captain the baseball side. Somehow, the way it is said invokes a sense of belief and leaves you assured that things change for the better.
We may or may not agree with what is said. And what was said could be untrue. But in the context and presentation, it appears justified and logical, depending on how liberal your viewing lens are. The current episode of Vikram brought back memories, and gave another reason to not believe!
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Business and Finance are very different
Last week, I happened to attend a seminar on treasury and finance organised by EuroFinance at Taj Lands' End, Bandra. Ajit Ranade was the keynote speaker. He spoke about the current financial situation in brief. He also quoted an article that Michael Kinsley wrote in the New York Times in 2007 when Warren Avis of Avis Rentals passed away. An amazing article which I was forced to search and retrieve on the net. I reproduce the article below. I was reminded of the many times we discussed about the importance of the real as opposed to the derivative, about the cake rather than the cream, about drink rather than the fluff. Read the article. I needn't say more.
=====
We Try Harder (but What’s the Point?)
By MICHAEL KINSLEY
Published: May 16, 2007
Seattle
IN 1946, Warren E. Avis (who died last month at the age of 92) had an idea: rental cars should be available at airports. So he founded Avis Airlines Rent-a-Car. In 1954, he sold the company to another businessman, Richard Robie. Two years later, in 1956, Robie sold Avis to an investment group led by a company called Amoskeag. In 1962, the investment banking firm Lazard Frères bought Avis. In 1965, Lazard sold Avis to the giant conglomerate ITT Corporation.
Since 1946, Avis has been sold or reorganized 17 or 18 times, depending on how you count. Each time Avis changed hands or structure, there have been fees for bankers and fees for lawyers, bonuses for the top executives and theories about why this was exactly what the company needed.
In 1972, ITT spun off Avis as a publicly traded company. Then, in 1977, the company was bought by another giant conglomerate, Norton Simon. In 1983, a company called Esmark (formerly Swift & Co.) bought Norton Simon. In 1984, Esmark was bought by Beatrice Foods, and in 1986, Beatrice was bought by the leveraged buyout firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Company.
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts immediately sold Avis to an investment group called Wesray. Wesray sold Avis’s fleet leasing business to a company called PHH Group. Then it spun off Avis’s foreign operations and took them public as a company called Avis Europe P.L.C. And then, in 1987, Wesray sold Avis to its employees under an employee stock ownership program. Wesray more than tripled its money in 14 months.
Two years after the stock ownership deal, the company sold General Motors a complicated security that effectively gave it a 26 percent stake in Avis. Apart from that, Avis’s employee ownership experiment lasted nine years, until 1996, when Avis sold itself to a company called HFS. Employees got an average of $26,000 each. Eighty or 90 current and former Avis executives got an average of $1.75 million each.
A year later, in 1997, HFS took Avis public. (The initial public offering raised just over $330 million. The banker Bear Stearns charged $15 million for its services.) In 1999, Avis bought PHH. Remember PHH? That was the company Avis sold its fleet leasing operation to in 1987. PHH was owned by Cendant, a company that had been formed in 1997 by the merger of HFS — right, the company that had spun off Avis in 1997 — and another company called CUC. HFS had retained 19 percent of the company’s stock when it took Avis public. With the stock portion of Avis’s purchase price for PHH, Cendant now owned 34 percent of Avis.
A couple of years later, Cendant bought the roughly two-thirds of Avis that it didn’t already own and made Avis a wholly owned subsidiary.
In 2006, Cendant split itself into four independent companies, one of which was the Avis Budget Group. (Somewhere along the line, Cendant had also acquired Budget Rent a Car.) The Avis Budget Group became the parent company of Avis Budget Car Rental.
Modern capitalism has two parts: there’s business, and there’s finance. Business is renting you a car at the airport. Finance is something else. More and more of the news labeled “business” these days is actually about finance, and much of it is mystifying. Even if you can understand — just barely — how it works, you still wonder what the point is and why people who do it need to get paid so much. And you strongly suspect that the swirl of financial activity around Avis for the past six decades has had little or nothing to do with the business of renting cars.
Last September, a week after the Avis Budget Group began trading on the New York Stock Exchange, The Wall Street Journal reported that the new company was “ripe for the picking.” Carl Icahn, another wily financier from the 1980s, had acquired a $100 million stake in the company and would not comment about his intentions.
The Journal warned, “If a buyout or acquisition deal doesn’t materialize for Avis, stock and bond investors will have to focus on the fundamentals of its car-rental business.” Goodness! Anything but that!
Michael Kinsley is a columnist for Time magazine.
=====
=====
We Try Harder (but What’s the Point?)
By MICHAEL KINSLEY
Published: May 16, 2007
Seattle
IN 1946, Warren E. Avis (who died last month at the age of 92) had an idea: rental cars should be available at airports. So he founded Avis Airlines Rent-a-Car. In 1954, he sold the company to another businessman, Richard Robie. Two years later, in 1956, Robie sold Avis to an investment group led by a company called Amoskeag. In 1962, the investment banking firm Lazard Frères bought Avis. In 1965, Lazard sold Avis to the giant conglomerate ITT Corporation.
Since 1946, Avis has been sold or reorganized 17 or 18 times, depending on how you count. Each time Avis changed hands or structure, there have been fees for bankers and fees for lawyers, bonuses for the top executives and theories about why this was exactly what the company needed.
In 1972, ITT spun off Avis as a publicly traded company. Then, in 1977, the company was bought by another giant conglomerate, Norton Simon. In 1983, a company called Esmark (formerly Swift & Co.) bought Norton Simon. In 1984, Esmark was bought by Beatrice Foods, and in 1986, Beatrice was bought by the leveraged buyout firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Company.
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts immediately sold Avis to an investment group called Wesray. Wesray sold Avis’s fleet leasing business to a company called PHH Group. Then it spun off Avis’s foreign operations and took them public as a company called Avis Europe P.L.C. And then, in 1987, Wesray sold Avis to its employees under an employee stock ownership program. Wesray more than tripled its money in 14 months.
Two years after the stock ownership deal, the company sold General Motors a complicated security that effectively gave it a 26 percent stake in Avis. Apart from that, Avis’s employee ownership experiment lasted nine years, until 1996, when Avis sold itself to a company called HFS. Employees got an average of $26,000 each. Eighty or 90 current and former Avis executives got an average of $1.75 million each.
