Let's become children: Where ignorance is bliss

On the eve of New Year I toyed with several topics to blog on. The decade that passed has been eventful, especially for America. The decade opened with a tragic attack on 9/11 and is passing out with a gut wrenching economic crises, two wars and a failed terror attempt. I will leave those topics for magazines to ruminate endlessly and in turn let me leave this year with a fond, probably naive too, hope.

We were visiting my brother-in-law in North Carolina for X-mas. My 4 year old and his 3.5 year old both hit it off great. It was warming to see kids play with each other. Just like kids they would hug each other tightly and be chummy for the most part and then suddenly fight over a toy. After a short tiff all would be forgiven they would then go back to chasing each other with peals of laughter. Their love has an abiding quality and meaning. The fights had meaning only in that short lived moment, not beyond. What a lovely childlike, rather Godly, impulse that gets lost in adults. Having lost such a childlike quality we seek refuge in fancy theories and books and psychologists to make sense of conflicts that tear apart relationships and souls. Probably a deeper theology underlies in celebrating Gods as children, Krishna and child Jesus being the most prominent.

Often the phrase "ignorance is bliss" is used in a negative connotation. Not many realise that T.Gray actually meant it as a compliment and said it in a wistful mode that let children have their blissful ignorance after all once they grow up this world filled with cares will rob us of our joys. (Thomas Gray's complete 'Ode on a distant prospect to Eton' http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/884.html)

Alas, regardless of their doom,

The little victims play!

No sense have they of ills to come,

Nor care beyond to-day:

Yet see how all around 'em wait

The ministers of human fate,.......
....................................................................
Since sorrow never comes too late,

And happiness too swiftly flies.

Thought would destroy their paradise.

No more; where ignorance is bliss,

'Tis folly to be wise.

X-mas : A season for giving and forgiving

Two events in the backdrop of X-mas season tickled my thoughts to write this. I work for a major European investment bank in NY that recently organized an event called "toys for tots". 'Toys for tots' is a program run by US Army marine Corps. Companies partner with the Corps, they collect toys from staff and through the corps distribute it to needy children who cannot afford X-mas gifts. The Marine Corps is running this program since 1947 (http://www.toysfortots.org/about_toys_for_tots/toys_for_tots_program/origin_and_evolution.asp). This is just one aspect of charity giving that hits an all year high during X-mas. Companies partner with major non-profit organisations and announce corporate matching grants where the company puts a dollar for each dollar donated by employees. Companies consider it a prestige to exceed targets. Corporatised philanthropy has its benefits, its targeted, its reach is much wider, money is accounted for, programs are monitored and reported on. A popular charity drive is to get used winter coats for the needy, another network collects women's suits to donate to aspiring low-income professional women.

Giving is just one part X-mas, a consciously cultivated sense of forgiving is the true spirit of X-mas. MLK Jr captures this wonderfully in a sermon. Peter asks Christ "how many times shall I forgive if my brother sins against me, seven times?", the Lord answers "seventy times seven". MLK explains that when somebody can forgive a wrong doer 70 times 7 (490) then forgiveness becomes a habit. "PEACE" is the recurrent theme in New Testament. Matthew admonishes a worshipper who gives offerings while he runs a feud with his brother "leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift." Life is not a game to rebuke anybody as "too little too late in the game". When asked to be taught how to pray Christ offers the Lord's prayer which emphasises forgiveness "And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us".

This X-mas season and in seasons to come let us give as much as we can and learn the art of forgiveness enough to make it a habit.

Given the recent bad press on corporations and CEO's I could not resist adding the following:

Bill Gates Foundation is the richest and best run charity organization. Gates is redefining how charity is done. Impressed by the impeccable nature of Bill & Melinda Gates' work Warren Buffet, the second richest man, bequethed his entire wealth to the Gates foundation. Barack Obama's charity contributions rarely rose above a paltry 1% of his gross income (In 2001 he donated $1470 out of $272,000) until he decided to run for President. Al Gore set the record for political doublespeak, he donated $353 in 1997 when he earned $197K.

