@categorical_imp: 2015

Monday, December 21, 2015

Entrepreneurship #2: "We'll Figure It Out"

I'm shamelessly stealing my friend's (and a bunch of seasoned stoners') go-to line here, but existing stereotypes - blame the Valley - and an incipient entrepreneurship culture have made it indispensable.

"We need to get 10,000 downloads by January. How are we going to get there?"
"We'll figure it out."

"Hey, we have only 20,000 bucks! How are we going to pay rent next month?"
"We'll figure it out."

"What time do you want to leave for the movie?
"We'll figure it out."

"Dude, she's really hot!"
"We'll figure it out."

And so on and so forth. It is the ultimate fallback line, which acts like a safety net for failing businesses, time and money crunches, seemingly hopeless situations, falling aeroplanes... When the average human being is about to push the panic button, the entrepreneur begins to figure it out.
This is Fine


Of course, there needs to be action beyond these words; otherwise, failure is certain. These words cannot be empty. "Figuring it out" is an essential skill that any freelancer, entrepreneur, person in an unstructured business/activity or leader who is pushing the boundaries of human progress must learn. In a regular job, and in several other day-to-day activities, this process can be avoided by a hand-over.

When another human being has already done what you are about it do, then your task can be simplified by something businesses have charmingly termed Knowledge Transfer or KT. Good businesses have expansive databases to document their experiences, problems, solutions, capabilities, competition, weaknesses, clients, random visitors... Outside these organizations, there is currently no (effective) database; without these databases, one is always flying blind.

During this blind flight, it is important to find solutions to brand new problems all the time. There is no one you can "escalate" the matter to either (God isn't a good listener). Sometimes, these problems are solved by asking people who are willing to help, and even as I write this, I'm pleasantly surprised about the number of people who are willing to help. Entrepreneurs who have nothing in common with you, for some strange reason, care for their creed. They will help you. (This is not the case in most other fields. For example, in writing, the most common first-instinct of a critic, editor or fellow writer is to destroy a manuscript on the pretext of providing constructive feedback.)

In other cases, simply asking questions won't solve the problem. In order to figure it out, a best-fit solution is chosen, implemented and tracked. Sometimes, it works. At other times, the figuring-process continues.

I think a thin line separates excitement from panic. When you're figuring it out, you're always walking that line, confidently.

Saturday, December 19, 2015

Entrepreneurship #1: "You Are Now Free"

Field Chalk
Like the average Indian, I too am built to endure. I am always crouching, in the ‘get set’ position, staring at a distant finish line, waiting for the gun to go bang. I always thought I was designed to function when the rules of the game are known, and the racetrack is clearly marked. Without those essential lines of chalk, I thought I might wander, dissipate and never come back.

Engineering was a godsend. Not only did I love science more than anything else in the world, I didn’t know about too many other things. The race was there to be run. I ran the damn thing. I suppose I won.

Events and tasks have always lined up before me, as obvious paths, as challenges, as examinations, as results of random probability… Some tasks have been easy, others have been difficult; a few, I don’t even recall. But my mind used to perceive the universe as a constant source of inputs to which I, the dramatic protagonist, had to respond.
Let me explain this more clearly. When I am subjected to a tight, restrictive framework, I will accept and understand the rules before proceeding to derive the maximum possible benefit from this environment. But I will constantly fall back on a story about rebellion - rebellion against the system, a fight against oppression. Struggle, therefore, becomes a crutch. Like many other people, I thrive in a hostile habitat that creates sufficient trouble to keep its people occupied.

The world of young entrepreneurs is different. As a first-time entrepreneur, most people are confronted with the delusion of control. In the start-up world, where “I work for myself”, there is a strange idea that the entrepreneur is not the response, but the stimulus. As there is no existing race to be won, a brand new race is created – first in the mind and then in the physical world. In a strange way, I now feel like I am the racetrack, the finish line, the runner and the gun.

This is obviously a stupid notion. But it is also an energizing belief. In some ways, the entrepreneur is a child. In this world, there are no rules; there is freedom, and nothing else. But what is freedom in the absence of its boundaries? Such ‘pure’ freedom creates a world where the story of struggle can no longer be an effective crutch. It creates a delusional place where you can become anyone.

