It's a small world

Here's an interesting one -

Late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran ... of the Rushdie fatwa fame (older generations might remember the overthrow of Shah's regime)

... He has a huge India connection ... It seems his grandfather was born in Barabanki , India and grumps supposedly lived in Lucknow for a long time ... said to have moved on when the British gained the upper hand in India ... the Ayatollah's born name - "Ruhollah ibn Mustafa Musawi Khomeini Hindi" ... so he was called "the Indian" ....

Interestingly .... the guy against whom he pronounced the (in)famous fatwa- Salman Rushdie .... also has Indian roots ... He was born in India and he studied in Bombay

aren't the Indians everywhere ...

Bharat ek Khoj... Shristi sey pehley sat nahi thaa

Here's a blast from the past

One of my favourite TV serials, it was first telecast when I was in class 5 or 6 ... in those days , when history classes were the most boring things, it made history seem interesting to me ... Aptly named "Bharat ek Khoj" ... it was the story of Indian history, as told by Jawharlal Nehru in his book "Discovery of India"...

I especially liked the title tracks ... they had a distinct sound and aura about them

Yesterday ... I did some googling to dig out the mp3s and some info on the tracks ... The tracks are actually recitations of Sanskrit originals and Hindi adaptations of Nasadiya sukta and Hiranyagarbha sukta ... These Hymns (sukta) can be found in Mandal 10 (book 10) of Rig Veda.

Opening Track (click to hear/download the MP3)

(Sanskrit Rig Veda 10.129.1)
nāsadāsīn no sadāsīt tadānīṃ nāsīd rajo no vyomāparo yat |
kimāvarīvaḥ kuha kasya śarmannambhaḥ kimāsīd ghahanaṃ ghabhīram ||

(Hindi adaptation Rig Veda 10.129.1)
srishti se pehaley sat nahi thaa, asat bhi nahi
antariksh bhi nahi, aakaash bhi nahi thaa
chipa tha kya, kahan, kisney dhaka thaa
us pal to agam atal jal bhi kahan thaa

(Hindi adaptation Rig Veda 10.129.7)
srishti ka kaun hai karta, karta hai va akarta
oonche aakaash mey rehta, sada adhyaksh bana rehta
vahi such-much mey jaanta, ya nahi bhi jaanta
hai kisi ko nahi pata, nahi pata, nahi hai pataa, nahi hai pataa


Closing Track (click to hear/download the MP3)

(Sanskrit Rig Veda 10.121.1)
hiraṇyagharbhaḥ samavartatāghre bhūtasya jātaḥ patirekaāsīt |
sa dādhāra pṛthivīṃ dyāmutemāṃ kasmai devāyahaviṣā vidhema ||

(Hindi adaptation Rig Veda 10.121.1)
vah thaa Hiranyagarbh shristi sey pehley vidyamaan
vahi to saarey bhuut jaat ka swami mahaan
jo hai astitvamaan dharti aasmaan dhaaran kar
aisey kis devata ki upaasanaa karen hum havi dekar

(Hindi adaptation Rig Veda 10.121.5)
jiskey bal par taejomay hai ambar
prithvi hari-bhari sthaapit-sthir
swarg aur suuraj bhi sthir
aisey kis devata ki upaasanaa karen hum havi dekar

(Hindi adaptation Rig Veda 10.121.7)
garbh mey apney agni dhaaran kar payda kar
vyaapa thaa jal idhar-udhar neechey-ooper
jaga jo devoon ka ekmayv praan ban kar
aisey kis devata ki upaasanaa karen hum havi dekar

(Hindi adaptation Rig Veda 10.121.9)
ho.. srishti nirmaata swarg rachayta poorvaj raksha kar
satya dharm palak atul jal niyaamak raksha kar
phaili hain dishaayen baahu jaisi uski submey subpar
aisey hi devata ki upaasanaa karen hum havi dekar
aisey hi devata ki upaasanaa karen hum havi dekar


Now ... my Sanskrit is a bit rusty ... in fact my Sanskrit was always rusty ... never shined even a bit ... I could not graduate beyond "Ramah kandukain seh kridanti" and "Vrikshe patrani pattanti" ( I think these words are grammatically incorrect Sanskrit for "Ram's playing with the ball" and "Leaves fall from the tree") ... I have some questions which someone with better command of Sanskrit/Vedas can possibly answer - Can we call the couplets or verses (which are part of a sukta) in Rig Veda Shlokas? can we call them Mantras? are they called Rik ? ... What is the difference between a Shlok, a Mantr and a Rik ?

