Srinivasa Vardhan

Have you ever heard of S. R. Srinivasa Vardhan?

I bet you haven't.
This is a country that worships cricketers and movie stars. How could you have ever heard of a mathematician of International repute!!!

He is the only Indian to have won the Abel Prize. This prize is also known as the Mathematician's Nobel Prize. He received this Prize in 2007. And I do not recollect his photograph splashed across the front page of any paper or magazine, but then I do not read all the newspapers and magazines, and my memory is diminishing with age. In any case, I am quite certain there was no hoopla that was associated with, say, Sushmita Sen or even Amartya Sen.

Oh by the way, the Indian government has conferred upon him the Padma Bhushan in 2008 - AFTER he received the Abel Prize.

If you click on the 2008 list, you will also see a host of names, along with Mr. Vardhan's. How many of these can you recognise? Are we giving Padma awards to too many people?

Bindeshwar Pathak

Bindeshwar who?
You are unlikely to know this name unless you are preparing for the Civil Services Exams or you read newspapers till page 12.
Bindeshwar Pathak has been awarded the 2009 Stockholm Water Prize - equivalent to Nobel Prize on Environmental Issues. And the headline (if you can call it that at page 12 of the Times of India) merely mentions "Sanitation expert bags Water Prize" - no name in the headline. Contrast this with the star status accorded to Amartya Sen for a pseudo-Nobel Prize on Economics. This in an era when environmental issues need to be addressed with screaming headlines on the front pages of every newspaper and magazine (imagine the awareness that would come if everyday the headlines of all newspapers talk of environmental issues.)

Still do not know who Bindeshwar Pathak is?
Seen Sulabh Toilets?
Ah! Now you know him!

Death of Newspapers

Bloggers of various reputes predict the death of newspapers (in paper form). In fact they have been doing so for some time now. This includes Seth Godin, who I admire for his views.

However, I think their viewing window is very myopic. And they talk only of US. Welcome to India. Find out the depth of digital penetration. Walk into any store (not just supermarkets); check out the number of magazines that line up the racks - they are gone by the end of the week/month. Magazines and Newspapers are not going to die out any time soon. In fact, the circulation is growing. Vernacular Newspapers, such as Dainik Bhaskar, is now pushing into the metros.

I am not so sure about US either. I talked to a regular Kindle user - from US - just the other day. He is an avid reader. So I asked him if he subscribes to newspapers on Kindle. "No", he said, "the format is not what I expected. It is no fun."

The argument against newspapers is that a) it is expensive b) the news is old by the time you read it. Inexpensive is a game even newspapers can play. As it is, in India at least, it is not expensive at all. Besides, everyone knows that newspapers do not contain breaking news. Newspapers have an advantage that digital free-for-all versions do not. And that is this: It is organized news. And it gives you all relevant news with the least effort. Try gathering all news in the newspaper on the internet and see how much time you need to spend. Not everyone needs news instantaneously. But everyone needs them organized. Therein lies the key to newspaper survival.

Personally, I cannot see myself in the toilet with a Kindle in my hand. Give me the rustle of newspaper any day.

Do you agree? Or do you see death written on the face of paper newspapers and magazines

PS: Didn't realize who Malcolm is? Seth is talking, in his blog, of Malcolm Gladwell, the author of Outliers, The Tipping Point and Blink. Do read the review by Malcolm Gladwell (link in Seth's Blog). It is very interesting and designed to provoke varied reactions.

To all my women readers

Today is International Women's Day (IWD).

It is almost impossible to determine its relevance to the women because of the product-marketing-like atmosphere created by the newspapers - I have nothing personal against Kareena Kapoor but I cannot see why a newspaper has to call a film actress to be the guest editor.

So, just to understand - if you could be bothered, that is: Is IWD relevant to you? How?

I once asked the women folks in my office if they knew why 8th March is celebrated as the IWD. Not one knew. Do you?

Check out the Official Website of IWD to know more.

Picture courtesy: Hilde Vanstraelen

Present and Immediate Danger

It took me a long time to figure this out but I have got it in the end.
I think.

Ok! Here's a question for you: Assume you know someone obese and he has a 80% chance of getting an heart attack in the next 10 years; and he is offered a medical insurance. Which insurance should he take?

a) Insurance that covers all his heart related disease.
b) Insurance that covers diabetes.
c) Insurance that covers all diseases.

If you have answered (a), then you are like the rest of us. Absolutely logical. But like most of us, wrong.
You see, (c) is a super set of (a) and (b) - (c) automatically covers (a) and (b).

What do you think the insurance man agent is going to push for?
You are right. (a). He may not even mention (c). Nor will the insuree - is that the word - ask about it.
The chances are that the premium for (a) is higher because the demand for (a) is higher.

We, humans, are wired to take into account present and immediate threat. That has saved us as a race for the last few million years. 'Present and Immediate' means we can see these threats coming. But this can also makes us vulnerable to hype. We can be made to see things that would otherwise not be apparent to us.

We can 'see' Global Warming coming, can we not?

We can see factories bellowing thick, black smoke.
We can see white, harmful smoke from the cars.
Our eyes sting when we stop at traffic lights and vehicles are idling.
We feel warmer every summer.

The obvious conclusion as repeated ad nauseum by magazines and newspapers is that the green house gas will cause global warming. And we are concerned.

We should be. Or should we be?

What about the good old concern about pollution?

In all this hype(?) about Global Warming, I rarely read any more about the impact of air pollution on our health.
What about the polluted rivers?
They don't cause Global Warming (or perhaps they do - I am sure some causal relationship can be figured out if you try hard enough) so you don't get to hear about that any more.

Tell me frankly. When was the last time you read an article in newspaper or a magazine the number of deaths due to pollution? Think hard.

Hmmm... sometimes, it is good to react to the 'present and immediate'.
I am all for systemic analysis (more on that in my blog, shortly) and take into account "in the long run" but for that we need to be alive in the long run.

Now consider the impact of taking away the present and immediate threat (pollution) and replacing this with a bigger picture (Gloal Warming).
Because pollution is no longer in our mind, we click our disapproval at all those people (always the other people) causing Global Warming when we read the newspapers, but do nothing about it.
We continue to air our disapproval but do not think twice while driving down to the nearest departmental store.

What do you think will affect us more?
a) A daily headline in the newspaper screaming number of hospitalisation and deaths due to pollution
b) A daily headline in the newspaper telling us about the possibilities of Global Warming in 20 years.


If you have answered (a), then you are like the rest of us. Absolutely logical. And correct.

Note: The picture used belongs to "jaylopez" (see gallery)