A year later, in 1997, HFS took Avis public. (The initial public offering raised just over $330 million. The banker Bear Stearns charged $15 million for its services.) In 1999, Avis bought PHH. Remember PHH? That was the company Avis sold its fleet leasing operation to in 1987. PHH was owned by Cendant, a company that had been formed in 1997 by the merger of HFS — right, the company that had spun off Avis in 1997 — and another company called CUC. HFS had retained 19 percent of the company’s stock when it took Avis public. With the stock portion of Avis’s purchase price for PHH, Cendant now owned 34 percent of Avis.
A couple of years later, Cendant bought the roughly two-thirds of Avis that it didn’t already own and made Avis a wholly owned subsidiary.
In 2006, Cendant split itself into four independent companies, one of which was the Avis Budget Group. (Somewhere along the line, Cendant had also acquired Budget Rent a Car.) The Avis Budget Group became the parent company of Avis Budget Car Rental.
Modern capitalism has two parts: there’s business, and there’s finance. Business is renting you a car at the airport. Finance is something else. More and more of the news labeled “business” these days is actually about finance, and much of it is mystifying. Even if you can understand — just barely — how it works, you still wonder what the point is and why people who do it need to get paid so much. And you strongly suspect that the swirl of financial activity around Avis for the past six decades has had little or nothing to do with the business of renting cars.
Last September, a week after the Avis Budget Group began trading on the New York Stock Exchange, The Wall Street Journal reported that the new company was “ripe for the picking.” Carl Icahn, another wily financier from the 1980s, had acquired a $100 million stake in the company and would not comment about his intentions.
The Journal warned, “If a buyout or acquisition deal doesn’t materialize for Avis, stock and bond investors will have to focus on the fundamentals of its car-rental business.” Goodness! Anything but that!
Michael Kinsley is a columnist for Time magazine.
=====
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Where was I when Mumbai was attacked on 26/11
Some events in history are so profound that you'd remember exactly where you were, what you were doing when you first heard the news.
The truth of this statement cannot be disputed. I read it in "The Prodigal Daughter' by Jeffrey Archer. I was thinking of this statement in relation to the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Mumbai.
We are at one year after the 26/11 attacks on Mumbai. This is one of the defining moments for India, definitely for Bombay. I say defining because it reiterated what we are, our spirit, which many events in the past have done. But this one was different in that we realised that this spirit is not one of defiance, but of reconciliation and acceptance of our limitations.
Coming back to the statement, I feel that it has a personal thrill attached to it. We seem to derive a great amount of pleasure narrating shock events. The more the shock, the more the pleasure. And the closer you are to the event, the more the intensity in the narration.
And what a contradiction this throws up! If I were to be confronted with a developing event such as 26/11, my natural reaction would be to run to safety. But once the event is over, I would want to claim proximity.
Every citizen will have his own story to tell of how he heard the news and how he reacted. And what better occasion than the first anniversary. All news channels had taken full advantage of the situation, just as they had done a year back, in whipping up emotions.
I can tell you where I was. We were writing and practicing our lines for our drama at a friend's place. That was when my wife got a call from her colleague that there had been a blast at Vile Parle. And then I got a call from my colleague about the same blast. And another friend got a call that CST had a terrorist attack.
I'm no different! Some events in history are so profound that you'd remember exactly where you were, what you were doing when you first heard the news.
The truth of this statement cannot be disputed. I read it in "The Prodigal Daughter' by Jeffrey Archer. I was thinking of this statement in relation to the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Mumbai.
We are at one year after the 26/11 attacks on Mumbai. This is one of the defining moments for India, definitely for Bombay. I say defining because it reiterated what we are, our spirit, which many events in the past have done. But this one was different in that we realised that this spirit is not one of defiance, but of reconciliation and acceptance of our limitations.
Coming back to the statement, I feel that it has a personal thrill attached to it. We seem to derive a great amount of pleasure narrating shock events. The more the shock, the more the pleasure. And the closer you are to the event, the more the intensity in the narration.
And what a contradiction this throws up! If I were to be confronted with a developing event such as 26/11, my natural reaction would be to run to safety. But once the event is over, I would want to claim proximity.
Every citizen will have his own story to tell of how he heard the news and how he reacted. And what better occasion than the first anniversary. All news channels had taken full advantage of the situation, just as they had done a year back, in whipping up emotions.
I can tell you where I was. We were writing and practicing our lines for our drama at a friend's place. That was when my wife got a call from her colleague that there had been a blast at Vile Parle. And then I got a call from my colleague about the same blast. And another friend got a call that CST had a terrorist attack.
I'm no different! Some events in history are so profound that you'd remember exactly where you were, what you were doing when you first heard the news.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Peter Drucker is 100
Peter Ferdinand Drucker is 100 today. If there is one person who has impacted the thought and direction in the field of management in the most profound manner, it is Drucker.
I admire his thoughts and his writings for the variety of subjects he covered, for the simple underlying principles for all that he said, and for the vision and foresight.
Some of the basic ideas that he propounded were indeed basic. But those basic ideas had been lost in the myriad and complicated world of management literature. In such a scenario, he chose to remain simple in his explanation.
The belief that thought before action is very important, decentralisation and rejection of command and control structure, focus on employees as assets, who needed to be cared for, 'planned abandonment' of existing and past successes, importance of processes for everything, the concept of the knowledge worker, and the need for community were the highlights.
I liked him because he was a skeptic of macroeconomic theory. Since the advent of banker economists, decisions are being driven by macroeconomic masala with absolutely no awareness or understanding of the real economy. Drucker warned against this. And look where we are today.
He also believed that CEO pay should not be more than 20 times worker pay. This has been flouted many times over, and we've ended up in this state of the mass up against the establishment.
Look at the wide spectrum that he has touched upon, and you will realise that most others who have claimed to have said something path-breaking are but reflections of this great man.
I remember him and his view in a class of cost accounting in which my professor explained why relevant costing was so good, spending great amounts of time to convince us why we should look at relevant costs, only to conclude by quoting Drucker who said that you should cover total costs if you have to be in business in the long term.