In the past few months, I have passed through a mirror. Everything here is fresh and laterally inverted.

Friday, December 4, 2015

Help in the Time of Rainfall

Raindrops, little bullets that explode upon impact, fell upon the city, turning every trough in the road into a bucket. Low-lying homes were flooded. People were on terraces, hailing boats, choppers and their able-bodied neighbours. Their food supply was affected. They had no access to water.

I had no access to the internet. I didn’t know how long my inverter would work. I used my mother’s internet ration to connect with people I consider friends. I also connected with strangers on the internet, united by a wave of empathy and concern. The internet is a beautiful place to call out for help, and to offer assistance.

The rains didn’t cause floods near my house. They created immense pools of stagnant water at street corners, just high enough to drown the car-exhaust and ensure the audacious driver floated to a halt in the middle of the road. As calamities go, this was highly unspectacular. The rains, however, disabled the power station, telecommunication towers and shops in general: there was little tap-water (water was still available from wells and hand-pumps), electricity and internet. So the rains that weren’t life-threatening by any standard became a mirror in which people were confronted by their dissatisfied first-world images.

It was a frustrating evening. I was feeling bored, unproductive and particularly useless. As I was craving for internet-access, I took control of my mother’s phone – the only one which could connect to the web. Turning to Twitter, mistaking it for panacea, I said within 140 characters – “Anyone in Adyar/Besant Nagar who wants help – food, shelter, assistance – call me at 24912062 #chennairains”. As a mode to find purpose in life, the internet offers instant gratification: I was retweeted several times, and my chest swelled with pride and satisfaction.

Ten minutes later, I recognized the futility of my action as the BSNL line was dead. As my tweet was winning over the world, I was cut off from everyone else in the darkness of my bedroom. I was left feeling humiliated and bored. Certain that I didn’t have a shot at both triumph and suffering, I felt a familiar lurch: I should do something.

So I took the scooter keys, unlocked the vehicle and sped out in the mild drizzle. My head was swelling with goodness, and the possibility of noble actions that could help several families. This gladiatorial sensation lasted until I reached the gate, where the watchman asked me, “Where are you going?”

Floundering for an answer, as I clearly didn’t know where I was going, I explained to him: “Udhavi seiya poren.” (I am going to help.)

“Yaaruku udhavi?” (Help whom?)

Like the Sun News reporter, I said with conviction: “Baadhikka patta makkalukku.” (The afflicted masses.)

Naturally, my watchman was stunned by my insipid reasoning, although, I am certain, he didn’t have an idea about the troubles in my mind. He followed up with a kind face one normally reserves for children and victims: “Where are the afflicted masses?”

“I was hoping you will tell me,” I said. “Where are the people who are suffering? I will go by the Adyar river. I am sure people are suffering there.”

“No, no,” he said. “You don’t know anything. People have been rescued near the Adyar river. They are all safe. You cannot help anyone if you go there.”

“Then where must I go?” I said, perturbed.

“You must go to Saidapet, or Kotturpuram. I hear there is severe flooding there. Water is very deep. And they don’t have food.”

“So I will go to Kotturpuram!”

He studied me for a moment, and adjusted his umbrella. “How will you go there?” he asked. I revved up the vehicle in response. My headlights were on; I was ready.

He pointed at the road and said: “When you take a left here, and go 200 metres, you will find that the road is flooded. Two feet water. Your scooter will not go.”

As rain streaked down my glasses, my heart still throbbed with determination. My desire to help was, however, logistically challenged. How will I go? I didn’t want to lose the scooter in a    puddle. And I still didn’t know how to help people.

“Can I not help people then?” I asked the watchman.

“I’m sorry, sir,” he said. “You cannot. Please go back home.”

Monday, November 23, 2015

World Peace 101

EXTENT

If the extent of the human being – not only in terms of physical dimensions, but also in philosophical scope – is determined and agreed-upon, the world’s problems will no longer exist. The loose definition of the individual’s jurisdiction, open to interpretation and debate, splits us into liberals and conservatives, jihadis and atheists, capitalists and socialists, cow-protectors and beef-eaters, haves and have-nots.

All issues are first fought in the mind, and then in the physical world. Laws govern what we, as individuals, are allowed to control and what we aren't. Citizens who have problems with existing laws campaign for reforms - this is the constitutional route - or work outside the purview of the law. What the individual perceives as his or her jurisdiction ultimately shapes all major debates in the world today.

