The ethics of everyday choices

You have likely already encountered this statistic: Half the world’s population will go to the polls this year. More than four billion people across 60 countries, including India, will cast their votes and elect national leaders.

Whether you vote will be one of the biggest decisions you make in 2024. How you vote will be another.

It is inevitable that citizens will ask: What difference does it make? Leaders that are larger-than-life loom on the horizon. Events often feel beyond our control. But when it comes to questions such as “Does my voice matter?”, may I submit that the answer is always “Yes”.

Not just because single voices add up to form a clamour. But because the decisions we make, large and small, singly and in groups, are also the true litmus tests of our character.

It is a theme we don’t contemplate enough: the ethics of everyday choices. I’ve often pondered the invisible threads that connect our daily choices to our ethical stances. How does one’s preference to shop at a chain of stores, or the decision to ignore an unhoused person, contribute to the larger ethical portrait of our lives?

These questions aren’t merely rhetorical; they form the weave of our societal fabric.

It is easy to stand in judgment over grand scandals and overt acts of moral failure. But when thought about deeply, the real measure of an ethical framework is not taken during high-stakes moments. Rather, it resides in the mundane, quiet decisions we make when no one’s looking. This is where our true self reveals itself, in the quiet alleyways of our day-to-day existence.

Consider the simple act of purchasing a cup of coffee. Where do the beans come from? Are the farmers paid a fair wage? What is the environmental impact of its production and transportation? Each choice might be a drop in the ocean. But collectively, they can create a storm.

Similarly, our engagements with strangers reflect deep truths. How we treat waiters, interact with taxi drivers, respond to a street vendor, all offer clues to where our moral compass points. This is why I find brand-consciousness so disturbing. Why should I choose coffee from South America, simply because it is advertised widely and forced into my line of vision, when beans from south India have a far lower carbon footprint?

In an age of rampant consumerism and individualism, there is a tendency to reduce life to a series of transactions, devoid of ethical implications. But this is a narrow and impoverished view of existence. Our lives are not just about exchanges; they are about connections. And every connection carries with it the weight of moral consequence.

It is imperative, then, that we reflect on daily choices. They shape not just our lives but the world around us. The clothes we wear, the food we eat, the products we consume, are all silent testimony to our values and ethics. They are votes cast for the kind of world we wish to live in and leave behind.

How do we navigate this complex landscape? It begins with the awareness that every choice has a moral dimension. This means developing a habit of reflective consideration, taking the time to frame the right questions, and seeking answers that align with one’s deepest values.

In this way, ethics become a profoundly social affair too. They are the channel by which we see beyond ourselves, consider the impacts of our choices, and make that vital shift from a mindset of consumption to one of contribution.

Of course, navigating this path has its challenges. There are often no easy answers. Where there are answers, ethical living involves trade-offs and compromises. One must part with a measure of vanity, self-indulgence, comfort. Even then one will necessarily make missteps.

But the pursuit of an ethical life is not about perfection. It is about direction, and about making choices that are more deliberate, compassionate and coherent.

If nothing else, start with the decision to vote. Think about the world you want to inhabit, and leave behind. Do you want it to be kinder, more wholesome and more balanced? Or do you want to end up with demagogues in power, and no one to blame but yourself.

This article was originally published in Hindustan Times. All copyrights vest with the publishers and this may not be reproduced without permission.

Make in India ain't good everyplace

Back in December 2022, it appeared like China might upset the Americans and wrest control of the semiconductor (also called chips) business. But as things are, it appears the Americans have regained the lead. Chips power practically everything in modern electronics and both countries would go to war to control them. These chips, which are now thought of as a resource like oil, are manufactured mainly in Taiwan.

While geographically Taiwan is closer to China than the US and a Chinese takeover had appeared imminent, the Americans were swift to move their men and machines into place to resist any such move. American allies like South Korea and Japan too were kept in the loop. This jostling for control is so that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) stays unfettered.

