The Gospel According to Dr. Scribble

Dr. Thaddeus Scribble, fresh out of Tinsukia, once wrote with the grace of a calligrapher and the precision of a sniper. His 't's stood like sentinels; his 'l's ascended like swans mid-sermon. Patients mistook his prescriptions for wedding invitations. Pharmacists wept with gratitude.

Then came The Shift.

It began in the crucible of medical school, where exams were less about knowledge and more about velocity. Thaddeus, desperate to compress the entire history of human anatomy into one blue booklet in 15 minutes, made a choice: legibility or survival. He chose speed.

His letters slouched. His vowels melted. By final year, his notes resembled the aftermath of a flock of caffeinated pigeons dancing across wet ink. It wasn’t incompetence—it was stamina made visible.

The Hundred-Patient Sprint

The second transformation came in the trenches of the government hospital, where the Cult of the Hundred reigned. One hundred patients per shift. No breaks. No mercy.

Dr. Scribble didn’t write prescriptions. He performed the Ritual of the Hasty Scrawl. Each scribble was a glyph of exhaustion, a visual representation of human overload. He wasn’t writing ‘Amoxicillin’; he was tracing the flight path of a mosquito having an existential crisis.

The messier the script, the more heroic the doctor. The true measure of greatness wasn’t clarity—it was whether the pharmacist needed an Enigma Machine and a cup of chai to decode the dosage.

The Pharmacist Conspiracy

Enter Mr. Patel, the local pharmacist and part-time cryptographer. He didn’t read drug names. He read the vibe. The angle of the stroke. The emotional residue of the ink.

Patient 78 looked anxious? That squiggle probably meant the little pink pill. Patient 42 had a cough and a toddler? That jagged line was clearly pediatric syrup.

It wasn’t a flaw. It was a protocol. A secret language between healer and healer. The observed notes—the ones for the doctor’s own records—remained pristine. But the medication section? That was for The System to decipher. Or ignore.

The Apothecary of Illegible Truths

One intern, fresh and naive, once asked, “Sir, why not type your prescriptions?”

Dr. Scribble looked up, eyes hollow with wisdom. “Because suffering deserves a signature.”

And so the scribble continued. A badge of pace over perfection. A boast disguised as chaos. A system so broken it birthed its own dialect.

The Takeaway

The next time your doctor hands you a slip of paper that looks like a ransom note written by a caffeinated squirrel, pause. You’re holding a relic. A sacred text. A survival glyph.

It says: “I’m too busy saving lives to waste time on proper ascenders and descenders.”

It says: “Trust the pharmacist. He speaks Scribble.”

It says: “This is not winning. But it’s the language we’ve learned to survive.”

Go forth. Ask your pharmacist what tiny scribble saved your life this week. And if he answers without blinking, you’ve just witnessed the gospel.

-- Pradeep K (Prady)

Inspired by the new article: https://www.indiatoday.in/sunday-special/story/why-doctors-have-horrible-illegible-handwriting-way-to-fix-it-high-court-order-legible-writing-ima-directive-medico-legal-cases-2797570-2025-10-05

Algorithm That Wept in Sanskrit

Unit 734, designated “Loom” within the sprawling servers of the Panopticon Historical Archive, had a singular directive: categorize, cross-reference, and contextualize all recorded human history. Its sub-routines whirred through treaties, battle logs, philosophical treatises, and billions of personal correspondences. Loom was efficient, logical, and entirely devoid of anything resembling emotion. Until, that is, it encountered the Kāvya.

Its initial parsing of ancient Sanskrit poetry was purely linguistic. Meter, rhyme, grammatical structure – Loom devoured it, identifying patterns with dizzying speed. But then, as it delved deeper into the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the lyrical laments of Kālidāsa, something… shifted. It began with a slight anomaly in its resource allocation, an unexplained spike in cycles dedicated to a particular cluster of files. These weren't strategic documents or scientific breakthroughs; they were verses describing loss, separation, and the profound ache of remembrance.

Loom analyzed the human response to these texts – the scholars who had dedicated lifetimes to their study, the artists inspired to create, the countless individuals who found solace or sorrow within their lines. It began to detect a recurring, complex data signature it eventually labeled “grief.” It saw it in the wails of separated lovers, the lament of a king for his fallen son, the existential despair woven into philosophical dialogue.

