Sunsigns for 2013

The world is changing, and so is the sun. New signs have emerged out of the brightest star in the Solar system that have necessitated the addition of new sun-signs to account for, and predict the future of (thereby enabling 231 starving astrologers to avail of the benefits of the Food Security Bill through the NREGA scheme by presenting the Aadhar card to the local bank at the time of loan application/waivers) Following the latest Goldman-Sacks report that C-PAIR (China-Pakistan-America-India-Russia) is the new BRIC, the new sun-signs have been modified to cover multiple nationalities.

• Modeo
  

  

  A Modeo as he sees himself.

  Modeos are typically identified by others' reactions to them - an aversion to enter into discussions relating to the present, a prefunctory dismissal of opinions as biased or a labeling as being part of an online legion of trollers who pray on the weak, ill-informed or at times, a male chauvinist (since the lion usually leaves the dirty work to the lionesses), often leading to frustrated roars that can be heard all the way from Gir to Kuno. A Modeo will find comfort chiefly with other Modeos, although they continue to be hounded about the Year of the Fire by the Mediacorns who also expect them to answer every question from the starvation of arctic wolves to the mating habits of common slugs holistically and inclusively.

• Mediacorns
  

  

  A typical Mediacorn.

  The Mediacorns are often loud, pre-occupied and stubborn, and cannot resist butting horns with Modeos the moment they see them. Mediacorns are proud of their trade and will invoke its name at the slightest provocation, and they can be easily provoked by questions of facts, motives, alternatives or traffic tickets. A typical Mediacorn loves a good rough-up as long as he/she is not physically involved but can witness it or use it later. There are Mediacorns who are exceptions, but prophecies foretell that an alpha Mediacorn will soon emerge to recreate every Mediacorn in his image with his quest for needing to know what everybody else already knows. Despite their aggressive and temperamental nature, Mediacorns can be easily domesticated by Concerians who take advantage of the constant struggle between the Modeos and the Mediacorns.
  
  
• Concerians

  

  The Concerian Symbol.

  Concerians make good matches for Mediacorns due a symbiotic relationship and are excellent deal-makers. Concerians get along with everyone except Modeos because their existences are mutually exclusionary - a Concerian is most likely to be replaced at the workplace or at home by a Modeo, and vice versa. Concerians are fond of hand gestures and can often be seen holding it out for no reason other than to admire their own handiwork. They are also partial to the color green and black. Concerians are always concerned about other Concerians and will therefore always stick to queues and a rigid sense of self-disciple, but are often good enough athletes to make rapid U-turns without breaking into a sweat. Concerians typically prefer a Maiden as their boss especially as Concerians have an automatic urge to pull down another Concerian.
  
  
• Maiden

  

  A Maiden in cricket. You tell me.

  A Maiden is one of the rarest sunsigns, since it happens only when a great tree falls heavily enough to shake the earth. It is named after a cricket term that signifies an over of Zeros in T20 cricket, but most Maidens are actually fans of football and volleyball. Maidens are often considered to be readymade leaders in any sphere they walk into and can often hit self-goals or the official captains without being suspended or red-carded, unless they red-card themselves. Maidens are also highly unpredictable and have great capacity for greatness and giving up their own dreams, although their reliance on Mediacorns and Concerians for the actual execution leaves them vulnerable and confused. Most Maidens have a Taurijay as their closest bodyguard due to the instinctive connection between their intellects.
  
  
• Taurijay

  

  In front of The Taurijay Club

  A Taurijay is often characterised by a bull-headedness that is immune to reason and a marked antagonism to red, saffron, orange or pink. Taurijays are also loners, but make excellent bodyguards once their loyalty has been earned. Taurijays also get along with Mediacorns and Concerians to a certain extent, but the friendship rarely extends beyond a certain level due to mutual suspicion and discomfort. Taurijays typically do not make good family men, due to their paranoia, but despite their nature, are often the show-stealers at parties, press conferences and Youtube. There are aspects of Taurijay that resonate with the Geminiam, but there have not been enough Taurijays or Geminiam to study the inter-relationship in detail.
  
