Or not … well, this isn’t exactly about two different songs, though one might almost think that. This is about a song sung by different generations, for different generations.
Heres what the black and white era brought, with the legendary Noor Jehan singing the song, in a sing which is very reminiscent of the era of movies immortalised by the likes of Shammi Kapoor, Sharmila Tagore, or Saira Banu. A song which definitely young men a generation (or maybe two) old would have swayed to.
For those who can’t follow the lyrics, here they are.
And heres the same song, perhaps 6 decades apart from the original, sung by the gorgeous Meesha Shafi, for an audience from an altogether different generation.
This is the reason I feel Coke Studio (and Nescafe Basement) are very good ideas … they present tradition in a package appealing to youngsters (even to older people like me!), and so, keeping the tradition alive.
Topics on which people hold very strong beliefs … sometimes these beliefs are no more than just those. While on the one hand some of those who believe in God take Scripture literally, and will tell you that indeed the world was made in 6 days, or that there was indeed a time when snakes talked or horses flew. Little does it occur to them that maybe these stories are more allegorical, and one must look into their subliminal meaning which seems to be a consistent characteristic of Scripture to get a true understanding. Scientists on the other hand use these same stories, read at their superficial level to try to prove that religion flies in the face of logic.
There is another aspect of the scientific discourse which tells us that there is no ‘need’ for God since all phenomena can be explained by science, those which can’t be explained today would well be explained at some point. Let’s take an example to see the folly of this logic. Let’s say you have to go from place A to place B. Now, you could do this commute on foot or by bus. Now, since your commute can be explained by walking, there is therefore no ‘need’ for the bus and therefore the bus doesn’t exist.
Another logic which is most prevalent is that there is no proof of God. Now, one could also on the other hand say that there is no proof for the non-existence of God, but then that takes us into a different byway, so for the moment let’s shelve that one. Let’s say, for instance, if you are asked to cook a meal with a pen, crayons, toothpicks, and a screwdriver and wrench. Doesn’t sound logical, does it? Fact is, different tools are meant to be used for different purposes and extending this it’s easy to see why science has not, maybe will not, been able to prove the existence of God … that as a tool science isn’t the right one. Let’s try to analyze that. Science is essentially a study of this creation, maybe (if we keep the idea of the multiverse aside for a moment) of the universe. This means that science, meant to study nature, isn’t meant to study whence nature came from.
Is that why so many scientists are so antagonistic to the idea of God?
Now this video should be a mandatory part of any cricketer’s education … and if you either have dreams of having been a batsman, or aspirations to be one, then this is a must-watch.
All six of them effortless. Sheer poetry.
About blogging, I find, the ideas are relatively simple to define and build upon, while the topic is the difficult part. The topic being done, let’s get to the idea of this post.
There are two basic problems with education delivery today, I feel. One is the shortage of skilled teachers, and the other is the piecemeal approach to concepts taught to children. Let’s look at these one by one.
When talking about shortage of skilled teachers, I don’t mean at the aggregate level. The problem facing education is that while in pockets skilled teachers are available, there are also pockets where they are not. In the age of technology, this gap should be one that should be easy to bridge. Having said that, I believe that on can’t rely on purely virtual education delivery when introducing a new subject, which is what is the a of the education system for the most part. So we might need to look at a blended approach towards doing that. For this blended approach, content taught could be divided into three parts: pure theory, guided problem-solving, and practical application. Concepts of a subject could be taught through recorded lectures, for which a panel of distinguished teachers could be identified from the vast pool available. This would help being the best teachers to students in areas where they are not available. At the same time, this would standardize the delivery of basic concepts. Building upon these concepts, to develop skills of applying these concepts, a set of real-life scenarios could be developed. These would need to be delivered in-person, and would help students to learn how these concepts could be applied to solve problems. These could be simulations or case studies, depending on the requirements of the course being taught. Building on these would be labs to experiment and to apply concepts, as required.