The niche Western twin-solutions – liberalism and individualism – oversimplify the debate, but give us the most conventionally accepted definition of the individual’s jurisdiction.
Individual
OWNERSHIP

If it is agreed that the human being extends from the toes up to the head, and from the back up to the tips of the fingers, then rights and duties can be determined for this definition of the individual. Laws can be tailored to suit this requirement; any violation of the human body could then be termed a crime. If you get mugged at the street-corner, your personal space has been violated; this is a crime. Similarly, rape is a crime as it is forcible encroachment of personal space. Murder is then the highest crime possible under this system, as it deprives the body of life itself.

The individual’s limit can be extended, with some difficulty, to human-possessions as well. This would then cover issues such as theft, arson and cross-border infiltration. The complications in this extrapolation arise out of the concept of shared ownership. Does a house belong to the tenant or the owner? Do you – the owner – have a right to determine who is and who isn’t allowed into the house? Is it reasonable to enforce a No Smoking policy in the house, even though you – the owner – don’t currently live there? If you are a vegetarian opposed to animal slaughter, is it reasonable to ask your tenant to refrain from cooking meat in the kitchen?

Marriage can be seen as a contract wherein two individuals devolve certain strictly private rights in order to gain other rights over each other. Again, we ask ourselves: “Where do I end? Where do you begin?” We struggle to define these boundaries with children as well, because they are inseparable from the parents. Is it a good thing if a child is being forced to do his or her homework? At what age do we start respecting the child’s liberty? This is only the tip of a vast grey-zone, which even individualism and liberalism – which have worked well so far – struggle to pierce.

COMMUNITY

Drawing the boundaries with greater precision or defining rules with firmer bases do not help in tackling this grey jurisdiction. No matter how well you draw these lines, there will always be conflict. There will be conflict even if everybody agrees with a common definition of the limits of a human being.

Because an individual is created by a community, and a community, in turn, is created by a cluster of individuals, it is impossible to separate them from one-another. The society as a whole often carries powerful opinions, and these deserve certain respect. A blind shift towards individuality disrupts a system of shared communal-values. The individual's struggle against societal values must be acknowledged; it must not be opposed. But it also should not be glorified.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
— "The Friends of Voltaire", Evelyn Beatrice Hall [1906]
IDEAS

In the light of Charlie Hebdo and the rise of Islamism, it has often been said that people have rights, but ideas do not have rights. Saying this repeatedly does not bring us any closer to a planet where this is true. Much has been said about the contagious nature of ideas, how they are bulletproof, how they cannot be destroyed by bombs and bullets… All these sayings are, interestingly, said about ideas which are considered positive. They are nevertheless true for all kinds of ideas. Shooting Parisians does destroy the idea of liberté-égalité-fraternité.  Similarly, bombing ISIS does not destroy the idea of a Caliphate.

The earlier quote (by Evelyn Beatrice Hall) about the Freedom of Speech and Expression is an important step towards liberty, but it takes a myopic view of society. In fact, it fails to consider the Idea as a serious force - more serious, perhaps, than the individual. This is because the idea does not ever exist alone, independent of actions and feelings. By denying the idea certain intrinsic rights, and by simply disapproving it and letting it be, we only create a more confusing, agitated world.

Ideas are shared possessions of humanity. The concepts we use to deal with them are far too limited in their scope, and thus yield statements such as “ideas do not have rights”. Of course, ideas have rights! The moment such a statement is made, it becomes true. We can choose not to acknowledge them, at our own peril.

Ideas usually lie in this grey-zone; they are neither mine nor yours. Yet, we expect one of them to be more correct than the other. Terrorism is an idea, counter-terrorism is another. Capitalism is an idea, communism is another. Science is an idea, not-Science is another. One of these sides can gain temporary ground over another; that is all what such a victory will ever be: temporary.
Border
CONFLICT

It does not matter how strongly you believe in Science or, for that matter, Allah. There will be another side that does not agree. At this point, we have a choice. First choice: we can draw idea-borders (we can disapprove of each other), march to the frontlines and train our weapons at people on the other side. This is what we have been historically doing. According to modern sensibility, ideological wars are wonderful as long as there is no physical violation of another’s space. Since ideas do not have rights, it is perfectly acceptable (and sometimes, glorified) to decimate them. This, however, does little to settle a conflict. This constant violation of the individual’s space – in a realm that is abstract, but very real – is left unacknowledged until a physical action takes place.