There is only one guru, and that is, without doubt, Peter Drucker. He hated being referred to as a 'guru', and said that the term was being used as it was shorter than 'charlatan'. I don't agree with this. I'm not sure if he was only being modest, but in the Indian sense of the word 'guru', a teacher, he absolutely fits the bill.
It would be an achievement if I could test the waters, touch the shores of the ocean that Drucker is. I'll read what I consider to be one of his best works 'Management Challenges for the 21st Century', today. It could very well be called 'Management Challenges for any Century'.
I admire his thoughts and his writings for the variety of subjects he covered, for the simple underlying principles for all that he said, and for the vision and foresight.
Some of the basic ideas that he propounded were indeed basic. But those basic ideas had been lost in the myriad and complicated world of management literature. In such a scenario, he chose to remain simple in his explanation.
The belief that thought before action is very important, decentralisation and rejection of command and control structure, focus on employees as assets, who needed to be cared for, 'planned abandonment' of existing and past successes, importance of processes for everything, the concept of the knowledge worker, and the need for community were the highlights.
I liked him because he was a skeptic of macroeconomic theory. Since the advent of banker economists, decisions are being driven by macroeconomic masala with absolutely no awareness or understanding of the real economy. Drucker warned against this. And look where we are today.
He also believed that CEO pay should not be more than 20 times worker pay. This has been flouted many times over, and we've ended up in this state of the mass up against the establishment.
Look at the wide spectrum that he has touched upon, and you will realise that most others who have claimed to have said something path-breaking are but reflections of this great man.
I remember him and his view in a class of cost accounting in which my professor explained why relevant costing was so good, spending great amounts of time to convince us why we should look at relevant costs, only to conclude by quoting Drucker who said that you should cover total costs if you have to be in business in the long term.
There is only one guru, and that is, without doubt, Peter Drucker. He hated being referred to as a 'guru', and said that the term was being used as it was shorter than 'charlatan'. I don't agree with this. I'm not sure if he was only being modest, but in the Indian sense of the word 'guru', a teacher, he absolutely fits the bill.
It would be an achievement if I could test the waters, touch the shores of the ocean that Drucker is. I'll read what I consider to be one of his best works 'Management Challenges for the 21st Century', today. It could very well be called 'Management Challenges for any Century'.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Mozhi, Language
Mozhi is a beautiful movie. And the music of the movie complements the concept well. The highlight is the song 'Katrin Mozhi', written with a lot of love, music and lyrics. This is a song that touches your heart, makes you smile, and feel good. And it reflects the mood very aptly. I rate this as one of the ten best Indian songs created.
The format of the song is very simple, very conventional, following the usual mukhda-interlude-antara pattern. But it scores with its simplicity and its adherance to the mood without exception or stray. Another important aspect of the song is that it ensures that the lyrics are clearly understood by any listener. The singer has an understanding of the feeling expressed in the song.
There are few songs which are able to stick to the regular format, yet establish such a rapport with the listener. And linger on in your thoughts. I reproduce the lyrics below. I thought I'd attempt a rough translation, but realised two things. One, that I was good only at prose, not poetry. And two, translation kills the mood. Most things are better in their original form.
Katrin mozhi oliya isaiya
Poovin mozhi nirama mananama
Kadalin mozhi alaiya nuraiya
Kadhal mozhi vizhiya idazha
Iyarkaiyin mozhigal purindhuvidu
Manidarin mozhigal thevaillai
Idhayathin mozhi purindhuvidu
Manidarin mozhigal thevaillai
Katru visum podhu disaigal kidaiyadhu
Kadhal pesum podu mozhigal kidaiyadhu
Pesum varthai pola mounam puriyadhu
Kangal pesum varthai kadavul ariyadhu
Ulava therya katrukku oruvam theta mudiyadhu
Kadhal pesum mozhiellam sabthakootil adangathu
Vanam pesum pechu thuliyai veliyagum
Vanavillin pechu niramai veliyagum
Unmai oomai anal kanner mozhiagum
Penmai ommaianal nanam mozhiagum
Osai thoongum jamathil uchimeengal mozhiagum
Asai thoongam idayathil asaivu kooda mozhiagum
The format of the song is very simple, very conventional, following the usual mukhda-interlude-antara pattern. But it scores with its simplicity and its adherance to the mood without exception or stray. Another important aspect of the song is that it ensures that the lyrics are clearly understood by any listener. The singer has an understanding of the feeling expressed in the song.
There are few songs which are able to stick to the regular format, yet establish such a rapport with the listener. And linger on in your thoughts. I reproduce the lyrics below. I thought I'd attempt a rough translation, but realised two things. One, that I was good only at prose, not poetry. And two, translation kills the mood. Most things are better in their original form.
Katrin mozhi oliya isaiya
Poovin mozhi nirama mananama
Kadalin mozhi alaiya nuraiya
Kadhal mozhi vizhiya idazha
Iyarkaiyin mozhigal purindhuvidu
Manidarin mozhigal thevaillai
Idhayathin mozhi purindhuvidu
Manidarin mozhigal thevaillai
Katru visum podhu disaigal kidaiyadhu
Kadhal pesum podu mozhigal kidaiyadhu
Pesum varthai pola mounam puriyadhu
Kangal pesum varthai kadavul ariyadhu
Ulava therya katrukku oruvam theta mudiyadhu
Kadhal pesum mozhiellam sabthakootil adangathu
Vanam pesum pechu thuliyai veliyagum
Vanavillin pechu niramai veliyagum
Unmai oomai anal kanner mozhiagum
Penmai ommaianal nanam mozhiagum
Osai thoongum jamathil uchimeengal mozhiagum
Asai thoongam idayathil asaivu kooda mozhiagum
Friday, November 6, 2009
Michael Crichton on humans
I had to post this compelling quote by Michael Crichton from 'The Lost World'
“Human beings never think for themselves, they find it too uncomfortable. For the most part, members of our species simply repeat what they are told — and become upset if they are exposed to any different view. The characteristic human trait is not awareness but conformity…Other animals fight for territory or food; but, uniquely in the animal kingdom, human beings fight for their ‘beliefs’…The reason is that beliefs guide behavior, which has evolutionary importance among human beings. But at a time when our behavior may well lead us to extinction, I see no reason to assume we have any awareness at all. We are stubborn, self-destructive conformists. Any other view of our species is just a self-congratulatory delusion.”
