Kya Har Ek Friend Zaroori Hota Hai?

 

Long back there was an ad campaign run by a leading Telecom Company saying “Har Ek Friend Zaroori Hota Hai? “(You need each friend of yours). But do you really need every so-called ‘friend’ of yours?  To answer this, you need to define the meaning of friendship. You have many people around you: Relatives, Acquaintances, Coworkers, school/college mates, people of common interests, neighbors. How many out of this can you call friends? Classical friendship happens with no preconditions, plans, and prejudices. Identifying, respecting, and valuing the common thread which binds people is very important.  It’s really important to respect your friend for what he/she exists. For that, we need to maintain stable social relationships. How many friends you can have meaningful relations with despite having thousands of friends/followers on social media platforms.  

Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person. This number was first proposed in the 1990s by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who found a correlation between primate brain size and average social group size. By using the average human brain size and extrapolating from the results of primates, he proposed that humans can comfortably maintain 150 stable relationships. There is some evidence that brain structure predicts the number of friends one has, though causality remains to be seen. Dunbar explained it informally as "the number of people you would not feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you happened to bump into them in a bar. Dunbar theorized that "this limit is a direct function of relative neocortex size, and that this, in turn, limits group size. The limit imposed by neocortical processing capacity is simply on the number of individuals with whom a stable inter-personal relationship can be maintained". On the periphery, the number also includes past colleagues, such as high school friends, with whom a person would want to reacquaint himself or herself if they met again. Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 250, with a commonly used value of 150. Some critics call Dunbar’s Conclusions deterministic and random in nature.

But we can all agree that we can develop up to 150 productive connections, but we have our most intimate and meaningful relationships with only about five to 15 closest friends. We can maintain much larger networks, but only by compromising the quality or sincerity of those connections; most people operate in much smaller social circles.

Now let’s look at our online activities.   We try to maximize the number of connections without much concern for their quality.  Nowadays relationship online is the one that offers diversion or utility.  One cannot divulge secrets and offer support in most of the relationships. Now if you assess your ‘friends’ on social media platforms, can you now answer the question: Is every relationship online is friendship?

We talked less frequently, and with fewer people before the online tools. The average person had very few conversations a day, and the biggest group we spoke in front of was maybe a wedding reception or a company meeting, a few hundred people at most.  

Online media has given every person access to channels of communication previously used by Big Businesses like paid ad space. Starting with the internet in the 1990s and continuing into user-generated content of the 2000s and social media of the 2010s, control over public discourse has moved from media organizations, governments, and corporations to average citizens.  Ideas spread freely beyond borders.

We no longer need intermediaries to interact with people. They are now replaced by Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. These are more data companies than technology companies. They extract information when people search, post, click, and reply, and use that information to sell advertising that targets users by ever-narrower demographic, behavioral, or commercial categories. For that reason, tech companies need people to communicate and engage.

The Frankenstein monster we created has really taken a toll on our lives, well-being, and our relationships. Our communication with friends is now a commodity. This is a time to answer this question: Is every communication with our friends necessary?  How to limit and rein this social media monster?

Limiting social media may seem impossible.  But social media companies themselves have limited our communication. Tweets can only be 280 characters. YouTube videos for most users cannot exceed 15 minutes.  On Snapchat, the posts vanish after a brief period rather than persist forever. That has been their differentiating factor. Even the capacity to respond to a Facebook post, Twitter DM, or other online matter with likes, emotes, or emoji constrains what people can do.   Yet despite the many material limitations very, few platforms ever limit the volume of posts or the reach of users in a clear and simple way.

We need to limit the volume, access, and reach of our posts. For example, you could post to Facebook only once a day, or week, or a month? Can we post only to a certain number of people?  What if after an hour or a day, the post expired like Snapchat? Or, after a certain number of views, or when it reached a certain geographic distance from its origins, it gets deleted? That wouldn’t stop people from exploiting your data but definitely would limit the nuisance.

Regulatory compliances from Tech companies or breaking them into smaller sizes won’t happen within the existing legal frameworks internationally.  Thus we need to limit our usage of social media to generate fewer data. Then you decide to communicate with only friends with whom you have meaningful relationships. It is time to limit your conversations and digital footprint. This is the time to decide the number of your real friends.  Does this sound scary and unachievable? Have you crossed the Dunbar’s number? 

