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.

OK, maybe it was not chaos, but I definitely saw more confusion today at the IIM Calcutta GD/PI than at any of the other interviews so far. The day began with a little tension for me, as I was stuck in traffic and reached the interview centre just 5 minutes before the scheduled time. On reaching the waiting room, besides the usual bunch of 25-30 nervous candidates, I saw two men seated at a table calling out names and looking at some documents.

I asked a guy seated next to me, and he informed me that they were asking for photocopies of all the documents related to your work experience and extra-curricular activities. Now, some people keep extra photocopies of anything and everything for such situations, but I was carrying only the necessary stuff, as the call letter said that you had to bring only the originals for verification, and not submit any photocopies. The guy next to me said, “I know that, but they have some different version of the letter, which says that you have to bring photocopies of everything. Anyway, they are saying that you can go and get it done after your interview”.

Meanwhile, the clock struck 9:30, and the two men got up and called out the names of candidates in each of the three panels, and asked us to go to the respective rooms (It was then that I noticed their heavy Bong accent). We went down, and waited outside our room. The neighbouring panel called the candidates in, while our group was still waiting. After a while, we heard the voice of one of the professors, probably talking on his cell-phone, so we thought we might be called in a few minutes, after he is done with the phone call. Finally, one of the two Bong babus came down and saw us waiting, and asked us to go inside. As we walked in to the room, the professors smiled at all of us and looked as if they had been waiting for us all this while.

Thankfully, the professors (three of them, two gentlemen and a lady) looked vastly different from the Bong babus outside. All of us just sauntered in, waiting to hear any instructions from them, but they kept smiling. Finally, when they asked us to sit, one of us asked, “Can we sit in any order?” and the lady replied, “Yes yes, sit wherever you want”. Immediately, one of the other profs said, “No no, I think there is some order…” (called out our names in order, as we sat down).

For the GD, we were given a case: A consulting firm goes to a b-school to recruit, but the students there play the ‘waiting game’ with them, i.e. they do not accept the offers immediately, get better offers from other companies and then come and bargain with them, etc. So, the HR team is discussing new strategies to overcome this. While they are discussing options like giving a short time-span for the recruits to convey their acceptance of the offer, the CEO comes up with an opposite suggestion – give the students an option of accepting the offer anytime within the next one year. So, for one year, they can go and ‘test the market’, and then come back and join the company. What are the pros and cons of this approach?

The GD was good, and everyone got enough opportunity to speak. I made a couple of points, saying that this idea was good for the students, as it gave them an additional choice. It was also good for the company, because it would help them differentiate themselves from their competitors. Also, most people, in the beginning of their career, look to try out new things, and switch jobs, before settling down in a particular job. By offering this choice, the company might end up as the beneficiary of this process instead of the victim.

All in all, it was good, but a couple of things which I could have done better - I was speaking when time ran out, so I was a little ‘caught by surprise’ when the professor interrupted. Then, he asked us to summarize, and unlike the other GDs, we all had to talk instead of writing down a summary. So, I began to write something, when the professor said, “No no, don’t write down anything. Just say whatever you have to, some point that you missed, or a summary of what was discussed, whatever. And since you (looking at me) were the one I interrupted, maybe you can begin the summarizing by completing your point”. I began talking, and was looking at the professors, when one of them motioned towards the group, so I shifted my glance towards them, and just repeated the few points that I had made during the GD. The others followed, and I felt that it would have been better if I had summarized later, as that would have given me time to collect all the thoughts and put up a good summary.

Anyway, so the GD ended, and I was second in line for the interview, so I waited outside along with a few others, while some went upstairs to the babus to get their verification done. We waited for quite some time, and were wondering what the professors were doing, as they hadn’t even taken our interview forms, so they had nothing about us to read or spend time on. Our neighbouring group had, in the meantime, finished their GD and the first guy’s interview, and the second one went in, when finally, our first interviewee was called in. He came out in about 15 minutes, with an ‘okayish’ expression on his face, and it was another ten minutes before I was finally called in.