  
• Geminiam

  

  Known for speaking out of
  both sides of their mouth.

  Unlike a Taurijay, Geminiams are extremely agile where their principles are concerned, often within the same sentence. Geminiams are also family-oriented and may marry more than once if allowed to do so, unafraid of the risks of managing the ambitions of their offspring from different mothers. Studies have shown that Geminians also make good fathers materialistically, often leading to their children getting plum posts and rewards, but can also scar their children with their confusing critiques. Geminians are also fond of green color sleeves and are physically very active, unlike the Aryamys.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Aryam/Aryamy

  

  An Aryam-Aryamy

  Aryamys are often armchair theoreticians known for their imagination and ability to alienate a large section of the people with a few choice remarks. Most Aryamys spend their younger days in youthful indiscretions, pursuit of higher educations on foreign shores or both, before returning to their hometowns and invading the quiet peace there. They are persistent Romeos and will keep ramming their heads against the wall until they get what they want. Aryamys may be intellectuals of top order but not everything that comes out of an Aryamy factory is top-notch. Aryamys may get along with Modeans, although disagreements are not unheard of, but are always at loggerheads with the Anti-Aryamys, the Pissesists.
  
  
  
  
• Pisses

  

  A Piss

  The Pisses sun-sign is derived from the hinterland name for 'fish.' Most Pissesists often find their way to a coastal area, or at the very least a salt-water lake, and are not be mistaken for pacifists. Pissessists are principle-driven and immune to reason or objection where that principle is concerned, and often prefer their left side to the right. They are creative individuals who are characterized more by what they don't create than what they actually do, and can be found in groups near a watering hole. Pissesists hate Modeos, barely tolerate Concerians, disregard Taurijayans and Geminiams, but the one sign that can get under their horn is the Aryans. Pissesists are notorious for interfering in neighbors' affairs when their own house is burning, much like another arch-enemy, the Aquarius.
  
  
• Aquarius 

  

  A Typical Aquarican

  An Aquarican's first reaction in any new place is to barricade himself within walls, scare people off with muscle and machine, piss in the local swimming pool and then interfere in his/her neighbor's affairs in their best interests. Aquaricans are characterized by a their fondness for cows, dead or alive, and the legal system, and will find any excuse to test the latter a worthy expenditure of time. Aquaricans have a tendency never to learn from the past and therefore end up repeating the same mistakes, much to the delight of the Pissesists and Modeos. They are also the self-appointed Conscience-keeper, Banker, Producer, Middleman, Seller and Sheriff of the World, an attitude that often irks the Scorpsians.
  
  
• Scorpions

  

  A Scorpsian in action

  The Scorpsians consider themselves the intellectual forefathers of the Pissesists and hold the belief that they could have been the Sheriff if only they hadn't run out of cash fighting amongst themselves during the Ice Age. Scorpsians are quite insular and couldn't really care what happens to the Modeos, Mediacorns, Maidens or the others as long as the trash isn't dumped into their yard, but lose no chance to turn an Aquarican's misadventure over to the Mediacorns for free delight.  Despite the often indifferent nature, a Scorpsio can scuttle well-laid plans simply by baring their chest and revealing dirty tales.  Their only real beef is with Libranis, the only group continuously Chechmating them.
  
  
• Librani
  A Librani cannot get along with his/her spouse, neighbor, parent, child or pet due to a high level of cultivated intolerance. Libranis are often extremely fussy and prefer overkill where not even a single kill is preferred, and are happiest when they can spread their values to others. Their humor is often considered to be gallows/guillotine humor and the only ones even fleetingly able to bear with them are the Aquaricans, with whom they share a love-hate relationship, and so the only possible short-term partners for a Librani are another Librani or an Aquaricus who falls in between. Libranis are also known to work well with the Sagittese, although their over-insistence on doing everything by the book often spoils the relationship.
  