The other aspect is the piecemeal approach to teaching. Children are taught mathematics and physics and economics and history as separate subjects. The concepts they learn and their application are demarcated by subject, while in reality, these subjects are interrelated, and so also should their teaching be. To address this, and to develop holistic problem-solving skills, which enable students to see the big picture, appreciate systems, and building systemic thinking, classwork, homework, and exams should be based on a systemic approach, where students are able to see the system as a whole, understand it in it’s entirety, and be able to understand impact of one thing on another.
I once saw a tigress stalking a month-old kid. The ground was very open and the kid saw the tigress while she was still some distance away and started bleating, whereupon the tigress gave up her stalk and walked straight up to it. When the tigress had approached to wihin a few yards, the kid went forward to greet her, and on reaching the tigress it stretched ot its neck and put up its head to smell her. For the duration of a few heartbeats the month-old kid and the Queen of the Forest stood nose to nose, and then the queen walked off in the direction from which she had come.
Wonderful passage … just tells the sheer grace, elegance (a oneness maybe?) which comes with real power.
The Indian hickey team lost every single match at the Olympics … Including to South Korea, Belgium, and South Africa. That India lost to Netherlands, Germany, and New Zealand sort of seemed to be an assumption. This is the point when it seems to be very tempting to write the epitaph of Indian hockey. But lets look at an analysis of the point at which Indian hockey is.
Hockey in India has been at the receiving end of apathy for decades now, at least two, would you say? And yet, every two years, once during the Asian games, and once during the Commonwealth games, or the Olympics we that Indian hockey is going downhill, harking back to the glory days of Indian hockey, when we saw (here i am talking about my generation) players like Pargat Singh, M. P. Singh, Mohammed Shahid, Zafar Iqbal, Jude Felix, Merwyn Fernandes, or Salim Sherwani, Hassan Sardar, Samiullah, Karimullah play hockey for the subcontinental giants, or the fact that India has won 10 medals in hockey, out of which 8 have been gold medals. One thing we need to understand, and expect, is that it will take at least 4-5 years for Indian hockey to reach somewhere close to the glory days. This is a long term strategy, and while we should certainly try for a podium finish at Rio, we shouldnt expect it, i feel.
Having said that, lets look at the other side. Today, India is at a point where we can either choose to be the dominant team among the minnows, or be the minnow in the big league, and we have reached from the former to the latter. This, i feel, has come with comparative ease, and the credit should go to the players, coach, and administrators, though frankly, my knowledge of hockey comes from what i watch, or what i read. Having said that, what is surprising is that even though we lost, the quality of hockey played by the team is far inferior to what they played at the Olympic qualifiers, or at the Azlan Shah cup recently. While losing to Netherlands and Germany was expected, the team played a good game versus the Dutch, and if we see how the Dutch demolished Great Britain in the semi-final, India certainly played very well. I suppose the team started losing their way from the match versus Germany, and from there, it was downhill. Maybe its, like former skipper Dhanraj Pillay says, something outside the field which was bothering the team members.
Whatever way it be, we need to look at the picture in its entirety, and see how Indian hockey can, given encouragement, reach the levels of past glory.
Read a nice blog about innovation here. Thought would write some thoughts that came, reading this:
1. Innovation != Invention. Innovation is not the same as inventing something new. It could be about finding new ways of doing the same thing, or using the same way to do different things. How many of you have opened a beer bottle with a spoon? Would you think thats an innovation?
2. Innovation != R&D. Seems to be a corollary of the innovation != invention idea.
3. Innovation != Glamour. Not necessary that innovation create something new, something glamorous. Often times, its also about doing day-to-day things much more effectively, or efficiently. There was a picture a friend had shared on facebook of a guy connecting the drain of the AC with the input of the cooler … water out, water in. Not glamorous, but would you say this is innovation?
In a nutshell, innovation, i feel, is a simpler, more effective, more efficient way of solving a problem. And this way need not necessarily come from a particular team or part of the business. Thats why, crowdsource … innovation is about first identifying a problem (and problems or customer requirements arent always easy to identify), and then to find a solution which is feasible, and which works. I feel both of these make up the idea of innovation. What do you think?