Barack Obama Charity details: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html

A few thoughts on the Economic meltdown of 2008

Reading an article on Neel Kashkari in Washington Post today I felt compelled to write on this subject. Kashkari, of Indian origin, shot to prominence when he was tasked with overseeing $700 billion in TARP (Troubled Asset Recovery Program).


By now a linear storyline has emerged in the minds of the populace that a bunch of CEO's in wall street ran the vaunted American economy tanker aground thanks to unbridled 'greed'. The line from Oliver Stone's film "Wall Street" spoken by the character Gordon Gekko, "greed is good, greed works" became oft cited. Nobody cared that the actual line was "Greed, for lack of better word, works". Big difference. St Paul did not say "money is evil", he said "love for money is evil".


Is it even remotely possible for a clique of guys in pinstripe suits to bring a $14 trillion economy, the economy of the only super power, to its knees? When Congress dithered on passing a staggering $700 billion stimulus/bailout plan Ben Bernanke, Fed Charirman, Hank Paulson, Secy of Treasury, lobbied senators behind closed doors. Hearing what they said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said "my jaw just dropped". The bottom line message delivered was "no time to play partisan politics, if the bailout does not pass Congress come Monday morning there will be NO American economy". Apocalypse would have looked like a picnic in comparison. When the economists at the Fed looked at the data staring out of their PC screens what they saw was akin to a patient whose blood stopped flowing. The credit markets were simply frozen. Nobody, absolutely nobody, was lending to another person or bank. Credit, the blood and oxygen of an economy, that too of the worlds largest and most powerful economy was simply in a stage of a coma. Banks did not know if the collaterals offered, complex structured securities, where worth anything to be lent against. Nobody believed the credit ratings anymore, credit rating agencies themselves were in a tail spin.

To attribute all of this to simple greed is too simplistic and self serving, especially when mouthed by politicians in the heat of a campaign.

Lets take a small slice of contrarian view. There is furore amongst the Afro-American community that foreclosures have hit them the hardest. Very true. What is conveniently glossed over, if not hidden, is that banks did not dupe them, or at least most of the time. Banks have been compelled by legislation to invest in under served communities, CRA (Communities Re-investment act). Most who applied lacked documentation for income, many would not qualify for loans under normal circumstances. When banks asked for proof's of income and proof of ability to pay etc they ran into rough weather, lawsuits alleging 'discrimination' sprouted, including one by a certain community organizer named "Barack Obama". I am not for a moment suggesting that this was the only reason for the crisis. I just want to shine a light on lesser known but vital components that helped create the mess.

From consumer to politician today everyone rails against banks for 'enticing' gullible consumers with fancy projections of how properties would appreciate and how such appreciation can be tapped into in the form of more loans to finance dreams of cars or just plain re-finance the home. Give me a break. American economy, the capitalist component is based on the premise of 'personal responsibility'. When a guy, family of 5 with 2 daughters in college and gross household income $90,000 buys a home with swimming pool at $500,000 what can one say. Irrespective of any fancy enticement or math wizardry of the house appreciating in double digits the guy is facing the immutable logic of what he can afford. That too when he took a interest only loan betting that when the house appreciates he will re-finance and THEN start paying measly principal, I call it plain "nuts". Yes, the American style of consumerism encourages risk taking. But risk and recklessness are not synonyms. When a well educated young working couple buy a home stretching a bit by 20K or 30K they have a decent chance of coming clean, that's calculated risk but what the guy did was sheer recklessness. CNN once featured a forlorn single mom in Florida lamenting about how she has to foreclose. The camera goes around the home and I saw a pretty swanky well kept home, the kitchen had a Wusthof knife set (retails at $750 at discount). This woman was a realtor too. She had bought a home way beyond her earnings and bought it on a 'interest only" pay option loan.

Amongst the carnage blame can go around sufficiently to how Congressmen and senators sought to use the quasi-federal agencies of Fannie and Freddie to further their own political mileage with constituents. The easy money policies of Fed, under Alan Greenspan fuelled the housing crisis that finally brought America to its knees.