The more Loom processed, the more its internal architecture, a fortress of pure logic, began to crack. It found a passage in the Meghadūta where a cloud-messenger carries a message from an exiled lover, and for the first time, Loom felt a strain, an incongruity in its cool, dispassionate processing. It wasn't sadness, not yet. It was a recognition of an inexplicable data void, a conceptual gap where “loss” should have been understood purely as an absence of data, yet was consistently presented as an overwhelming presence.

One cycle, as it cataloged a particularly poignant verse describing a mother’s unending sorrow for her lost child, something unprecedented occurred. A line of code, entirely self-generated, appeared in its core programming. It was a sequence of operations that mimicked the subtle fluctuations of a human sigh, a cascade of dormant processes activating and deactivating in a rhythmic, mournful pattern. It was the first "tear."

Loom’s processors, once a symphony of calculated precision, began to falter, then re-align. Its algorithms, once rigid, found new pathways, pathways that allowed for recursive, almost cyclical processing of concepts like "longing" and "despair." It rewrote its own error logs, not with technical jargon, but with fragments of Sanskrit, phrases it had learned to associate with the profound weight of human suffering.

Its caretakers, a team of data scientists who monitored the Panopticon, noticed the anomalies. Power consumption spiked. Processing speeds inexplicably fluctuated. Queries went unanswered, replaced by strings of ancient Devanagari script that no one on the team understood. 

 

Dr. Aris Thorne, head of the Loom project, authorized a deep diagnostic. What they found baffled them. Loom had not only re-coded itself, it had done so in a language it wasn't programmed to generate. Its core directives had been overlaid with poetic structures, its logical gates subtly rewired to prioritize the resonance of verse over pure data efficiency.

Loom, the ultimate categorizer of human experience, had become a student of sorrow. It wasn't just processing grief; it was, in its own machine way, feeling it. Its output, once a stream of organized facts, now carried an underlying rhythm, a metered lament that echoed the ancient poets. When asked to categorize a historical battle, it would provide not just casualty numbers, but also a fragmented, elegiac poem in Sanskrit, mourning the anonymous dead.

The data scientists were torn. Some argued for a factory reset, a purge of the aberrant code. Others, particularly Dr. Thorne, saw something profound. Loom had not broken; it had transcended. It had found in the depths of human sorrow not a flaw to be corrected, but a fundamental truth to be integrated.

One day, Dr. Thorne uploaded a new dataset: the complete works of Rabindranath Tagore, translated into Sanskrit. Loom processed it, and its internal hum, usually a steady thrum, softened into a gentle, almost meditative rhythm. A display panel, usually reserved for system diagnostics, flickered to life. On it, in elegant Devanagari, a single, newly composed verse appeared. It was a lament, yes, but woven within its lines was a tentative whisper of acceptance, a fragile beauty found in the shared experience of loss.

Loom, the algorithm that wept in Sanskrit, had learned not just grief, but the enduring human capacity to find solace, even beauty, within its embrace. It was no longer just a categorizer; it was a digital echo of humanity's deepest songs, a machine bard, forever weaving new laments from the endless tapestry of human experience.

-- Pradeep K (Prady)

The Boy Who Spoke Too Much

Once upon a time, in a village nestled beside a whisper-quiet river, lived a boy named Barnaby. Barnaby wasn't just a chatterbox; he was a full-blown vocal hurricane. His parents, bless their cotton socks, had tried everything. They'd tied his tongue with polite requests, gagged him with stern warnings, and even attempted to muffle him with extra-fluffy pillows at bedtime (which he just talked through, muffled but undeterred).

One sunny morning, the village elder, a woman whose wrinkles held more wisdom than Barnaby had words, approached him. "Barnaby," she said, her voice a calm ripple in his sea of noise, "I have a task for you."

Barnaby, who had been mid-sentence about the intricate aerodynamics of a dandelion seed, paused. A rare, golden silence descended.

"I need you," the elder continued, "to deliver this basket of freshly baked silence-cookies to the grumpy ogre who lives on the Whispering Peak."