That's all for this post ... will soon write something on Sudoku

Staging Lymphoma

(writen on 15 Jan for the benifit of those who have just discovered that they have lymphoma)
Here’s what happens once a pathologist declares that you have lymphoma.

1) You begin shortlisting of possible hospitals to get treated from. This takes the form of frantic calls to all friends/known doctors/friends who know doctors. Your aim is to shortlist the best place for further workup and treatment. If you are lucky (like me) you will get an inside picture of many oncology departments/hospitals (they are all bad…some are less so….most doctors don’t have faith in their current hospitals…so if some doctor has good words to say about a facility in which he has worked in the past, you better give that facility some serious consideration)
2) You get a chest-abdomen contrast CT Scan done. This is an easy procedure. One is first given a liter of a metallic drink, which one has to drink in an hour. Then one is strapped in a CT – Scanner (A large and thick hoopla ring with a stretcher in the centre). One is also put on a drip (needle with butterfly shaped back, connected to some line of fluid- called iv contrast) . Then the stretcher is taken thru the hoopla ring a couple of times and you are done with the procedure. The scan tells you about all those lymph nodes which are involved in your lymphoma.
3) You also get a bone-marrow biopsy. This is to ensure that the lymphoma has not spread to your bone marrows. In this procedure, one is made to lie on ones side and a local anesthetic is given to one edge of the hip bone. Then a large needle is poked into the bone to extract some marrow. Despite the local anesthetic the procedure hurts, though just for that moment and not latter.
4) A lot of blood tests are done to find out some vital parameters

Then the doctors sit together, with all reports (including those reporting specially stained slides done by a pathologist) to find out the type, location, size, spread and stage of your lymphoma. Once staging is done further course of treatment is decided. Treatment could be either chemo-therapy or radio-therapy.In my case i might end up getting both

Always ask – So how can we be sure of this Doc?

(written on 15 jan)
Most of us non-doctors know nothing about disease and its treatment. This makes us totally and inescapably dependant on our doctors. Whenever we begin sneezing, coughing, running high fever, seeing two at a time or shitting rocks …we just run to the docs and unconditionally surrender our body and purses to them. Thereafter, we religiously take the pill, apply the ointment, exercise the joint, massage the muscle and restrict the diet as prescribed by the doctor. We then hope that, in return of our blind faith, the doc will deliver us from our suffering and heal our wounds….

Beware…

Personal experience has shown that unless prodded with intelligent questions, the docs tend to be complacent and prone to making mistakes …..This puts your life and limb to danger

I have a lymphoma…so do quite a few other people I know about. One thing common amongst us all, apart from having lymphoma, is that our doctors began our treatment by assuming that we had TB. The TB diagnosis invariably began on a hunch and was never based on evidence. Thus, in almost all cases, precious time was lost before the lymphoma could be diagnosed. This time is the difference between life and death for a scaringly large portion of people. If the doctor had bothered to get the right set of tests and biopsies done, without wasting time, the lymphoma would have been discovered much earlier and would have been far easier to treat.


So why don’t the doctors diagnose the lymphomas earlier? Or for that matter why do doctors start most of their treatment without solid proof pointing to the cause or nature of illness
…..Because its easy, takes less time, is less costly for the patient
…..But mostly because the patient never asks him smart questions like….On what basis are you calling this a TB?… What is the proof that it not something else?

For a doctor each patient is just another case in a day full of many cases. It is upon the patients to keep the docs alert and on their wits ends by asking them insightful questions.

And my recommended question to ask your doctor-

So how can we be sure of this doc????

Bahadur, Khan Sahib and Santa-Banta

StarOne has cracked the TV humour-show market. The Great Indian Laughter Challenge (and its many offshoots, sideshows et all) are the second most funny shows after Tageshi's Castle (The POGO show with Javed Jaferry voice-over)

They even have comic acts from Pakistan. what is interesting is that the paki stand up act almost always has a few "Khan Sahib" jokes. Khan Sahib seems to be the Santa-Banta equivalent.

Apart from being made fun of, the "Khan Sahib" (Pathans) and the Santa-Banta (Sikhs) have another thing in common. Both these communities - the Pathans and the Sikhs sided with the "East India Company" in the "1857 rebellion" (Gadar ki ladayi). Maybe..and just maybe... 1857 losers tried to get even with them in a funny way.

