Believe it or not. Its a Revolution.

We have been hearing so much about this guy over the last couple of years. He started out in the public domain as a hitherto unknown character - He began by associating himself with an anti-corruption movement (started out by Anna Hazare), stuck with him for a decently prolonged period of time before he realized that months of hard work by Team Anna led them to where it all started. Nothing seemed to have changed. I personally remember newspapers and TV channels actively covering the protest marches, demonstrations/sit-downs at Jantar Mantar during the initial couple of months. There were leaders and aspiring leaders who came offering support, everyday mainstream discussions started focusing more on corruption and there was a rising energy within us which was probably unseen in the more recent past. Then came the fake political promises to get Anna off the podium [Manmohan and his entire cabinet virtually shut office for few days to manage the crisis] and somehow the political diaspora managed to shut it down. No longer were people so actively talking about it. People were somehow getting tired of seeing the same scene play out again and again. It did not die down entirely, however the flames were no longer visible. It was ashes all around.

Then this guy thought of taking a different path. Yes, he had propagated against taking this path earlier. But when conventional methods do not work, one has got to do things differently. This is also what is known as Innovation. This guy did nothing but innovate and did a marvelous job at it. He stormed Delhi to power within 2 years beating the likes of multiple times Chief Ministerial candidate hands down and by a margin which is humiliating. How did he do it? How is it possible for a newbie political party to win such an extravagant voteshare in such a short period of time [I think there is no more interesting case study than this one. Harvard, you listening?]. There have been instances of individuals (celebrities, social activists) winning seats previously but I do not recollect any activist movement hitting it so hard and so quick. To be fair, the Delhi election results was a shocker. There was immense disbelief as to what had happened. The political parties who had virtually dismissed the the new outfit as fly-by-night phenomenon suddenly seemed to have awoken from a deep sleep. The citizens (likes of you and me) were shocked too. What had happened was that the Delhi junta had voted for a party solely based on the themes which they fought over the past two years i.e. Weeding out corruption, taking power out off the hands of the political masters and bringing in more transparency. And we cheered them on. Everybody cheered the newcomer.

Coming to Power: Many among us condemn this guy for accepting power and taking support from a political party which they so vehemently opposed. Some think that he became power hungry, some think of his party just being a B-team of the incumbent party, some opine that he had no option but to accept it as it was a mandate given to them. I also assume that had he not accepted responsibility, this guy would still have been criticized. Maybe the criticism would have been manifold. However, the truth is that he came to power and he came with a purpose.

49 days in Delhi: This would probably go down as one the most happening period in Delhi's political history. There was action, drama, lights, sound ! Just all of it. There were new announcements everyday by the new government. Starting with their poll promise of free water, reducing electricity bills to ordering CAG Audits of power discoms to creating night shelters using abandoned buses to the swift creation of a strong Anti-corruption bureau. There was action everywhere. It seemed that Delhi was the new India for a couple of months and there was no news from anywhere else. And then it happened with a bang. The guy resigned over the non-passage of the Janlokpal bill (which btw was the seed of the party's emergence) and declared his intentions to contest nationally.

Did he do wrong by resigning? I do not think so. The fact is that we are at a stage where we do not have a luxury called time. We just cannot afford to let one more corrupt government rule for another 5 years. Its not in question anymore. Many critics (among them my many friends) are simply voting for a major political party because they think India needs a stable government. My friends, I simply ask that what use is stability if it would not lead to change from out current state of distress (We are currently 94th on the Global Corruption perception index, we are in the bottom quartile in Asia with respect to the entrepreneurial climate, we have massive economic inequality in our system which breeds out millionaires as well as criminals at a same speed, we have a crawling judicial system which leads to court cases pending in the system for tens of years, we have a defunct police system where ordinary citizens are asked for bribes for as things as simple as lodging an FIR or getting a passport, we have swathes of people from the rural and semi urban India who are unemployed and gradually veer towards the criminal side and not to mention the extremist developments in most of India's hinterland and the list would just go on). And I sincerely believe that both the mainstream political parties lack the political will to challenge any of these grave concerns. Had they been concerned about the state of affairs, we would not be in this situation post 66 years of our independence. One party is gracefully accepting tainted leaders of the other and projecting the image of a Gujarat leader as the one and only messiah for the nation. Really?

I believe that from here on, we have two choices in front of us. One is a more fundamental change which changes the very way we live our daily lives and can bring on a a prosperity which would be unseen in world's history. Prosperity which not only focuses on a few industrial houses but to the common man as well. This change cannot happen overnight as it calls for a systemic shift in the way we think and behave. This is the change which this new guy (ex-Delhi CM) is trying to bring upon. The other choice is a get-rich-quick scheme which may lead to a stock market boom for the next couple of years but would not help us truly shift from our status quo.