The other choice is to create a world of shared possessions. Everything belongs to everyone, with varying degrees of influence. Boundaries, if they must exist, need to be fluid. In such a world, ideas can be acknowledged. Dialogue will not mean debate. Different viewpoints will coexist; the urge to unite viewpoints will give way to the urge to understand differences.

Not only will we allow for the existence of foreign ideas, but we will also understand them. We will respect ideas for being what they are: ideas. “So you believe that God created our world over seven days? I think we evolved from a Spaghetti monster. What do you think about that?”

The definition of the individual needs to be extended and softened. The world could then be a better place.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

A Strange Surge

Like the arm of the beam balance that swings upwards when the vendor lifts the one kg stone, my heart feels an odd upward surge. I can feel years of meditation and self-control melt into a thin jelly; I must yield to this strange release.

A voice from all around me, perhaps vibrating from within, says that all will be well. Like all the years behind me, the present, too, will pass. These years could even be filled with exhilarating joy - an unparalleled excitement that smashes existence in tiny, glittering pieces.

But I am afraid. I don't know such a life. It has always escaped me, often at the final moment, slipping through the gap between the tips of my fingers. I am not sure what I fear more - joy or sorrow.

Friday, November 13, 2015

The Coward Who Sought Middle Ground

Once upon a time, there was a society which had normal problems. Its fault-lines were apparent, and they never went away; sometimes, people would grow apart, and at other times, they would come together. There were several divisions: rich and poor, educated and uneducated, forward caste and backward caste, employed and unemployed, male and female, capitalists and socialists.

This society, like many others, was subject to empirical laws that governed most other realms. People carried a variety of opinions on every single issue, usually forming a spectrum. There were few people at the extremes - visionaries and lunatics - but a vast majority didn't hold such radical views. The distribution of their opinions on any particular topic (agreement-disagreement plotted on the X-axis) formed a typical bell-curve.
With the passage of time, and the advent of magazines and social media, these opinions became louder and larger in number. It then became possible to gain not only fame but also wealth through neatly phrased sentences, which mimicked an ideology. At this stage, the curve became "taller" (it grew in amplitude) but did not change its shape.

Soon, when the noise of opinions was deafening, it became important to stand apart from the crowd to be heard. Extreme positions, bordering on the illogical, were incentivised. Magazines were willing to pay for extreme rights and savage lefts. There was less interest in the middle; after all, it was mainstream.

So the distribution was changed.
Distribution
More people were drawn away from the middle, towards the extremes. Soon, the convergence of opinions - a consensus - was no longer an outcome of discussion; it was an anomaly. The bell curve was ripped apart, and the extremes grew in power. People in the middle were now left without support.

When such blocks of opinions were formed, with seemingly no angle of reconciliation, people were incentivised to join these blocks. It became impossible to stand one's ground in the middle; neither was it safe, nor was it brave. The loud voices on the brink became crusaders of change; they existed on either side. The middle was for the weak.
Middle Ground
The bell curve lies inverted. Compromise is an ugly word. No moderate ever got many Facebook likes.

Monday, November 9, 2015

Warmth





Gusts and squalls, hail and storms,
You cyclonic vortices of wind
That chill and drench, try and wrench
Open hands that surround the flame!

Skin is scarred, and dry cuts bleed
And hairs stand up on their end.
Wind through fingers; the flame flutters
And threatens to die out on me.

Know that I shan't, know that we won't
Give up on this tender glow.
'Cause when you are gone, and you will be gone
I will be left with the warmth of the flame.

hands cupping flame

Sunday, November 8, 2015

On Writing

The Beginning


I started writing a long time ago; I don't remember when. The past, so often, gets crushed together making space for a massive present, until the difference between yesterday and today is as significant as that between 2010 and 2011. However, I remember I started writing fantasy.

