Can we #rethink the corporation for a more #compassionate world?

Site where George Floyd was killed. Pic by Fibonacci Blue / Creative Commons

Just when we thought the world was in the grip of the novel coronavirus and the virus alone, out poured news, pictures and videos of protests across the US.

Elsewhere in third-world India, the constant stream of weary, hungry and impoverished migrant workers continued their long walk to their respective home villages.

“I can’t breathe,” the choked words of George Floyd from under the knee of Derek Chauvin on a fateful May day in Minneapolis continue to haunt me as also, I’m sure, millions of humans across the globe.

#BlackLivesMatter was trending once again, but not before Floyd succumbed to a combination of factors, including the strain on his neck and chest as the white police officer pressed on for much longer than he should have. Was it necessary at all?

What is necessary, in my humble opinion, in the distraught world of today is for powerful corporations to take up the baton for humanity. A baton that our so-called world leaders seem to have either forsaken or, worse, using it instead to beat down the already oppressed and the underprivileged.

“Why corporations?” one might ask. I know corporations are not designed for the general good or thought to be operating that way, even though most of them have tacked on the CSR label in their annual reports. The key words for them are “profit motive” and “shareholder value.”

Corporations are also known to play it safe (especially in India, for instance) and avoid doing anything or making statements that may put them in the crosshairs of incumbent governments—even if that would be the right thing to do per the prevailing sense of civility, equality or justice.

But there are signs of a groundswell of change. And it is my sincere hope that this wave becomes a force to reckon with and sweeps much of the world for years to come, wherever political and economic oppression takes place.

Is the corporate tide turning?

While some outspoken CEOs and business leaders have made the right noises in the past whenever a widely reported instance of injustice, racial or otherwise, came to light, I think it’s perhaps for the first time a continuing stream of influential voices is visible.

“Corporate America is adding its voice to the protests sweeping the country following the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody, promising to make their companies anti-racist, announcing contributions to civil rights organizations and using words like “abhorrent” and “senseless” to speak out more strongly against police violence and racism” reads the opening graf of a Washington Post report, very aptly headlined “With protests, silence is ‘not an option’ for Corporate America”.

There’s a flurry of activity on Twitter, whose CEO Jack Dorsey has newly emerged as something of a hero (though a controversial one at that) who dared to take on the mighty misinformation machine also known as Donald Trump. Unfortunately, Trump happens to be the current president of the USA, the most powerful nation on earth that so many others look up to.

One indication why I think that things are a bit different this time when it comes to corporations doing their bit, at least in speaking up, is that there’s a whole spreadsheet of statements by some leading tech companies on racial justice, the BLM movement and the Floyd episode. It’s compiled by The Plug (Twitter handle: @tpinsights), a curator of news about black founders and innovators. (While there are several contributors, the owner of the sheet is another Dorsey, Sherrell. The two are not related I think.)

Emphatically coming out in support by such powerful corporations as Apple, Microsoft, Nike, Merck and others, I believe, is the need of the hour. Their millions of employees across the world look up to the leaders at the helm to soothe their collective anger and do something—anything—to set things right.

Talking of my own experience, for instance, I felt good when Girish Mathrubootham, the CEO of Freshworks where I currently work, shared in a town hall that the company opted for a “no-one left behind strategy” when the livelihoods of suppliers and vendors were at risk due to the nationwide lockdown announced in India late March. (It meant continuing to pay those suppliers and vendors during the lockdown, in addition to paying salaries to the regular employees.) 

Different companies would, of course, commit resources differently to a cause, depending on their financial status, reputation and inclination. But knowing that they do care for good causes and for the society at large—and not merely their own assets and short-term profits—is a welcome change in a weird world.

What is making the world increasingly weird, and in fact, inhabitable, is the lust for power and unhindered greed to exploit people and the limited resources of the earth. Covid and racial unrest are, in all probability, merely symbols of a bigger malaise.

