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.

Fall of Berlin Wall: An accident?

There is history and then there is arcana. Ask any American schoolboy who caused the fall of the Berlin Wall, he would say "Ronald Reagan", a well informed student might even cite, with justifiable pride, Reagan's exhortation to Gorbachev, "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall". The same question is Europe would get various answers and various emotional coloring depending on personal political leanings and whether they gained or lost.

A recent Wall Street Journal highlighted a little known arcane information in its series of article leading up to the 20th anniversary of the fall of Berlin Wall on 9th November. I shall intersperse Wikipedia and WSJ article for a contiguous narrative. Wiki article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall#The_fall.2C_1989

"the politburo led by Krenz decided on November 9, to allow refugees to exit directly through crossing points between East Germany and West Germany, including West Berlin. On the same day, the ministerial administration modified the proposal to include private travel. The new regulations were to take effect on November 17, 1989.
Günter Schabowski, the Party Secretary for Propaganda, had the task of announcing this; however he had been on vacation prior to this decision and had not been fully updated. Shortly before a press conference on November 9, he was handed a note that said that East Berliners would be allowed to cross the border with proper permission but given no further instructions on how to handle the information. These regulations had only been completed a few hours earlier and were to take effect the following day, so as to allow time to inform the border guards. However, nobody had informed Schabowski. He read the note out loud at the end of the conference and when asked when the regulations would come into effect, he assumed it would be the same day based on the wording of the note and replied "As far as I know effective immediately, without delay". After further questions from journalists he confirmed that the regulations included the border crossings towards West Berlin, which he had not mentioned until then.

Tens of thousands of East Berliners heard Schabowski's statement live on East German television and flooded the checkpoints in the Wall demanding entry into West Berlin. The surprised and overwhelmed border guards made many hectic telephone calls to their superiors, but it became clear that there was no one among the East German authorities who would dare to take personal responsibility for issuing orders to use lethal force, so there was no way for the vastly outnumbered soldiers to hold back the huge crowd of East German citizens. In face of the growing crowd, the guards finally yielded, opening the checkpoints and allowing people through with little or no identity checking. Ecstatic East Berliners were soon greeted by West Berliners on the other side in a celebratory atmosphere. November 9 is thus considered the date the Wall fell. In the days and weeks that followed, people came to the wall with sledgehammers to chip off souvenirs, demolishing lengthy parts of it in the process. These people were nicknamed "Mauerspechte" (wall woodpeckers)."

The fateful slip was in the sentence "As far as I know effective immediately, without delay". That was in response to a reporters question as to when the new policy of allowing people to cross over would come into effect. The haughty or beleaguered bureaucrat replied off the cuff setting off an avalanche of events that drove the proverbial last nail into the coffin of communism.

Now controversy surrounds over the reporter who is said to have asked that fateful question. This is where WSJ steps in. "Riccardo Ehrman, a veteran Italian foreign correspondent, and Peter Brinkmann, a combative German tabloid reporter, both claim they asked the crucial questions at a news conference on Nov. 9, 1989, that led East German Politburo member Günter Schabowski to make one of the biggest fumbles in modern history....

As the anniversary of that tumultuous night nears, a dispute is heating up over who flummoxed Mr. Schabowski.
Among those who are aware of the incident, Mr. Ehrman generally gets credit. In 2008, Germany's president awarded Mr. Ehrman the country's highest honor, the Federal Cross of Merit. "His persistence at the press conference finally elicited the crucial statement" that brought down the Wall, the citation said: "His name stands for...German unity..."

What can one say but that the juggernaut of history was already rolling and all it needed was one fatal push. An evil empire that imprisoned and killed tens of millions across a continent finally tottered and plunged into a deserving abyss thanks to characteristic bureaucratic fumbling. What a fitting finale.