“Human beings never think for themselves, they find it too uncomfortable. For the most part, members of our species simply repeat what they are told — and become upset if they are exposed to any different view. The characteristic human trait is not awareness but conformity…Other animals fight for territory or food; but, uniquely in the animal kingdom, human beings fight for their ‘beliefs’…The reason is that beliefs guide behavior, which has evolutionary importance among human beings. But at a time when our behavior may well lead us to extinction, I see no reason to assume we have any awareness at all. We are stubborn, self-destructive conformists. Any other view of our species is just a self-congratulatory delusion.”
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Staying on top
An excellent leader in The Economist analyses the calibre of chief executives of banks in America.
Only three of the chief executives from the ten largest banks in America during the unfolding of the financial crisis remain. The rest have been asked to leave over the past year.
Some are claiming conspiracy, in that chief executives have manipulated for personal gain. This may appear true considering the lavish perquisites that they showered on themselves - expenses claim on a $87,000 rug, playing a game of bridge as their firms collapsed, almost like Nero. The article compares this to actions of Kenneth Lay of Enron and concludes that most of the current breed were useless.
It says "Far from expertly manipulating their firms' books, many could not even understand them" and "....even when they had decent numbers, executives struggled to manage their mutinuous staff". One ex-boss said "... his job was less of management, more crowd control".
Did acquisition make a difference? No. Acquisitive firms such as BoA, Fortis and RBS floundered. Those who were not acquisitive, such as JP Morgan Chase and Barclays prospered.
Did long-term perspective make a difference? No. Managers at Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers did have a lot of their personal holdings, but did not focus on the long-term.
Did risk committees make a difference? Hardly. Santander had 98 meetings in 2007 while Credit Suisse's had just six, yet both did much the same.
So, what is generally prescribed by the know-it-alls as required and essential is not necessarily the right thing to do. Its better to be a historian than a politician; an economist rather than an executive. The former have the advantage of hindsight.
The summary "On any measure of banks' boards - experience, gender, age, independence - there were successes as well as failures". "What firms need is a culture of excellence, but that is like saying all football teams should be like Manchester United".
My line "It is remarkable that these executives stayed on the top without staying on top of their jobs."
Only three of the chief executives from the ten largest banks in America during the unfolding of the financial crisis remain. The rest have been asked to leave over the past year.
Some are claiming conspiracy, in that chief executives have manipulated for personal gain. This may appear true considering the lavish perquisites that they showered on themselves - expenses claim on a $87,000 rug, playing a game of bridge as their firms collapsed, almost like Nero. The article compares this to actions of Kenneth Lay of Enron and concludes that most of the current breed were useless.
It says "Far from expertly manipulating their firms' books, many could not even understand them" and "....even when they had decent numbers, executives struggled to manage their mutinuous staff". One ex-boss said "... his job was less of management, more crowd control".
Did acquisition make a difference? No. Acquisitive firms such as BoA, Fortis and RBS floundered. Those who were not acquisitive, such as JP Morgan Chase and Barclays prospered.
Did long-term perspective make a difference? No. Managers at Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers did have a lot of their personal holdings, but did not focus on the long-term.
Did risk committees make a difference? Hardly. Santander had 98 meetings in 2007 while Credit Suisse's had just six, yet both did much the same.
So, what is generally prescribed by the know-it-alls as required and essential is not necessarily the right thing to do. Its better to be a historian than a politician; an economist rather than an executive. The former have the advantage of hindsight.
The summary "On any measure of banks' boards - experience, gender, age, independence - there were successes as well as failures". "What firms need is a culture of excellence, but that is like saying all football teams should be like Manchester United".
My line "It is remarkable that these executives stayed on the top without staying on top of their jobs."
Monday, October 12, 2009
Mediocrity rules
We had been to a music concert of old hindi film songs from the 60s and the 70s yesterday by a group called 'Klub Nostalgia' held under the aegis of our association Mulund Fine Arts Society at Kalidas Natya Mandir, Mulund. I've heard them several times before, out of which a couple were under our sabha. Anil Bajpai was exceptional, as always; Vinod Seshadri was good in some songs, while average in most others. Others were at their own best, but that's it.
To tell you the truth, I always liked 'Golden Greats', another such group, more. I don't know the entire inside story of how and why singers moved en masse from 'Golden Greats' to 'Klub Nostalgia' so I cannot comment on that.
But 'Golden Greats' was true to what they did; the effort was diligent and impeccable; no compromise whatsoever; you could see them being very passionate about hindi film music of the yesteryears. 'Klub Nostalgia' is, at best, a compromise, a 'chalta hai' effort group. And since the whole world is at a level of mediocrity, they thrive.
This reflects life, as most matters do. The few who attempt to reach excellence and perfection eventually fall to the sides. And the ones who compromise and insist on the mediocre, keep going. You must only know how to capture the stupid imagination of the masses. The numbers count. If you can't act like Naseeruddin Shah, fool around like Govinda. If you can't sing like Sonu Nigam, there's Kumar Sanu. If you can't create a 'Gulaal' make a 'No Entry'. The world has been returned to the bin.
Friends tell me there are a few things left in the world where excellence still rules. Wimbledon, Oscars, are what come to my mind. With no information contradicting that view, I agree.
But we don't live in that world, do we?
To tell you the truth, I always liked 'Golden Greats', another such group, more. I don't know the entire inside story of how and why singers moved en masse from 'Golden Greats' to 'Klub Nostalgia' so I cannot comment on that.
But 'Golden Greats' was true to what they did; the effort was diligent and impeccable; no compromise whatsoever; you could see them being very passionate about hindi film music of the yesteryears. 'Klub Nostalgia' is, at best, a compromise, a 'chalta hai' effort group. And since the whole world is at a level of mediocrity, they thrive.