President Joe Biden also reached out to the Dutch government says Chris Miller, author of Chip Wars: The World’s Most Critical Technology. The Netherlands is home to Advanced Semiconductor Materials Lithography (ASML) and is the only company in the world that has the tools and technologies to create the latest semiconductors. The Americans wanted to prevail upon the Dutch to stop supplying these to the Chinese and eventually had their way.

While this ‘blockading’ is one of China’s current problems and explains the current worldwide chip shortage, it is a harbinger as well as a pointer to what can go wrong with India’s current ‘Make in India’ policy that hinges on an ambitious $300 billion electronics manufacturing goal. But it does not explicitly focus on critical technologies or supply chains.

Take telecom, where there are global concerns about security stemming from China’s dominance, especially as the world moves toward 5G. In India, telecom is one of six identified “critical infrastructure” sectors. Healthcare was added recently after the devastating 2022 cyberattacks on AIIMS and other hospitals.

A ‘national security directive’ was issued after June 2021 by telcos that only “trusted equipment” and “trusted products” be used. This certification process is so complex that even two years later, there are few products that fit the bill. For instance, the process insists on a list of the actual manufacturing address for every active component (like chips). It’s practically impossible to comply with this requirement. “How will a vendor to a telecom company know which specific plant did Intel or for that matter any other manufacturer manufacture a certain component in?” asks a technology consultant at a firm hired by the government of India to review protocols in critical sectors.

On top of that, only interim “trusted product” certification is being given by the National Cyber Security Co-ordinator (NCSC), with instructions to change “supply chains” for components sourced from China —for which there may be no alternate suppliers. It’s clear that this directive is less about cybersecurity and more an attempt to reduce dependence on China for semiconductors. But this attempt has specifically not been backed by the ‘Make in India’ initiatives.

So, where does the problem lie? To begin with, despite a somewhat frosty relationship with China, trade with China has now ballooned to over $100 billion from $69 billion in 2021. What it means is more money is being spent to import from China, including critical electronics. This shows an increasing dependence on China no matter what the political rhetoric is.

The consultant who does not want to be named, then goes on to explain how the infrastructure to manufacture chips is created in globally spread-out ecosystems where teams collaborate and work 24/7. To highlight his point, he points out that when a modern chipmaker is at work on a chip design or software, a team in Bengaluru may hand over the same project at the end of the day’s shift to a team in Dublin or Tel Aviv. That team in turn may hand over to teams in Boston or Portland. It’s a complex effort and “arm-twisting companies to set up fabrication plants in India won’t work in the long run.”

His point is that China took the route to manufacture everything and now risks being seen as a global pariah, with the world desperately working on alternative supply chains. While the DoT-NCSC directive is well-intentioned and aims to protect the country’s security interests, it has underlying geopolitical aspirations as well. “We cannot afford to isolate ourselves and insist companies build everything here, when the world operates in a collaborative mode. Nor can we afford to count the domestic share of every product like software. Should we care exactly how many of the original lines of code for Windows were written in India for instance?”

This column was first published in Hindustan Times in March 2023. All copyrights vest with HT Media

OTP Nation

It is unlikely that mathematicians at work to develop the algorithms to create One Time Passwords (OTPs) in the 1940s would have imagined over a billion OTPs being delivered every day as text messages across Indian telecom networks. The mathematicians may not even have imagined how it would be delivered. Or that it would be used to authenticate people’s identities across domains as diverse as banking to travel, ecommerce deliveries, cinema tickets, even cab rides and much else.

While the technology has its flaws (and these are now showing up), the telecom companies that deliver these OTPs are at work to upgrade all networks across the country to 5G from the existing 3G and 4G networks most people use. Even as they do that, work is in progress to create the blueprints for a 6G world. But it is impossible to miss the confidence in the voice of a veteran who has worked at most telecom companies (telcos), witnessed the industry evolve from close quarters, and is now employed at Jio to oversee large parts of the company’s operations in North India.

“Realistically speaking, it will take between 7-10 years to phase OTPs out of India,” he says.

“And what’s the best-case to phase OTPs out?”

“Nothing less than 5 years.”