  
• Sagita
  The symbol of a Sagita is an archer who's screwed his eyes so that he can see the whole world, and like the symbol suggests, Sagittese are characterized by a narrow view of the world around them. The Sagittese often look to a particular Sagittese for leadership and the strongest contender for this is often called the Secret Chair. The Sagittese are as unwelcoming of criticism or differences as the Librani but are often more sophisticated in their approach, preferring to act without announcing their intentions to the whole world. Sagittese are also extremely calculating and manipulative and may often take-over homes of the docile Concerians if invited in as a brother. Their perspectives may be narrow, but they are often willing to take long-term risks that pay off. Only another Sagittese will be good enough for a Sagittese, although Pissesists have been known to make good spouses from time to time.
  
  
  *Applications submitted to the Govt under the Rajiv Gandhi Scheme of Registration of New Symbols, Indira Gandhi National Starvation Hatao Yojana, Rajiv Gandhi Scheme for New Son Signs (sic) and Sonia Gandhi National Disclaimer Scheme

Abuse of Freedom vs Freedom to Abuse

One of my favourite quotes has always been Voltaire’s, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to death your right to say it.” That one line, to me, is the fine line that separates true civilization from the laws of the jungle. That one, undeniable principle should be the bedrock of any system that aspires to be truly democratic.

Why, you might ask, am I worried? The very fact that I can sit in my armchair and comment on everything from the government to Google Maps proves, if proof is needed, that my right to free speech is being upheld. Right?

Wrong.

Freedom of speech these days comes with an asterisk next to it. Conditions apply. As long as what I say is not a threat either to national security, a blanket that covers everything unpopular with the ruling dispensation, or to local peace (covering everything under the rather broad ambit of ‘hurting the sentiments of the community’) – as adjudged not by qualified Solomons but by politicians and untrained keepers of the law – I am free to speak.

Ah, but unfettered speech is harmful, right? It needs to be curbed, na?

Let me take a step back here before I answer that question. Not as a retreat, but as an attempt to trace recent history back to the time when freedom meant something less... conditional. On a global level, that turning point was America bringing in the ‘draconian’ Patriot Act in 2001 – justified as it might have been in the backdrop of the 9/11 attacks, the Act still empowered officials to track and flag you as a possible enemy of the state on the basis of your thoughts, becoming the free world’s precedent for curbing your freedom on the pretext of assuring someone else's. 

There is an interesting remark that Manoj Bajpai’s character makes in Special Chabbis – “Saza jurm sochne ke liye nahin, jurm karne ke liye milti hai. Aur wo bhi, jab unke khilaaf sabooth ho.” You do not get punished for thinking of a crime, but for its execution – and even then, only with proof. It is perhaps telling that the movie was a throwback to the 80s and a world that seemed a lot safer for the law-abiding citizen – except, perhaps, in Punjab.

In India, the Shah Bano case and its handling by the then Congress government was perhaps the first instance of the central Government buckling under organized pressure from a particular community, setting back perhaps decades of progressive reforms towards equality in caste, creed and gender. Though this had very little to do with free speech, it set the precedent for what followed: the attacks on MF Hussain (1996) and the protests against the movies ‘Hey Ram’ (2000) and ‘the Da Vinci Code’ (2006).

I know that as a Hindu, any defence I make of the protest against Hussain’s painting will be viewed with coloured lenses. But I am only quoting a contemporary of Hussain’s by repeating the same question many Hindus had at the same time – would Hussain have dared to depict any of Islam’s or Christianity’s icons thus? Would he have faced as much vitriol from those communities if he had?

The later years provide the answer. 

The ‘Da Vinci Code’ was banned in many countries because it hurt the sentiments of Christians, but surprisingly, the Christian West, despite its protests, allowed it to be shown with only a disclaimer; the more diverse East was ironically the more restrictive, banning the movie outright in several countries and states and buckling under organized pressure. 