I’m not going to cite statistics here, but in the age of information glut available at a click or two, it shouldn’t be difficult to come round to the view that global disparities and inequities are growing alarmingly (barring a few exceptions perhaps, such as the Scandinavian countries). Why, look at the UN’s Human Development Index or the ‘most livable cities’ studies for different countries if you wish. 

All these traits—lust for power, greed, hatred for the other—are nothing new to humanity, I know. But while in earlier times when the people of a land lived by the generosity or cruelty of the king or the queen who ruled them, in an increasingly industrialized and ‘information’ized world, the power to make a difference to the quality and dignity in the lives for tens of millions is getting concentrated in the hands of the giant global corporations. The annual revenue generated by some of them, in fact, rivals or exceeds the gross domestic products of entire countries.

Some of what I’m saying may seem a bit out of sync in a time when nationalism, not globalism, is the new mantra. But I’m not sure if we can simply yank ourselves away from the complex global supply chains and lazy habits we have been honing to perfection all these years. Personally, I think it might do the planet some good to move toward more local setups for manufacturing and food production as well as distribution.

Nevertheless, the growing significance of corporations in their respective regions—and the sway they have with political leaders—may not change all that much anytime soon.

Which is why I believe that corporations can become the new change agents for the society at large. We all know the power of brands, which are owned by corporations. To bring any significant change at an impactful scale, however, they must balance their political influence with the pull of their brands for responsible consumption and the engagement of their employees for effective implementation.

For this to happen, the very structure and purpose of the corporation will have to be rethought and redefined—from profiteering and short-termism to long-term value generation and accountability for wellbeing of most people in their circle of influence. Out goes the quarterly obsession with shareholder value and in comes the drive to improve all stakeholders’ lives. No longer the need for cut-throat competition in a race to the bottom but a welcome coopetition to jointly nudge people toward the pinnacle of human aspirations (which, again, should be measured not in SUV-sizes or GDPs but in terms of happiness and health).

You get the idea.

And when a sufficient number of corporations are able to do that, maybe it becomes possible to weather Covid-like storms more humanely. Maybe the migrant workers will reach their homes in comfort and with dignity. Maybe the likes of Derek Chauvin would be compelled to take their knee off—or better still, wouldn’t feel the need to put it where it didn’t belong in the first place.

7 Reasons Why the CIO Job Can NEVER be Automated

(Image: Pixabay.com)

Dear CIOs, I know most you must be sick and tired by now of hearing all kinds of stories about automate this or automate that, AI, machine learning, deep learning, etc., etc.

It is possible that someone might come up with the idea of “Hey, why not automate the CIO’s job itself?” After all, haven’t we all seen too many threats to the CIO role already, even without automation?

So, here are a few semi-serious reasons why you don’t have to worry about the CIO role self-driving itself into an auto-pilot system:

- Because no AI system can mouth words like “silos,” “vendor-neutral” and “scalability” with as much elan as a CIO.

- In all likelihood, it was a CIO who coined the very concept of automation; so the conceived cannot possibly turn against its conceiver (and be successful in their machinations).

- Because you need someone with real, rather than artificial, intelligence to control all those bots out there.

- Think about it: if one were to indeed automate what CIOs do, then who will complain about budgets being tight or “doing more with less”!

- Because if CIOs get a hang of the conspiracy to automate them out of the market, they will reset the code execution time for the automation function to forever (or eternity, whichever happens to be programmed into their software :)

- Because before “they” can automate it (whoever this they refers to), the CIOs would have reinvented their roles as CAOs (rhymes with cows but otherwise of a different temper)—which stands for Chief Automation Officers!

- And if none of the above works, CIOs will convince the automatons to outsource the thinking part to them and save precious battery resources for other artificial work!

IMHO, forget CIO, I personally don’t think bots will truly replace human beings. They might take up the tedious or repetitive work being done by an army of workers, but they are highly unlikely to manage or motivate teams, lead people by example, inspire trust or become an emotional wonder-pack that humans are.