His confidence in the longevity of how long OTPs will continue to stay in India, it appears, isn’t misplaced. Manoj Menon, CEO and founder of Twimbit, a Singapore-based technology advisory and research firm that works with telcos world over makes the case that OTPs are embedded in the Indian psyche. His experience is that “India is a trust-deficit society and OTPs fill the gap.”

That is why, Menon goes on to explain, over time, OTPs have spilled across from banking where it was first implemented to authenticate transactions to other industries. To highlight his case, Menon points to taxi-ride hailing apps such as Uber and Ola, that now use it.

These apps send users an OTP to be shared with drivers at the beginning of a ride. This practice, he says, is followed only in countries such as India and Indonesia, for instance. It is unheard of in many other parts of the world, such as Singapore, North America and Western Europe, which he calls ‘high-trust societies.’ Even banking transactions there do not require OTPs.

That makes CN Ram uncomfortable.

A brief history of OTPs

CN Ram is among those who worked to build the digital avatar of the banking and fintech ecosystem in India. He is 66 now and is at work on a start-up to build a core banking solution. In his earlier avatar, he was CIO of HDFC Bank.

Some accounts in the public domain have it that the first OTP by an Indian bank to authenticate a transaction was implemented under Ram’s watch. There are other versions—some have it that the first OTP was delivered by the State Bank of India to a customer; while yet others claim it was ICICI Bank. Then there is the question of which telecom company sent the first OTP. Most versions have it that it was Airtel. When the CIOs from all these entities were contacted, no one authenticated who was the first past the post. All of them, Ram included, are unwilling to take credit for who implemented it at banks first. As for the telcos, no one recalls if it was Vodafone India, Airtel or some other company that delivered the first OTP. Jio was still on the drawing board and in another avatar.

“Those were heady days and all of us were at work to implement Two Factor Authentication (2FA) into the retail banking experience. There was so much happening,” says Ram. That is why, he says, no one cared or kept records of who sent the first OTP because everyone across banks, was in conversation with each other and stakeholders such as telcos to make it happen. “Banking is a fiduciary responsibility, and it is our responsibility to protect people’s money.”

Back then, ATMs were making its appearance in India and internet banking was gaining traction. And with that, scamsters were all over the place, thinking up ingenious ways to defraud people. To get around it, HSBC Bank, for instance, provided its customers with a device. When a button on it was pressed, the device would display a six-digit number that had to be punched online to complete a transaction. This was very similar to the how OTPs were thought up by the original creators. But devices such as the ones HSBC provided had to be carted around and people often forgot them at home when they needed them at the office – or vice versa.

Much brainstorming between all stakeholders later, OTPs sent as text messages over cell phones appeared to be the most elegant way to get the job done. And so, in 2009, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued a diktat that all banks implement 2FA via cell phones. The data had it people were buying more phones and it was clear usage would go only upwards.

This is corroborated by Deepak Maheshwari, a New Delhi based public policy professional. “In the initial days, there was resistance and user apathy,” he says. “But now, things have come to a point where even entities such as social media companies use it to authenticate the identity of their users by sending OTPs to people’s phones and emails,” he says. With the benefit of hindsight, the data has it that implementing OTPs at such staggering scale reduced banking frauds. This is clear when the volume transactions are extrapolated to the similar volumes in other parts of the world.

The mathematics of OTPs

Is it possible that the volumes of these one billion plus OTPs each day choke telecom networks and lead to call drops? While Maheshwari is willing to buy the argument that networks in India are stretched, he is quick as well to point to the investments Jio and Airtel are ploughing in to augment the capacities of their network. “By next year, Jio will have an additional 2 lakh telecom towers and Airtel will have at least 1 lakh.” All these 5G-ready towers are intended to transition eventually to 6G.

“This means many Indians who are still on 3G will totally skip 4G and move straight off to 5G networks,” says Ram. There is much at stake for phone manufacturers and telecom operators here.

But why is an old (or outdated, if you will) technology such as the OTP still around in the contemporary world? And why do veterans in the industry believe it will be around for another 7-10 years? After all, there are risks inherent to OTPs in their current avatar.