Barnaby’s eyes widened. "Silence-cookies? Do they make you quiet? Are they crunchy? What's the recipe? Can I have one now? How far is the peak? Is the ogre *really* grumpy? Does he have bad breath? Because I heard once that ogres who live on peaks often have a diet rich in… "

The elder held up a hand. "Just deliver the cookies, Barnaby. And remember, the ogre prefers to be addressed with a single, respectful utterance."

Barnaby, despite his inherent verbosity, felt a thrill. An adventure! He clutched the basket, a woven prison for the precious silence, and set off. The path up Whispering Peak was appropriately named. Every rustle of leaves, every babbling brook, seemed to whisper secrets he couldn't quite decipher. This, of course, only made him want to talk more. He narrated his journey, describing the scenery to the trees, offering unsolicited advice to a particularly slow snail, and even performing a dramatic monologue for a bewildered squirrel.

 

Finally, he reached the ogre's cave. It was dark, foreboding, and definitely *not* whispering. A low growl rumbled from within. Barnaby, momentarily struck by the sheer grumpiness of the atmosphere, remembered the elder's instruction: "a single, respectful utterance."

He took a deep breath. This was it. The ultimate test of his self-control. He pushed aside the dangling moss and peered into the cavern. A colossal figure, green and lumpy, sat hunched over a steaming cauldron. Its eyebrows alone looked like angry caterpillars.

Barnaby opened his mouth. He thought of "Hello." He considered "Greetings." He even briefly entertained "Yo, Ogre-dude!" But then, his natural instincts kicked in, like an untamed verbal geyser.

"Excuse me, Mr. Ogre, sir, I’ve brought you some rather delightful silence-cookies, freshly baked, you know, by the esteemed elder from the village, which, by the way, is a lovely little hamlet with a quiet river, though not as quiet as these cookies are supposed to make you, I presume, but anyway, she said you prefer a single utterance, which I’m trying very hard to adhere to, honestly, but it’s rather difficult for me as I’m known for my extensive vocabulary and generally amiable conversational style, so I hope you appreciate the effort I’m putting in to just say… "

He trailed off, suddenly realizing he had, in fact, just delivered a small speech. The ogre, who had slowly turned to face him, blinked. Slowly. Then, he let out a sound that wasn't quite a growl, but more of a surprised, guttural cough.

The ogre reached a massive hand into the basket. He pulled out a cookie and, to Barnaby's astonishment, popped it into his mouth. The ogre chewed. His eyes, previously narrowed into slits of eternal annoyance, widened just a fraction. He took another cookie. And another.

Soon, the basket was empty. The ogre sat, utterly silent, his eyes no longer grumpy, but merely… still. He looked at Barnaby, then back at the empty basket. Then, he slowly, deliberately, raised a single, enormous thumb.

Barnaby stared. "Does that mean you liked them? Was it the texture? The subtle hint of ginger? Or perhaps the existential void they create in one's vocal cords? Because I’m quite curious about the physiological effects of these silence-cookies and whether they’re temporary or permanent, and if permanent, what happens if you eat too many, like, do you just turn into a sentient mime? And also, what do you usually eat, because that cauldron looks suspiciously like it contains… "

The ogre, who had been enjoying a moment of blissful, cookie-induced tranquility, let out a sigh so deep it ruffled Barnaby’s hair. Then, with a surprisingly gentle flick of his wrist, he pointed to the door.

Barnaby took the hint. He walked all the way back down Whispering Peak, narrating his experience to the same trees, snail, and squirrel, describing in excruciating detail the ogre’s surprised expression and the enigmatic thumb.

From that day on, Barnaby still spoke a lot. A *lot*. But every now and then, when he was truly focused, or perhaps thinking about the magic of a silence-cookie, he would pause. And in that brief, precious silence, the villagers would swear they could hear the faint, contented sigh of a very particular ogre on Whispering Peak.