Now, tell me bot do you think?

The CIO Role: Very Much Alive and Rising in Influence

Doubters of the CIO role and function, here’s some bad news for you: a new global survey reveals “an undeniable increase in the influence of the CIO.”

The survey, conducted by Harvey Nash, a leading professional recruitment firm, and consulting major KPMG, notes that more CIOs now report directly to the CEO (34%) than at any time in the past decade. And before I share other insights from the 18th edition of this global survey that received almost 3,400 responses from CIOs and technology leaders across 82 countries, let me pull out a happy tidbit: CIOs with a direct report to the CEO are also the happiest (87% report job fulfillment).

While there could be multiple reasons for this “happiness,” my surmise is that such a direct reporting structure would certainly take away many irritants for technology leaders and untangle them from other CXO/peer “issues.”

Another indicator of the increasing CIO influence is that 57% of CIOs now sit on the executive board or other senior leadership committees (up by 50% over 11 years), as per the survey. (I know it’s a long, relatively slow march, but hey, it’s happening :)

Among other highlights is the fact that one in four CIOs now spend at least one day each week outside their core function of IT. The CEO focus, too, is shifting from projects that save money to those that make money (see graphic).

The survey (titled Harvey Nash/KPMG 2016 CIO Survey) reveals that traditional IT priorities are seeing major shifts over the past four years: increasing operational efficiencies has dropped 16%, and delivering stable IT performance has dropped 27%.

These statistics not only point to the growing influence of the CIO in a company but also that they have more time for top/bottom-line improvement and innovation.

What continues to hold them back, however, is what this media release on the survey terms as “the greatest technology skills shortage since the Great Recession almost a decade ago.”

As many as 65% of CIO respondents say they believe a lack of talent will hinder their organizations’ ability to keep up with the pace of change—which is a 10% rise in the past year alone.

For the second consecutive year, data analytics is the most in-demand skill (39%). A high 89% of CIOs are worried about talent retention. (It’s another matter, perhaps, that there have been ample job movements and career shifts within the CIO community itself: 31% of the CIOs have been in their current role for less than two years and 15% moved job last year.)

The changing talent and CIO career dynamics could also be the result of the growing acceptance and impact of Digital.

One in five organizations now deploys a CDO (no, the CDO is not off the radar, though the initial euphoria on a separate digital officer seems to have come down a bit). More important, 58% of respondents reported that their organization has a clear digital vision and strategy.

In his executive summary for the report, Dr. Jonathan Mitchell, Non-Executive Chair, Global CIO Practice, Harvey Nash (a former CIO of Rolls-Royce and a tech veteran), writes: “There is little doubt that our industry is changing rapidly. In the last two years, IT leaders have become newly invigorated. The days of budget cuts and staff losses are well behind us. New challenges such as ‘digital’ have emerged. Was this yet another technology fad? No, was the resounding response from last year’s respondents. Digital is most definitely real and it is changing the way in which everyone thinks about IT.”

While there are many challenges for CIOs in the disruptive days ahead, let’s hope that the CIO role stays invigorated for many, many years to come.

(Lead image credit: Pixabay.com. This blog post first appeared on dynamicCIO.com.)

Why Cook is the Apple of Privacy Advocates’ Eye

The battle between civil liberty and privacy on the one hand, and the reach of the law enforcement agencies for the (supposed) benefit of public/national security on the other, is taking interesting turns these days, especially in the digital realm. It is happening in the US right now, but something similar could soon reach Indian shores as well.

The case in point is the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) asking Apple to help it force-access data on the locked iPhone of Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the two perpetrators of last December’s San Bernardino attack in which 14 people were killed (Farook and his accomplice wife were shot dead by the police on the same day; the iPhone in question is in FBI’s possession.) A federal magistrate in California is said to have ordered Apple to write a custom version of the iPhone software that disables key security features and install it on Farook's iPhone in order to foil the encryption, as per a Vox.com report.