Telcos have a vested interest in OTPs and the math puts it in perspective. An industry captain who did not want to come on the record put it this way: Technically, India has 1.2 billion mobile phone users, of which 600 million use smart phones. But there’s a twist to the numbers. Large numbers of people own 2 to 3 phones. So, while it is true that there are 1.2 billion phones, the actual population of people who have access to phones is between 600-650 million. Of these, between 250-350 million haven’t switched to smartphones.

His hypothesis is that large numbers of people still cannot afford to buy the more expensive 4G or 5G-ready handsets. What reinforces his hypothesis are the numbers. “We are selling at least 7-8 million non-data enabled handsets each month. These are replacement handsets for people who are already on the old network. So long as this market exists, the OTP will continue to be around.” And this market, will be around, until handset prices drop to affordable levels.

When Menon was asked to comment if there is merit in the math, he shared what he is a witness to. Telcos are at work to extract at least ₹300 out of each user. This is almost double the current Average Revenue per User (ARPU). But to get here, telcos will have to look at other ways to earn more. One way they are doing this now is to earn monies by selling text messages to enterprises in bulk to entities that feel compelled to send out OTPs.

In any which case, retail consumers have shifted their text messaging habit to other apps such as WhatsApp and Signal. Once upon a time, text messages used to earn telcos large monies. In the longer run, Menon says, “Most telcos will have to think up ways to earn anywhere between 20-30% of their revenues from non-telco lines of businesses,” says Menon. Until the time they get there though, they’ll keep the OTP revenue streams going.

When the veteran from Jio was asked to vet these numbers, he admitted that they were sound. That is why, he said, Jio is at work on a plan, which he claims “will be a differentiator and game changer.” The final contours of this plan, he claims, are being worked on by the top brass at Jio and they plan to implement it later this year. The insight they are working off is that the average Indian’s propensity to buy smartphones begins to look up only when the handset’s price drops below ₹15,000. Basis this number, Jio is tinkering around with two ideas: drop the price of a smartphone to below 15-20% of this magic number, which, the company believes will explode the market; and lease phones to those who don’t want to buy them (leasing drives sales of high-end handsets such as the iPhone, for instance, in markets like the US).

A spokesperson for Jio declined to comment. If this happens, it is possible OTPs get eradicated five years down the line.

And how will that happen?

While the math of OTPs makes for a compelling read from a telco’s perspective, there is another way to look at it: from the customer’s eye, points out Prasanto K Roy, a New Delhi-based technology policy analyst. “Telecom companies have got used to earning revenues by selling OTPs. But what about clients who pay for it? They’re beginning to ask if it is getting expensive?” To highlight the case, he points to Twitter after the company’s takeover by Elon Musk.

Earlier, 2FA on Twitter could be done by text messages as well. But after Musk implemented his cost-cutting exercise, one among the things that got the axe was 2FA via OTPs sent as a text message. He reasoned the cost of sending these messages were being borne by Twitter and unless a user was willing to pay for the service, it made no sense for the company to underwrite the cost. Since then, Roy says, others across the world have started to think along the same lines.

Then there are security holes that both Roy and Maheshwari are on the same page on when it comes to OTPs. “We are on the verge of moving into a more advanced digital world where even Aadhaar fingerprints can be robbed,” says Roy. Then there is the fact that people offer many applications (app) that reside on their phones the permission to ‘read’ their OTPs. But each time a user allows an app this permission, many don’t realise they are offering these apps the permission to read all their text messages as well.

How do know these apps will keep your data confidential? What if it goes rogue? For that matter, what if there is something about how it processes your data that you don’t know about? That is why, Maheshwari says “The ways OTPs work now are like putting a lock on your door and then offering the key to a thief.”

And when Ram thinks about it, his mind goes back to the early days when OTPs on telecom networks had to be implemented at the bank. They had to go out of their way to make things happen. There were frequent complaints of people not receiving OTPs. Then there were those who cloned SIM cards, spoofed other people’s identities, diverted OTPs, and stole money. It took them much to build a system and keep it well oiled. But the challenges have gotten more complex with the volumes of text messages going up.