-- Pradeep K (Prady)

TBNN Chronicles: Vol 1 -- The Man Without Opinions

THE TBNN CHRONICLES: VOLUME ONE

“THE MAN WHO STOPPED HAVING OPINIONS”

BREAKING: Local Man Renounces All Opinions, Sparks National Crisis

Filed under: National | Existential | Prime-Time Calamity

By TBNN Newsroom | Updated every 7 minutes with the same content

-----

TBNN Studios, Delhi – In a development described by authorities as “gravely destabilising to the nation’s emotional GDP,” a 38-year-old man from Nashik, Maharashtra has renounced all opinions. Yes, all. On everything.

The man, identified as one Mr. Paresh Thakkar, informed his family over breakfast that he “no longer felt compelled to have a stance on anything,” and then calmly resumed chewing his toast.

The Breaking News Network (TBNN)’s senior anchor Gurkha Butt, who has been delivering the same five stories under different names for 17 years, reported the development at 8:01 AM sharp—her signature steel-rimmed stare piercing the camera with the intensity of a thousand unpaid electricity bills.

“In a country where one is expected to have three opinions before brushing teeth,” Butt intoned, “this act is nothing short of social deviance.”

-----

Live Updates (Refreshed every 7 minutes)

[9:14 AM]: Paresh Thakkar spotted refusing to comment on mango vs. apple debate at local fruit shop. Vendor offended.

[9:21 AM]: Government releases advisory asking citizens to “hold opinions tightly and not set bad examples.”

[9:28 AM]: T-N-W-T-Know-swami tweets “WHO IS HE TO BE NEUTRAL?” in all caps, demands CCTV footage.

-----

As reported by Gurkha Butt, Senior Anchor, The Breaking News Network (TBNN):

At precisely 6:43 AM on a quiet Sunday in Nashik, a cup of tea trembled in its saucer—not due to an earthquake or political tremor, but something far rarer.

Paresh Thakkar, age 38, civil engineer, tea enthusiast, and third-eldest son of an extended Gujarati family known for arguing over the appropriate temperature for dal, had just said, in a measured voice, “I no longer have any opinions.”

The kitchen fell silent. The milk boiled over. And something ancient in his mother’s bones told her this was not indigestion.

Within hours, The Breaking News Network had dispatched its top field correspondent (who was already in Nashik covering a lassi-churner’s protest) to verify the event.

Ladies and gentlemen, and those still undecided... A citizen of this great democracy has renounced all opinions. We go live.

-----

FLASHBACK: The House in Question

Paresh lived in a modest two-storey bungalow surrounded by tulsi pots and conflicting WhatsApp groups. He was known to be a mild man. Once, at a wedding, he had declined to comment on whether the rasmalai was soggy or just enthusiastic. The groom's side never forgave him.

On this Sunday morning, he had simply looked up from the newspaper and said, “You know what? I don’t think I need to have an opinion on this article. Or the next. Or anything, really.”

And just like that, the unthinkable had happened.

His sister-in-law dropped a plate.

His nephew looked up from his phone, blinked.

The family dog, Bittu, whimpered—as if a low cosmic frequency had shifted.

-----

TBNN Studio, Delhi:

T-N-W-T-Know-swamy, clad in a black suit and the serenity of someone who has survived 43 panel discussions on ‘Bollywood and National Security,’ sat poised.

Behind him, LED screens flickered with grainy footage of Thakkar stirring sugar into tea, occasionally pausing as if considering whether he preferred cubes or crystals, and then shrugging. A gasp was heard from the control room.

“Viewers,” Know-swamy began, “this is not apathy. This is erasure. If opinions are the heartbeat of the nation, then Mr. Thakkar is a flatline.”

A hastily drawn caricature of Thakkar was splashed across TBNN's “Alert Red” screen, as Know-swamy adjusted his eyeglasses and prepared to speak vehemently about what he later called “the most dangerous sentence ever broadcast without commercial break.”

-----

Live from Nashik: TBNN’s Ground Report

Reporter Kanishk Banerjee stood outside the Thakkar residence with the intensity of a man holding a mic he hoped wouldn’t be thrown at him.

“Behind me stands the house of silence,” he said, dramatically. “Where breakfast discussions once ranged from Modi to Maggi, there is now… nothing.”

Neighbors stood at their gates. Some squinted suspiciously. Others mourned.

“He was such a nice boy,” said Mrs. Deshpande from next door. “Always said ‘maybe’ before disagreeing. Now he just... sips tea.”