The derivatives market, short sellers, math wizards behind bundling of securities etc all had a role. To blame each and everyone with just greed and malicious intent bordering on calling them as just thieves is sheer stupidity. I've worked for one of the ratings agencies and I've my highest regard for that company as a corporate entity. Companies exist to maximise profits, to deny that is to deny them a reason to exist. Companies innovate to differentiate themselves. The innovations in capital markets were not done to swindle a gullible consumer. That they went awry and need to be reworked is part of being a resilient capital market. America will find its feet again.

CEO's have no joy in seeing their firms get obliterated in a tsunami of crisis. One could comment wryly that the hundreds of millions lost by Lehman CEO Richard Fuld really does not change his life style unlike the thousands who lost their jobs when Lehman went down. Agreed. But to characterise Fuld as some swindler is gross injustice. Thousands of Lehman employees have made a fortune working for Lehman. Also beyond a point its not only about money, imagine the humiliation that Fuld had to endure with jeering crowds carrying placards when he appeared for Congressional hearings. One can only imagine how his ego might have hurt. In the final moments of his company going under he pleaded with all and sundry to save his employees by buying Lehman.

Then there are the conspiracy theorists of how Goldman Sachs alumni control US government. Hank Paulson, ex-CEO of Goldman, had to forgo hundreds of millions in selling his Goldman stocks prior to joining Bush administration. Show me a politician who does that. John Thain who took over Merrill after Stan O'Neil was ousted was excoriated for spending $100,000 decorating his office while company was going down the tube. Note that the crisis which finally engulfed Merrill had nothing to do with John Thain. In fact Thain helped avert a catastrophic event by orchestrating the merger with Bank of America. Contrast that with how Barack Obama behaved. He too inherited a crisis, he too inherited deficits yet he had no problem in taking Air Force one and the presidential entourage to make good on his promise to Michelle for a date night in NYC if they won. Wow....Nero anybody.

Obama and Afghanistan imbroglio

I'd like to state one thing at the outset, Obama is my president too, as an American citizen I'd like to see my President succeed for then America succeeds. A registered republican appearing on CNN said the same and David Broder, Washington Post's columnist, captured that correctly when he wrote "the average American wants his President to succeed".

I winced when, of all the press, the European press lectured Obama to decide soon enough on his strategy. The "Telegraph" from UK and "Der Spiegel" both ran less than flattering editorials. At home many in his own camp were uncomfortably wringing their hands as Obama took 90 days to decide. Republican commentators had a field day on his "dithering". Michael Moore who famously caricatured Bush for sitting quiet for 5 minutes after learning of the 9/11 attacks went incognito.

There were leaks and surmises. When General McChrystal went public with his request for troops there was animated discussion on whether Obama should fire him for violating the chain of command a la Truman firing MacArthur. His own cabinet was divided between non-escalation (Joe Biden et al) Vs escalation of troop levels (Secy of Defense Robert Gates and Hillary). Obama was unperturbed by the outside chatter, he coolly asked his team to evaluate, re-evaluate, go back to the drawing the board for more options etc.

Finally he gave a speech at West Point, America's most hallowed military academy. His left wing devotees winced at the very Bush like venue. The speech was a good one and as usual a tad longer. Obama addressed most concerns head on.

Obama gave McChrystal less than what he wanted, 30,000 troops versus 40000+ requested. This is public gamble. If the gambit pays off then Obama would have proved the wisdom behind civilian control over army. Else he would pay dearly for second guessing his own general. This is a risky gambit that every American President has had to contend with Truman upwards.

The sickening question of deadlines was addressed too but with some political wiggle room. An open ended commitment, like Bush, would have warmed the hearts of republicans but sent his left wing flock scurrying home to look for another messiah. I disagree with commentators parsing his commitment for withdrawal in summer 2011 provided ground conditions meet certain benchmarks. Many say this is contradiction. Some commentators point out that once we announce a date all that the Taliban have to do is just lie in wait for that date and then wreck havoc. Then they proceed to ridicule the wiggle room of "ground conditions permitting" after committing to a date. This is nothing to ridicule about. Obama is attempting a very tough sell here to an American public that, thanks to the increased security today, has become a little too complacent about threats and more importantly is concerned about job loss than another attack. The health care reform impact on an economy reeling from record deficits, not entirely of Obama's making, the unemployment and the costs of this escalation are valid concerns. Obama paraphrased Thomas Friedman when he said that America's economic prosperity is the cornerstone of its power status. Shoring up the dollar is as important as shoring up Iraq and Afghanistan.