Apple has decided to contest the order, citing grave concerns about compromising the security and hence personal data of millions of its customers who trust the iPhone with their sensitive information. In fact CEO Tim Cook has taken the issue to its customers, posting an open letter to them on the Apple website.

“This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake,” writes Cook.

From the way the use of smartphones (not just iPhones but devices based on Android and other OSes) is proliferating around the world, including India, Cook might as well have said “people around the world.” And that is why I chose to post it here on dynamicCIO so that technologists, IT leaders, vendors and other stakeholders in the fast-emerging Indian digital ecosystem could ponder over it and keep their own responses and countermeasures ready when the need arises.

Interestingly, this is happening at a politically charged time here, what with the country in the grips of a fierce debate around freedom of speech, notions of nationalism or anti-nationalism and an allegedly authoritarian regime (which is said to be capable of not only breaching individual privacy—of which there is very little in India in the first place—but also bringing the full force of the machinery at its disposal to undermine any dissenting voices; reminiscent of but not equivalent to the Emergency year).

To return to Apple and FBI, both sides are putting their points across emphatically and logically—even causing a sort of schism in the online community on who is right or wrong in this case.

Says Cook in his letter: “For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.”

Cook is highly concerned, and rightly according to several security experts quoted on the Internet in various reports, that once Apple complies with the FBI request to break the encryption on one iPhone, anyone can use that “backdoor” facility to gain unauthorized access to millions of these devices out there.

The FBI seems to understand this though it’s pressing on with its demand; FBI Director James Comey is said to have responded: “We simply want the chance, with a search warrant, to try to guess the terrorist's pass code without the phone essentially self-destructing and without it taking a decade to guess correctly. That's it. We don't want to break anyone's encryption or set a master key loose on the land.” [Source: Los Angeles Times article]

It is not fully clear from most reports (at least not to me, a non-expert in encryption) whether it is technically feasible for Apple to create an exception in the case WITHOUT compromising on the general robustness of the iPhone as far as encryption capabilities are concerned.

Not that Apple was not cooperating with the investigating authorities on the San Bernardino case or other government requests of similar nature. According to a New York Times article, enviously headlined (envious for Sundar Pichai, let’s say) “How Tim Cook, in iPhone Battle, Became a Bulwark for Digital Privacy,” Cook has been tediously cooperating with government requests (not just those from the US guv but globally) for unlocking its smartphones.

The Times writes: “Each data-extraction request was carefully vetted by Apple’s lawyers. Of those deemed legitimate, Apple in recent years required that law enforcement officials physically travel with the gadget to the company’s headquarters, where a trusted Apple engineer would work on the phones inside Faraday bags, which block wireless signals, during the process of data extraction.”

Apparently, Cook has been trying to do the fine balancing act of entertaining government requests and keeping its tight grip on the security features of its product intact but—as the latest (still developing) case reveals, a time has come when the envelope on “government overreach” is pushing the boundaries to an unprecedented, treacherous level.

And so the debate rages on.

Do let me know what you make of it.

(Image courtesy: Apple.com. Curiously, I happened to notice that this photo of Tim Cook is uploaded by someone at Apple under the name cook_hero :)

Note: This blog post first appeared on dynamicCIO.com.

Good to Great: The Art of Connecting

A couple of days back, I happened to attend an event, titled “Leadership Series – Good to Great,” organized by the CIO Klub, Delhi Chapter, and sponsored by HP and Microchip.

I was in two minds about going, as it was scheduled for late evening in the middle of the week. But two things contributed to making up my mind: the first one, obviously, was to avail of the opportunity to catch up with the IT decision makers from across the city.

The second one had to do with the leadership session by Tapas Dasmohapatra. In all ignorance and humility, I must say I hadn’t heard of him before. But the line in the invitation seemed intriguing, even if a bit presumptive or frivolous. It said about the speaker: “He is a darling for anyone who invites him for key-note address because of his friendly and high energy program.”