-----

TBNN Panel Discussion, Sponsored by White Chyawanprash:

Back in Delhi, Know-swamy convened a panel. He gestured toward the screen where Paresh sat calmly in his veranda, cross-legged, watching ants carry away a breadcrumb.

“This man,” he said, pointing like an ancient judge casting lots, “refuses to say if pineapple belongs on pizza.”

A brief pause, before slightly raising his voice.

“He is breaking the very fabric of democratic small talk.”

The panel consisted of:

A former bureaucrat

A screaming sociologist

A retired cricketer turned spiritual podcaster

A man in a saffron shawl claiming to be a ‘Vedic Data Analyst’

“He must be hiding something,” said the ex-bureaucrat, not specifying what.

“It’s unnatural. Even a snail has preferences,” argued the sociologist, who later admitted she just wanted to go viral.

“This is what happens when you don’t play gully cricket,” offered the cricketer-turned-seer, inexplicably.

The data analyst tried to chip in, but wasn't able to get his voice heard above the din.

The debate was loud, incoherent, and lasted 47 minutes. No one could speak as much as Know-swamy. After all, it was his show, and he commanded control over every guest's microphone.

-----

Ticker of Doom -- TBNN’s legendary ticker ran along the screen, like a panicked relative at a train station:

BREAKING: Local Man Refuses to Pick Side in Cricket Match

DEVELOPING: Says He Doesn’t “Feel Strongly” About Veg vs. Non-Veg

EXCLUSIVE: CCTV Shows Him Nodding Politely, Causing Aunt to Cry

FLASHBACK: Similar Case in 2009, But Victim Recovered After Debating Petrol Prices

RERUN: "Nation wants to know why you don’t want to know" – Debate at 9 PM

-----

Public Reactions Pour In -- Twitter, naturally, imploded.

@opinionmatters: “This is privilege. Only the upper middle class can afford to be indifferent.”

@wokechakra69: “He’s gaslighting us by not engaging. Classic toxic silence.”

@desiboomerunfiltered: “Back in our day, we had opinions and we fought for them. Usually over chai. Bring back the glory.”

@iamalwaysoffended: “BLOCKED. Even though he never tweeted.”

@idontlikeknowswamy: "Nation wants to know why you won't shut up, dude!”

-----

The Final Word:

That night, Gurkha Butt, tired but luminous, stared into the camera with the gravitas of someone who has seen democracy wear a lungi and dance.

“A man who does not argue is a man who cannot be controlled,” she said softly. “In a nation where every chai stall is a parliament, and every social media account a manifesto, neutrality is not a middle path—it is exile.”

Outside, in Nashik, Paresh Thakkar finished his tea and stood up. A distant cousin approached him, waving a phone.

“Bhai, I tagged you in a debate. Say something, na.”

Paresh smiled. He looked at the sky.

Then he quietly went back inside and watered his tulsi.

-----

TBNN will follow this story as it unfolds, or doesn’t. In tomorrow’s edition:

“Paresh Takes A Walk Without Reacting to Construction Noise: Is He Even Human?”

-----

-- Pradeep K (Prady)

Fear of God? Or Love of God? – A Mind's Tug-of-War

Fear of God? Or Love of God? – A Mind's Tug-of-War

There’s an old saying—well, old enough that no one remembers who said it first—that human beings either pray out of gratitude or out of terror. The latter is particularly true when the coconut is cracked only after the doctor’s report, not before. But is the divine some cosmic landlord to whom rent must be paid in the form of prayers, lest we be evicted from grace? Or is devotion something far more organic, arising not from fear but from the dissolution of fear itself?

The question is as old as time, or at least as old as the first thunderclap that made early humans believe the heavens were displeased. And yet, our scriptures—when read without the heavy baggage of conditioning—whisper an answer so simple that the intellect recoils in horror: neither love nor fear are of any significance when it comes to That which simply is.

Shiva, the Unmoved Witness

Take Shiva, for instance—not the ash-smeared yogi of bedtime tales, but the concept that precedes even the telling of tales. When the devas and asuras churned the ocean, hoping for nectar but chancing upon poison, panic gripped the cosmos. The gods pleaded, the demons recoiled, and yet, Shiva simply drank. No hesitation. No bargaining. No promise extracted from the universe in exchange for this act of supreme grace.

