Biocon and Bajaj Auto

 It is odd to pair Biocon Ltd and Bajaj Auto Ltd. This is done only because the share prices of both companies moved by 10% today. Biocon Ltd moved down by 10.89% ; Bajaj Auto Ltd moved up by 10.45%

One would have expected a bio-pharma company which obtained accelerated repurpose use authorisation for itolizumab in treatment of COVID-19 to report good financial results for the quarter ended December 31st. But that was not to be. The executive Chairperson has lamented, "We continue to face headwinds across operational, regulatory and commercial functions, which have been deterrents to our planned market expectations." Headwinds from regulatory functions, really?

This is not all. The Managing Director of Biocon Biologics Ltd. a noteworthy subsidiary, has resigned due to "professional differences with the Chairperson on strategic priorities and vision for the company." There is no doubt that it is Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw who set up the reputed Biocon group. Is she finding it difficult to let top management take independent decisions and that is why she retains control as 'executive chair'? Shades of possessiveness a la Ratan Tata?

A tale of two countries

 The India-Australia 2020-21 cricket series brought out the best and the worst that is in Indian team. When India ignominiously lost the first test scoring the lowest runs it has ever made in an innings, many former Australian skippers including Ricky Ponting, Michael Clarke, Mark Waugh and Michael Vaughan wrote off any prospects for the visiting Indian team in subsequent test matches. India redeemed itself winning one test and famously drawing another before the final test at the Gabba, Brisbane.

The pitch and the field at the Gabba are made for the Aussies. The home team is rarely defeated there. Even forcing a draw there is considered a feat for any visiting team. The dice was loaded heavily against the Indian cricketers for another reason. The Indian team fielded at the Gabba was probably the most inexperienced ever. The Australian team, though, was one of the most experienced. Lyon, the spinner, had played in 99 test matches prior to this test.

Washington Sundar and Natarajan were playing their first test. Other Indian players also had played in a few tests only. Rishabh Pant played a swashbuckling knock taking his chances. Other batsmen were more cautious. When Pant played the winning shot (a nonchalant boundary), the home team was crestfallen. The Gabba was conquered by an alien team. The Indian underdogs retained the Gavaskar - Border trophy.

Even as the series was on, many contrasting events were taking place off the field. One player (Virat Kohli) left the team after the first test to be present when his daughter was born. Mohammed Siraj could not be present for his father's funeral at Hyderabad. Natarajan is yet to see his one-month old child.

Victory at the Gabba will remain in Indian minds for a long time to come. The pulsating win came in the 97th over of the day. If the Australians had contained the Indian thrust for three more overs, they would have preserved their Gabba glory. But the cool and composed captain, Rahane, and the newly capped cricket warriors ensured that Aussies bit the dust at Brisbane. Cricket is not the same any longer.

Physician, heal thyself!

Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA) is the 'go to place' for managerial wisdom. For more than half a century, this institute has been nurturing managerial talent through its flagship programme 'PGP' and various executive programmes. Founded by Vikram Sarabhai, the IIMA brand was bolstered by doyens like Ravi J.Mathai, Kamla Chaudhry and S.K.Bhattacharya. In its formative years, IIMA had technical collaboration with Harvard Business School, the Mecca of management.

One expects that an institute with such an enviable pedigree will not be found wanting when a decision is called for. The art of management can be summarised as decision-making and decision-implementation. IIMA is now avalanched not by an intractable problem but by a mundane issue that affects the safety of its residents.

The excellence of the professors and students in the Vastrapur campus is matched by the beauty and functionality of its architecture. This frontal elegance was the handiwork of a world-renowned architect, Louis Kahn. The exposed red bricks are at once a statement of fashion and function. The dormitories, library and other buildings, unfortunately, were not built strong enough to withstand the massive tremor that struck Gujarat in the year 2001.

