Another day, another topic.
I write this as India play Australia and from what I see at the moment, are going to feel the aftermath of the game pretty bad.
There are of course, two things to look into, here.
To start with, are the public going to be mad? you bet. By the time of the third powerplay, the look on Dravid's face was one of desperation. Not to save the game perhaps-more on how he is going to protect his wife and child from all the servings that they are going to feel down their spine.
Let's start with the objective part of the episode. When India lose (which they will-that is a certainty), would i say they were outplayed by a classier opposition? No.
Not because the aussies aren't good. But here i guess they didn't need any class; they would have won with a second string team as well. was 250 enough? am not really sure, though of course, it has been time since some of our top guns really delivered. but with a good bowling attack, one might argue that probably the target is enough.
But the key word here is good.
Our bowlers looked hardly better than some net practice youngsters on display. Pathan was pathetic, Munaf was murdered and as far as sreesanth goes, i can only say he bowled like s***. when dinesh mongia is the best bowler on display, then you have a really bad bowling attach. Dravid had limited choice debating to himself as to who should not bowl the next over. And if this keeps happening as a regular feature, then we have no business playing cricket at all. It might be easier sitting and typing all this on my computer but then this is exactly their job. I agree that the pressure of playing for one of the subcontinental teams is overwhelming but it is simply inexcusable that the players we have can only do this much. And the faster pacers could barely touch the 80mph line so what i really wonder is why India has and probably will never produce any genuine fast bowler when Pakistan do so regularly? Aren't we of the same build, race and other commonalities?
Finally, how are the public going to respond? in typical manic fashion. I'm sure this will give NDTV and CNN-IBN a good slot on their new programs but the real fact is that we applaud too quick and bring out the brickbats equally quickly. And there, I fully support the team. There is no reason whatsoever to respond violently especially towards them or their families. And till we learn to control our emotions instead of always wearing it our sleeves, we are bound to see the dirt time and again.
Hopefuly, the SA-Australia match will be of more interest to the cricket lover.

An (interesting) thought occurred to me on the way to my office today.
more so, it occurred when i ran into one of the other TAs in the elevator(another sign of americanization-not saying lift!).

it seems to me that when one is in a PhD program, there are distinct stages, and irrespective of what area one might be working in, one can identify(diagnose is a better word) which stage they are currently residing in.
Of course, i am not saying anything new or anything that does not feature quite brilliantly in 'Piled higher and deeper' but here are my 2 cents.
the actual problem is that a phd is a real commitment - far more serious than anything one might have indulged in for a while. and as the extent of seriousness begins to sink in, the personality of the person slowly transforms, with some obvious visible changes.

the first real sign that a phd student has that feeling of getting into quagmire can be experienced by just posing the casual question, "How are you?"
a normal person would give a nonchalant answer or sometimes even an automated response - ranging from 'ok', 'fine','good','great' or by simply ignoring the question and then moving onto the next topic of discussion(if there need be one).
The interlocuter, or the investigator(if one might call them that) takes no offense with the kind of answer given, including the non-response since the question is more akin to a singer clearing his/her throat before taking off - that is obviously not part of the main course.
But to a phd student in his mid - phd crisis(and there is always one-i have noticed this by talking/observing lots of specimens in various phd programs) this question is as serious as any other. and the worst thing is - he/she doesn't know the answer!
take time to notice the response to this question from a phd student(i am not exempt from this - in fact i was my first specimen under the microscope). usually the person goes into some thought indulging himself (i say 'him' merely because my identifiability is more; female reactions might be just as exact and i am not excluding them by any means) in the following manner:

what form must your answer take? the truth? or the usual inane one-liner? being in a phd program of course puts you so to speak on the path of unravelling the truth. and usually the truth regarding this question is that you have lost any feeling, so to give an answer to that question is not really within your area of expertise. and to falsify an answer to a question as simple as this would be ironic to the whole agenda of being a 'truth-finder', something you think is what a researcher is......

and this indecision is clearly visible in the few moments of wildly staring at the ceiling, or the floor, or anything in between before he usually compromises to one of, 'uh huh', 'hmm...', 'well,.....', or the best of the lot,'....,'so-so...(sometimes followed by) i think'.

as i said, this post was inspired by my morning conv. it roughly went like this. i usually take the backstairs from the TA mailroom and then climb up one floor before heading back to the elevator (why i do this i don't know!). This guy met me in the TA mailroom, and then we again met in the elevator on the second floor (he of course, walked to the elevator on the ground level itself, something normal people do). After getting into the elevator and savoring our 'different' paths, the conv. went thus:

He: "..so, how are you?"
Me: " uh?"
He: "I said how are you?"
Me: "...uh..(staring at the floor for a while, then finally shrugging my shoulders and i think, smiling).. ok..just the usual.."

Then i returned the same.
Me: " so how about you?"
He: "......."
and then he got off the elevator.

I have added my latest composition to my homepage(music page)

www.math.ohio-state.edu/~niranj/music.html

Here are my comments on the composition.