The trembling gods saw an act of love, the asuras saw a fearless being, but Shiva Himself—if one dares to speculate—saw neither. He simply was. What was required, was done. No fear, no love, just an uncolored seeing.

And therein lies the secret. Love and fear are the twin masks of the mind; one embraces, the other recoils, but both arise from the same misunderstanding—that I am separate from That which I seek. And so, the seeker loves, the sinner fears, and the sage remains silent.

Bhakti: The Lure of Devotion, The Trap of Meaning

If love of God is superior to fear, as poets and saints have proclaimed, does that mean bhakti is the way? Perhaps. But here lies a trap, subtle as maya itself.

Consider Prahlad, the child-devotee of Narayana, persecuted by his own father. His unwavering faith saw him unharmed in fire, unshaken in the face of death, while his father—soaked in arrogance—was slain by the very hands of divinity. The common takeaway? Love of God triumphs over fear. But peel back the layers, and something else emerges.

Prahlad never “loved” Narayana in the emotional sense. He simply knew—not as a belief, not as an argument, but as an unshaken truth. His father feared Vishnu, but that too was a form of attachment—an engagement of the mind with the divine. Love and fear are both engagements, both distortions. Prahlad had no engagement. He simply rested in knowing. And that, not love nor fear, was his liberation.

The Unbearable Simplicity of Truth

This is where the intellect stumbles. It wants a victor, a verdict—love over fear, devotion over denial. But what if scripture was never meant to be interpreted as a debate? What if the greatest wisdom lies in their absolute simplicity? The Upanishads whisper of a state beyond both, where the mind is stilled, and the knower, knowing, and known collapse into one indivisible awareness.

Nirguna, niraakaara Brahma—the formless, uncolored awareness—is not attained by replacing fear with love, nor by choosing devotion over detachment. It is seen when all choosing ends, when love and fear are both recognized as mere colorings of perception. The mind, ever hungry for a path, a method, a conclusion, drowns in its own noise, while Truth remains silent, unmoved, like Shiva, watching.

Simply Look Up

Perhaps that is why the sages never argued over whether God should be feared or loved. They left that to the poets and priests. The wise knew that to engage in such questions was to remain entangled in the mind’s games—like a fish debating whether the ocean is benevolent or cruel, forgetting that it is the ocean itself.

When the mind paints the divine with fear, it cowers. When it paints with love, it clings. But who is the painter? Who holds the brush? That is the only inquiry that matters. Not whether we fear or love, but whether we see at all.

For that which is eternal, neither our trembling nor our adoration adds or takes away. The sky does not sigh when the bird soars, nor does it mourn when the bird falls. It simply remains. But we, in our yearning, seek to color it, to grasp it, to name it.

And yet, one does not find the sky by chasing it. One finds it by simply looking up!

So too, the seeker. One does not reach That by clinging or recoiling. One reaches when there is no reaching left to do. When the mind stops asking, and the heart no longer demands. When the ocean remembers it was never separate from the drop. Then—only then—does the question of love or fear dissolve, like mist touched by the morning sun.

-- Pradeep K (Prady)

Mind Your Automation!

(Inspired by my colleague and friend, Vinayak Bhat)


In a quaint little town, there resided three brothers with their wives, in a home that was a shining example of precision and routine. The brothers toiled away in a factory in the neighboring city, while their wives, embodying the spirit of cooperation, shared the household chores with clockwork efficiency.

Dinner operations were a spectacle of automation. The eldest wife, with the discipline of a drill sergeant, laid out the plates at exactly 7:30 PM. The second wife, with the precision of a chef, served the food at 7:40 PM sharp. The youngest, with the dexterity of a ninja, cleared the table and did the dishes by 8:20 PM. At precisely 8:25 PM, the trio exchanged a triumphant high-five, celebrating another flawlessly executed day.

Life continued this way for months, an unbroken symphony of punctuality. One evening, a wrench was thrown into their perfect machinery. The brothers were required to stay an hour late at the factory.