Here is WSJ's excerpt from that fateful interview:

Excerpt: Asking the Hard Questions
Gunter Schabowski was supposed to announce eased travel restrictions for East Germans. Instead, his answers left reporters with the impression the Berlin Wall had fallen. Here's an excerpt from the Nov. 9, 1989, news conference:
Riccardo Ehrman (reporter, ANSA): Don't you think it was a big mistake, this draft law on travel that you presented a few days ago?
Gunter Schabowski (East German Politburo official): No, I don't think so. Ah... [talks for three minutes] And therefore, ah, we have decided on a new regulation today that makes it possible for every citizen of the GDR, ah, to exit via border crossing points of the, ah, GDR.
Ehrman: Without a passport?
Krzysztof Janowski (reporter, Voice of America): From when does that apply?
Schabowski: What?
Peter Brinkmann (reporter, Bild): At once? At...?
Schabowski: [Scratches head] Well, comrades, I was informed today …[puts on his glasses, reads out press release on visa authorization procedure]
Ehrman: With a passport?
Schabowski: [Reads out rest of press release, says he doesn't know the answer on passports]
Second East German official: The substance of the announcement is the important thing...
Schabowski: ...is the...
Fourth reporter: When does that go into effect?
Schabowski: [Rustles through his papers] That goes, to my knowledge, that is...immediately. Without delay.
Sources: DDR1 archive footage, WSJ research

Nobel, Nationality and Venky Ramakrishnan

A very interesting news appeared in "The Hindu" http://beta.thehindu.com/sci-tech/article33379.ece?homepage=true . Given that Venky was born in Chidambaram every Tamilian now wants to say hello, in the internet age its easy and Venky's email id is listed too. Apparently Venky is not amused, "All sorts of people from India have been writing to me, clogging up my email box. It takes me an hour or two to just remove their mails. Do these people have no consideration? It is OK to take pride in the event, but why bother me....There are also people who have never bothered to be in touch with me for decades who suddenly feel the urge to connect. I find this strange..People I don’t know, for example a Mr. Govindrajan, claim that they were my teachers at Annamalai University which I never attended".

The cream goes to his remark, "I, personally, am not important. The fact that I am of Indian origin is even less important. We are all human beings, and our nationality is simply an accident of birth".

The enthusiasm of Indians is understandable given that only two Indians have won Nobel as Indian citizens for work done in India (Tagore and C.V.Raman). Amartya Sen got it as Indian citizen but his work was mainly outside India, Theresa's work was in Indian but she was only a naturalized citizen. In a nation starved for global achievers Venky, Rahman, Tendulkar etc are being loaded with expectations and good will.

Was Venky being churlish in his reaction? Not in the least bit. Other than his official biography listing where he studied or where he works we know little of the man, why he left India etc. For a scientist who forsook his adopted homeland, USA, to go to Cambridge for the sake of academic climate, that too with a pay cut, nationalities matter little. National pride, linguistic pride, chaunistic pride in ones own ethnic culture are all very important only for those who have little else to be proud about.

What does Venky owe India, intellectually? I guess nothing and thats the most important aspect. I've often been asked about my lack of pride in my mother-tongue and ethnicity. What can I say except that much of what I respect and love is not in Tamil or in Tamil Nadu. Like Johnson said, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

I appreciate Venky's honesty. S.Chandrasekhar, nobel in astrophysics for defining the death of a star (Chandrasekhar limit), was hypocritical on this score. Chandra was sent to UK, to study under none other than Eddington, on Indian tax payer money. The scholarship stipulated that he return back and work in India. Chandra returned back and was asked to work in some lowly position in some government observatory. Chandra petitioned Nehru that he should be released from the obligation as India could not offer him anything commensurate to his abilities. Being Nehru he was obliged. Chandra, promptly left for US and did his research on the death of stars. Much later in an interview with his biographer he objected to brain drain.

Commenting on the rumor that he was offered the top most job in India's premier lab, Venky replied, "Nobody has approached me about an offer to work in India. However, I can categorically state that if they did so, I would refuse immediately".