In the middle of an unusually cold Delhi winter (unusual for the past 15 years or so, quite usual before that), I thought maybe I could use some energy and friendliness. So I went.

Soon as the event progressed, I realized that rather short-statured and plump in a cutesy way, Tapas was indeed a little darling!

With his quick “connect,” sharp and focussed wit and a beguiling manner, he indeed showed that the gap between good and great has nothing to with your size or natural looks—and everything to do with how you “design” your success.

In what I believe was a towering session on leadership, motivation and success rolled into one, Tapas uncoiled the secrets of going from good to great in a tightly knit capsule of an hour or so.

I have always held that humor is one of the greatest ways to connect with people. Now I saw the living proof of it in the person of Tapas. As he cracked joke after joke and related anecdotes in quick succession, the audience—mostly somber-faced, time-challenged Chief Information Officers by day—were in splits.

And not only were the jokes funny on their own, they seemed to fit, like IT folks often say fondly, seamlessly into the larger scheme of things. Recalling the relevant joke at just the right moment and delivering it with style is an art, and Tapas looked like its high priest.

He began his seminar with how people, especially educated guys, indulge in “self-deception”— whether knowingly or unknowingly.

“When we are already good, who can hold us down from being great? We ourselves,” he said.

So people must recognize and acknowledge the instances of self-deceit in their lives if they want to work toward designing their success.

Using the technique of keywords to drive his message clearly and unmistakably, Tapas then focussed on the two words “natural” and “design,” and related the commercially successful role of design (which I think can be broken down into planning, resource mobilization and effort in the context here) in our lives.

Another pair of significant keywords he used: “connect” and “correct.” The success mantra of great leaders is to connect with people before they attempt to correct them.

This tenet matches a similar one I had come across sometime back in relation to giving feedback to people (especially your juniors) in the right way: praise, criticize, praise.

The best part about Tapas’s session, I think, was how he picked specific examples to illustrate his points and used an effective mix of English and Hindi to drive them home.

I have attended tons of presentations and management sessions but seldom have I seen people glued to their seats for more than an hour—a sentiment echoed by senior CIOs who were present there.

Tapas ended the session with some music and jumping and holding of hands and going around the room hugging people—and there were many who rushed to hug Tapas first.

Did the invite mention the word “darling”?!

(Note: Along with his co-founding partner Suresh Mohan Semwal, Tapas Dasmohapatra runs the training and speaking consultancy Possiblers out of Jor Bagh in New Delhi.)

Book Review: The Soul of Leadership

At the heart of this book is the idea that leadership emanates from the core of our being

“In eight areas of your life you have the power to be guided by your soul,” says Deepak Chopra in this slim but significant book: “Thoughts, emotions, perception, personal relationships, social role, environment, speech and the body.” The bottomline is that in all of them our behavior affects the people we lead. If we evolve, so will they, he avers. And that's the basic premise on which Chopra builds his concept of leadership that is soul-driven rather than one that exploits people or their insecurities.

Given that the very term 'soul' is attributed more to religiosity than spirituality, it might put off readers not in a mood for religious sermons or some such. But Chopra clarifies what he means by this word within the first few pages. “When I talk about the soul, I'm not referring to the soul as defined by any particular religion...I believe the soul is an expression of an underlying universal field of consciousness,” he says.

Equating the soul with 'awareness', Chopra writes that at the soul level you are seamlessly connected with everything in the universe, to the silent domain from which all matter and energy spring.

In keeping with this explanation, the book often dips into the realm of spirituality or philosophy of the Paulo Coelho kind. At the same time, however, it does detail the principles of leading from the soul and provides useful tips to any leader willing to look beyond personal aggrandizement or material gains.

For one, Chopra hands the reader a map of sorts by spelling out L-E-A-D-E-R-S, with each letter of the acronym unraveling what it means to lead from the soul (L = look and listen; E = emotional bonding; A = awareness; D = doing; E = empowerment; R = responsibility; and S = synchronicity). In further explaining how each element works, he gives examples from the lives of prominent leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Nelson Mandela.