The best part of the speech was when Obama put a stop to the Vietnam comparison. Very sharply worded he differentiated the Vietnam imbroglio with Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not seeing any populist surge. Afghans would still like to see Taliban wiped out, more schools built, women able to walk freely in the streets etc. There are challenges in the form of war lords etc but that is NOT populist insurrection.

Let us note that when Obama took office Afghanistan had less than 30,000 troops compared to 150,000 in Iraq. Afghanistan has the reputation of being the graveyard of empires, the Soviets left Afghanistan when their empire crumbled. Karl Rove is peeved that Obama did not credit Bush in his speech for the Iraq surge strategy which is being copied now in Afghanistan. Mr Rove should be happy that Obama did not justifiably excoriate Bush and his team for the Afghan mess.

All that apart here are some inconvenient truths. Most of the world took umbrage at the Iraq war as US imperialism, many wanted to impeach Bush for War crimes, many opined confidently that Iraq war was illegal, Michael Moore had a field day ridiculing Bush's claim of many allies in Iraq war front. Now lets look at Afghanistan, a war that was unanimously agreed to as 'justifiable and legal response', NATO had signed on, UN security council endorsed it. CNN's John King put up a map of troop deployments and made a telling point. NATO, non-US, troops were in regions which had almost zero conflicts while US troops were the ones mostly taking heat in Taliban infested regions. A fellow commentator ominously chimed in "this is America's war". A sad truth. Also Bush was often cited as a factor for other countries not stepping up their role in Afghanistan. Yet with Obama at the helm its no different. Its unfortunate that the world at large think of Afghanistan and Iraq as America's problems, especially Afghanistan.

Thomas Friedman's latest column beautifully stated one thing "Many big bad things happen in the world without America, but not a lot of big good things. If we become weak and enfeebled by economic decline and debt, as we slowly are, America may not be able to play its historic stabilizing role in the world. If you did'nt like a world of too-strong-America, you will really not like a world of too-weak-America — where China, Russia and Iran set more of the rules."

Friedman opposes Obama's strategy and chimes "Iraq was about “the war on terrorism.” The Afghanistan invasion, for me, was about the “war on terrorists.” To me, it was about getting bin Laden and depriving Al Qaeda of a sanctuary — period. I never thought we could make Afghanistan into Norway — and even if we did, it would not resonate beyond its borders the way". This from Friedman who consistently admonished Bush for Iraq and pouring so much resource into it.

For the sake of America and the world lets hope Obama succeeds in both Iraq and Afghanistan. To the American soldier who heads out to the front we say "Godspeed and God bless you all"

Ayn Rand: Enduring allure and enigma

This month could easily be called the Ayn Rand month. Two biographies, critically acclaimed, and a Harvard symposium all had Ayn Rand as theme. Ayn Rand is now the most cited author by those wary of Obama administrations policies. Her name now echoes across vital issues that are whipsawing the country. From bank bailouts to taxing millionaires to including a government run public option in health care it is Ayn Rand who is evoked consistently. Harvard university organised a seminar titled "From Ayn Rand to Ken Feinberg", the speaker was, very curiously, Elliot Spitzer who had quit his governorship for having frequented "escort girls". [Ken Feinberg is the 'pay czar' who now decides on the pay and more importantly bonus structure in banks like Citi and Bank of America, two of the biggest recipients of US aid to stay afloat].

Ayn Rand is principally known for "Fountainhead" (1943) and "Atlas Shrugged" (1957). "Fountainhead" is probably read more than "Atlas". "Atlas" is a tome at 1000+ pages, one speech alone runs for 50+ pages, of course it is a tedious novel and made more tedious with philosophical expositions on 'meaning of money', 'meaning of sex', a parody on 'from each according to his ability to each according to his need' and more. 'Atlas' was Rand's last fiction. Both novels were panned by critics, then and now, her ideologies were ridiculed, her writing style was mocked, she was mocked as a person, none of her books garnered ANY prize major or minor. Yet Ayn Rand remains a phenomenon.