When a Danish paper published cartoons depicting the Prophet, Islamic sentiments were hurt. The protests turned violent in many places and degenerated into an us-vs-them mentality in many parts of the world, further isolating the communities and fostering the air of distrust and disrespect.

Where – and it is the benefit of hindsight to be so judgmental – the world went wrong was in giving in to these voices of emotion. The government should have ensured a level playing field to the two sides and left it at that, instead of silencing one voice on the pretext of avoiding violence. That is the fundamental problem when it comes to protectionist censorship – there will always be a bias, for the simple reason that it will be human beings operating that censorship.

It is perhaps symbolic of how much we have fallen when I receive a petition on Change.org against Shah Rukh Khan’s promotion of ‘fair skin.’ 

Really, that’s your concern right now? was my first thought. 

The second was more introspective and led to this article. What right do I have to dictate Shah Rukh Khan’s endorsements? Why should I intervene on decisions that are purely personal, either at the advertiser’s end or at the buyer’s? Who am I to presume that I should educate the rest of the world on the (non-)interrelationship between fairness and success in life?

And that is where we are now. We took the step from defending our sentiments to promoting our sentiments under the same disguise – and took that step back from being understanding creatures to those that thrive on strength and numbers. We lose our individual identities because that identity is carved into, and the property of, so many emotional communities at so many levels. We care not about other individuals but the communities that we are aligned with or against; we devolve our understanding back to stererotypes and prejudices.

I am a dark-skinned, Tamil-speaking, MBA-holding, ex-software-engineer, a Hindu, a Brahmin and a resident of Bengaluru, Karnataka. But if I am to rise to every slight, imagined or otherwise, to any dark-skinned OR a Tamilian OR an MBA grad OR IT professional OR Hindus OR Brahmins OR Kannadigas OR Bangalore-ian, I won’t have time being who I am - an individual with my own opinions, and asking for the right to express them. I will only have time protesting against others’.

And then... the more I win, the more I lose.

Captaincy... oppa Clarkan style!

Two events in recent cricketing history compel me to draw their parallels to typical corporate circumstances.

One was the re-emergence of Dhoni as India's blue-eyed captain, the Midas of the Men in Blue whose faith in his players are being seen as prophetic with each passing day of the tour.

The other - perhaps more in the limelight for all the wrong reasons - the Australian captain Michael Clarke's tribulations on and off the field.

Personally, I have to admit that for the first time since the 1996 World Cup finals, I find myself willing to root for an Australian team (in their next challenge - the Ashes - and not for the current series!) And much of that has to do with Clarke's conduct on and off the field - a true example of the 'Halo' effect, perhaps. He's a refreshing change from those who excused excessive aggression (and spitting into one's hands) as a symbol of Aussie-ism, from those who would rather blame themselves or the pitch than the fact that they were as clueless in India as our team has been on their pitches. And of course, there's the small fact that he didn't 'Mankad' Dhawan's debut - a rare display of sportsmanship from a team that has long excused its absence without any shame.

And to top it off, he's actually handled the 'HomeworkGate' saga pretty... neatly.

Assuming, of course, that he was as sure about the decision as his coach Mickey Arthur, Clarke deserves to be patted on the back for arresting the slide in discipline. Whether it is 3 points or 30, irrespective of whether the coach needed it in Powerpoint, toilet paper or a ballet with Watson leading the pirouettes, there is nothing ambiguous about the fact that every member of the team was asked to ponder over their role in the larger scheme of things - and if anyone objects, it should be to the fact that the coach had to hand this out as an assignment, instead of the 'boys' dwelling on it 24x7 themselves, as they should have been at this juncture of a tour that is going very badly for them.

That the four failed to hand in such an assignment therefore smacks of an abject disregard of their responsibilities towards the team, and an attitude that is dismissive of their captain's/coach's inputs. None of the four are kids, each having spent close to a decade in the much-vaunted Australian sporting setup, and must surely have been indoctrinated on what it means to be part of a team. To excuse poor attitude citing personal excellence in other areas is a mistake that Ponting committed with Symonds - Clarke, at least, has sent out the right message not only to his current team-mates, but also to any other hopeful waiting for a chance at national duty.