The buildings developed cracks in various places; repairs were carried out in patches hoping that the famed architect's  masterpiece would not undergo any further strain. But the damage was regressive and in the recent past, the red bricks were coming apart. Being overly possessive about its architecture, the institute 'restored' the library and one dormitory by retaining the exterior and partially modifying the interior. The architect in charge of restoration gave a clean chit to its safety post-restoration (was it not to be expected?) An independent architect differed and warned about the buildings' inability to weather further shocks.

Any institution facing this literal existential crisis would have decided to reconstruct the dorms to ensure total safety of the students. But not IIMA, the institution that teaches the best of problem-solving strategies and tactics. It dithered like Arjuna in Kurukshetra. Unfortunately, there was no Krishna around to advise IIMA, "You are not the decaying body (building); you are the undying atman (managerial skills that you teach)"

Now the institute has started quivering. Earlier, it took the right decision to rebuild the dorms. All hell broke loose; Louis Kahn's family and assorted busybodies are warning against any damage to the original structure. Heritage / legacy is to be protected as long as it is economically viable and does not pose safety hazards. Heritage vs Safety ought to have been a no-brainer. Sadly, Homer has nodded and fallen a prey to indecision.

Politician Rajinikanth

 It is not necessary for one to be in politics to behave like a politician. Superstar Rajinikanth's behaviour proves this. He kept the state on tenterhooks anxious to know what he would announce on December 31st. But, a few days before the year came to an end, he made an announcement that satisfied, shocked, stunned or surprised people. 

Thalaivar who is often caricatured as superhuman has supported various parties in the past. Puratchi Thalaivi Jayalalithaa was his neighbour at Poes Garden. It should not surprise us if they had some common qualities. They had some contrary qualities also.

A capable politician makes us believe that he is what he claims to be. Rajini claimed to be a spiritualist who wanted to purify the muddy politics of Tamil Nadu. One political party was afraid he might actually do that. Another party hoped he would indeed do that. A third party was confused what the Rajini-inclusive polity would be like.

He suffered fluctuations in blood pressure while in Hyderabad and was admitted to hospital. (Did he entice BP to dance to his tunes?) His BP was stabilised; but the "Warning from God" (who else can warn the superstar?) forced him to decide to deny politics his entry.

Without entering politics, Rajini established his credentials as a super politician.

Bagavad Gita

 Gandhari chose to blindfold herself because her husband was blind. Why did she marry him in the first place?

Bhishma played a significant role in this. He was acutely aware of the need to continue the Kuru dynasty though he had sacrificed his claim and chose bachelorhood to foreclose future claims from his descendants. Bhishma wanted to ensure that Dhritharashtra would have a male progeny. He set about solving this problem in a scientific way. Define the goal, constraints and alternatives and arrive at an optimal solution.

Bhishma worked out his problem as follows:

 Objective: to find a life partner for Dhritharashtra.

Constraints: 1) She must be a princess.

2)She must not know his blindness before marriage

3) She must deliver a male progeny without fail.

The constraints were daunting. Bhishma did not give up. He came up with a solution that satisfied all the constraints. After considering many princesses, he zeroed in on Gandhari in a way any problem-solver would admire.

Gandhari was a princess of a kingdom called Gandhar. It was a place in present day Afghanistan. Every place has a unique feature. The feature may not be praiseworthy. Afghanistan was and is a place where women do not enjoy equal freedom with men. Those were the days when, in other parts of Bharat, women chose their husbands through Swayamwara. Elopement was not unknown. (Rukmini and Krishna.) How to ensure that the would-be wife would not know the groom's blindness? Afghanistan provided the answer.

Gandhari was a stoic lady who discovered her husband's blindness only after marriage. The epic brings out all human qualities. We may not admire all qualities. But knowing about them is educative. How to satisfy the third constraint? This is where Bhishma's knowledge stood out. He knew that Gandhari had obtained a boon from Lord Shiva that she would beget 100 sons. Bhishma was confident that this was enough of a guarantee to ensure continuation of the Kuru dynasty.