I strongly believe that we are witnessing a revolution. Its a revolt against all the political masters who have diligently and unashamedly kept us bereft of development and looted the public money for their own greed. Its a challenge to all those pseudo-secularists who tom-tom the song of securalism just before elections and in the hindsight threaten the unity and fabric of the nation. Its a challenge for the ugly side of the bureaucracy who have stifled the very spirit of the country by engaging in corrupt activities and making it so ever-pervasive in all forms of life. Its a challenge to all of us to vote not for the 'one' leader but to the leader in our own constituency who is not tainted and can bring upon a meaningful change.

AAP is just the face of the revolution.

Facebook or fadebook?

What's up with the Facebook mania nowadays? Is it over? Has it just started? Or is it just cruising along its path in a manner as an aircraft which cruises at a defined speed smoothly at super high altitudes?

I somehow feel that Mark Zuckerberg has played a mastergame. He waited and waited for an IPO till he was convinced that Facebook had reached a "cruising altitude" and ended up with a fortune. I seriously doubt that Facebook will cross its IPO valuation ever. Well, loads has been written about its valuation and I won't dare to compete with the finance pundits out there on whether Facebook was rightly priced or was it just a blown-up facade. I am simply trying to predict whether this engine has got what it takes to be a miracle of the sorts some of the others have experienced. Take a case for example, Google debuted in 2004 with an IPO price of $85/share and a market cap of $23 Billion. Today in a span of less than 10 years its stock price has moved to $470/share with a market cap $243 Billion. With some math, that's almost like a 10 fold increase in shareholder value within a decade.  All this while keeping its core competency permanent and dissolute. Compare this with Facebook - the social networking website debuted with a stock price of $38/share with a staggering valuation of $104 Billion in May 2012. Today as I am writing this it is struggling at three-fourths of its stock valuation with a market cap of nearly $66 Billion. This after it had crashed to almost half its value within a month of its debut. It's still early days for the social networking giant and it would be unfair to dismiss it plain and simple. But it does raises some serious questions about its future and does it have the capability to even double its market value in 10 years time let alone reaching a multiple of 10 (that's almost a trillion dollars)!!

To delve into that and being a consultant foremost, I would begin with the value addition that Facebook brings to the universe. Investopedia describes Value addition as "The enhancement a company gives its product or service before offering the product to customers". The product that facebook offers is tremendous in the sense that people can actually peek into others' lives anytime they want (I am discounting the privacy settings here :D). It has supposedly brought the world closer and more networked than ever before. People can see what their friends, relatives and acquaintances are up to, what places they have been to, what they are eating, what they are wearing and all such crazy stuff. They share their birthdays, marriages, anniversaries and celebratory events in their day-to-day lives with hundreds and hundreds of "friends" and "acquaintances". In fact, some research has even proved that the usual six degrees of separation has come down to around 3.5 with the advent of the social networking phenomenon. But before I digress, let me come down to the basic premise on which I am more concerned about- What value is it worth? Is it worth a trillion, a hundred billion, a billion? I won't go into the financial jugglery of valuation (Frankly, it's too confusing - predicting the cash flows, discounting it with some random number and on and on). I would rather like to take a more qualitative view of things that define value - availability, dependency and power. Let's start with some simple facts - Facebook today has got a subscriber base of more than a billion. It has got a reach across every advanced and reasonably advanced nations of the world (I prefer the term "reasonably advanced" instead of "emerging" simply because it gives a sense of satisfaction that the emerging nations have actually moved some rungs up in the ladder). To top it all, I believe that except for management consultants, most of the other classes of human beings on the planet spend more time on Facebook than they do on Google. So, all in all, we have got a fairly saturated user base, a fairly saturated user time span and a reasonably saturated reach. What does it leave Mr. Zuckerberg with? He simply has got no option but to offer the users more and more products to keep them hooked onto the "videogame" that he controls. Let's be frank. If you don't change/upgrade the facebook user feel and experience every once in a while, the average layman will get bored. Seriously, how long can you keep on "liking" status updates & marriage and birthday pictures of random friends? It feels good for some time. Then, we grow up !

The point is do we see enough innovations or the use of the "goldmine" that everyone claims is lying beneath the surface (customer interactions, targeted marketing, behavioral analysis, peer reviews and experiences). Right now, the answer is NO. Maybe tomorrow, there are fancy products and suits that come up which utilise the massive amounts of data that lies beneath. Compare this with Google Inc. The word has become so synonymous with search that I use it for finding almost everything. Search means Google and Google means Search. Of course, they have gone ahead and added a plethora of other products like Mail, Photos, Social Networking among others. But it operates in a no-competition zone in the search market and have not let anyone else to come even closer. Microsoft and others have been trying since the last million years but rest assured 'Bing' is as dumb as it sounds and Yahoo is dead no matter they hire an ex-googler for the top job. Such has been the dependency on the Google engine, that many an industry (Management consulting for one) would probably break down if online search is declared illegal. This brings me to the second point of discussion - how much dependent are we on Facebook or for that matter to the products which the social networking websites sell? If tomorrow, social networking is declared illegal, no industry would be so crippled or devastated that normal life would be hampered. Of course, for a day or two, I might miss seeing my friend's new car (:D) or her exotic honeymoon pictures but eventually I would come to terms with it I guess. I believe that value is inherently tied to dependency and by that metric, facebook doesn't really carry that much of a value instead.