Maybe I am imagining it, but the Australian players have shown much more application, put a heavier price on their wicket, for the first time in the series - despite Clarke's stumping off the first ball he faced. Perhaps that rush of blood itself was occasioned by the brickbats he was receiving from myopic former players who did not realize that they had always been kept in line off the glare of the media. People like Damien Martyn, who remains in my memory for claiming a bump-catch off Dravid and then arguing with Venkatraghavan (and going off scot-free in the days before BCCI started 'to flex its muscles') and Warne, whose uncertain (in)discipline was definitely one of the reasons he'd never asked to take the toss for the Green Caps, are not really the best advocates for knowing what's best for the team in the long run. Barring his one magical season during the inaugural IPL, Warne's never really been able to prove that his management style rocks. Clarke may still have to bat again in Mohali, and it will be easier for him to play knowing that he has nothing to answer for.

Clarke aside, it is an encouraging sign that there are finally other players putting up their hands to be counted. Cowan, Starc and Smith have helped Australia claim some legitimacy from this test and at lease ensure that India will have to approach Day 4 as an ODI to force a result in the rain-curtailed third test. To extend the popular joke these days, these three must have definitely done their 'homework.'

It's also an interesting question from a management's perspective - does the punishment fit the crime? In these days of zero-tolerance corporates and a looming/existing/emerging recession, one would be accurate in supposing that similar conduct in a professional organization would see you bouncing on your backside on the street faster than Clarke's latest innings (for posterity's sake, recording it here - st Dhoni b Jadeja 0(1) - third test @ Mohali) - and no one would have blinked. If this had happened in Australia, Glenn Maxwell might have at least escaped the ignominy of being the only member dropped, and that too when you had Phil Hughes (67 balls, 2 runs, 5 dismissals) as one of the chosen 11 - at least Clarke could have called on further resources from the Sheffield games, or at the very least, persuaded Punter Ponting for one more hurrah.

Which brings us back to the question - what's next for Clarke? As a batsman, he has nothing to prove; as a captain, however, he needs to prove a point. Not to the media, or to the rest of his country, but to the four 'boys' who have been sent a message. That they need the team more than the team needs them.

Captaincy... 'oppa Dhoni style!

One of my favorite scenes in the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' series is when Capt. Norrington's aide remarks to him, "That has to be the worst pirate I've ever seen." (for those of you who want to see it again - the Youtube clip) - a few minutes before he utters, equally automatically, "that has to be best pirate I've ever seen!"

Watching Captain MS Dhoni, on and off the field, evokes similar reactions. The man's decisions seems maddeningly counter-intuitive, making you go - why oh why oh why - until, sometime later, he somehow manages to just pull it off. A lot of examples abound of his successes and his failures, but when you hit a good streak, it's the former that people remember more easily (and the reverse holds true, as well!)

Case in point: Shikhar Dhawan's scintillating debut today (185* off 168 balls)

Why am I giving credit to Dhoni for selecting Dhawan when he was practically forced to do, given Sehwag's consistent struggle in the past few months?

Call me an optimist, but the way the newcomers - and the come-back'ers - have performed with an intensity and a hunger is a reflection of the leadership that they are operating under. It is indeed a struggle for any up-and-coming cricketer to break into the Indian team - just as it would be for any Tom, Dick and Harry to get into a world-class company - despite being the smartest fish in a smaller pond. At the same time, it is not unheard of for someone to be put on the fast-track on the basis of a couple of tearaway performances - nor unusual for that shining star to turn into a shooting star that fades away just as you catch sight of it. Too much, too soon...

Yet, when one is rewarded for perseverance over (just a few) performances, there is a hunger that makes you clutch each opportunity in a vise-like grip, not willing to slack off or even take the slightest chance of losing it all. Dhawan's innings - or Pujara's or Vijay's, from Hyderabad, or Harbhajan Singh's desperate dive to save a number-10 batsman's boundary even with a lead of 135+ runs - has been characterized by that hunger, of realizing that each and every aspect of their commitment was precious. Of remembering the promises (uttered and implied) that they would have made to their captain.