Gandhari was totally devoted to her husband. This gave her enormous spiritual powers. Whoever she looked at with affection would become enormously powerful. She wanted to have one look at her eldest son, Duryodana. Krishna knew this and arranged for this exceptional meet between mother and son. He also made sure that Duryodana had a large loinscloth when the fleeting meeting took place. The consequence was that Duryodana became very strong ; his body could withstand any attack in warfare; his thighs were covered and so his thighs became his Achilles heel. This was exploited by Krishna and he advised the Pandavas at the right time how to get rid of Duryodana.

Bagavad Gita (contd)

 In the sixth verse, Duryodana completes his enumeration of warriors on the Pandava side. He ends with reference to "Draupadi's" five sons. Just like the first reference namely 'Saatyaki', this last one also is significant. The mention of 'Saatyaki' was supposed to kindle hatred for Arjuna in Drona's mind. Reference to Draupadi's sons is the outcome of Duryodana's obsessive thought about her. It is an exposure of his revengeful thought.

Duryodana was insulted by Draupadi on an earlier occasion. (This is supposed by some to be a later day addition to Mahabharata and not in the original. The original itself is too voluminous for our comprehension!)

Duryodana was visiting the place of Pandavas. The assembly hall was astoundingly resplendent. As Duryodana was taking in its luxury, he mistook a lake of water for crystal floor, slipped and got wet. Bhima saw this and laughed aloud. Draupadi was not there. But Duryodana imagined she was there and that she also made fun of him. He took it as an insult. (Some of us have a need to feel insulted.) Duryodana wanted to avenge this insult. What better way than to kill her sons! So he specifically mentioned their names so that Drona would remember to do away with them. During the war, Aswatthama, Drona's son, killed them while they were asleep.

In life, we come across many imaginary situations perceived as insults misleading us to adharmic acts.

Bagavad Gita (contd)

Sanjaya continues to inform Dhritharashtra what  Duryodana is haranguing / pleading with Drona. Duryodana is intent on defeating the Pandava forces by hook or by crook. He has not realised that for every hook of his, Krishna has a more effective hook. He is under the delusion that he is up against Arjuna. The fact is that he is pitted against Krishna, the invincible. Earlier we discussed the metaphorical interpretation of Sanjaya's ability to see what is invisible to others. There is also an episode to continue the non-metaphorical narrative.

Vyasa offers to provide his son, Dhritharashtra the Divya Dhrishti (Divine Vision) to enable him to see what is happening in the battlefield. The son spontaneously rejects the offer but requests that it be provided to Sanjaya. Why is it that the blind Dhritharashtra does not want to see the battle? If he was confident about his son's victory, he would have seized the divine opportunity. Did something tell him that things would not go his son's way? The father's scepticism was matched by the son's anxiety. Yet, they would continue the war. Such is the misleading power of greed and spite.

Could Vyasa not persuade his son to advise his son to give up the suicidal path? There is a clue available in the literal meaning of the word , Vyasa. Vyasa means 'classifier' or 'divider' or analyst. He classified the Vedas in to 4 parts and thus earned the name Veda Vyasa. For good decisions, one has to analyse and then synthesise to arrive at an optimal solution. Vyasa could only analyse and then leave the decision to the other party.

Vyasa is gifted with Divya Dhrishti permanently. (He is also immortal, a Chiranjeevi.) He could also provide this gift to others, but for only a limited time. Is it not ironic that a person endowed with such a grand vision fathered a son who was born blind? (This gives rise to a Tamil proverb, "A teacher's son is a fool",)

Divya Dhristi can also see what is happening in people's minds, the present and also the past events. Thus Vyasa was able to bring before him the past events so that he could chronicle them correctly.

Dhritharashtra's wife, Gandhari, blindfolded herself after her marriage as she did not want to witness what her husband could not see. If Dhritharashtra had accepted the Divine Vision, Gandhari would have removed her blindfold and she too would have been told about the carnage involving the deaths of their sons, then and there. Did the husband want to protect the wife from this worst tragedy that could ever visit a mother?