This is why there is much work happening in the background to do away with OTPs. When the global landscape is looked at, the credit card ecosystem in ‘High Trust Societies’ evolved well without OTPs. But that was at a different point in time. The way fraud management analytics has evolved since then is significant and happens pretty much in real time.

To explain that Roy describes in detail what happens when anyone of us swipes a credit or debit card or withdraws money from an ATM. The systems have evolved to a point where it can detect what is a normal transaction basis an individual’s spending patterns in the past. If it notices any anomaly, the problem is escalated in 0.2 seconds to a human operator even as it places a call to the registered number to authenticate the transaction. That is why, he goes on to say, “If anything, he suggests it may evolve and exist as an app that is more secure.”

This is something Ram agrees with as well. When probed on what may it look like, he points to developments in other parts of the world. In China, for instance, biometric technology has evolved significantly enough such that people can wave their palm to make a payment. Then there is US. Pilots have begun at immigration counters of various airports that don’t require people to queue up and get their passports stamped. Facial recognition technology does the job instead. “A picture of you is intended to be your entry and exit stamp,” Ram says.

But, he adds, it will be a while before these technologies go mainstream world over. “Right now, I feel comfortable with the OTP,” he says, and laughs. And that is why the telco veteran from Jio is confident that “OTPs are not going anyplace soon.”

This piece was originally published in Hindustan Times. All copyrights vest with HT Media

Make in India? What? Why?

In the first week of December 2022, this column pointed to the fiercest battle playing out since World War II. Back then, it appeared like China might upset the Americans and wrest control of the semiconductor (also called chips) business. But as things are, it appears the Americans have regained the lead. Chips power practically everything in modern electronics and both countries would go to war to control them. These chips, which are now thought of as a resource like oil, are manufactured mainly in Taiwan.

Chips power practically everything in modern electronics and both countries would go to war to control them.

While geographically Taiwan is closer to China than the US and a Chinese takeover had appeared imminent, the Americans were swift to move their men and machines into place to resist any such move. American allies like South Korea and Japan too were kept in the loop. This jostling for control is so that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) stays unfettered.

President Joe Biden also reached out to the Dutch government says Chris Miller, author of Chip Wars: The World’s Most Critical Technology. The Netherlands is home to Advanced Semiconductor Materials Lithography (ASML) and is the only company in the world that has the tools and technologies to create the latest semiconductors. The Americans wanted to prevail upon the Dutch to stop supplying these to the Chinese and eventually had their way.

While this ‘blockading’ is one of China’s current problems and explains the current worldwide chip shortage, it is a harbinger as well as a pointer to what can go wrong with India’s current ‘Make in India’ policy that hinges on an ambitious $300 billion electronics manufacturing goal. But it does not explicitly focus on critical technologies or supply chains.

Take telecom, where there are global concerns about security stemming from China’s dominance, especially as the world moves toward 5G. In India, telecom is one of six identified “critical infrastructure” sectors. Healthcare was added recently after the devastating 2022 cyberattacks on AIIMS and other hospitals.

A ‘national security directive’ was issued after June 2021 by telcos that only “trusted equipment” and “trusted products” be used. This certification process is so complex that even two years later, there are few products that fit the bill. For instance, the process insists on a list of the actual manufacturing address for every active component (like chips). It’s practically impossible to comply with this requirement. “How will a vendor to a telecom company know which specific plant did Intel or for that matter any other manufacturer manufacture a certain component in?” asks a technology consultant at a firm hired by the government of India to review protocols in critical sectors.

On top of that, only interim “trusted product” certification is being given by the National Cyber Security Co-ordinator (NCSC), with instructions to change “supply chains” for components sourced from China —for which there may be no alternate suppliers. It’s clear that this directive is less about cybersecurity and more an attempt to reduce dependence on China for semiconductors. But this attempt has specifically not been backed by the ‘Make in India’ initiatives.