This reflects life, as most matters do. The few who attempt to reach excellence and perfection eventually fall to the sides. And the ones who compromise and insist on the mediocre, keep going. You must only know how to capture the stupid imagination of the masses. The numbers count. If you can't act like Naseeruddin Shah, fool around like Govinda. If you can't sing like Sonu Nigam, there's Kumar Sanu. If you can't create a 'Gulaal' make a 'No Entry'. The world has been returned to the bin.
Friends tell me there are a few things left in the world where excellence still rules. Wimbledon, Oscars, are what come to my mind. With no information contradicting that view, I agree.
But we don't live in that world, do we?
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Bombay to Goa
We had been to Goa over the weekend. And I must say, Goa is amazing in the rains. With lesser crowd and a cooler climate, it is the best time to be there.
A little on the journey.
We left at 9.30 pm on Thursday, October 1, 2009, by road. We took the Mumbai-Pune expressway, the Pune-Satara-Kolhapur highway NH-4, turned right at Nipani, and reached Panaji at 9.30 am through Amboli Ghat. We reached the Nipani turn at the wee hours of the morning. The ghat section took time because of the inclement weather, the mist and the rain, the poor visibility. I liked the experience of driving the Amboli ghats when everyone else had slept off in the car. It was just me, my car, my music, the mist, the waterfalls and the winding road ahead.
The return back was more routine. We found a better road back to the Kolhapur expressway, that went through Ajara and Sankeshwar. Thats a better road than what we found on the way to Goa. But we found lot of local traffic on the Kolhapur-Satara belt since it is not an expressway. So there are a lot of turns into villages and towns on both sides of the highway. One has to be careful.
A few facts. The road to Goa through Pune-Satara-Kolhapur via NH-4 is the same distance as the road through NH-17. Both are 590 kms. The old road is more enjoyable, I heard, because it has four ghat sections. But NH-4 should be preferred for night drives. But the highway is safe only during nights, since there is no local traffic.
While on the Kolhapur highway, we turned at Nipani, next to a hotel called Cauvery. Its better to continue further and turn at Sankeshwar. As I said before, that road is better.
On the way, you go through a patch of Karnataka. Maybe a few kilometres. And in this stretch, there is no board in English or Hindi. And there is no mention of Goa anywhere. Its better to ask before you turn.
More on Goa later.
Friday, September 25, 2009
The essential and the unnecessary
The NASA probe on the Chandrayaan-1 found water on the moon. The discovery has been hailed as pathbreaking, and it is said to open a whole new avenue in lunar research, and the greatest example of international collaboration in space. Let us keep any speculation on the truth of this declaration aside and consider only what we hear.
I'm not the usual activist-blogger to say that the amount spent on moon research is a waste and that it could be used better to improve our lot here (The project, incidentally cost Rs. 386 crore). Such expenditure may be necessary, as scientific advancement is also required; and there is very little anyone can do to stop it.
Can we look at this entire thing from a different angle altogether. We found water on the moon, which I would certainly call an achievement. But we haven't found enough water to drink on earth, where we need it more. After the discovery, there is talk of using the moon as a place where humans could settle in the future. And they could use the water there. With all the place on the earth, why would we want to go to the moon?
Are we preparing for the future, for the time when the earth would have no water or vegetation to sustain human life, which would've multiplied many times over by then. Why should we get into something more complicated and unnecessary, when we are unable to manage the simple things. I think this is true of life, in general. Man is appreciated not for doing the simple, basic things, but for more complex things.
If you consider an organisation, there are the toilers, the workers who strive to keep the organisation going, the system running, without whom the system would stop. But, invariably, they are not the ones appreciated and compensated. Instead, the brash consultant-management graduate is getting all the attention, for pursuing the new path. He would be specifically employed to do this, against the existing employee who knows more and is in a better position to take the organisation forward. Again, I'm not saying that all such persons are useless. But when you encourage an outsider manager and ignore the insider worker, you are setting up the scene for a cold-war.
And this fact is true in all walks of life. An organisation was just an example. The media likes the person going to the moon. But the person who is out there in the villages, doing his bit to improve the lives of the poor, goes unnoticed.
I'm not the usual activist-blogger to say that the amount spent on moon research is a waste and that it could be used better to improve our lot here (The project, incidentally cost Rs. 386 crore). Such expenditure may be necessary, as scientific advancement is also required; and there is very little anyone can do to stop it.
Can we look at this entire thing from a different angle altogether. We found water on the moon, which I would certainly call an achievement. But we haven't found enough water to drink on earth, where we need it more. After the discovery, there is talk of using the moon as a place where humans could settle in the future. And they could use the water there. With all the place on the earth, why would we want to go to the moon?
Are we preparing for the future, for the time when the earth would have no water or vegetation to sustain human life, which would've multiplied many times over by then. Why should we get into something more complicated and unnecessary, when we are unable to manage the simple things. I think this is true of life, in general. Man is appreciated not for doing the simple, basic things, but for more complex things.
If you consider an organisation, there are the toilers, the workers who strive to keep the organisation going, the system running, without whom the system would stop. But, invariably, they are not the ones appreciated and compensated. Instead, the brash consultant-management graduate is getting all the attention, for pursuing the new path. He would be specifically employed to do this, against the existing employee who knows more and is in a better position to take the organisation forward. Again, I'm not saying that all such persons are useless. But when you encourage an outsider manager and ignore the insider worker, you are setting up the scene for a cold-war.
And this fact is true in all walks of life. An organisation was just an example. The media likes the person going to the moon. But the person who is out there in the villages, doing his bit to improve the lives of the poor, goes unnoticed.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Andy Grove: The Paranoid
Andy Grove in his book 'Only the paranoid survive', talks about a point in the life of a company where it will face a combination of internal and external unanticipated forces, that will conspire to make the existing business strategy unviable. He called it an 'inflection point'.
In the case of Intel, such a point came when its memory chips business came under competition from Japanese and Korean players. And micro-processor business was not a major percentage of Intel's business. But Andy Grove put all his energies behind the micro-processors business and Intel became what it is today.
In a recent article in The Economist, he says that the computer industry has always practiced a healthy attitude towards creative destruction, something that is not shared by other industries. Computer firms come and go all the time. He was probably taking a shot at the US government support to ailing banks, the automotive industry and the airline industry. He has asked for the health and energy industries to be run more like the computer industry for them to be more efficient.