Contrary to India, USA recognizes that most Nobels this year, though awarded to Americans, went mostly to immigrants. While it is comforting that US is still a magnet for scientific talent America is deeply concerned at the disproportionate number of immigrants as PhD's and the fact that Americans themselves are not pursuing higher education seriously. In fact America has to do more on the green card and visa front to attract talent more vigorously. In a globalised world America cannot afford to "assume" that talent will flock here. Venky himself now works in Cambridge UK than here in US. He prefers Cambridge, for many academic reasons despite the fact that he had to take pay cut.

Einstein lived for many years with no nationality. The entire world is home to genius.Let us celebrate achievements, let us celebrate genius and not get into parochial claims of nationalities.

A nobel for utopia and empty speeches.

The Nobel Peace prize has shamed itself into ignominy today by awarding a fatuous speaker who belts out rhetoric blather. The prize for Barack Obama evoked worldwide surprise and shock depending on who heard it. Surprise for his flock of devotees, shock for his detractors. Anyway the world dropped a collective jaw. We hear that the press hearing the committee announcement gasped. Barack took office on Jan 21st 2009, the nominations for the prize ended on Feb 1st 2009. He surely now ranks as an outlandish case of winning Nobel for 15 days of work.

Barack is the third sitting president to win the peace prize. Woodrow Wilson won it for creating the League of Nations, Teddy Roosevelt won for negotiating the end of Russo-Japanese war and Barack won for.....ah well nobody knows. Carter won it in more as a slap for Bush, Al Gore won for some scaremongering on Climate. Even with dubious merits both Carter and Gore had done some work.

Then there is Gorbachev who tore down an empire, AAng San Suu Kyi living a life of imprisonment, Anwar Sadat & Menachem Begin won for an audacious peace making, Shimon Peres And Arafat too got for peacemaking, Theresa got for a lifetime of service, Martin Luther King for lifetime service...

The Nobel citation says the award was for reaching out and proving negotiations help solve problem. Americans are scratching their heads to find out which problem got solved. The Cairo speech was wonderful rhetoric. Many muslims who listened inside the hall where happy to see a non-white male US president talk to them but many underscored that they would wait and judge based on what further actions Obama took. Apparently the Nobel committee felt no need to wait. He reached out yes and what did US get in return. Pakistan is in flames over US aid. Iran is still gesticulating. Iraqis want America to get out. Afhganistan is imploding.

On national security issue for fear of being seen as a weakling Obama actually has toed the Bush line much to the chagrin of his beloved left wing supporters. Guantanomo will be shut down but nobody knows when. CIA interrogation tapes are to be a secret. FISA bill, authorizing wire taps was voted with then Senator Obama's vote.

On Iran and negotiation its an abysmal record. Today US is threatening Iran with more stringent sanctions. Ah yes in that process US president was lectured by, of all people, a French President on the need to be resolute.

The Nobel prize is usually a capstone, a recognition of a lifetime achievement not an encuragement bromide for utopian lotus eaters.

Today the Nobel Prize has become like a "Kalaimamani" award in Tamil Nadu. Thankfully I wrote my blog on Nobel's before this and the reason I outlined, politicisation of the Peace andLiterature awards, has been proven to be valid.

Given that many a deserving soul lives outside media glare I cannot judge who else is suitable. But how about Bill Gates. The man has not only donated his entire, hard earned fortune, he has completely redesigned how philanthropy is done. How about Bill Clinton whose stellar work in Africa, getting AIDS medicines cheaper by negotiating with drug companies, has saved thousands of lives? How about Garry Kasparov who is waging a struggle against a repressive regime?

Thanks to Bush, hatred of Bush I mean, Obama won the presidency. Now Carter, Gore and Obama all need to collectively thank Bush for their Nobels.

2009 Nobel Prizes: Stellar year for Women and Diversity

The 2009 Nobel Prizes for Physics, Chemistry and Medicine were announced this week. We still await the prizes for literature, Peace and Economics. Of those the prize on Economics is not really a Nobel. The literature and peace prizes, especially the latter, are politicized. Hence this is a suitable juncture to blog on something wonderful this year. 3 women have won the prize this year. The other winners are an Indian (Tamilian), an Israeli (a woman), British, Canadian etc. Most of the prizes have been awarded to US citizens as most winners hold a US passport. Several, though hold dual citizenship. As a country US has garnered the most but its mostly thanks to immigrants.