If this hypothesis is even vaguely true, then others who sided with the "Company sarkaar" should also be at the receiving end of jokes. We can have a look at the "Gurkhas" - the other significant martial race that sided with the "Firangi". Indian joke scene is flooded with gurkha acts, they all start with ..Shaloom Shaab..hom Bahadoor ..... there might be other's who were with the English in times of Gadar and i don't have a complete list, but maybe when i am thru with The Last Mughal (by william Dalrymple) i would know better.

Someone should look at this angle of Khan Sahib, Santa-Banta and Bahadur Jokes and see if 1857 events secretly influence today's stereotypes regarding Sikhs, Pathans and Gurkhas

Risky Cat

When I was in B school, there used to be a lot of talk ( i guess in eco and fin courses..) about risk profiles. How some people are risk takers (woh loge jo matka, juan-patti aur stock market kheltey hain), some are risk neutral (jo PPF aur mutual funds me paisa daaltey hain) and others are risk averse (jo unti mey paisa daba kar baithtey hain).

At that time it seemed more like intellectual bullshit- academic simplifications with little or no real world grounding. Today i got a better understanding of "risk taking" . here's what happened-

My little one (Shums) has grown fond of cats (I know some of the twisted minds are already joking about another "pussy lover"). My home usually has 6-7 cats hanging around, trying their luck for free food. Most of them are either current or previous litter from either "Chen-Chen" or "jangli-billi".

Now Chen chen happens to be a very friendly cat and Shums just loves playing with her- trying to pull her tail, ears,whiskers and occasionally trying to gorge out her eyes. Chen-Chen doesn't mind all this and patiently bears it all.

Not all cats are Chen-chen. Today, while he was on his pram, Shums started waving happily towards one of the not_so_friendly cats. This cat greeted him back by shaking hands (paw with nails extended). In the exchange Shums got a very minor scratch on the webbing between his thumb and index finger.

If the cat had scraped me, I wouldn't have given it a second thought. After all, i am the kind of guy who takes risks, does bungy jumping, quits cushy jobs to try alternate lifestyles. I don't take cat scratches seriously

But, I took the scratch much more seriously cause it happened to my kid. There is a .001 % chance that the barely visible mark had cut deep enough and was from a paw nail that had been recently licked by a rabid cat. The rarest of rare chances. But i was not willing to take even the rarest of rare chance with my son. I ran to the doctor and am getting Shums 5 anti-rabies shots.

This shows that risk-taking-ability is as very much situational. A Big risk taker of one situation can become a total play-it-safe guy in another.

I keep wondering ..can we turn around this logic and extend it on the opposite side... can every play-it-safe guy be turned into a super-risk-taker by getting him into the right situation(read: by brainwashing)??

...i don't know...only the best spin-doctors can tell

One man's terrorist

Terrorist, Aatankvaadi, Dahshadgard......these are some of the most common words found in todays media.

The words are being used very frequently. Open a news channel and you would definitely hear them in the first 5 minutes. Since the words carry a negative connotation, everyone wants to brand his/her opponent a "terrorists", an "atankvadi" or a "dahshadgard". In this bhasad* the word "terrorist" has developed as many meanings as the people using it. Here's an interesting piece on what Bushies mean by "terrorist". (from who else but aljazeera)

I have my own personal take
"terror" is anything that puts deep-seated fear in the hearts/minds of people.
"terrorist" is anybody who causes deep-seated fear in the hearts/mind of people.

Going by my definition, these are the common terrorists-

for individuals
1. Maths/Physics/history/Sanskrit teachers (depending on your choice of worst subject)
2. Exams
3. Economic/love-life insecurities
4. Corrupt Police/People with power
6. Neighbourhood/school bullies
7. Those who destroy life, limb, property (rioters, bombers and the kind)

For Groups and Countries
1. Opposing armies , militia and armed groups
2. Economic exploiters
3. Those hell-bent on destroying a group's uniqueness/identity/characteristics

If we got rid of all these 'atankvadis' (especially exams and terrible teachers) life would definitely be much more pleasant.


*
("bhasad" is a word introduced by Uncle, it can be used of any situation between "chaos" and "confusion")

Frank and Tony - Cricketing Gods

Here's one .....................When the "Rain Gods" shower their displeasure on cricket matches..............who saves the game ???

hint..... its not the players , neither the umpires, referees or the spectators

I must tell you......

The job is for two mathematician, statistician types.....whose abode is in the land of the English

Their names : "Frank Duckworth" and "Tony Lewis"

Their claim to fame: They have stated the cricketing "obvious" and then went on to give it a quantitative basis.