The piece emerged out of all the walks back home from the department, usually after sunset(hence the name!). I refined the piece more and more during the walks, before I started writing the score.
One important thing to composing (and this is from my personal experience) is that one must have a certain sound one wants to listen to while composing. Spontaneity is of course a very important aspect
to composing; lesser mortals like myself cannot be too rigid with certain ideas. For instance, I have a certain guitar strumming sound as the beginning of this piece. I was at the composing console and was trying some plug-ins and this particular sound (the one that you actually listen to in this piece) was not what I had in mind. But it sort of felt different from what I had in mind (that was more 'vanilla' strumming!) and so it decided to retain this.
One new feature was trying some canon-like counterpoint with the string sections(right at the beginning).

So here's the actual question: Is there any reason to regard the word 'Materialistic' as purposive of the associated meaning?
or to put it plainly, What is Materialism?
Now, this is of course not for me to lecture about since i really know nothing about most things in this world/Universe/whatever be that superset in question.
Friend' argues that any materialistic comfort/pleasure that be obtained in the US can also be done so in India and to him that was the clenching argument to our discussion last night.
BUt i think the rabbit hole is a bit deeper here since it begs the question," What constitutes Materialism?"
Take a refridgerator for instance. Is it a luxury item? certainly not,(i should know more so since i have been at the receving end of having once,albeit ignorantly consumed food that had gone stale, despite the fridge) since it has become a means of storage. so it is regarded as necessity by most of us and is not to be bracketted as a luxury product.
But would i call having a fridge a materialistic comfort?
In real philosophical terms,the answer is(should be) yes. Friend' also would agree here.
one could now start listing all the new-end products from Apple here and term all of those materialistic and now it becomes apparent that this is not going to answer the question, 'what constitutes materialism?' that quickly. at least, not in terms of time.
i think a better way around is to start looking at what is certainly not materialistic.
one often hears these comments, " what one really seeks is not the pleasures of the flesh
or the derivaties of money. Real pleasure is looking at sunrise from the top of a hill or watching animals skip by in a meadow" or whatever.
Certainly the kind of imagery that is dreamt up here evokes very warm feelings in most of us. But then, you are talking of those things after having all the things you have now. You certainly need a nice car that takes you to that high hill and probably would love to listen to MS's voice with the suprabhatam in the morning. It is certainly a different kind of pleasure from say, going to a nightclub, but that is also materialism.
most people would certainly hate to look at the sun rising from on top that same wonderful hill when on an empty stomach or when they have to walk all the way up that hill, or stay out in the wilderness for a week. In that case, most of us would only complain of the lack of sanitary amenities, the pestering mosquitoes and of course, that blasted #$%^& sun that woke you up just when you were considering reconciliation with the mosquitoes.
In short, you are away from your usual life and that is certainly not to your liking. This is again an instance of materialism.
I have not been very fussy about my requirements during my student life in india. i have lived in very terrible rooms, had hoplessly bad sanitation facilities, travelled uncomfortably and unsafely(simultaneous on some occasions) and so on, so i could possibly say that my adaptability to new environment is not to be classified as fussy.
But after 5 yrs of living in the US, i could certainly not do any of the aforementioned. Not because i have the money to spend and am from the US! But because certain things are now taken for granted when living here in the US; despite all those terrible temperatures in winter, there is extreme comfort inside a car, building apartment or wherever. These are not luxuries, but necessities in this country.
Something becomes a necessity when you get used to that so much that getting out of it seems (possibly for some time,maybe even an year or two) insurmountable.
most people in india have not been exposed to certain comforts; i remember distinctly, our housemaid in india lamenting about the terrible heat in summer and how our place was so mcuh cooler. personally i thought our place was a furnace but then realised that we were speaking in relative terms-she had no fan at home.
now to most earning people, this is a necessity in india but to people like that poor lady, it was still a luxury. So if we are to term something as materialistic or not without getting relative about it, it is necessary to include all these under the blanket of materialism as well.
so then what would constitute non-materialism?
i would say-an indifference to the above. Now i am not saying that a non-materialistic person doesn't find chennai hot or sweltering. probably does, but then (s)he might considering walking out of chennai to survive the onslaught of the summer there.
That almost sounds like ascetism doesn't it?
Friend' wanting to live in chennai again is materialism.
i am certainly materialistic going by that count and i don't deny it at all. I would find it unbearable now to live without the internet!
But when i find a person sitting on a comfortable kashmiri rug in temperature controlled environs with the sweet smell of camphor wafting through the air, talk of the pleasures of non-materialism, i feel like saying, man, give me a break!
is nonmaterialism really on the path to spirituality? i don't know-maybe it is or maybe it is simply self-denial for no good 'reason'. maybe someday one might find these better answers to these questions.
Till tehni shall invoke the principle of 'Mu'-a buddhist Zen philosophy that 'unasks' questions. Why trouble your head asking these questions?!