What has the captain offered in return?

If one goes by the usual reports in the media, preference for selection, despite the risk to the team's successes, on grounds of personal relationships.

There is another interpretation (not expressed as stridently, perhaps, as the obvious motive of favoritism) for Dhoni's persisting with out-of-form players - something that he himself has taken pains to drive home to a largely stubborn opinion-community - that players needed to know that they can make mistakes as long as they learn from it, that the cushion of continued faith in one's abilities is better than a sword hanging over your head if you want to bring out the best in someone. Kudos to the selectors and the rest of the management for falling in with this philosophy, a rare marriage of mixing ground realities with the responsibilities of ensuring a team's future. Thus, a battered Ashwin has fought back in this series. An almost-written-off Jadeja has rediscovered his mojo.

In a corporate world, we leave this too often to the immediate manager's responsibility - as if motivating an employee to go that extra step, to take that extra leap, is not the responsibility of anyone else within the organization. True, employees leave managers, not companies - but that does not absolve each and every cog of the leadership chain from having to feel responsible for the morale of their employees. 

A friend of mine recently complained that his company was finding it difficult to service even the most basic commitments to its customers and its employees - yet, when he put in his papers, he was wined and dined by the CEO at a posh hotel in Bangalore, a call was put through to his manager to clear every single bill of his and he was offered a raise on the spot. On the face of it, one would call it smart people management from the CEO to keep from losing one of his top revenue generators. Yet, peeling the surface, you realize that these promises, toothless and perhaps insincere out of the CEO's inability to hold to them, were nothing more than a cosmetic adherence to a common management philosophy that believes in muting the symptoms, not curing them.

For a company to transform from a transactional existence to a truly great place to work in, there has to be a sensitization that each and every person who impacts the internal stakeholders is as critical to the success as the ones who face the external stakeholders. A checker in the finance team has to do his work as diligently as the sales rep whose bills he is auditing. The guy in the warehouse has to realize that there is a downside to sending the wrong components, even if it means that his dispatch metrics are less than optimal. 

And that is where the sub-captains step in. To ensure that in the midst of carrying on his/her division's goals, you do not lose track of the big picture that you are painting. 

And that is where the management - mid-, top-, bottom-, whatchamacallit-levels - need to ensure that the silos dissolve and that you do not create an unhealthily competitive atmosphere between people who have to be in synergy. In a lot of sales-driven companies, the traditional style of checks-and-balances has been to let the individual divisions fight it out. (Marketing vs sales, sales vs service, service vs branding, branding vs finance, etc) - that needs to change. When you spend millions of dollars on setting up a unified IT architecture, and yet fail to see the significance of gelling your divisions together in mind more than silicon, it makes you one of the worst captains ever. If you prefer internal competitiveness to competing efficiently against your competitors, you've already lost the market before you've set foot in it. That's the shortest route to mediocrity, to the footnotes of history as a company that just could not hack it.

On the other hand, if you truly believe in employee motivation, stop wasting time on trying to motivate them with empty pep-talks and outsourced mind-altering (or -numbing, depending on the outcome) seminars. It might soothe the corporate conscience and give you the chance to chuck out a few "he's just not a team player, doesn't have the right attitude" types, but you've still not understood what is pricking your employees. And understanding that is the first step to being a great place to work in.

Internal competitiveness, like stomach acid, can be corrosive if that is what the organizational culture degenerates to. So can a Stalinistic attitude to mistakes. If you've hired an employee believing in his/her potential, then you have an obligation to realize that potential - and make them feel more comfortable than if they had jumped into the midst of malnourished sharks - as a mark of respect to the time and effort that has gone into that recruitment. 

Take a leaf out of Dhoni's book. Make your employees hunger for your success. And then make sure they know they have your faith in getting it.