His with is still intact, despite battling Parkinson's disease, and his desire to provoke is strong as ever. But his achievements ensure that his provocations are worth paying attention to. Not many people in this world can garner such respect and attention. And it is the desire of every person to become like that; to be heard and respected.
And your ability to quote and be read later. And coin terms that stay on for a long time, become part of the dictionary. Like 'inflection point'. And 'knowledge turns'. 'Knowledge turn' is the time it takes for an experiment to proceed from hypothesis to results, and then to a new hypothesis - around 18 months for chip-making. This probably is what is the essence of Moore's law.
In the case of Intel, such a point came when its memory chips business came under competition from Japanese and Korean players. And micro-processor business was not a major percentage of Intel's business. But Andy Grove put all his energies behind the micro-processors business and Intel became what it is today.
In a recent article in The Economist, he says that the computer industry has always practiced a healthy attitude towards creative destruction, something that is not shared by other industries. Computer firms come and go all the time. He was probably taking a shot at the US government support to ailing banks, the automotive industry and the airline industry. He has asked for the health and energy industries to be run more like the computer industry for them to be more efficient.
His with is still intact, despite battling Parkinson's disease, and his desire to provoke is strong as ever. But his achievements ensure that his provocations are worth paying attention to. Not many people in this world can garner such respect and attention. And it is the desire of every person to become like that; to be heard and respected.
And your ability to quote and be read later. And coin terms that stay on for a long time, become part of the dictionary. Like 'inflection point'. And 'knowledge turns'. 'Knowledge turn' is the time it takes for an experiment to proceed from hypothesis to results, and then to a new hypothesis - around 18 months for chip-making. This probably is what is the essence of Moore's law.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Warren Buffett on scheduling meetings
The day went off in attending meetings with practically no significant outcome. And my routine work was severely held up because of this. These were scheduled a month back and so we had to honour them.
I was reminded of what I had once read about Warren Buffett and how he scheduled his meetings. Apparently he doesn't schedule his meetings more than a day before. That is to say, if you wanted to meet him tomorrow, you could call today. If you wanted to meet him the day after, you would have to call tomorrow.
This rule has a simple philosophy: I can't fill up my schedule any further in advance. That way one needs to be worried only about the next day. And not be too worried about not having any dates for the next few months.
But he is Warren Buffett. I doubt whether anyone else would be able to pull off such a schedule. But you could most certainly cut down on how much advance appointment you give. That way you'd be more in control of your immediate plans. And not spend time re-scheduling meetings to the inconvenience of yourself and others.
I was reminded of what I had once read about Warren Buffett and how he scheduled his meetings. Apparently he doesn't schedule his meetings more than a day before. That is to say, if you wanted to meet him tomorrow, you could call today. If you wanted to meet him the day after, you would have to call tomorrow.
This rule has a simple philosophy: I can't fill up my schedule any further in advance. That way one needs to be worried only about the next day. And not be too worried about not having any dates for the next few months.
But he is Warren Buffett. I doubt whether anyone else would be able to pull off such a schedule. But you could most certainly cut down on how much advance appointment you give. That way you'd be more in control of your immediate plans. And not spend time re-scheduling meetings to the inconvenience of yourself and others.
Bridge on the River Kwai - Courage and Adamance
I was watching bridge on the River Kwai a couple of days back. Some of the quotes from the movie are memorable and could be part of leadership lessons.
I have always admired this movie for the leadership example it sets. Colonel Nicholson is a perfect example of how chain of command and adherance to the rule works. And he motivates people, displays pride.
Nicholson says 'One day the war will be over. And I hope that the people who use this bridge in the years to come will remember how it was built and who built it. Not a gang of slaves, but soldiers, British soldiers, even in captivity.'
And 'One day, when, God willing, we all return to our homes, you will feel proud of what you have achieved here in the face of adversity. What you have done will be an example to our countrymen. You have survived with honour in this wilderness. You have turned defeat into victory. I congratulate you.'
Saito is no less when he says 'You are defeated, but you have no shame. You are stubborn, but you have no pride. You endure, but you have no courage.'
But I had not seen a facet of this movie which I observed today. My wife had a view that one could not be so adamant in the face of adversity. It got me thinking, and I realised that there may be some truth in that too. It was only later that I realised that this thought had been expressed in the movie by Shears. He tells Warden 'You make me sick with your heroics. This is just a game, this war. You and that Colonel Nicholson, you're two of a kind. Crazy with courage. For what? How to die like a gentleman. How to die by the rules when the only important thing is how to live like a human being. I'm not going to leave you here to die, Warden, because I don't care about your bridge and I don't care about your rules. If we go on, we go on together.'
That for me summarised the other facet that I so long had not seen.
I have always admired this movie for the leadership example it sets. Colonel Nicholson is a perfect example of how chain of command and adherance to the rule works. And he motivates people, displays pride.
Nicholson says 'One day the war will be over. And I hope that the people who use this bridge in the years to come will remember how it was built and who built it. Not a gang of slaves, but soldiers, British soldiers, even in captivity.'
And 'One day, when, God willing, we all return to our homes, you will feel proud of what you have achieved here in the face of adversity. What you have done will be an example to our countrymen. You have survived with honour in this wilderness. You have turned defeat into victory. I congratulate you.'
Saito is no less when he says 'You are defeated, but you have no shame. You are stubborn, but you have no pride. You endure, but you have no courage.'
But I had not seen a facet of this movie which I observed today. My wife had a view that one could not be so adamant in the face of adversity. It got me thinking, and I realised that there may be some truth in that too. It was only later that I realised that this thought had been expressed in the movie by Shears. He tells Warden 'You make me sick with your heroics. This is just a game, this war. You and that Colonel Nicholson, you're two of a kind. Crazy with courage. For what? How to die like a gentleman. How to die by the rules when the only important thing is how to live like a human being. I'm not going to leave you here to die, Warden, because I don't care about your bridge and I don't care about your rules. If we go on, we go on together.'
That for me summarised the other facet that I so long had not seen.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Thou shall be judged!
It's a inviolable fact of life that you will be judged. All the time. And by people who are less capable than you, absolutely or otherwise. And these people will rate you, rank you, decide whether you are good or bad or pathetic.