So, where does the problem lie? To begin with, despite a somewhat frosty relationship with China, trade with China has now ballooned to over $100 billion from $69 billion in 2021. What it means is more money is being spent to import from China, including critical electronics. This shows an increasing dependence on China no matter what the political rhetoric is.

The consultant who does not want to be named, then goes on to explain how the infrastructure to manufacture chips is created in globally spread-out ecosystems where teams collaborate and work 24/7. To highlight his point, he points out that when a modern chipmaker is at work on a chip design or software, a team in Bengaluru may hand over the same project at the end of the day’s shift to a team in Dublin or Tel Aviv. That team in turn may hand over to teams in Boston or Portland. It’s a complex effort and “arm-twisting companies to set up fabrication plants in India won’t work in the long run.”

His point is that China took the route to manufacture everything and now risks being seen as a global pariah, with the world desperately working on alternative supply chains. While the DoT-NCSC directive is well-intentioned and aims to protect the country’s security interests, it has underlying geopolitical aspirations as well. “We cannot afford to isolate ourselves and insist companies build everything here, when the world operates in a collaborative mode. Nor can we afford to count the domestic share of every product like software. Should we care exactly how many of the original lines of code for Windows were written in India for instance?”

This article was originally published in Hindustan Times

Missionaries verus Mercenaries

Legend has it that once upon a time Picasso was sitting at a café and whiling his time away. Some versions of the story have it that he was at a bar. Be that as it may, a star struck fan spotted him and approached him with a request—could he make a quick sketch on a paper napkin for the admirer? 

Picasso acquiesced and in about a minute sketched a dove. The much-delighted fan could not believe what transpired and thanked the artist profusely. Picasso though growled and demanded a huge amount of money for the sketch. The admirer couldn’t believe the ask, looked stumped and insisted the demand is an impossible one. “It took just a minute to sketch the dove,” the man said.

In his thick Spanish accent, Picasso growled right back: “No, it took me 40 years.”

I was reminded of this story when a young man called me up. We had first met at a spiritual retreat in the middle of nowhere near Coimbatore. We couldn’t be more different from each other. 

He grew up in the Hindi heartland; I lived in Mumbai. He has a degree in computer science from one of India’s premier institutes and an MBA from an Ivy League college in the US. Even as his graduation certificate at B-School was being handed over, he was made an offer on campus by an American entity most people would give an arm and a leg to be a part of. By every which yardstick, he was living the dream. My slog continues.

But the both of us bonded for various reasons. The most prominent being that we were the only odd ones at the retreat used to uttering profanities in an otherwise serene environment. We wondered every once a while just how did we get there. The other things that kept us occupied included conspiring where to find masala chai and meat in a world where tulsi tea and vegetarian food were the staples. We have stayed in touch since. He had gotten used to calling me bhaiyya and I call him chotte bhai.

A few months ago, he called up with a question. An Indian conglomerate of significant repute had made him an offer. They wanted people like him to “come back home” that they may “build something of global consequence in India by Indians”.  He told me he liked the sound of the pitch and that the people who spoke to him sounded equally sincere. He wanted an opinion. 

I told him I have my biases and am not an expert on the domain he works in. Instead, I referred him to a few friends and suggested he speak to them in confidence. After hearing him out, one of them asked him an interesting question: “After factoring in for the I-want-to-do-something-for-my-country spiel, if the offer on hand does not match or exceed what you currently earn, would you still take it up?” 

It wasn’t the money that had got his attention, but the call to action for a larger purpose. And that the money while on the offer surpassed his current offering, it was not on his mind because the quality of life in the US where he then resided is higher than what any Indian city can possibly offer he said.

My friends reckoned the conglomerate was leading him up the garden path. And that this bloke wouldn’t bite if it weren’t for the money. They punted he would take up the assignment and that the relationship wouldn’t last long. Darned right they were on all counts. 

Back then, these veterans suggested this was the mind of an inexperienced mercenary at work. With the kind of money on offer, he could buy a lot more than the First World could offer him in terms of a lifestyle. “Patriotism” was his way of justifying the move back from the First World to himself and those around him. 