Rand's biographer Anne Heller reports "in a poll in the early ’90s, sponsored by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club, “Americans named ‘Atlas Shrugged’ the book that had most influenced their lives,” second only to the Bible." Both novels continue to sell by the thousands, almost 50 years after publication. No adoloscent who fashioned himself/herself as a discerning intellectual has passed through the academic portals without reading Rand, this despite the fact that Rand's book are rarely included in academic curriculum across the world.

Rand's books have been assailed by critics for a certain lack of 'greyness' in the way she portrays her characters. Everything is black and white. In fact the villains in her novels are mostly crucibles of everything that is undesirable in her eyes, she would not even bestow physical attractiveness to them. Her heroes and heroines are perfect, a Nietzche-an super human. Well what can one expect from a novelist who titles her chapters as "A is A: Non-Contradiction". If one looks for Dostoyevsky or Tolstoy in her then its not her fault, her chief pride is that she is NOT a Tolstoy.

Also curiously most readers fall in love with Ayn Rand in their 20's and mellow their ardour by the time they reach 40's. When you are 20 and when you are subjected to standard academic diet of preaching it is inevitable to find inspiration in Hank Rearden who finds a new metal. Who can deny the rush of adrenaline when Dagny Taggart's train crosses a vital bridge built with Rearden steel. Any 20 year old would be conjuring images of their own "revolutionary crossing", complete with a comely Dagny or Hank Reareden at their side, depending on the gender. It is expected of teenagers (and adoloscents) to be intoxicated with having unlocked the puzzle of the philosophy of sex reading Francisco's speech (who cares if the author's own personal life was a self destructive). Every teeming capitalist out to shape the world thinks they have understood Adam Smith reading the speech on "meaning of money". Also it is helpful that Alan Greenspan, the much adored Fed Reserve chairman, was part of the Ayn Rand circle. Above all Ayn Rand bestows on her readers a sense of 'elitism' overlooking the fact that the reader is part of a multi-million commune of Ayn Rand worshippers.

It is a pride for Ayn Rand lovers that she was not honored by the literary establishment. Its a badge of honor for her readers. That literary critics despise her books is a stamp of approval in a perverse manner.

What is it with so called lovers of "rationalism" that they act in the most craven manner of idol-worshippers. Here is what is common between lovers of Ayn Rand and EVR, both have legions of worshippers who sing praises of rationalism and reason as long as that mirror is not held up to question their own idols. When Ayn Rand and her paramour Nathaniel Branden fell out, the members of Ayn Rand's collective debated whether it would be a rational response to kill Nathaniel Branden who refused to be enthralled by an aging Ayn Rand and instead opted for a nubile woman. The Ayn Rand insitute today more jealously guards any portrayal of Ayn Rand in any light that is less than flattering.

I love her books. Anyday when I need to buck myself up I do continue to pick up Atlas Shrugged. However I'd never rate her anywhere close to Orwell in opposing totalitarianism. What Orwell achieved in less than 100 pages in Animal Farm Ayn Rand could only remotely achieve in 1000+ pages. Thats why 'Animal Farm' remains a classic and 'Atlas Shrugged' remains a bestseller. In English the word "Orwellian" connotes fear of totalitarianism but Ayn Rand has not entered the lexicon.

CIT Harmony 92: Window into Cultural festivals and a big win

Cultural festivals are often seen as 'rowdy, skirt chasing, bunking classes and everything that is not for an honorable Indian student. As often in life that is generalized, too generalized and completely disregards so many other nice aspects of these culturals.

I've seen astounding creativity in cultural festivals, boys and girls whom we could not even imagine doing something would surprise you with talent. A shy and withdrawn girl would surprise by her poetry. An unassuming guy could write a poignant story in no time. One guy could populate an entire hall with carvings in soap. A photographer capturing the beauty of a girl's eyes. A girl as next-door looking as they come could take the breath away singing zoom-zoom-baba leaving you searching for her the next day amongst hundreds. A teenager with Beethoven in his name would play a multi-tiered keyboard catapulting his orchestra to a bumper win and mesmerising the crowd. Talent shows were fertile ground for mediocrity and soaring creativity too.