So these people have their set of standards which they hold to be sacred, against which you are compared. And eventually more such people join together and form a coterie. This coterie will talk behind your back about how bad you are.
I must admit that at times, even I behave in this fashion. When I look down upon people who I think are not up to the mark, I do precisely what I otherwise detest.
What could one possibly do in such a situation? Avoid or Endure! If you can, you move on to other things, where these people won't affect your life. Get out of the loop. And if you can't, and you need to be in the system, you have to endure. But most of all, believe! Believe in what you truly are. Belive in yourself, and be honest about what you are. If you are not as good as the world, try to improve; if you still can't, reconcile to what you can be.
As always, you can never say what is right or wrong. It is a matter of perspective and circumstance. I was reminded of what a senior colleague had said a few years back, while referring to a star performer in our office. The person who is considered knowledgeable in a certain situation or environment is not necessarily knowledgeable in a different situation or environment. You are relative to where you are!
There is little you can do to others! But there is a lot you can to yourself! The wisdom is in knowing the difference!
So these people have their set of standards which they hold to be sacred, against which you are compared. And eventually more such people join together and form a coterie. This coterie will talk behind your back about how bad you are.
I must admit that at times, even I behave in this fashion. When I look down upon people who I think are not up to the mark, I do precisely what I otherwise detest.
What could one possibly do in such a situation? Avoid or Endure! If you can, you move on to other things, where these people won't affect your life. Get out of the loop. And if you can't, and you need to be in the system, you have to endure. But most of all, believe! Believe in what you truly are. Belive in yourself, and be honest about what you are. If you are not as good as the world, try to improve; if you still can't, reconcile to what you can be.
As always, you can never say what is right or wrong. It is a matter of perspective and circumstance. I was reminded of what a senior colleague had said a few years back, while referring to a star performer in our office. The person who is considered knowledgeable in a certain situation or environment is not necessarily knowledgeable in a different situation or environment. You are relative to where you are!
There is little you can do to others! But there is a lot you can to yourself! The wisdom is in knowing the difference!
The eternal optimist
I call myself an eternal optimist, a cautious one at that, but I'm sure of the direction. The last few months have been quite challenging for me, but I'm not too hassled about it. I might've been worried several times about circumstances around me. But I feel I've remained positive about what will eventually emerge. I think of good things that will happen to me and feel better.
Why am I saying all of this now? I came across a website called 'Optimist World' this morning who claim to be an antidote to the pessimism that surrounds us in daily life. A good website that brings positive thoughts, good news and stories of inspiration every morning.
And I liked this quote that seemed to be apt to my current circumstance. "Don't wait until everything is just right. It will never be perfect. There will always be challenges, obstacles and less than perfect conditions. So what. Get started now. With each step you take, you will grow stronger , more skilled, more self-confident, and more successful" Exactly what I needed to do now.
And another one "When it comes to pursuing the life of your dreams, you can look at it like this. Best case scenario: the sun, the moon and the stars. Worst case scenario: the sun, the moon and the stars"
What am I waiting for?
Why am I saying all of this now? I came across a website called 'Optimist World' this morning who claim to be an antidote to the pessimism that surrounds us in daily life. A good website that brings positive thoughts, good news and stories of inspiration every morning.
And I liked this quote that seemed to be apt to my current circumstance. "Don't wait until everything is just right. It will never be perfect. There will always be challenges, obstacles and less than perfect conditions. So what. Get started now. With each step you take, you will grow stronger , more skilled, more self-confident, and more successful" Exactly what I needed to do now.
And another one "When it comes to pursuing the life of your dreams, you can look at it like this. Best case scenario: the sun, the moon and the stars. Worst case scenario: the sun, the moon and the stars"
What am I waiting for?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
How much do you earn?
Something distrubing kept me occupied all day yesterday. And for quite a while, I couldn't understand what it was. And then mid-day it struck me. It doesn't matter what it is, but I realised many things as I was observing how I reacted to this circumstance.
How much do you earn? You generally don't share this piece of information with anyone outside of family. It is meant to be kept confidential, primarily because people start judging you on this basis. How much you earn, is a key measure of how much you have accomplished in life. I was quite surprised when an acquaintance of mine asked me this question. And he seemed to derive great pleasure (That is my assessment of the way he reacted) from the fact that he was earning more than me, though he was younger.
I always maintain that this does not affect me. But I realised that somewhere in my sub-conscious mind, it was disturbing me. The fact that I am not interested in this race remains, but I stop to think.
How much do you earn? You generally don't share this piece of information with anyone outside of family. It is meant to be kept confidential, primarily because people start judging you on this basis. How much you earn, is a key measure of how much you have accomplished in life. I was quite surprised when an acquaintance of mine asked me this question. And he seemed to derive great pleasure (That is my assessment of the way he reacted) from the fact that he was earning more than me, though he was younger.
I always maintain that this does not affect me. But I realised that somewhere in my sub-conscious mind, it was disturbing me. The fact that I am not interested in this race remains, but I stop to think.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Life is a mailbox.....
As I opened my gmail account this morning, I found that I had over 10000 mails in my inbox. And the percentage used was only about 25%. And I understand Google increases the capacity as you use. I stop to consider whether I should analyse my mailbox and delete mails to make it appear more managed, and leave it more manageable.
I was sure that most of the mails were junk or spam that I have nothing to do with. I also have a lot of mails that come in because I registered for some newsletter sometime. And a whole lot of forwards from friends. I concluded that the important mails in my mailbox were only a few.
But what were those important mails. I couldn't easily list down what was important. And I don't know whether to spend time deleting unwanted mails so that my mailbox looks cleaner. Because my experience shows that by the time you are cleaning up, more of the junk piles up. And I realise that the good article that I wanted to read is lost in time.
I guess life is like a mailbox......
We are constantly met with situations which we have to deal with. Life throws at you a whole lot of things; you catch some, you leave some. Some things are good, some things are bad. But there is always so much that you are prioritising almost all the time. But never ever stop to pick up things that you think are unimportant.
It sometimes makes sense to just ignore the unwanted and move on with the good things. So don't spend time deleting unwanted mails. Spend the same time reading something good. It makes better sense.....
PS: I didn't delete any unwanted mails. And by evening it is at 10200....