My first story was an amalgamation of the Smurfs and the Mahabharata. Much later, after I read my first Potter book, the same work included a Hogwarts-esque world as well. In fact, for the best part of a year, I was hell-bent on improving J.K. Rowling's literature; it didn't live up to my expectations, and in a mad childish whim, I tried to do better. My protagonist - shamelessly given a European name 'Peter' and white skin - thus journeyed into a terrifying world through a nightmare.

Over time, I imagine my writing developed a slight flavour, as I experimented with Indian myth; most prominently with a Bheema-like figure called 'Veera'. What I read - mostly European and American fiction - still shaped my works strongly. I never completed any of these tales. They held my attention for a while, and during this period, I was devoted to them; then they slipped away.


The Steadfast Tin Soldier?


Ashwin's story began as a blog-post that became longer than anticipated. I promised myself it would end as a 10,000-word short-story; I later found it transforming into a novella, and finally into a 70,000-word novel. I never wished to publish the work. But when the story ended, leaving me friendless for a short while, I decided - why not?

'The Steadfast Tin Soldier?' is not as autobiographical as people say it is, but it isn't independent of its author. I put a considerable portion of myself into that book, and sold it to the market. At first, it felt strange that something as intensely personal as a story was being read by other people. Soon, like many others before me, I learned to distance myself from the tale. In a strange way, imagination shaped reality.

My first foray into a longer form of writing was thoroughly satisfying. I was happy inside that bubble of imagination, untroubled by the world outside. I could live the life of Ashwin - my protagonist - and struggle his struggles, but in a world created by me. So the struggles always had purpose; I found purpose through writing.


MR19


Here, I write about the book I never got published. Not yet, anyway. MR19 - which only my closest friends have read - is the story of a man who tries to understand the world as it changes. The story, a work in mythology and science-fiction, happens in the future - in a homogenized planet. I wrote MR19 in order to understand the world, to accept the changing zeitgeist. I found enlightenment in writing.

Writing is more about listening to a story, than about telling one. I imagine that I write better than I converse; that is only because, when I write, I am listening to the story alongside you. The story plays out with a mind of its own. I cannot begin to describe - this paradox is unintentional - the beauty of a scene unravelling itself to you for the first time.


Nobody Remembers Ram


I wrote my latest book in two months. I was possessed by the story; it did not let me sleep. I wrote from bed, at work, in the metro, at bars, in coffee-shops, when I was friends, when I was on a family-vacation, in trains, inside planes, while eating... I found peace in writing.

This is a story of a successful man who goes missing. People search for him. They discover a narrative of his experiences. By elevating the pleasures and torments of a fictional character, I have been able to placate my own self.

There is too much turbulence in the world outside. Frankly, I don't care much about people and places any more. Why should I be part of something I cannot control? Give me a paper and a pen.

Friday, November 6, 2015

Is India Hindu or Muslim?

Hindu-Muslim Peace
Kumbalgarh, Rajasthan: This proud legacy of the Mewar Rajputs - once the stronghold of Maharana Pratap - earned its fame through conflict. The evil Mughal emperor attacked; the noble king defended his people from destruction. Rana Pratap protected his women and children from loot and rape. He perished in the course of this great struggle, but not before enshrining himself forever in Indian folklore.

Srinagar, Kashmir: Here, there is a majestic fort atop a lone hill popularly known as Hari Parbat. According to legend, the mountain is an oversized pebble which was thrown by Goddess Shakti to slay a demon who terrorised the people. Or so the Hindus tell you. According to the Muslims, there is no Hari Parbat; there is only Koh-e-Maran, and a fort that Akbar built.

Patna, Bihar: As India took on Pakistan in a high-octane clash in the 2011 World Cup - the match was happening in Mohali - an entire mohalla was draped in green with Pakistani crescents. People cheered when Sachin fell; they prayed for Misbah to take them home. Neither of those things happened. India won that game.

Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh: People from all around the country were mobilised with minimal effort to destroy a historic mosque in Ram Janmabhoomi, so that Ram's empire of dharma could be reestablished. Thousands died; the place - even after being split in three parts - remains in dispute.
UNITY IN DIVERSITY

A man was killed for eating beef. The matter has been thoroughly minced by the Media. "India has become intolerant" under Narendra Modi, they say. News articles proclaim that saffron terror is on the rise. "We are a culture of diversity and debate" is our fall-back line. When all else fails, we will repeat this line, like a broken tape recorder, and hope to feel better.