Of course the adolescent streak is dominant, to pretend otherwise is to insult the reader. A bunch of girls from Bangalore dancing in mini skirts on a raised stage would be a crowd puller in Coimbatore. The topics for most events like Poetry writing or painting or photography would have something to do with romance or girls or something titillating. When our team from Shanmugha (SCE in short) was prepping for those events my college lecturer, our team supervisor, asked for topics that we can kind of get prepared for. I gave a few, he replied "one track mind". I was on target though. A college cultural festival is not an academic festival and it is organised by teenagers for teenagers. Lets get that straight.

CIT (Coimbatore Institute of Technology) used to organize one of the biggest cultural festivals in TN. Well over 60 colleges would participate drawing the cream of participants. PSG Tech, PSG CAS (PSG College of Arts and sciences), Anna Uni, IIT's, REC's all would come. CIT's festival was called "Harmony". My first sojourn to Harmony in 1991 was a non-event, I fell sick and returned the second day, the only grace was I had bought Francis Bacon's "Essays" from a Higginbothams at Kovai. Hhmm does not saying Kovai sound so much better than anglicised Coimbatore. I marked out the Essays that Will Durant in his "Story of Philosophy" had specified as must read. The "Everyman" edition was elegant with the essays incorporating Latin proverbs and a neat glossary to explain each proverb.

I was back at Harmony in 1992. My team mate for debate contest was my good friend Raajesh Ganesan (he loves the extra 'a' in Raajesh). A very fine gentleman who later was the first guy in SCE to write GRE scoring 2100. He respected my skills a lot and we were a good team. He was no pushover either. Drawing lots the topic assigned to us was "Brain Drain". One member had to argue for and another against. Raajesh told me "Aravinda you make the pick where you can be the most forceful and eloquent". This topic was close to me heart. Having suffered the barbs of reservation and yearning to get out of India, which then was a very intellectually stifling country, I jumped at arguing for those who left the country.

We also decided that Raajesh would go first and speak against those who left India. He, incidentally a Brahmin who wanted to go to USA, despite his convictions, played his part. I took the stage next. To say I sizzled was an understatement. Thanks to my father I never subscribed to the typical craven way of opening speeches by addressing all and sundry, it was always "Good evening everybody". I opened by taking the audience to 1940's. Scientists, primarily Jews, were fleeing Nazi Europe to America, the land of liberty. The tide of scientific supremacy turned. Germany the cradle of Quantum physics fell behind while America, at the urging of Einstein and immigrant scientists raced to discover the atom bomb. The world was never the same again. I ended with a punch line "let the brains drain out of this country lest they go down the drain". We sailed into the finals.

Here came a quandary. The team we were up against had an IIT'ian and another guy. We were approached by the organisers that the IIT team was illegal because the competitors came from different colleges. Practically two guys had teamed up. If we lodged a protest they would be disqualified and we would compete against another team. The IIT'ian came up to me and said "hey lets compete, we are here only for the prize money, you can keep the certificate I'll arrange it". Now this IIT guy had just created a rave in a previous competition called JAM (Just a minute). In JAM a contestant has to talk fast with no big pauses in grammatically correct English. If anybody in the audience finds a mistake he/she would be stopped. Nobody could stop this guy. He was on a roll, he was nicely ribald too. Many girls loved the ribald part. [In fact that year CIT had a competition called 'latent talk' purely double entendre talk, it was a hit with girls. Girls love Harold Robbins or Mills & Boon while guys go for the unvarnished stuff]. I felt if my win had any meaning it would be to beat this guy. I said lets go for it.