 

 

Limelight in the Autumn

 

Autumn is in the limelight in this part of the world. In an uncertain climate, there's one thing people here people can rely on – the natural phenomenon that sets New England ablaze every fall. In New England you find these incandescent leaves igniting a last burst of tourism before winter closes in. Here is the Robert Frost territory, in the upstate "road less traveled" filled with camper vans, stray bikers, retirees, and "empty nesters". It helps that, as October rolls around, the foliage of New England never fails to perform the role allotted to it by nature.  The scientific explanation provided by experts says:  Leaves are green in the summer in order to fully utilize the bright sunlight to proceed on a process called photosynthesis. In this process, the plants utilize the pigment of chlorophyll to convert sunlight into sugars (Another complex process that demonstrates how genius these trees are!) But in the winter, due to the decreased sunlight, plants kind of turn their “inactive mode” on.   Reduced sunlight can result in a minimal product yield from photosynthesis. Hence, plants produce pigments that consume less energy. The pigments possess different absorption patterns and thus radiate different colors from the visible light spectrum. Forget the science, the beauty connoisseurs cannot endure wasting anything so precious as autumnal sunshine by staying in the house. One needs to be outdoors. Is not this a true autumn day? It is not just the still melancholy that one loves—that makes life and nature harmonize.

So while the rest of America gets into depression, this part of the US displays a rainbow of colors: a spectrum of viridian-olive-green-lime-yellow-sepia-orange-russet-vermilion-purple. Among the beeches and silver birch, the willow, oak, dogwood, and spruce, the arboreal palette ranges from amber, saffron, and russet to ochre, orange, and cinnamon. Laurels and white cedars don't mutate, of course, but it's not unusual to see maples seared in half between brilliant summer green and blazing autumn gold. This is a visual treat and this entire stage has a backdrop of blue skies with intermittent white clouds. The reflection of this in the lakes and rivers adds a magical impact. This is the time when everything bursts with its last beauty, as if nature had been saving up all year for the grand finale. This all makes autumn the one season of the year that God seemed to have put there just for the beauty of it.

In another part of the world, autumn is also in limelight in a literary sense through the festival of Diwali. Its celebration of the agricultural economy is revered through tradition and splendor. Be it the lights, Rangoli, Fort, Food, clothes, every tradition has given all of us treasure of memories.  Then you add Navratri, Garba, Durgapuja, Dussehra, Kojagiri to this and you have tons of memory bytes added. Our Individual, family, and community life has been enriched by this festival making autumn that God seemed to have put there for the nostalgia of it.

As mentioned at the start of this, the fall in this part of the US remains unaffected with vagaries of climate change but its impact on weather patterns, snow, and rains, worldwide has put our actions on Climate change controls in the limelight this autumn. We may have a difficult winter in this part of the world especially as the effects of La Nina are as well predicted.

Hinduism is in limelight this autumn. This October Several US states, together with Texas, Florida, New Jersey, Ohio, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, have proclaimed October because of the Hindu Heritage Month, noting that Hinduism has “contributed greatly” to America by way of its distinctive historical past and heritage. Indians have contributed to science, technology, research, legal system here in the USA. Indians enjoy tremendous goodwill from the Overwhelming Majority of Americans. This is a good answer to people who tried to create confusion in general US people by organizing conclaves bashing Hinduism. They wanted to create doubts about the inclusive nature of the Indian psyche. The basic tenets of the Indian mindset are based on Live and let live. India has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance. As Vivekananda had said, we accept all the religions as true.

But mainstream media here in the US remains unaffected by such a positive portrayal of Hinduism and the Indian state. Media here has taken its stance and there remains no stone unturned to undermine the Indian position. But people having opinions on everything are deaf silent on recent events of religious terrorism carried where minorities are targeted in Kashmir. They also are silent of happenings in Bangladesh where minorities are targeted. The lack of limelight itself has to be given enough limelight and questioned itself.

This autumn, the limelight is also turned on the Indian Cricket team in its quest of missing silverware for the last decade. Millions of fans wish to remember this Autumn for the years to come and wish that Virat Kohli lifts the ICCT20 trophy on Nov 13^th.

Limelight has turned all over the place this autumn. Now let’s turn the limelight back to the Autumn itself. The bright summer had passed away, and gorgeous autumn was flinging its rainbow-tints of beauty on hill and dale. With the leaves falling off the trees, nature is preparing for those cold winter days.  When something becomes obsolete there needs to be a transformation in order to succeed. The leaves fall off as they cannot face the cruel snowstorms. The trees realize this and shed their leaves.  Nature understands that there are tough times to be dealt with and there needs to be a change.  

Fall also encourages us to pause and reflect on the year so far.  Welcome new and positive energy. There is a significant opportunity to turn these thoughts filled with disappointment into something more productive.  There are so many lessons taught by nature. We simply have to take a moment out of our busy lives and learn those beautiful lessons!