It is untrue that our country is proud of its unity in diversity. That is a line written for fifth grade Social Sciences textbooks. We are a country of peace, but we don't know what diversity means. Since we didn't have to understand diversity all these years, it did not matter. We all lived in our comfortable little niches, interacting with people similar to us, never venturing too far from home.

Diversity necessitates the existence of dissent. One cannot be different if expected to conform to a majority; there will always be a majority, no matter how small the sample-space. There are as many Indias as there are stories in our country. Each narrative gives us a different picture, and each of these is as true (or as false) as the other.

Can Maharana Pratap be elevated to his Godlike status without vilifying the Mughals? Can we simultaneously celebrate Chhatrapati Shivaji and Aurangzeb? How can Ramjanmabhoomi coexist with Babri Masjid, when they debatably occupy the same spatial coordinates? We are often forced to choose narratives, and therefore forced to choose a particular India.

INDIA IS LIKE BUBBLES
India Bubbles
We were, until recently, invisible to each other. We all had our little comfortable bubble, which encompassed our world. Everything we needed was within. Faced with globalisation - national integration is a small step in the grander scheme - we are forced to look outside our bubbles.

Of course, it doesn't please us. If it pleased us, we'd have ventured out a long time ago. Over time, some bubbles will coalesce and become super-bubbles. Super-bubbles will throw their weight around, for a while, until there are many such super-bubbles.

Ultimately, there is only one bubble, and that is the world. In my vision of such a mega-super-bubble, it is a place where people thrive on dissimilarities. Our ideas of liberals and conservatives are far too narrow to enter such a world. But I think we will get there.

Citations:
Picture of children praying for peace between Hindus and Muslims in India "http://www.haaretz.com/"

Friday, October 30, 2015

Men at Work

When I began this exciting new project - which I had no idea about at the time, my friends gifted me a notebook and a fountain pen. While fountain pens are delightful as long as you don't turn them into actual ink-fountains, it was the notebook that held my attention for the longest time. Its cover:
I'm writing again now, my third full-length novel. I'm starting a Sports-Tech company. (I will talk about these, in detail, some other time.) But both artistic and entrepreneurial pursuits have one thing in common: work-definition. There are, in fact, two reasons why you don't feel like it is work.

One popular understanding of 'work' is that it is something you don't enjoy very much - something you provide so as to earn a monthly salary. I think the notebook talks about this idea of work. By this definition, of course, you don't work when you're enjoying yourself.

The more interesting part about creative pursuits, however, is the idea of creating tasks. Nothing exists until you first put it there. And when you define tasks, you are not only defining inputs and processes, you are also trying to understand the possible outputs - how to measure it, do they follow a pattern, are they as expected, are they in line with inputs?

When I still had an engineering-management job, tasks had zeros and ones. There was a process to go from zero to one. When you finished a task, you marked it 'done'. As opposed to this, I now had a burgeoning number of unfinished tasks; I am not quite sure what is the beginning, what is the end. Discrete states - beginning and end - have been replaced by a slope; it goes on and on, perhaps to places I haven't even dreamed about.

I have an idea. I don't know how I will get there. I can only believe I will get there somehow. I can only be sure of my effort.

Thursday, September 17, 2015

Five Awful Things You Didn’t Know About The News. Number Five Will Make You Share.

1.       Read. Copy. Share.

War room: She sat alongside the two most hated people on the team. Earphones plugged in, Tweetdeck open on the left, she powered through her newest article. Three years of experience radiated from her nimble fingers which went cluck-cluck-cluck against the QWERTY keyboard. She knew who wanted to hear what, how they wanted it packaged and why they would share it: 13 Things You Didn’t Know About ______’s Murder. Number Nine Will Make You Cry.
BuffWhoop
There were four old TVs, placed slightly apart, playing India’s three most popular English News Channels and the leading Hindi News Channel. Everything which aroused remote interest was playing in one of the channels before it quickly appeared on all four, and more significant news appeared as four independent sets of pulsating, red and yellow, creative “Breaking News” headlines – seven to ten words each.
Men and women in the room were tracking the news – Entertainment, Sports, Politics, Crime, Business – and jotting down the catchiest phrases. A quick search on the topic resulted in more results, and one or two phone-calls made them subject-matter experts. Two hours after first watching the news on Television, they would pen an independent article on the topic. Repackaged news made them superstars. Every day. Several times in a day.
Welcome to new age journalism: read, copy, share.

