The Quintessential Outsider

Finally, I had my last IIM interview today afternoon. It was IIM Bangalore, and being one of the ‘big’ ones, and considering that my A and C interviews were just okay, I was determined to do well. In the run-up to this day, I read interviews on Pagalguy, read stuff from Wikipedia which I thought could be useful, spoke to some friends to get their inputs, and generally fretted more than I had for any other interview so far.

I reached the centre about 20 minutes before time, and generally started speaking to some of the other candidates. When I came out to make a call, I saw the interviewers walk by, presumably after having their lunch. I noticed that one of them was the same professor who had interviewed me two years ago.

After some time, one of the other professors came down to our waiting room, and announced the names of candidates in his panel. Mine was the first name, which also meant that I was the first one to be interviewed in that panel. Anyway, that comes later. We walked behind that professor to the interview room, and when I entered, I found that the other professor in that panel was the one I had noticed downstairs, the one who had interviewed me before.

We were told to take our places according to the order, and were given the instructions – a case would be given, we would have 10 minutes to think and prepare our points, then 15 minutes to discuss, and then another 10 minutes to write a summary of the discussion and answer a couple of other questions. The case given to us was ’should the government set up more IITs and IIMs, or should it use that money for primary and secondary education?’ Some points on this issue which are commonly found in the media were given as part of the case.

The discussion was the worst I have seen so far. There were about 8 people in the group, and no one seemed to be willing to listen to the others, clearly define the problem, discuss solutions or move to a conclusion. Everyone was just trying to make their own points, even if that meant cross-talking and trying to shout others down. I made a couple of forays into the discussion, and my voice and tone are such that everyone stopped and listened (1-2 guys in the group actually came up to me after the discussion and said as much). I managed to make a couple of points in these forays, but I had some more as well. However, in the other attempted forays, I decided to stop after uttering a few words because everyone seemed to be lost in their own voices.

I understand that this was one topic where everyone had a lot to say, but the sad thing is that most of the stuff spoken was irrelevant, digressive, and generally spoken to hog the time. If people had bothered to listen to each others’ points, not repeat stuff, and actually try to come to some conclusion, it would have been better. A few people tried to get the discussion back on track, but in the face of aggression, everyone usually turns up their volume. After about 15 minutes, the professor asked us to stop, and asked me if I had anything to add. I was a little surprised, but I was careful not to repeat the mistake I made after the IIMC GD, and finished with a few points which I had noted on my paper but could not bring out in the discussion.

Along with the written summary, there were two other questions, on ‘who do you think was the most influential person in the 20th century, and why?’ and ‘what are your career goals and how does a PGP from IIMB fit into it?’ I answered them just in time, and then we were asked to go downstairs and wait.

I went down, had some water, spoke to some guys, and came back up in about 5 minutes. After some time, one of the professors came out and called me for the interview. From here on, I’ll refer to the professors as P1 (the one who had interviewed me before, and who came out to call me) and P2 (the one who came to call us for the GD). In the interview room, P1 was to my left and P2 to my right.