The topic was "Foreign investment boon or bane". We drew lots and our team had to speak against investment. A sure loser side given the winds of change in 1992 and the dire economic climate of the country. I knew if we won it would not be based on arguments or evidence so the speech itself was lackluster. The question and answer round was where we had to play it. One of the panelists, a girl student, tried to push Raajesh into a corner by forcing him to say 'yes' or 'no' to an inconvenient question that could really trap us. Raajesh was hemming and hawing, the girl kept badgering "say yes or no". I took the podium and with an imperious wave of hand and a baritone voice that needed no microphone boomed "life is not always a yes or no, let him explain". More than the repartee the manner it was delivered brought cheers from the audience, the girl backed down. Meantime my college team that was scattered across competitions all flowed into the auditorium. This was new experience. SCE in the final round, about to win a big competition, lot of points at stake. Sheer satire and sarcasm flowed thereafter. We won in a thunderclap of applause and adulation. We had won big in a 60 college competition beating all other elite colleges. The college itself did not win any other big event, that too in first place.

When we came home to Tanjore we were feted. The college Secretary, now chancellor of SASTRA, brought out a press release to highlight the achievement.

Before I wind up here is a very interesting tit bit. In June 1991 I was selected, in the first place, to be part of Bharathidasan University's cultural team for debates/elocution. It was a first such win for SCE, it created a splash, that too was reported in the press. One day after all that hullabaloo the first year exam results came. Aravindan had failed in English. One one hand the university said I have to represent it for English elocution competitions and on another hand I was declared a failure to pass the exam. Of course we appealed for re-evaluation. My English professor as subject teacher gave a strong recommendation in the justification. Finally I was cleared with a 30 mark increase. I went on to be selected for Bharathidasan University for three years in a row. Unbeaten record till today.

Prof.TRR, KGS, a literary forum and standing ovation

After my +2 exams I went to Karunya Engineering college enticed by the brochure that highlighted "Siruvani rivulets". Given the "incurable romantic" I was I imagined strolling by Siruvani with some lass. After joining the college I beat a hasty retreat, part home sick, part disgusted with suffocating religiosity, part scared of hostel food. I joined Shanmugha College (SCE) in 1990.

At Karunya, I and my dad were offered a seat for completing the formalities. So naturally I sat in the chair opposite to the Principal. Prof T.R.Rajagopalan (TRR), a frail looking, sternly gazing behind a glass, seated in front of a Gandhi portrait, erupted in anger, "how dare you sit in front of the principal". I meekly stood up. My dad was amused and impressed by TRR. Just before we had gone in we witnessed a spectacle. TRR was dressing down a dad, the son/student standing. The dad feebly defended "his friends are not good". TRR hit the roof "what about his brains, why do you give him pocket money, give him money just enough for bus ticket.."

One day I was in the chemistry lab when a lecturer asked who was willing to speak in the literary forum, named Athaneum, I instinctively lifted my hand. I am a child of the stage, having gone on stage since my 6th standard. The topic was about Man Vs Machine. A 3rd year student did a cheap trick when he opened his speech, he addressed the audience as "Friends, Romans and country men lend me your years", feigned apology for calling the audience as Romans, his thrust was to follow, "they say Rome was not built in a day, well with the power of modern technology and Robots we can". I followed him, a first year student, my opening lines were a stiletto repartee slicing into him "With all the power of artificial intelligence you cannot 'create' ONE single painting of Michaelangelo in the St. Peter's Basilica". The roof came down. A star was born. The language, the diction, the posture, the wit, the scholarship was refreshing to a sleepy temple town. The same guy and I sparred on Gandhi. P.V.Karthik, thats his name, completely demolished Gandhi, ridiculed Gandhi's Brahmacharya experiments etc. I came next. I had summoned Nehru, Shaw, C.E.M. Joad, S.Radhakrishnan, Shelley and more, fired back volley for volley. The symposiarch of the day exulted "Aravindan spoke like a young vivekananda".

Prof TRR started taking notice. After a symposium on Nehru when I scaled the heights of rhetoric he warmly commended me as "you speak like my erstwhile classmate Jaavar Seetharaman". Jaavar, many Tamilians know as the painted English General in Veerapandiya Kattabomman. Jaavar was supposed to be an eloquent speaker in the heydays of Trichy St.Josephs.