If he were to continue working in the US, it would take him a few years to earn privileges such as living in a gated community and moving around in rarefied circles of the kind only the uber-rich in the First World get to move in. Overnight, these would suddenly be accessible to him in India. His being an Indian resident would only be incidental.

But conglomerates don’t get to become conglomerates on the back of coincidence. They know exactly what levers to turn on and hunt mercenaries down. He took the offer up. And to live up to his part of the deal, got an A-team on board, sold them a dream, and all of them got down to work in earnest. After all, they had studied at the best places, had worked at global entities—on average for two odd years, and believed they had earned the right to live the kind of lives they now lived.

But when thought about deeply, had they? Would Picasso have growled for big monies when he was an apprentice? The thought crossed my mind when, much like the veterans predicted, the young man called earlier this week. He told me he was done with the conglomerate because their attitude was “unprofessional”. I heard him out. 

To cut a long story short, he asked for a favour. That he be introduced to a doyen from the industry who he was told is looking for a few bright people to start a new line of business. This bloke wanted to pitch to him. Emotion won over reason and in a moment of weakness, I gave in.

Having done that, I thought I’d hear from the young chap on what transpired. There was no word. Curiosity came over and I called the veteran to ask what happened. He told me in no uncertain terms the kid won’t go too far because his world view is a myopic one. It is dictated by discourses from a the past and the future. 

His past resides the arches of the institutions where he graduated from; as for the future, he is wedded in his head to dreams. And dreams are just that—dreams. It can be broken anytime. Does he have it in him to snap his fingers and wake up to the moment that he lives in now? Can he see reality and the world for what it is? Until he does not imbibe the present moment and learn from it, he will neither let go of his past and continue to dream about a fuzzy future that may or may not happen. He had a long way to go before he earns his place in the sun, the doyen told me. This, he added, is the kind of mercenary he can hire and fire at will from any part of the world. They’ll bite at anything for money and the attendant perks. 

I pushed him for some perspective and tried to reflect on what is it my grey-haired friends were punting on. Turns out the answers are simple. But difficult for the mercenaries to comprehend.

This young man is plain stupid. Getting to be top dog in Silicon Valley doesn’t happen on the back of merit alone as the movies or breathless narratives would have us believe. I haven’t met any of these people personally. But on the back of conversations with people who know them first hand and from documented accounts on how they conduct themselves, there is reason to believe the circumstances they live in and the kind of people they chose to be conspired to take them to where they are.

Let’s deconstruct one thing at a time and begin with the circumstances they live in. 

The circumstances

How entities operate in Silicon Valley is very different from how a conglomerate works in any other part of the world. To put that into perspective, those who graduate from the best institutions are weaned into a workforce early on with fancy salaries and perks that make sense in Silicon Valley. This is done with a reason. 

It is more economical to have an employee working and living on campus than some distance away. This is a practice that has been chiselled and honed over the years at entities like Google among others. The outcomes are measured down to minutiae like what impact does it have on creativity and productivity among other things. Turns out, at the end of the day, all of what is portrayed as fun places to work at in popular reports, are designed such that an individual’s personal and professional lives merge. It takes an enormous amount of mental muscle on part of an individual to see through this.

 Oftentimes though, this is overlooked, and it is seen as a culture that ought to be celebrated. That is why many countries, India included, have attempted to clone it. But cultures cannot be cloned. It evolves over time and at a certain place. It cannot happen outside of that place. 

 Consider China for instance. It tried to clone Silicon Valley. But there is only so much you can clone. After that you must innovate. For that matter, the culture that exists in Silicon Valley cannot exist in any other place than the geography that it is confined to a small corner of the US. Why? Because circumstances conspired to create a culture in that part of a large country where failure is not frowned upon. Instead, failure is looked upon as an opportunity to learn and according to the language used in Silicon Valley, the time to “pivot” or change track. This option does not exist anyplace else in the world—even in New York, the financial capital of the world, which provides a pipeline of funds that keeps Silicon Valley oiled. New York does not tolerate failure. The beast is a complex one and the nuances of it are lost. 