 

MS Dhoni: Kharagpur Made Man

 

There is something about Kharagpur that is different. There is Air, Water, Soil, Railways Colony, IIT, old markets, cycle rickshaws, grounds, greenery, muggy summers, thunderstorms, cold winters, marshlands and then there is the long railway platform. It's just another rusty and sleepy town in the eastern Indian country landscape.  Landing on that long platform to start a career is common to batches of engineers who shaped the future of the country and world.  Vinod Gupta, Arjun Malhotra, Arun Sarin,  Suhas Patil, Sunder Pitchai, Anand Deshpande: just to name a very few among scores of success stories across the sectors. On this railway platform, another young man started his journey and what journey was it! Yes, you are right: M S Dhoni is the name.  Ranchi takes credit but it’s Kharagpur that made him some ways... 

Proud to say I share this Kharagpur connection to MSD and the great names mentioned above. My own memories of MSD started in his debut match when he ran himself out against Bangladesh. He made his debut under Dada. They said that this new player with long hair was a big hitter.  He really announced his arrival at the international stage with his innings of 148 against Pakistan. I had watched that innings as had to stay home. It was a day match and yes I liked his style of batting. It was uncomplicated. In Greg Chappell's era, he was used flexibly as a batsman up and down the order. Those were the days of flexible power plays. Intelligent guy (again Kharagpur effect maybe) like Dhoni used that to his advantage. Remember Jaipur innings of 183 in a winning chase. Then under Dravid's leadership, we won big chases in the ODIs. I also remember his innings in tests and ODI in Pak He received a lot of flak for his shot during the test loss vs England at Mumbai at that time. His place in the test scheme of things was questioned. He was part of test wins at Jo'berg, Nottingham, and featured also in a saving cause at Lords and he was efficient as a keeper.  Then the 2007 T20WC changed everything. He gained status and entered into household folklores be it a 'bowl out' win, 6 sixes, and that famous catch by Sreesanth.  Then there was the infamous and racially charged Australian tour where we won ODIs and Perth test.  The era between 07 t20 WC and 11 CWC was marked by a change in captaincy and retirement of stalwarts except for Sachin.  He had a bad patch as test captain with disastrous Eng and Aus tours. In 2014 he announced test retirement. While the ODI captaincy journey rose from winning meaningless bilateral series, some triangular wins and peaking at CWC and CT wins.  I saw him live during WorldCup 11. Worldcup win was a magical moment. Another downside was the failure in the T20 World cups after the inaugural one. To date the best, we could do was a runner-up position. The next phase was under the captainship of Kohli in limited-overs cricket. He managed a few incredible performances. But then as a batsman, there was a steep decline, and he had curious WC 2019 where he played his last innings again running himself out and breaking a billion dreams. His IPL presence was colossal. He is attributed to the success of CSK despite having a very senior team after CSK return after a ban. He played with the Pune franchise and led it to the finals.   

His memories cannot be complete without mentioning a few things I don't like. I could not comprehend a few things: his world cup 2019 approach, his favoritism to a certain set of players, and the treatment of seniors. Though we don't know the truth there is room for speculation that he may have been involved in all the above given his big say in team selection always. He should have led from the front with batting no 4 in WC 19 but we really don't know if it was Kohli or was he himself involved in this bizarre decision-making holding himself back in the semifinal. His approach in the league match vs England also had room for self-doubt. Did he retire too late? But these are just side notes. Winner of two world cups, champion trophy, and world no 1 test team captain has done much more right than few wrongs in his career. 

All these memories have enriched our lives. But also Dhoni as a person has much to offer to enrich our individual thought process and our art of living. The best thing we learn from Dhoni is to keep it simple and keep the right perspective of the larger picture in life. And there are always things beyond our control. Strive for excellence as he did in fitness, wicket-keeping, and batting. Always keep thinking. It's not about talent only but making the right choices. The simplicity of the approach helps him decide. During the world cup final in Mumbai, facing Murali would have been tough for a left-hander like Yuvraj so he decided to bat ahead. The lack of pace of Joginder will make Misbah forcing the issue through shot selection. He got an over from expensive Ishant due to the available bounce during CT final. He ran out towards stumps to outrun Mustafizur. His presence of mind, concentration, positive outlook to get something out of every situation: are the few other exemplary points. Look at his calmness during defeat and victory. Leadership is exemplary. Wicket Keeping is miles ahead of available Indian and world competition. Batting is unconventional but effective. 

And last week another legend has been added when he led CSK from difficult chase to a place in another final. As even his CSK journey as a player/leader is hinted to end with this final, his place in the annals of Indian Cricketing History remains unparalleled. And yes he remains a mentor of Indian Team in T20 World Cup UAE. 