From here, I’ll refer to the interviewers as P1, P2 and P3 (from left to right, with the lady in the centre).
P3: Please give me your form. (I hand it over)
P1: So while he is going through your form, I’ll give you a problem. Don’t worry, it is not a maths problem (Hahaha…). There is a food company, which has been around for about 20 years. Now, some problem occurs with one of their products in a particular region – some people fall ill after having it and so on. So, the company is trying to find out the reason, and the R&D head insists that their processes are very thorough, and that there is nothing wrong with their product, while the legal team says that it would be better to recall the product until everything is checked. However, there will be costs associated with the recall, along with the name of the company being affected and so on. So, what should the company do?
Me: Sir, there are a few things here which I’ll have to assume.
P1: Oh, you can ask me for any additional information.
Me: For example, how much time will it take for the company to check everything? If it is not going to take too long, then it does not make sense to recall it, and then launch it again soon after. But if it is going to take too long, then they should not take any risks and recall it immediately.
P1: OK, the checks are not going to be done by the company, but by some external agency, which will certify whether everything is alright. And this whole process will take, say, a month.
Me: Well, in that case, the company should recall the product. Also, you mentioned that besides the financial costs, there will also be an effect on the name of the company. But, I guess if something like this has happened, then someone must have already noticed the issue and the company’s name must be affected already. And the more they try to push things under the carpet, the worse it will be. So, brand name and reputation is something which should not be compromised, even for the sake of saving some money. And if the company is really on the right side, then it is going to come out unscathed from this.
(He seemed satisfied with my answer, and motioned to P3 to continue)

Now, I don’t remember the exact questions from here on, but P3 asked something about my job and what I had done for the last two years, and I explained everything, from my CAT attempt and campus placement experience in my final year to attempting the UPSC exams to IMS to my current job. There were the obvious questions, on what would you do if you get through the IAS/IFS as well as IIM A, B or C. My replies were mostly non-committal, as I said I am just focusing on doing well in all the interviews right now, and do not want to ‘count my chickens before they hatch’. Then, the lady moved on to what I thought was the role of a diplomat vis-à-vis a bureaucrat and a business executive. I spoke of the differences as well as the similarities, and from there, it went on to my short-term and long-term goals.

She then asked me why I had aspired to be a diplomat when in today’s globalizing world, countries and governments are becoming increasingly irrelevant. This was discussed at some length, as all the three professors chipped in with their own points on this, even joking that ‘things are changing so rapidly, we won’t need diplomats, you will become jobless’. And so it went on for about 10 minutes. My reply to these questions was mostly on the lines that it is in fact the diplomats who have the biggest role to play in bringing about this change. For example, it is the European diplomats who have been instrumental in building bridges and forming the EU out of the different European countries.

There was also a question on ‘who do you think makes all these decisions, at the UN, WTO, etc.?’ I replied that these decisions were made by governments, and of course, in today’s scenario, the business world has an interest and a say in these decisions. Also, since most of the powerful countries in the world today are democracies, the people of those countries have a say, however indirect it might seem. For example, if we do not agree with the Indian government, we can protest and the government will have to consider our opinion, even if it does not do so immediately.

Somewhere in this discussion, I slipped in the point that even in the business world, family-owned businesses are giving way to corporations where the CEOs are democratically elected. They didn’t seem to agree with this point too much, as their expressions and the tone of their voice suggested. One of them said, “But everywhere I look, I can see only Ambanis, Tatas, and other such families”. Then they asked me for an example of a family-owned business where the CEO is ‘democratically elected’. I was not sure, but I mentioned Wipro, my point being that even though Azim Premji still holds a majority stake in the company, he has not got his family members into important positions. They asked me the CEO’s name, which I did not know, and I was not even sure whether the CEO was truly democratically elected or handpicked by Azim Premji. But my point was that it is not just a single family’s absolute reign over all the resources of a business, at least in the biggest corporations of the world.

Towards the end of the interview, P3 asked me two questions, “If you represent India at the UN, what would be your three most important concerns?” and “What were your subjects at the UPSC exam?” In reply to the former, I mentioned changes in the approach to tackling terrorism, the decision-making at the WTO and the whole issue of free trade v/s fair trade, and the issue of expanding the Security Council to include more permanent members.

That was the end, and they asked me if I had any questions for them. I hadn’t thought of any, so I refused, as I didn’t want to come up with something silly on the spot. After the interview, I went to get photocopies of all my documents, and when I went up to those babus, I realised that I had already given my interview form to the professors in my panel. So I had to go back to them, get the form, take it to the babus who would verify everything and attach the copies, and then go and give it to the professors again.

Finally, I left the place around noon, came home, and just crashed on the bed.

General opinion: I think my performance was OK. I did not do too well, but I did not screw it up either. The interviewers did not seem very happy, but they were not frowning either; they had a generic smile on their faces throughout. When, in reply to their questions about my career choices, long and short-term goals, and my opinion on politics and the world in general, I gave generally diplomatic answers, one of them said, “He’s already talking like those MBA types”. I am not sure whether it was a good thing or a bad thing, but I restricted myself to telling the facts, and a general opinion on what I think is right, and not extreme rhetoric for or against any point of view.

And yes, for some reason, even though I remember pretty much everything from the interview, I do not remember it in an order proper enough to be constructed into a conversation format which I have followed for my previous blog posts. For that, a friend had suggested some days back that I carry a recorder into the interview.