I was sure that most of the mails were junk or spam that I have nothing to do with. I also have a lot of mails that come in because I registered for some newsletter sometime. And a whole lot of forwards from friends. I concluded that the important mails in my mailbox were only a few.
But what were those important mails. I couldn't easily list down what was important. And I don't know whether to spend time deleting unwanted mails so that my mailbox looks cleaner. Because my experience shows that by the time you are cleaning up, more of the junk piles up. And I realise that the good article that I wanted to read is lost in time.
I guess life is like a mailbox......
We are constantly met with situations which we have to deal with. Life throws at you a whole lot of things; you catch some, you leave some. Some things are good, some things are bad. But there is always so much that you are prioritising almost all the time. But never ever stop to pick up things that you think are unimportant.
It sometimes makes sense to just ignore the unwanted and move on with the good things. So don't spend time deleting unwanted mails. Spend the same time reading something good. It makes better sense.....
PS: I didn't delete any unwanted mails. And by evening it is at 10200....
Friday, September 4, 2009
Put on an act
It's a great feeling to have done something after having gone through intense hassles and troubles. We are part of a theatre group and we write and stage plays. Most of our subjects are contemporary and the presentation is almost always, casual.
Each of us had a view on what we had to do. We had our strengths and limitations. Some of us couldn't remember lines; some of us could not emote; some of us couldn't ham; some of could only ham; some of us couldn't react; some others could only react.
With such varied levels of theatre skills, we couldn't act to a script. We weren't all actors anyway. But the one thing that bound all of us together was the desire to perform, in our own ways. And that was all that we had. But that was enough. We developed the story, the roles and the lines according to our individual capabilities. And we created what we could.
Some members of our group have been invited by other associations and theatre groups to perform some roles in their plays. We recently had occasion to do such a play. It emerged this time that there was a wide difference in the way we approached a subject. We used to build up slowly to the d-day. And reserve all our emoting for the stage. That was not the way they liked it. They began putting up a proper stage performance right from the first day of rehearsal. But they forgot lines on stage.
We had earlier performed in one of their earlier plays an year back. We had our differences in approach, but we tended towards what they desired us to do, since it was their effort. We tried to be the director's actors. We put on an act to keep up with their style and approach.
But this time we had flashpoints emerging from an undercurrents, disturbances. In the end, we performed better than they did. And better than we expected to. We even helped them recover from situations where they didn't know what to say next on stage. So we were happy and thrilled. Happy that we had done well, and thrilled that we had beaten them.
Each of us had a view on what we had to do. We had our strengths and limitations. Some of us couldn't remember lines; some of us could not emote; some of us couldn't ham; some of could only ham; some of us couldn't react; some others could only react.
With such varied levels of theatre skills, we couldn't act to a script. We weren't all actors anyway. But the one thing that bound all of us together was the desire to perform, in our own ways. And that was all that we had. But that was enough. We developed the story, the roles and the lines according to our individual capabilities. And we created what we could.
Some members of our group have been invited by other associations and theatre groups to perform some roles in their plays. We recently had occasion to do such a play. It emerged this time that there was a wide difference in the way we approached a subject. We used to build up slowly to the d-day. And reserve all our emoting for the stage. That was not the way they liked it. They began putting up a proper stage performance right from the first day of rehearsal. But they forgot lines on stage.
We had earlier performed in one of their earlier plays an year back. We had our differences in approach, but we tended towards what they desired us to do, since it was their effort. We tried to be the director's actors. We put on an act to keep up with their style and approach.
But this time we had flashpoints emerging from an undercurrents, disturbances. In the end, we performed better than they did. And better than we expected to. We even helped them recover from situations where they didn't know what to say next on stage. So we were happy and thrilled. Happy that we had done well, and thrilled that we had beaten them.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
What I have lived for.....
Well, for a start I decided to read his autobiography to get some inspiration. In his prologue he says 'Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.' The entire prologue is invaluable; wise words. I'm amazed at the clarity of thought that he had. How he could summarise a life in a page, so clearly and wonderfully.
If I could even touch the shores of the ocean that Bertrand was, I would've known what I lived for.....
Monday, August 31, 2009
A new leaf
It was my birthday on the 29th when, as always I start something new; turn a new leaf, or at least plan to. Incidentally, I'm blogging on my new blog page.
I turn 32 and life seems to have suddenly plateaued. A good time to look back at life and see the hits and misses. And I must say I've been lucky to have the life I do. There are a few regrets but that is perfectly alright considering that I may not entirely deserve all the good that has happened to me.
My desires though haven't moderated one bit. If any, they have only multiplied and are bordering on the unreasonable now. A thousand desires such as these....
But what's the harm in wishing for anything. At least it gives me a reason to live life. This year though, I thought, should be different. I didn't want to specifically list down what I want to do and tick off against them. That would leave me looking at how many things I've not achieved, though planned out very well.
So I decided to concentrate on a few areas that broadly make up my life. These are generic, but I thought I'd detail them as and when I take up specific activities in the area. Health, reading, music, knowledge, travel are some of these areas.
You'll read more of this in time....
I turn 32 and life seems to have suddenly plateaued. A good time to look back at life and see the hits and misses. And I must say I've been lucky to have the life I do. There are a few regrets but that is perfectly alright considering that I may not entirely deserve all the good that has happened to me.
My desires though haven't moderated one bit. If any, they have only multiplied and are bordering on the unreasonable now. A thousand desires such as these....
But what's the harm in wishing for anything. At least it gives me a reason to live life. This year though, I thought, should be different. I didn't want to specifically list down what I want to do and tick off against them. That would leave me looking at how many things I've not achieved, though planned out very well.
So I decided to concentrate on a few areas that broadly make up my life. These are generic, but I thought I'd detail them as and when I take up specific activities in the area. Health, reading, music, knowledge, travel are some of these areas.
You'll read more of this in time....
Saturday, August 29, 2009
AUM
Vakratunda Mahakaaya ||
Suryakoti Samaprabha ||
Nirvignam Kurumedeva ||
Sarvakaryeshu Sarvada ||
Suryakoti Samaprabha ||
Nirvignam Kurumedeva ||
Sarvakaryeshu Sarvada ||
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)