The obvious fact stated by Duckworth and Lewis :- The major resources needed by any team to score runs are 1) Overs, in which to score 2) The batsmen who can bat in these overs (wickets remaining)

Seems simple.. right???

Interestingly, This simple statement(and the attached tables and methods) have made Duckworth and Lewis an inalienable part of cricketing world. They decide the destiny of every team involved in an interrupted match.

This makes them "great men".. gods of the religion called cricket

History tells us this interesting fact about "great men". Most "great men" have not only stated the "obvious", but have also given some numbers and formula regarding the "obvious". Numerous people have become immortal by stating simple observations and then attaching confusing numbers to their observations. Take the case of Newton:- He first stated the obvious ("apples tend to fall on the earth") , he then went on to attach numbers/formulas with this "obvious" {9.8 m/sec,G, g, F=ma, v = ut+ 0.5 (at*at)..etc etc}

What Newton did for Physics, Duckworth/Lewis (D/L) have done for cricket. They have managed to confuse the common man.

D/L have given us formulas and tables that quantitatively link the two main batting resources- overs and wickets. They have reduced the two parameters into one - "Available run-scoring resources". Further, D/L have gone on to give the exact percentage of "available run-scoring resources" left with any team, at any stage of an innings ("stage" being defined by the remaining overs and the wickets in hand)

But how does D/L decide matches???

When rain interrupts matches, only parts of the initially available "run scoring resources" get used in the two innings (other parts get washed off).

While one team might get to use one fraction (say, only 75% of the resources) in their innings, the other team might get to use another fraction (say 50%).

It is unfair to compare the score of a team which used 50% of its resources to that of a team which used 75%.

This is where D/L come in, their method
1) Calculates the difference in available run scoring resources of the two teams
2) Adjusts for this difference, and
3) Gives a fair way of judging the winner.

Let me elaborate,

Take the example of "Team1" playing "Team2" in a one day match. Let there be two interruptions in Team1's batting and one Interruption in Team2 batting.

For Team1 -
Interruption 1 (9 overs washed when the team has played for 10 overs)
Status Interruption beginning - 1 wicket lost, 40 overs remaining - Resource avail - 84.2%
Status Interruption end - 1 wicket lost, 31 overs remaining - Resource avail - 73.2%
Resource loss = (84.2 -73.2) = 11%

Interruption 2 (i'll spare you the details) resource lost 9%

Total Resource loss (Team1) = 20%

Team1 Scores 160 Runs. As a result of rains, Team2 innings reduced to 39 overs

For Team 2

Resource loss due to shorter innings - 12%
Interruption 1 (I am sparing you the details) resources lost 18%

Total Resource loss (Team2) = 30%

Over all, Team1 had 80% resources at its disposal, while Team2 had 70% resources at its disposal.

D/L sets the new target for Team2 by reducing Team1's score in the proportion of the resources available

New Target = 160* (70/80) + 1 (plus one cause you need one more than the other team to win) = 141

If Team2 makes 141 by the end of the "reduced overs", then they win, else they lose.

This was a case when the team batting second had less resources at their disposal.

The other case is when the second batters have more resources than first batters. There is different calculation for this case - Team2 would need to score more than what Team1 scored

Lets take that case: Team1 has 70% available resources (and scores 160) while Team2 has 80% available resources

Warning: this formula has not resemblance to earlier formula
Now, Revised Target = 160 + (235(80-70)/100) + 1 = 184

Please note, in the first case, a proportionate reduction in target was done. But in the second case the "magic number" 235 was used.

D/L has funny ways.

Whatever you think of the confusing formulas, D/L have become a part of the cricketing history. A refined version of their method (which runs on computers) has been used for all interrupted international one day matches since 2002.

Congratulations Frank and Tony..

As for me.........I am looking for an "obvious" to state... I also want to find some confusing numbers behind it.

Cautiously Confident (Caution : Funda overdose)

How confident is too confident?

Case for Confidence
As people look at qualities - a self aware, balanced, consistent and "confident" demeanour is generally considered a good thing to have.

In competing for jobs, confident candidates have a definite edge over iffy-whiffy ones. Even my old b-school looks for the essential dose of confidence in incoming candidates (experience shows that quite a few cocksure smart-asses are masquerading as confident leaders of tomorrow)

It might seem that more the confidence the better it is...............................:-) well obviously there is a counter-argument

Case for Caution
A dash of doubt helps us keep our feet on ground. Small doubts lead to the ever useful sanity checks. If people were too sure of things....there would never be the second..third...and final draft....refining would be non existent - people will never take a good look from two steps back, and make the obvious correction.