2.       Your Opinion versus My Opinion

If you have ever been to a friend’s place, a bar, a café, an office, university or school, or if you inadvertently walk on the road for too long, you will be asked – “What do you think about ____?”
Remember, it is important to have an opinion. You can agree or disagree, but you must take a stance, at least 0.01% to the right or left of center. Also, ignorance isn’t an option in our civilized world. When information is everywhere, only boors don’t know about trending movies, refugee-crises and cool cat videos.
If you think of news as a way towards developing your weltanschauung, you are in an obscure minority. Just like new-age startups dumped revenue for valuation, new-age media has dumped insight for virality. Opinions are in vogue and make for highly marketable content. Given our dependence on society for nourishment, it is likely that you and I field some militant, viral opinions as well.
Let’s drink beer and fight: your opinion versus my opinion.

3.       Gatekeepers Of News

We use Facebook every day. Consciously, sub-consciously, unconsciously, awake, asleep, in the bedroom, in the bathroom, in the car, in the plane (where there is no internet), while playing, while working, while eating, while…
Evil Zuckerberg
Zuckerberg recently spoke about the billionth person on Facebook. In other words, one out of every seven people (with some error) across the world is on the social network. When a network is as ubiquitous as Facebook, it makes sense to fight for Facebook Neutrality – a concept similar to Net Neutrality. But Monopoly Laws haven’t evolved to cover the internet and social media.
Chancellor Zuckerberg’s blue empire is the gatekeeper of information. Today, it is impossible for companies and artists to spread information through their carefully cultivated Pages with lakhs of followers, without paying Facebook a fat commission. In order to be heard, you need to pay the gatekeepers of news.

4.       What’s Your Klout Score?

When posed the question in a Harvard Business School interview - “What do you want in life?”, my friend answered, “The same as everybody else: money, power and fame.” (Throw in a bit of love, and you’ve got life figured out.)
Major media houses are looking for people with celebrity status, achievements in popular fields or massive influence on social media. In a way, money automatically begets power and fame, fame generates money and power, and power leads to money and fame. Buy one, get two free.
In such an atmosphere, it is difficult to succeed without a head-start. If you have none of the three, but a potentially world-changing idea, no one will care.
Even the internet’s young content generating and propagating mechanism is ridden with nepotism, much like Bollywood – the bastion of news creation. The tech industry loves its own, and most apps – whether based out of Silicon Valley or Bangalore – have a tendency to lean towards a uniform techno-libertarianism. Such content is often repeated and reinforced, and therefore overrepresented on the platforms where we consume our news. Suddenly, you and I are skewed towards this niche opinion which appears to be the general worldview. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If you are a cricketing-star who writes about love, a pornstar who writes about food, or a billionaire businessman who talks about pets, the industry wants you. There is only one question that matters: What’s your Klout score?

5.       Idiots in Pseudo-intellectual Hell

I came. I saw. I shared.
Breaking News
Social media diminishes the intellectual. The internet encourages radical viewpoints which are consistently and violently thrown at the masses with the intention of stirring joy, hatred, melancholy or another primal emotion. The general representative masses are forgotten as fortunes lie in the extremes of society – either in the vulgarities of the rich or in the miseries of the poor. The middle classes want novelty, and news channels happily quench this thirst.
Nice pictures - or better still, videos - have become essential tools in eliciting empathy and stirring our conscience. We can no longer live without this barrage of visual imagery, which we also help propagate.
The pseudo-intellectual is a wonderful consumer, because he/she thinks he/she is choosing to hold certain notions, blissfully unaware of the marketing genius which helps him/her feel that way. Then again, there is a higher pseudo-intellectual who understands this and quips "hey, what is free-will anyway?".
 But it is important to note that as long as we have our hands full - full of meaningless gibberish constantly thrown at us - we will never find the time to think. Hundreds of half-digested stories pass through our brains every day, and as long as this happens, we can never truly assimilate them. We will never know genius from lunacy or truth from the impostor. We will remain idiots in pseudo-intellectual hell.