This topic might appear a bit philosophical but i wouldn't read too much into that.

tonight's dinner with a couple of friends touched upon a rather interesting note. One of the friends in question is an old friend from ISI days and the other guy is his dept mate-both statisticians. for notational convenience i shall refer to my old time friend as friend and the other as friend'( in usual math terms that would be friend-derived and that sort of makes sense in this situation too).
as we flitted from topic to topic like the proverbial bee, we landed on the possibility of the son/daughter of friend' being a future OSU student. he dismissed it as highly unlikely. turns out, the guy has certain plans of getting back to india after his PhD. and the guy being a chennai-ite all his life(he is gult though), began talking of chennai with a fondness that made it clear that nostalgia was still in the air.
now this is great for that guy. personally, i just couldn't decide upon such things at all. if one were to be able to make decisions without having to toggle with various choices(which invariably make life more miserable-probably that is what the Buddha means by saying that desire is the source of all misery). In fact i would go on to say that i probably would prefer that my (future) wife be as confused on these issues as i am - the reason is that a clear choice by the other person would force my hand too and i just don't want that, but here i digress.
the point that began a sort of debate was his 'reasoning' to conclude why his going back home was indeed best for him.
Now i don't consider arguments such as, 'I would love to eat all that chat by the roadside','Love to watch a game of cricket at Chepauk', 'love to walk on marina beach in the night', and so on as any real 'reasons' at all. Let me clarify; if one wishes to go back home, then they need not justify their stance at all.
The aforementioned are not 'reasons' because of two reasons:
a) They are more nostalgic and that only means that your good memories are still fresh in your head.
b) They assume that the pleasures one had during a certain phase of life(in this case, student life in india) remain unchangeable.
c) They assume that there are no such parallels in the world elsewhere.

The nostalgia part is still ok; one could after all call patriotism, a form of nostalgia and associated good feelings are indeed an indicator of what one would want to do/not do. But these statements are certainly youth-centric; they are certain to change with time. The guy apparently watched the historic india-pakistan test at chennai(when sachin scored that magnificent 4th innings century and india went on to lose by 12 runs) at chepauk; i am not too sure he can do it after being 'pampered' here in the US conditions of having air-conditioning all the time-taking april-chennai-midday-heat is no mean feat now.
my second objection is slightly more valid. One finds it difficult to travel by public bus transport in india now because it is a little too inconvenient. and i mean that physically.
and i said the same to him.
he asked me to explain. so i told him what i say now; there are 2 types of comfort one can experience-a physical and a mental one. Physical comfort more broadly speaking refers to our way of living now and mental comfort refers to the kind of environment we would prefer to live in. What we generally call a state of comfort is a sort of combination of these two. and one's comfort zone and priorities are generally a measure of how much each type is important to that inidividual.
now friend' disagrees(i use the simple present because when he had to get off home after dinner, he was still completely unconvinced). He believes that any lifestyle here in the US is possible in india as well within his income range(considering he does land a pretty decent job there).
And i somehow find this hard to believe. For instance, you cannot purchase a huge house in chennai as he could here-the cost of such a mansion would be beyond his purse. and he cannot have the AC in his house turned on all the time-he'd go broke just paying his electricity bill. and there is simply no comparision when it comes to sound pollution-in india, it is very difficult to avoid that when you live in a big city.
Again, let me clarify; i don't paint all the indian cities as terrible hellholes-they have their niceties and that's what makes them special in their own way but when it comes to living comfy, i think living in the US has that edge.
at this point he used an M-word which i felt was needless.
he asked me if i meant Materialistic comport.
probably that is what i meant but that word especially in the indian psyche has such a pejorative connotation that it is difficult to overlook the condescendence. friend' is certainly not a weasel so he didn't have the intention of being condescending whatsoever but i think it is all in that word more than anything else.
and that is really the point i want to address. That i shall do so on the next post.

i saw this video on youtube:



This was an episode from the Daily Show featuring guest Pervez Musharraf.
Firstly, what the Pakistani president seems to be doing as propaganda is very interesting-i mean, he actually appeared on The Daily Show, for christs sake!
And to me, he seemed pretty much unflustered, very calm, retaining a certain degree of humor(well, the interview wasn't typical JS type - pulling the leg humor). But there were a couple of real high points. Firstly JS offered some 'quality tea'(it seemed to have some Urdu written on the bottle) and after Musharraf took his seat, JS casually slipped in," So, Where is Osama bin Laden?!!". Musharraf's face told it all! But to his credit, he managed to give a reasonably good answer.
And at the end of the interview, JS took Musharraf through a 'tricky' question on the "Hot Seat" part of the daily show. The question posed was, "If there is an election today in pakistan and the contenders are Osama bin Laden and George Bush, who would win?"!!
I think Musharraf came up with a pretty good and diplomatic answer there. To me the bigger thing is that Musharraf seems to be trying his best to portray the moderate face of Pakistan as hard as he can and get the western world to disassociate them from the terrorist loonies from the "Axis-of-evil Iraq, Iran" and Afghanistan.
Much of the interview of course had to do with his book, 'In the Line of Fire'.

See the video - it is pretty good material.