 

Bonding across the Generations

 

Millennials don’t think the way Gen-X does.  This is the most cliché statement. But when you look at the way the 007 Franchise has evolved from Sean Connery to Daniel Craig you can see the point. Each new Bond movie generates equal interest right from’ Dr. No’  till the latest ‘No Time to Die’ which is released this week.  The anticipation of top-notch action, a global storyline with wonderful imagery, effects,  gadgets, the legend of   M & Q, Money Penney , the all-conquering villains, and the intoxicating bond girls it all makes it a great movie experience. The storylines sometimes beat the normal sense and there are predicted outcomes but yet generation after generation is enticed. Scotland has been origin of many legends like this imaginary character of James Bond.

I have heard stories from earlier generations is how enamored were they with Bond’s personality. Those were the days of moral correctness and bond films provided that outlet to see how life can go diametrically opposed based on the consumption of vices. And then there is always age in the youth of each generation where the voyeuristic appeal in the array of bond girls displayed over the generations.

Anyone hardly argues that Sean Connery is the best actor to have played Bond, but the latest Bond actor Daniel Craig who appears in his last bond film has rendered a new legacy to 007. His bond comes with emotional baggage, midlife crisis, and humane touch as compared to the super humane and care-a-damn attitude of earlier Bonds.    But Daniel Craig’s Bond in this millennium is different from earlier Bonds.

Earlier Bond was a borderline addict and sadist who was drinking to excess,  discarding women and smoking constantly — felt increasingly out of time as the 20th century turned into the 21st. Bond is now treated more as a person along with his abilities to solve global problems.

Sean Connery Bond in the 60s had more similarities with Craig’s Bond. He was classy and had more empathy than 70’s bond Roger Moore’s. Sean Connery’s biggest achievement as 007 was turning a killer with more than a few quirks and flaws into the ultimate admirable hero. Bond was written for the movies as an all-knowing connoisseur, aware of the precise temperature above which Dom Perignon should never be consumed just the same as the precise number of years gold would remain radioactive if a dirty bomb were to explode beside it. The character of Bond as portrayed by Sean Connery was also a bit of a sly cunning opportunist if a lovable one at that. His Bond cheats at golf and backgammon (true, usually in response to a villain’s own deceptions). He commits some pretty dubious actions like spanking away dumb blondes so that “men talk” may take place. He makes sure to include a dalliance with the villains’ henchwomen before he forces them to face the music. His Bond even went as far as blackmailing a naïve masseuse into surrendering herself to him at the risk of losing her job in Thunderball.  It was easy to forgive these indiscretions not just because his Bond came from a far less politically correct time but mostly thanks to Connery’s charisma.    Maybe the swinging 60s were different from the ’70s and 80;s Bond during the height of the Cold war and amidst Reaganomics. All we saw was awkwardly dropping Roger Moore across the globe.  Moonraker sent Bond into space at the height of the post-Star Wars science fiction boom. Some people detest Roger Moore’s interpretation, but when given the right material in the right doses as in “The Spy Who Loved Me,” he came up with one of the best films of the series.

Even though Timothy Dalton clearly had the presence required for the role, and was great in the action scenes, his character was often written as too decent and caring, a far cry from Connery’s lovable weasel. 

Pierce Brosnan handled the nastier part of Bond’s equation rather well, but his interpretation became more politically correct with each entry. Bond’s predicaments became less black and white under his watch, but he often came off a bit too heavy-handed and clichéd

But then Craig’s Bond is complex. His technology has changed, work ethics as well as happens with the change of times. In this millennium even the superheroes like batman changed to have complex psychological issues. Nothing is plain vanilla super-heroism of saving the damsels in distresses apart from saving the planet earth. Everyone has a history; everything is to be taken with a pinch of mental health. Casino Royale contained flashbacks to his first kill. Craig’s Bond has a sense of vulnerability. Earlier storylines had independent treatment but Craig’s Bond in Quantum of Solace carries from Casino Royale.  New films gave more space to Judy Dench M. James Bond films have always featured an abundance of beauty: beautiful locations, beautiful people, beautiful clothes, beautiful cars, and so on. Skyfall had beautiful imagery photographed in Scotland and Macau.  That part along with music makes Bond movies always enjoyable. Craig’s Bond would never become a great romantic, but he’s the first Bond to seem like he has a deep attachment to his friends. A tale of betrayal and revenge played out on a global scale with a John LeCarré-like understanding of the moral murkiness inherent to the spy game, is compelling too in movies in the Craig era. Seems like No time to Die takes on where Spectre had left. Villians also have changed from time to time according to the flavor of the day: Communists, drug lords, media barons, terrorists, and so on.

One more point to ponder is whether we are too politically correct these days or our earlier generations were too uncomplicated to allow Bond to do blunders or if one would say career suicides. But you don’t really want Cinema to be so realistic that superheroes are not needed to be humane. Somehow as a Gen Xer, I don’t agree with Millennials.