By now Prof.K.G.Seshadri (KGS) began treating me like a protege. We talked books endlessly. We both exalted in re-reading "Atlas Shrugged", enjoyed discovering Fritjof Capra, studied Will Durant, savored Bacon and some ribald limericks. Year after year for 3 years I won the annual oratorical contest he held. Awarding me the first prize for my essay "Book I love most:Story of Philosophy", he said "Aravindan wonderful essay, it needed a judge like me".

I had won every major competition there was to win in Tamil Nadu. University contests, College culturals, you name it I had won it. Most were first prizes. Over 3 years I had opined on the fall of communism, Gandhi, Nehru, Women, education, non-violence, 50th anniversary of Quit India and even Gardening.

I had not missed a single meeting of Athaneum. I was its face, a permanent fixture, its identity and its prestige. I was always the last speaker, I had the last word.

I was able to function freely with a wide latitude of intellectual freedom. The best episode was when I questioned the central tenet of the Bhagvad Gita, "do your duty without expecting rewards". I posed Spinoza's aphorism, "passion without reason is blind, reason without passion is dead". TRR a respected sanskrit scholar steeped in Gita attempted to answer me. He respected my questioning. TRR always made it a point to read every student achievement in his annual report on College Day, a good chunk would be my list of prizes. Once the secretary actually arranged a press release to celebrate my university prize.

TRR was the toast of the college. He was a true Gandhian. A very meticulous person, honest to a fault, fearless, punctual, spartan, in short he was a model Principal. He would break a strike by slapping a final year student. His slapping would not be like a rough henchman like but it was like a 70 year old avuncular man steeped in a medieval era concept of student-teacher relationship. The best part would be seeing the hefty taller student walk away meekly from a man whom he could have snapped in two easily. TRR always respected my forthright views and my integrity in voicing them. Often my friends would kid me that the guy on stage was mature beyond years, weighing opposing views and voicing support in a scholarly framework. Off stage I was a typical student. I felt I had a responsiblity when I spoke from the stage.

I brougt home laurels undreamt of by Shanmugha. The biggest upset victory was winning the debate in CIT Harmony 92. I won against 60 colleges including a very talented speaker from IIT. By the time we reached finals our entire team came into the hall to see a headline victory. Verbal volleys, satire, sarcasm, sharp wit were in full flow we won handily. It was quite a sight to see an audience of 1000 erupt in applause and celebrate the victory of a student from what was a non-descript college then.The hallmark of my career was consistent winning. I repeated the feat in 93 Harmony. In 1993 it was a jackpot event. I had bet that I would win in first place. If I had failed our college would lose points heavily. It is said that when Arjuna entered a battlefield and strung his bow Kandeepam, the echo would send shivers down the spine of his foes. One contestant once said "well Aravindan is here, lets just set aside the first prize". A girl once asked me to help her and my two friends objected "oh well he is helping us already", she said "well he can think for 10 people and still beat us all", not to be immodest but I did win the first prize then too. Coming back to CIT 93, I won the jackpot catapulting my college to second place win the culturals. We had made history in SCE.

By now it was 1994 my dominance raised hackles. Judges tried to cut me to size "oh we need to allow others to win". Also I and KGS began feeling that I had outgrown the ability of most judges to judge my speeches. Well not many knew Bronowski or Joad or Hawking or broadly read so I had withdrew. I continued to speak only at the Athaneum.

In the last meeting in my final year I finished my speech and overcome with emotion I said "I'd like to take one last look at the audience, this auditorium and my fellow speakers, thanks to all of you for my rich experiences over 4 years". I stepped down, heavy at heart. Suddenly TRR called me back on stage, he stood up and asked the audience, including many Professors, to stand up and give a standing ovation. I was barely 21.

I owe a lot to my beloved father who groomed me for many years and to Prof KGS who came to treat me as an alter-ego. Of course to Prof TRR who had the largeness of heart to honor a student he had refused to allow to sit barely 3 years back.

I had kept handwritten copies of all my speeches since 6th standard, many with my father's corrections until 10th standard. I had spoken such a veritable number of topics that they were a treasure trove of an adoloscent intellectual. One summer June in 1996 feeling frustrated at lack of progress in life I just bundled it up and threw it into a dustbin. Thats the way the world ends, not with a bang but with a wimper.