A very important building block that Chopra uses and adapts in the book is Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Recognizing the two overriding themes in our lives as 'needs' and 'responses', he says, “As a leader [of a group], if you are aware of the hierarchy of needs and their responses, you will be able to continue to respond effectively as the group's needs move up the scale from basic to increasingly spiritual.” This is the most powerful thing a leader can do, he affirms.

At times, the book tends to get a bit heavy and repetitive. But thankfully, Chopra has peppered it with some interesting anecdotes and titbits. Going into the roots of words, he points out that the word 'inspiration' is derived from the same Latin root as 'to breathe' and 'spirit': “When you inspire others, you motivate them to breathe together in the same atmosphere.” Tales such as the one from his own childhood in Jabalpur in a newly-independent India, in which Nehru, passing by in his motorcade in front of his house, tossed his lapel rose towards his mother (who thus acquired a special status in the neighborhood), make for interesting reading.

Then there are the inspiring stories of two entrepreneurs-leaders who created and nurtured two completely different but similarly 'soul-connected' organizations (Jeremy Moon of Icebreaker and Renata Black of Seven Bar Foundation).

The Soul of Leadership could be dismissed by some who cannot bring themselves to believe the ideas of universal connectedness and core human values, but it will be lapped up by the many who are hungering for something far beyond the clinically logical or transactional.

The Essence of Leadership

At a time when our world is suffering from one of its biggest crises – the leadership vacuum – I think it might be worth our while to revisit the idea of leadership and the core qualities of great leaders


Few things move men and women as much as the inspiring words or daring examples of a great leader. Over millennia of human history, a galaxy of leaders have led people all over the world to achieve extraordinary things. Not just in times of war to win battles but in peaceful times as well to establish business empires, create things of beauty or make planet earth a better place to be. Some of the biggest names in leadership that immediately spring to mind: Mahatma Gandhi, George Washington, Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Ernest Shackleton, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr, Winston Churchill, Gloria Steinem, Buddha, Pope John Paul II, Dalai Lama, Jack Welch, Steve Jobs...

Not a comprehensive list for sure, nor does it belong to a particular eon or creed or flavor – but certainly worthy of our aspiration, emulation or, simply, following.

There are some key questions we have always been asking about leadership: What is leadership? What makes the people named above or hundreds of others like them across centuries so different, so influential, so long-lasting despite their limited tenure and many human frailties? What intrinsic or acquired qualities have made them win wars, inspire trust in people, heal their minds and souls, change the way we relate to society, or create organizations and objects that become the envy of the world?

Questions like these have intrigued the best of human minds and the answers still continue to evolve even after relentless honing and refinement. But given that the world is going through multiple crises which, I believe, can be better tackled with effective leadership, it may not be out of place to address its core principles and ideas.

First and foremost, the very term leadership, according to Oxford dictionary, means “the action of leading a group of people or an organization, or the ability to do this.” So the most essential thing about a leader is that he or she gets other people to achieve some goal.

But a mechanical get-things-done-through-people definition is not what leadership is all about. Let's look at what some of the world's best minds have said about leadership.

Dwight D Eisenhower: “The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible...”

Stephen Covey: “Management is efficiency in climbing the ladder of success; leadership determines whether the ladder is leaning against the right wall.”

John Quincy Adams: “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson: “Our chief want in life is someone who shall make us do what we can.”

Warren Bennis: “Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality.”

Tom Peters: “Management is about arranging and telling. Leadership is about nurturing and enhancing.”

There are thousands of such interesting, inspiring or illuminating viewpoints and opinions. But the critical thing to note is, it is the leaders – whether of a country, a society, an organization or even a function within a firm – who make things move. Who take the initiative to urge people to come together for achieving something. Who are always taking it upon themselves to learn new things, try new ideas and leave a legacy of innovation, creativity, and can-do spirit. They may lean toward certain personality traits, but they are all distinguished by the integrity of their values and the emotional maturity of their actions.