For those who often question the practical applicability of the prize winning researches this year's topics are a resounding answer. The Chemistry winners research in RNA had spawned many a life saving antibiotic, the Physics winners in fiber optics made todays communication technologies a reality and for a device (CCD-Charge Couple Device) that is found on every digital camera or camcorder today, the Medicine winners have tapped into an area that can change how we treat cancer. The Medicine Prize and the Chemistry prizes have interesting angles to them.

The Medicine prize was awarded to three researchers, two wome, for their theories concerning "telomerase" an enzyme that is essential to protect 'telomeres' (the tips of DNA strands). NYT helpully served an analogy for telomeres. Telomeres are like the ends of shoe laces that are 'holding the strands together'. But for the telomeres when a chromosome divides the DNA strand would become unravelled. The enzyme 'telomerase' governs the function of telomeres. As we age the 'telomeres', the tip of a chromosome, becomes thinner and thinner during divisions and at one point the cell stops dividing. On the other hand cancer cells multiply because their telomeres are strong. Controlling telomeres could help medical researchers in their holy grail, defeating cancer.

How did 2 women, Elizabeth H. Blackburn of the University of California, San Francisco; Carol W. Greider of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, come about in the same field and win in the same year. "Dr. Greider said she ascribed this to a “founder effect,” the founder being Joseph Gall of Yale University. Dr. Gall trained Dr. Blackburn and other women, and they recruited others to the field “because there is a slight tendency for women to work with other women,” Dr. Greider said. She herself trained with Dr. Blackburn."

Also it is now noted that the paucity of women laureates has less to do with relative merits of the intelligence of women but more to do with the fact that researches are often awarded a prize decades after. The researches in telomeres dates back to early eighties just when women started breaking many a glass barrier. In the coming years we will hope to see more and I fondly hope my daughter would join their ranks too.

The Chemistry prize winner Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, other than his humble origin, is interesting for the fact that he is a PHYSICIST. HIs undergrad, postgrad, PhD were all in Physics. Right after that he started work in the Chemistry department of Yale. Yet again we are reminded of how Chemistry skates close to Physics (http://www.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/ribo/homepage/ramak/education.html) . The Nobel citation also noted another fact, the three chemists who are sharing the prize did not collaborate but were more like competitors unusual for a shared citation. Often the preponderance of Jews is cited in unfavorable light. The Israeli chemist to win,Ada E. Yonath, is a woman.

When I was reading Marie Curie's biography I was struck by her upbringing. While she is rare genius (won both the Physics and Chemistry prize) her childhood had all the marks of a very scientifically literate upbringing thanks to her dad. NYT article on the medicine winners notes "All three of the prize winners seem to have had science in their genes, and certainly in their home environment. Dr. Greider is the daughter of two scientists with doctorates from the University of California, Berkeley, and she, too, has a Ph.D. from there. Dr. Szostak’s father was an engineer. Both of Dr. Blackburn’s parents were physicians". Malcolm Gladwell would play havoc with this info.

"Though Americans have again made a clean sweep of the Nobel medicine prize, two of the three winners are immigrants. Dr. Blackburn was born in Tasmania, Australia, and has dual citizenship; Dr. Szostak was born in London" (NYT). Amongst the Physics winners "All three of the winning scientists hold American citizenship. Dr. Kao, 75, was born in Shanghai and is also a British citizen, and Dr. Boyle, 85, is also a Canadian citizen". The Chemistry team is diverse with an American (of Indian origin) currently working in Cambridge-UK, an Israeli and an American.

One parting thought though. This is the second year in a row where the Physics prize is awared to theories that have had direct consumer impact. Last years prize went to the theories behind what made Ipods and other electronic devices possible. Is the Nobel committee straying from its adherence of awarding mostly to "theoretical physicists". Experimental physicists, most notably Edison, are usually given the cold shoulder by Nobel committees.

A wonderful year for diversity and science. Three cheers.