Maybe this format is not as conducive to reading as the conversational one, so I’ll try to do better next time.

As promised, I am back with my next interview experience, IIM Indore, which happened yesterday morning. I reached the venue by 8:30 am, and when the groups were announced, I was relieved to know that I was the first candidate in my group, so unlike the previous interviews, I wouldn’t have to wait too long for my turn.

We went in for the GD, and were handed a one-page case to read for 5 minutes. It was about a successful businesswoman who heads a large BPO firm (I am not sure what they meant by large, because later in the case, it was mentioned that the firm has about 50 employees). The employees in her firm, and in the sector as a whole, are facing problems because of harassing calls made by US or UK citizens who resent the outsourcing of jobs to India. Also, the safety of employees, especially women, has come under media attention recently. So she has to take some measures to tackle these issues, and she goes to discuss it with her business partner, who manages the financial and administrative part (while she is the ‘face of the company’). He says she can take measures, but without any financial burden, as the company is planning an upgradation, etc. All this comes as a surprise to her and she feels left out of these decisions made by her partner. What should she do?

The discussion was strictly OK. We were given 12 minutes, and with only 6 people in the group, I thought everyone would have enough time to speak. But a couple of guys seemed too enthusiastic (or actually, nervous.. or maybe they just loved to hear their own voice, even if they didn’t have any points), and hogged most of the time. I made a couple of forays, saying that all that is being discussed is fine, but the critical thing is for her to communicate all this tactfully to her partner. Of course, there are many solutions if one goes to look for them, but proper communication between the partners is essential for those solutions to work. I know that I generally talk lesser than I should in GDs, but sometimes, that’s because I don’t see the point in arguing with someone whose only concern is to hog the time, and I feel that there is always the interview to show what I really am. Plus, today I felt, it’s only IIM Indore, after all.

Anyway, the GD got over, and we were all asked to write a summary of the discussion. After that, one of the professors said that they would call us in random order, and I thought to myself, ‘what the hell, even today I’ll have to wait for my interview’. One of the candidates said then that he hadn’t brought his CAT admit card, which slightly incensed the professor, but he finally told him to get a photocopy of some identification along with the original one. We went outside to wait, and the second guy in the group was the first to be called in. I chatted with the others in the meantime.

After about 20 minutes, that guy came out with a very serious and tense look on his face. We asked him about the interview, and he said it was OK, and ‘thoda stress tha’, and that I was next, and I should go in after 3 minutes. I got up and went to the door of the interview room. After some time, I knocked the door, I heard ‘come in’, I tried opening the door, I heard ‘come in’ again and louder this time, and finally, one of the professors came up and opened the door, and asked me, ‘couldn’t you hear us’. I said, ‘yes sir, I could, but I couldn’t open the door’. It was then that he realised that that door could be opened only from inside, or by inserting a card key from outside. There were 2 professors in the panel, say L (to my left) and R (to my right). Here’s what happened after that:

R: (who opened the door, and then came and sat and looked at my name) So, your name is Mathur?
Me: No sir, that’s my surname. My first name is Chitranshu.
R: Oh, so what does that mean?
Me: Sir, ‘chitr-’ means picture, and it is also derived from our family deity, who is Chitragupta. And ‘anshu’ is a suffix like in ‘Himanshu’ etc.
R: But does it have any meaning?
Me: Yes sir, ‘ansh’ means a part.
R: So, what does Chitragupta do?
Me: (smiling) Sir, as far as I know, he sits next to Yamaraj with an account of everyone’s lives.
R: (with a smile) OK, so when you meet Chitragupta, please put in a good word for us.
(On hearing this, I am like ‘WHAT???’, but in the meantime, L begins)
L: So, what do your friends call you, Chitranshu or Vijay or…?
Me: No sir, Vijay is my father’s name. On a professional or formal level, I am called Chitranshu.
L: OK, so Chitranshu, tell us about yourself. And hand over your certificates please.
Me: (after handing over the file) blah blah blah… end with the fact that I appeared for IAS exams after graduating from IIT.
L: Oh, so what happened to that IAS dream?
Me: Sir, I cleared the prelims, then appeared for the Mains in Oct-Nov 2007, and their results are due sometime in the second half of March.
L: So, what is your order of preference in those services?
Me: blah blah.
L: Oh, so it is either IFS/IAS or IIMs?
Me: Yes sir.
L: OK, so you must be very good at GK?
(I didn’t quite catch the word GK, so he repeated, calling it ‘general studies’ this time. I nodded and smiled, waiting for some questions on it)
L: OK, so can you tell us something about China? I mean, China is a communist country, but now, it has a capitalistic approach, especially if you see Shanghai etc. So how are these two opposites reconciled?
Me: Sir, when China originally turned communist about 60 years ago, it was under Mao Zedong until 1978, and he had this very strict regime, and things were tried like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. However, after 1978, they have adopted the current approach, what they call ‘market communism’. And now, it’s not a question of capitalism or communism, but what’s good for the country. So they are doing what they think is good for them, whether it is their own economy, or increasing their influence in the world, not just by interacting with the US and the EU, but also nations from Africa or Latin America.
L: But, do you foresee any problems with their current approach?
Me: Yes sir, it is still a one-party state, and you cannot criticize the government at all. Also, there are human rights issues, and for developing places like Shanghai, they have had to relocate millions of people.
L: What do you know about Cuba?
Me: (a bit surprised at this sudden change of track, but soon, I realised that this was a rapid-fire grilling) Sir, Cuba is, if I am not wrong, the first country to turn communist in the Western Hemisphere. And, just yesterday… (I was going to speak about Fidel Castro giving the reins to Raul, but L interrupted)
L: Have you heard of the Bay of Pigs?
Me: Yes sir, it is a region in Cuba, where, in Kennedy’s time, there was an invasion. I mean, not directly, but CIA sponsored some Cuban rebels…
(L again interrupted, and thus the grilling went on for about 10 minutes. I don’t remember ALL the questions, but some of them, and not necessarily in order, were as follows)
L: What do you know about the WTO?
L: Who is Hugo Chavez?
L: What do you think about India’s chances of becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council?
L: What is a mixed economy?
L: Do you think India’s leaders did the right thing in 1947 when they opted for a mixed economy?
L: What is ‘demographic dividend’?
L: What is the Narmada Bachao Andolan?
L: Do you read any books?
L: (after I mentioned Amartya Sen’s ‘Argumentative Indian’ and his take on the question of identity) Do you agree with what Raj Thackeray is doing now in Mumbai?
L: What can be done to tackle a situation like this?

(I answered all of these, and I did not stop with a brief answer and wait for the next question. Instead, I went on with more details, and my take on it, until he fired the next question. And then, he finally came up with one I didn’t know)
L: Who is R.K. Karanjia?
Me: Umm… I don’t know, sir.
L: (smiling and turning to R) OK, do you have any questions?
R asked me some questions about my present job, about what is Engineering Physics, what are the prospects if one wants to stay in that field, and then he moved on to the following:
R: So Chitranshu, you know that India and the US are very similar, in the sense that both are democracies, both have certain freedoms for their citizens, etc. And yet we see that the US often favours China, or even Pakistan, more than India. Why do you think that is so?
Me: Sir, in today’s world, diplomacy is not practised the way it was in Pandit Nehru’s time, when we would think that we would talk only to like-minded countries. This is the age of ‘realpolitik’, and every country does what is in its best interest. So, even the nuclear deal that President Bush helped push through, was for the US interest. It also helps India, but India has to take care of that part.
L: So what do you think about the nuclear deal?
Me: Sir, I think the CPM is being very dogmatic in its opposition to the deal. I mean, yes, there might be some genuine concerns expressed by scientists and others, but instead of an open discussion on those concerns, we just see a lot of rhetoric. And their stand that ‘just because it’s the US, we cannot have that deal’ is not right, as it will also help open doors for India with other countries. Now, of course, the US has passed it, so there are the IAEA talks and the NSG and so on…
R: But, don’t we have enough nuclear fuel reserves in our own country?
Me: Yes sir, we have reserves of thorium and uranium, but they must not be enough, because we have tried to be self-reliant for the last 30 years or so. And at this critical juncture, we need more fuel…
R: So can’t we get it from other countries?
Me: (reiterating my point) Yes, but for all of that, we have to go through with the IAEA talks and NSG approval. In today’s world, we cannot just trade with one country and ignore the others.

I don’t remember now if there were any other such questions, but after that, R moved on to the extra-curriculars page in my form, and asked me what those were. I explained all those things I had written, and then they said, ‘OK, that’s enough’.

I came out with a huge smile on my face, as I knew I had done really well. I think this was my best performance so far because they went on asking about the things I know, instead of picking on some things that I didn’t know and grilling me on them. But I have to be good with dealing with that situation also, especially with two big ones (C on 13th March and B on 27th March) coming up. I told the next guy in line to go after 5 minutes, and waited for some time, chatting with the others.

When I reached home, my dad called up, and while I was telling him about the interview, he told me that R.K. Karanjia was the former editor of Blitz who died last year.

Anyway, so I’ll be back with the next one after 13th March, or maybe something more interesting before that.