They are all, without doubt, leaders.

We don't seem to have many of them left, do we? So, how can we create, nurture or empower more leaders?

Think about it...

The India of My Screams

I was looking for something to write on India's Independence Day today, when this idea just struck me...

In many schools in India students are often asked to write an essay on 'The India of My Dreams.' Having done my own share of such juvenile writing in school days, I just thought it might be time for me to put out a little writeup with a slightly twisted but perhaps more realistic title, 'The India of My Screams.' So here it goes...

We used to be a sort of sleeping giant before liberalization began in the early nineties. But ever since we've 'woken up,' we don't seem to stop screaming - for one reason or the other.

First of all, none of our geriatric leaders had the vision about how to really go about liberalizing a country as vast as ours - so they took a patchwork approach to it, doing a little here or a little there, but never enough anywhere! And I feel sorry to say that even to this day, we don't have a single leader who can pull the country out of the morass it is in (And even if there were, he or she would find it difficult to steer things their own way in the midst of coalition politics).

So while the incumbent Congress government won on the promise of doing something for the aam admi (common man), nobody knows what it is they've done. And the common man? He's screaming to be heard against rising cost of basic necessities.

Our infrastructure - be it roads, power, water, electricity or sewage - is screaming, creaking and, as we've seen during recent rains in Delhi, weeping too. We have made it a fine art of always allowing infrastructure to lag behind current needs. Lag not in number of months or a couple of years, but lag in decades - perhaps centuries! Has any of our rulers heard of the term 'town planning'? I seriously doubt it. Have they wondered at the mess they have been able to create in and around what many call the Millennium City (Gurgaon)? I have. At least one person wouldn't be complaining (Mr KP Singh of DLF, the biggest builder in the area and the country as well)! The so-called builders of modern India have 'malled' our cities but, in the process, also 'mauled' its infrastructure, the environment and, often, the local inhabitants and the underprivileged...

Our people, especially those ensconced in cars, keep on screaming, too, and they often use the machines they sit inside for several hours each day for screaming. It's called honking and it's a favorite pastime of drivers in most places in India. Never mind that the guy ahead of you is not in a position to move in the bumper-to-bumper traffic, let's honk! Or so goes the popular mood amongst motorati.

Even within the malls, people just cannot help screaming. On most Saturdays and Sundays, they shout their throats hoarse, trying to catch the attention of the cashier at the food court. Then they go to each 'cuisine' counter (the cuisine often being industrially made formula food) and again scream to be heard and served. When they have had 'a good time' hopping from counter to counter for food and are ready to head home, there's a long line of vehicles waiting impatiently to get out of the mall's cavernous clutches and onto the crowded roads. Of course, there's plenty of scope and opportunity for honking and screaming, and most people find it hard to give it a miss.

The situation is no better for those who don't - rather, cannot - go to the malls. They often wait in queues for the water tankers to come. Meanwhile, they scream at each other for breaking the queue or putting two buckets instead of one in their 'occupied' position. On other occasions, they gherao (surround a place for a demonstration) the local power distribution center, demanding that they have had enough going without electricity for the past 10 or 15 hours. There is a lot of screaming going on here, too...

That's not to say that our leaders and rulers are immune to shouting and screaming. But they are much used to it - there's so much screaming and blaming going on in the Parliament and in state legislative assemblies that nobody notices any longer. Many of our leaders are often seen sleeping or snoring amid all this din - most probably dreaming of their multi-million dollars stashed away in Swiss accounts. After all, foreign education of kids, separate lucrative businesses for kith and kin, and other desirables in life come for a cost - and a lot of screaming, apparently...

Mera Bharat Mahaan! (it's a customary salutation in India to show respect and appreciation for your country - the countrymen be damned!)