(After going in, wishing them and sitting down)
P2: So, is your name Chitranshu or Vijay?
Me: Sir, my name is Chitranshu. Vijay is my father’s name.
P2: But Mathur is a North Indian surname, right?
Me: Yes sir.
P2: So why do you write your name in this form, surname followed by name and father’s name?
Me: Sir, I always wrote my name as Chitranshu Mathur, but after my 10th standard exams, I got my certificate with this name, which was according to the convention in Maharashtra. So, it has stuck on all my official certificates since then.
P2: OK. So… (looking at my form) you have just started working, right?
Me: Yes sir, I took up this job after CAT, in December last year. Before that, I graduated in 2006, and was preparing for the UPSC civil service exams (spoke about those exams, the result I got recently, and that I appeared for CAT alongside and was now going through the interviews).
P2: And have you appeared for CAT earlier?
Me: Yes sir, I appeared once before, in my final year of college, that was CAT 2005. I got all 6 calls, went for the Ahmedabad and Bangalore interviews, and in fact, in the Bangalore interview, (smiling and looking at P1) Prof. Ganesh was one of my interviewers. In fact, at that time, I had told him that I would be appearing for the UPSC exams, which I have now. (P1 smiled and muttered something to P2, which sounded to me like ‘I told you I had seen him before’ or something)
P2: So what happened in those interviews?
Me: Sir, I did not convert the A and B calls, and I did not go for the other four interviews. In campus placements also, I sat for a few company interviews. From all this, I came to know where I stood, and I proceeded with my UPSC exam preparations.
P2: But why this fascination with the civil services? Is your father in the IAS? (looking at my form)
Me: No sir. (told about my own thought process and how I arrived at the decision, and that my father had the opposite role, of asking ‘why do you want to do this’, but once I had decided, he said I should do whatever I want, but not waste too much time. Finished off by saying that even now, I have two more attempts left and age on my side, but I do not want to appear again because I think I have put in whatever effort I could. People say ‘you should have gone to Delhi to prepare’ just like they say ‘go to Kota if you want to prepare for IIT-JEE’, but I didn’t want to do that)
P2: What were your subjects in the UPSC exams?
Me: Geography and political science.
P2: (with a look of surprise) Why… after studying engineering physics from IIT?
Me: (told about why social sciences are better for these exams, and my own interest in them. He countered by saying that he had heard that physics and maths was a good combination, but conceded that if I was interested in some other subjects, so be it)
Then, he changed track and asked…
P2: OK, so since you have majored in physics, tell me about string theory.
I mentioned that I had not studied string theory, and that I was anyway out of touch with physics, but he insisted, saying that I should be able to tell more than what a ‘layman’ like him knew. I said whatever I could, that it was a theory that the four fundamental forces of nature arise out of different vibrational modes of strings. He asked me to name the four fundamental forces, which I did correctly, but after some stuttering indecision. However, I could not tell more in detail about string theory or about its originator.
P2: (after about 2-3 minutes of grilling and only getting half-baked information with little confidence from me) OK, now about political science. (I waited with baited breath) You must be knowing that the Rajya Sabha elections happened over the weekend. So, how would you analyse the results and their impact on the ruling party? Give me your analysis, not what I read in the Times of India.
Me: (smiling) Sir, I too read about it only in the Times of India. (Gave my analysis of the results)
P2: OK, and what about Vilasrao Deshmukh? What effect would it have on him?
(I mentioned his decreasing influence, the Vidarbha crisis and the negative impact it had on his image. Finally, P2 just made the question more pointed…)
P2: So why is Deshmukh not being sacked?
Me: Sir, maybe they have no options.
P2: Oh, they have many options.
Me: Then maybe it’s because of his proximity to Sonia Gandhi.
P2: He is not being sacked because he belongs to a powerful community which they cannot afford to anger.
Me: (finally dawning upon me) Yes sir, he is the only Maratha leader they have.
P2: (with a dismissive look) OK, so what else… yes, geography! Which state in India has the longest coastline?
Me: Sir, it’s Gujarat.
P2: (smiling) OK, so you know something at least. (turning to P1, who had been smiling all along, and occasionally broadening his smile when P2 cracked a joke on me )
P1: (looking at my form) OK, tell me something about your current job.
I spoke about my job, and from there, a discussion ensued, and somewhere in between, I mentioned Pagalguy. P1 asked what I knew about Pagalguy, and then P2 interrupted.
P2: So, why pagal? Are the owners of that site pagal or the people who go to that site?
Me: Sir, the users are given some ‘pagal’ rating when they register. I don’t know much about all that, but it’s useful. For example, I came to know that this question on ‘most influential person’ is being asked, by reading the discussions on Pagalguy.
P2: OK, and what have you written?… Gandhi. So, did you get this answer also from there?
Me: No sir (smiling). I read that some other people had also written that, but I sincerely feel it was Gandhi.
Then, I started speaking about Gandhi, his philosophies, the things he was criticised about, and yet, why he was still a great man.
P2: OK, tell me one thing. If you have seen that movie Munnabhai 2, there is that scene where Sanjay Dutt is slapped once, he turns his other cheek, he is slapped again, and then he retaliates, because Gandhi has not told him what to do after two slaps. So, was that what Gandhi said, that you tolerate upto a certain point and then retaliate?
Me: No sir, I think that movie reduced Gandhi to a caricature. (spoke more about his philosophy)
P2: But, Gandhi was the one who said that India should fight alongside Britain in World War II? Where did his non-violence go then?
I defended that, and somewhere in this discussion, I also mentioned Gandhi’s influence on Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. P2 disagreed, saying that that was just lip-service, and that Nelson Mandela had adopted violent tactics earlier. I said that as long as he changed in the end, that was good. And thus, the discussion went on, until I said that Gandhi was just a human and he should not be put on a pedestal. He agreed, and I extended that argument saying that no one should be put on a pedestal. For example, even Jesus Christ was just a great human with a certain philosophy.
P2: (interrupting) OK, now you are getting into dangerous territory. (collecting the papers in front of him) See, in front a group of people, you never know who might get offended by what. So, it’s best to stay away from such dangerous territory.
I nodded, and they both said, ‘ok, that’s all, thank you, and please send the next person in’.

I thanked them and left with a smile on my face. There had been moments when I was not too confident of what I was saying, and times when I said ‘I don’t know’, but on the whole, I got a good feeling. That was also because the interviewers had been smiling throughout. Sometimes, it was in a mocking way, and sometimes agreeing with me, but on the whole, it helped. And the latter half of the interview was really good, I felt. I don’t know how much impact the GD will have, though, on the final result.

So now, I am keeping my fingers crossed till the final results. That does not mean that I will not write anything till then, though.