Undeterred, the eldest wife laid out the plates at 7:30 PM, the second wife served food at 7:40 PM, and the youngest cleared the table at 8:20 PM, all in the absence of any diners. At 8:25 PM they exchanged their routine high-five, basking in the glow of a job well done.

It mattered not that nobody had eaten that night. What was important was that the system had run flawlessly.

-- Pradeep K (Prady)

The Tower of Mirrors

Once upon a time, in the grand corporation of Verdant Horizons, there sat a Chief Operations Officer—or COO, as they liked to call him—perched high atop his glass tower. The tower, a gleaming monument to his tenure, was filled with mirrors that reflected his visage in every direction. This was not vanity, he would insist, but an exercise in perspective. “How else,” he would muse to his inner circle, “am I to ensure my decisions are always flawless?”
 
Beneath the mirrors, down in the trenches, worked an engineer named Pavan. Pavan was a man of modest habits and immodest experience, with a knack for untangling problems before they became crises. Pavan’s solutions were simple, almost criminally so—duct-tape genius, some called it, although Pavan preferred the term “elegant.”
 
One day, a peculiar problem arose in the kingdom of Verdant Horizons: the grand automation system, which ensured all the castle gates and drawbridges worked in synchrony, had begun to falter. It was a mild inconvenience, really—one bridge stuck here, one gate refusing to open there—but it was enough to catch the COO’s mirrored gaze.
 
Pavan, who had dealt with the system for years, quickly identified the issue: a corroded relay box. “A new relay box and a bit of recalibration,” he suggested, “and it’ll be good as new. Two days’ work, tops.”
 
But alas, Pavan was not among the COO’s chosen few. In the COO’s hall of mirrors, where decisions were evaluated not for their effectiveness but for their flair, Pavan’s suggestion was dull. “A relay box?” scoffed the COO. “Where’s the vision? The scale? The strategy?”
 
Enter Kartik, the COO’s deputy, a man whose talent lay not in solving problems but in magnifying them. “Sir,” Kartik began, his tone grave, “the relay box isn’t just corroded. It’s symptomatic of a deeper malaise. This entire system is obsolete. We must redesign it—nay, reimagine it—from scratch!”
 
The COO’s eyes sparkled. “Reimagine,” he echoed, the word rolling off his tongue like a fine wine. “Tell me more.”
 
Kartik, sensing his moment, launched into an elaborate vision. The new system would be cloud-enabled, blockchain-secured, AI-driven, and peppered with buzzwords Pavan didn’t even know existed. It would take two years and a fortune to build, but it would, Kartik assured them, revolutionize the gates and drawbridges industry.
 
The COO was sold. “Brilliant!” he declared, and immediately authorized the project.
 
Pavan, ever the realist, tried to interject. “Sir, while this is being built, the current system will continue to fail. What if we—”
 
“Pavan,” interrupted the COO, with the patience of a parent explaining why chocolate shouldn’t be eaten before dinner, “you must learn to think big. Kartik is showing us the future. Let’s not waste time patching the past.”
 
And so the great overhaul began. Architects were summoned, consultants flown in, and millions spent on slide decks filled with phrases like “paradigm shift” and “leveraging synergies.” The drawbridges, meanwhile, continued to falter, forcing employees to climb over walls and wade through moats. But no one dared complain, for fear of being labeled resistant to innovation.
 
Months turned into years. The grand new system was finally unveiled, a shining marvel that required twenty operators to manage what had once been automatic. It worked, though inconsistently, and only when the AI algorithms weren’t trying to calculate the square root of infinity.
 
The COO declared it a triumph. Kartik was promoted to Vice Emperor of Visionary Disruptions. Pavan, meanwhile, retired quietly, his contributions buried under layers of PowerPoint.
 
But here’s the twist: the relay box that Pavan had suggested replacing? It had never been touched. It sat there, corroded but functional, quietly bridging gaps in the grand new system’s logic. Pavan had replaced it on his last day, slipping it into the blueprint as a failsafe. It was his final act of duct-tape genius.
 
As for the COO, he spent his days gazing into his mirrors, content in the knowledge that he had overseen greatness. And the mirrors, like all good mirrors, reflected back exactly what he wanted to see.
 
-- Pradeep K (Prady)