 The people

Then there are the people who populate this world and the leaders who lead them. There are two kinds of leaders—the missionaries and the mercenaries. While both can win wars, the worlds they live in are different ones. 

 Missionaries cannot be hired. Mercenaries can be. This is put into perspective on the back of a brilliant talk by Simon Sinek on Why Leaders Eat Last. This is where he drives home a powerful point.

 “Leadership is a choice. It is not a rank. I know many people at the senior most levels of organisations who are absolutely not leaders. They are authorities, and we do what they say because they have authority over us, but we would not follow them. And I know many people who are at the bottoms of organisations who have no authority and they are absolutely leaders, and this is because they have chosen to look after the person to the left of them, and they have chosen to look after the person to the right of them. This is what a leader is.”

 This leads me to believe that in the history of contemporary business, the ones who attract fanatical devotion from employees and customers hare missionary leaders. By all accounts, they are maniacs as well. But there is a purpose that drives them and it goes beyond money. The audacity to imagine they can change the world. Think of all the greats Silicon Valley has produced.

 Missionaries are acutely aware there are mercenaries as well out there who are as good as they are. The thin line that separates them though is that missionaries cannot be hired—mercenaries can be baited with monetary perks and the lure of gold. Like my young friend. 

 But mercenaries don’t know that and believe Silicon Valley is what it is and operates in a certain way. This is because they have been weaned on stories of entrepreneurs who’ve earned their billions while still in their twenties in Silicon Valley even as they started building their products when in college. The young ones think therefore it is an immutable truth that all can be had at once.

 What they are unwilling to acknowledge or understand is that every part of the world has its own nuance, demons and beasts to deal with. It is one that needs to be understood—and not looked at from the prism that is Hollywood. These blokes though don’t get it. Like the grey-haired folks with much wisdom have told me across multiple conversations over the years, an ecosystem exists between the financial capital of the world that is New York and Silicon Valley that conspires to groom the young ones who grow up in the West to build systems tailored for their worlds. 

 When shifted from the cocoon that is a premier campus in India to another one in the West, the young ones from markets like India imagine they have arrived. And when presented with an offer on the first day they graduate from B-School, they go over the moon. 

 But nothing can be farther than the truth. They have neither arrived nor have they earned their place yet. These are dumb mercenaries who will go anyplace for a few dollars more. They are rooted in a past as seen on the screen and imagine a future that is yet to unfold. The present is something they are totally tuned out of.  It is inevitable then that they be condemned to a life of unhappiness. 

 Picasso could sit there, sip his drink, watch the world go by, and sketch the way he could because he had spent an enormous amount of time practicing his craft in the past. He had moved on since then. He lived in the moment, was acutely aware of the grind he had gone through to get there and had no pretensions of what the future may hold. He had earned his right to demand the kind of obscene money he did. This young man hadn’t. 

The cost of attention

A little under Rs 41 – that’s the average price for each hour of an Indian’s attention. But this is assuming the worst case that you’re way down the pecking order. The cost of attention multiplies exponentially as you go higher up the earning ladder.

If I have your attention now, just how did I get to this number is a question you ought to ask.

The most recent estimates have it that the average Indian earns Rs 1.27 lakh (Rs 127,000) per annum. That’s just about Rs 10,500 per month.

For the sake of an argument, and given the awful times we live in, assuming this average person must work 26 days each month, 10 hours every day, the price of the average person’s attention works to a little over Rs 40 for hour of work they put in.

Now, imagine for a moment that someone earns Rs 50,000 each month. The monetary value of their attention shoots up to about Rs 192 for each hour of work they engage in. This is basis the assumptions made earlier.

Do the math in your context and ask if you’d give part with such kind of monies away to anyone screaming, such as a telecaster or a cranky colleague who needs attention. Or, would you much make the case that you be paid more so you stay focused ?

If that math has begun to sunk in, and money isn’t a constraint or doesn’t play a big role in your life, here’s another way to look at things: Where would you much rather invest your time in that so that you get the highest ROI in terms of joy and fulfilment?

I cannot think of a more stronger case to stay focused.