Our insecurities save us from taking risks that we cannot afford to take. They make us evaluate and re-evaluate our options, till will settle on the right one (remember when you were choosing colleges, jobs, wives and swimming trunks...you were ever so cautious)

HMM!!!
So, where are the boundaries where the confident become foolhardy and the cautious become indecisive?

What is the point where the "fearless march into the uncharted territories" should convert into the "race to save your shit-scared ass"?

I have thought about it ...a lot......... and my temporary conclusion is .....confidence and caution are not mutually exclusive....In fact, to claim further , "confidence" and "caution" are not ever desirable things.

What are desirable are
1) Peace..a calm head, which knows the consequences of actions
2) Patience ...so that we don't panic at short term loss or get carried away by short term gains
3) Wisdom to know the right from wrong

If we have these three things....the apparent conviction of "confidence" and safety of "caution" would not be missed...


In the end I can confidently say that "confidence" is a non-issue....or maybe it is..

The Big Bang Theory

If you have ever smoked more than two cigarettes a day ...you would know that smoking has a tendency to take over its victim in an all-pervasive grasp. Very much in the manner in which the Hyacinth weed takes over many of India's water-bodies.

Like the Hyacinth, which makes its first appearance as a single leaf or two, smoking also starts with a single puff from a borrowed ciggi.....like it happened to me about 10 years back in the “Cafty” next to third mess...in RECW.

Like Hyacinth, smoking rapidly expands. Before you know, you get hooked on to the "post-meal" sutta.....then the "pre-meal" sutta..."pre class"...."post class"...."pre-dump".....the list goes on...

The Hyacinth weed is extremely difficult to remove....if, while removing, a few leaves or plants are left behind ...the remains slowly grow back to cover the lake again. All the Hyacinth has to be removed completely to save the lake.

Same with smoking. I have never seen anyone who voluntarily quit smoking by slowly reducing the number of daily ciggis......It is not humanly possible..........one's resolve breaks before the habit is broken. I myself have tried many a times....reducing is impossible....

What is possible... is sudden break (shock treatment)...

Usually such breaks are inspired by

1. Emotional moms: "....beta merey sar par haanth rakh kar kasam kha ki tu aaj sey is gandi cheez ko haant nahi lagayega..."

2. Concerned Girlfriends / Cute Female Colleagues (most probable: while most GFs know, mothers are rarely privy to the fact that their "pyara beta" smokes) ..

(Something like this happened to me)
Cute colleague: You are such a great guy, i am sure you can leave smoking if you try
you : Well Hmm.. I am sure my will power is strong..so if i don't smoke for a month will you take me out on a treat?
Cute Colleague : Deal
you (sucker): Deal

(This didn't happen to me...but i am sure this method will work)
Girlfriend : You are not getting any further unless you quit smoking
you : Come on!!... i would become a sex starved maniac otherwise
Girlfriend : your choice.....the ciggi or me
you (sucker): Of course you my love....i wouldn't touch a ciggi again...now come on UMMM

Such shock treatment works for a while.... but the chemicals and the urge to smoke eventually wins in about two days time and makes you into a liar
You: "..Kasam sey maa.. jub sey tuney bola hai mainey haanth bhi nahi lagaya... "
OR else
You: See girl i told you....not even a single ciggi in the past one month. How about that treat now
OR Still
You: Never darling...how can I? I love you so much

To escape becoming a liar …I recommend you try the The Big Bang Theory......

The Big Bang Theory
Next time you have that serious lung infection/Viral/dengue/Malaria ....you would be forced to quit smoking for a week......this is the time when your body will be so seriously screwed by the high_temperature / near_death_experience that it would forget to crave for the ciggi.....

This is the BIG moment to seize.....gather all your will power and resist smoking for a few extra days........BANG ..the quitting will stick.......

Believe me....This works ....your body will be so relieved of escaping the miseries of the illness that it will forget to miss the ciggi... and if your resolve can block the mind from missing the ciggi....you will be free from the crutches of smoking.....

It’s worked on me (14 days since I last smoked) ...no reason why it will not work on you....

This "Big Bang Theory" is the recipe of freedom.....it should be taught in all schools.... and that too as early as class 8 (which is when a few "brave" boys first venture into the forbidden realm of smoking)