Coming to the third aspect of valuation i.e. Power. This is surely something that facebook commands. With a billion plus "active" subscriber base, it is definitely powerful and be it mobilizing public opinion on a social cause or denouncing a bad product, facebook has become the platform of choice especially in advanced nations. The question that lurks in here is, how does it ("Facebook") take advantage of the power that it stores within to double, triple or quadruple its value? Or is it possible at all?

I would leave that to Zuckerberg and Co. to figure out. Right now, they don't seem to have the answer.

Innocent until proven guilty..

The latest fracas on the wires: IPL..modi..Twitter...Tharoor (again :P).. some Pushkar..huhhh..!! And more people joining the bandwagon each coming day..lalu..Thackerey... and any politician who just wants that bit of air play and media coverage.

Dunno whether Modi is right or wrong, but the way the politicians and other non cricketing entities are clamoring for his head and IPL's disbandment is surprising. Yet coming from the mouths of these bloodsucking parasites (read: politicians) should not be surprising to me, but they do irritate me from the hilt. As far as I know, no one is guilty until proven. In the same spirit of law, Modi is not guilty until proven. Whatever be the hulla over I-T raids, disclosures/Non-disclosures etc, he is still NOT GUILTY. And people should respect that. If allegations and rumors were the basis of crime, I guess 99% of our beloved politicians would be behind bars.

Imagine Lalu Prasad Yadav speaking about lack of transparency and IPL being a black market !! Don''t imagine, just watch the news shows 3 days ago if u have recorded them in Tata Sky :).

Dunno but I feel the media is just over-stretching these days. Be it any controversy, SRK-MNIK, IPL saga, Jessica Lal ..the media just goes over the moon to pronounce who's guilty and who's not !! Khair Media regulation is another issue.

But just for fun, if you want to have some, get the news channels broadcasts' some 3-4 days ago and watch our netas discussing about the IPL issue. Its just unadulterated fun.. :P

Ssssshhhhh.........

Writing after a long long time...No..I am not talking about writing my blog. I have never been a blogger per se. I am talking about writing. I have always been a decent writer, but somehow lost touch of this decent habit of mine. Yet as they say, better late than never. So, finally decided to give my thoughts some of the ink ..nahh the keyboard chatter that it probably needed.

Just read an article in TOI about Mr.S.M.Krishna (S.M.K) ridiculing Mr.Shashi Tharoor (S.T.) about his tweets. And just for the heck of it I decided to go through the people's reactions as well which are reflected in the comments which usually follows a story in a well known site like that of TOI's. Well, to be completely honest, I was a little surprised by the comments. Unstatistically speaking, S.M.K too had a fair share of approvals in what is called a bashing of S.T., a gag on S.T. and what not. This is what amazed me. S.T. had simply questioned the new visa procedure and whether that would be really helpful in combating terrorism as such. I personally don't want to be a judge of the visa policy or the government's actions or watsoever in this regard. What caught me perhaps was the fact that a simple tweet or an expression of one's thoughts is ridiculed so much. As per S.M.K. any such discussions should be confined to within the four walls of the ministry. What the hell was that supposed to mean. Aren't we supposed to know? Or was S.M.K. just trying to make us believe that S.T. didn't even object at once on the said proposal within the "four walls" yet blasted his views on Twitter. I believe as a citizen of the country S.T. has every right to express what he believes in. He is not asking for a approval of his thought process, he is just expressing his opinions on a matter he is not on side with. And this is what is probably irking S.M.K, the Congress and many others. How can a person of the ruling coalition ridicule a decision of the coalition (read: party) that too being a Junior Minister. How come he has the guts to think about this, let alone speaking about in public. has he forgot the basic tenets of politics, of kissing the ass of one's senior, of always toe-toeing what the boss says whether it is right or wrong. What is wrong S.T. ?

Really made me smile when I read the news piece. Here, was a person who simply doesn't agree to a decision that has been taken by his superiors and has just expressed his own views. Did he commit a crime? Now, about half a million people or maybe more than that tweet, blog and do what not to express themselves. S.T. does exactly that and its not his fault that half a million also follow his tweets and hence it becomes a matter of media scrutiny. Many readers or commentators of the story in TOI said that S.T. is simply sensationalizing an issue which is a matter of national security, trying to get sound bytes or cheap publicity. Yet, I don't believe in the same. Even if its for those very reasons, he is entitled to do that. Its his opinions and me and you have no business in trying to change that. Are we Taliban? Such a gag or restraint usually is expected in those places. As an independent democratic society we are entitled to express what we think as long as they are not breaking any law. When some Thackereys can say or do anything, and I mean any goddamn thing, then S.T. probably just did nothing at all in comparison to those.

It will be interesting to see how S.T. responds in time to come. Does he succumb to the pressure of the baaps and netas or he remains as he has always been. Waiting for you to tweet S.T.