Mouse Trap

For nearly twenty-five years, my right hand lived under the dictatorship of a small plastic rodent. Ever since I started using a laptop in the early 2000s, the external mouse became less of an accessory and more of a prosthetic extension of my personality. I carried one everywhere with the seriousness of a surgeon transporting medical equipment. If the mouse stopped working, productivity stopped. I would stare helplessly at the laptop screen as though civilisation itself had collapsed. The cursor would sit frozen somewhere on the desktop while I performed the ancient ritual familiar to millions of people who are now in their 40s and beyond: unplugging, reconnecting, blowing imaginary dust from USB ports, replacing batteries, muttering mild abuses at technology, and questioning the moral decline of modern electronics.

Then, a few months ago, I migrated from a Windows laptop to an Apple MacBook and, almost overnight, stopped using the mouse altogether. This was not a carefully researched productivity decision inspired by Silicon Valley minimalism. It was partly convenience, partly curiosity, and partly the exhaustion of carrying chargers, adapters, dongles, cables, and a mouse that increasingly seemed like emotional baggage from another technological era.

The first few weeks were humiliating as the trackpad felt impossibly sensitive and suspiciously intelligent. My fingers moved awkwardly across the smooth surface as tourists would get lost in a foreign airport! Every gesture seemed to trigger unintended consequences. I would attempt a simple scroll and accidentally open Mission Control, launch three applications, rotate an image, zoom into microscopic text, and somehow arrive at a screen asking whether I wanted to configure developer settings for something I did not even know existed. The laptop appeared to possess psychic abilities combined with a dark sense of humour.

For someone in their south side of 40s, this discomfort carried a peculiar emotional weight. Young people experience technological incompetence casually. They tap randomly, experiment fearlessly, and assume mastery will eventually arrive. Older people experience incompetence as a threat to identity. We belong to a generation raised on the belief that adulthood means expertise, and by middle age, one is expected to know things. One manages organisations, handles finances, raises children, negotiates contracts, supervises teams, and gives life advice to younger people. Then, suddenly, a glass rectangle on a laptop defeats you because your fingers cannot perform a three-finger swipe correctly.

So naturally, the instinct is to retreat, return to the mouse, restore dignity, and re-enter familiar territory. But I persisted, partly out of stubbornness and partly because carrying the mouse now felt faintly embarrassing, like travelling with a typewriter ribbon in the age of cloud computing. Gradually, my hand learned before the brain consciously understood, and the fingers adapted. One morning, I realised I was gliding across applications effortlessly. Switching desktops, zooming, scrolling, highlighting text, navigating browsers, previewing files, and moving between workflows happened with a fluidity that felt almost elegant. The movement resembled playing an instrument and not operating machinery. And suddenly I realised that after 25-odd years, I had escaped the mouse trap!

The phrase sounds trivial until one recognises what the mouse actually symbolises for people my age. It represents an entire category of inherited habits that once made sense but now quietly reduce efficiency while masquerading as professionalism. In the early days of laptops, external mice were genuinely superior. Trackpads were terrible inventions that were tiny, unresponsive squares apparently designed by engineers conducting experiments on human frustration. Using a mouse was rational, productive, and serious. But technology evolved while our habits remained frozen in time.

Modern trackpads are astonishingly sophisticated. Yet millions of middle-aged professionals continue carrying wireless mice around with almost ceremonial devotion. Entire coffee shops are filled with grown adults performing elaborate setup procedures before beginning work: laptop out, mouse out, mousepad out, Bluetooth paired, dongle inserted, batteries checked, table space negotiated. Some carry ergonomic mice that resemble futuristic sculptures designed by Scandinavian orthopaedic surgeons. Others own travel mice, office mice, gaming mice, backup mice, and emergency spare batteries, all to avoid learning a slightly different movement of the fingers.

I realised that the mouse is not merely hardware, but more of a psychological infrastructure. People accumulate systems that once solved problems but eventually become obstacles disguised as preferences. We continue using workflows developed in another technological century because familiarity produces emotional comfort. The brain loves efficiency, but it loves predictability even more.

This explains why otherwise intelligent professionals stubbornly cling to outdated habits with almost ideological passion. One proudly announces, ‘I still do all my accounts manually in Excel.’ Another insists, ‘I need every document printed before I can read it properly.’ Someone refuses cloud storage because physical folders feel ‘safer.’ Others maintain endless email chains, paper diaries, complicated filing systems, or insist on in-person meetings for conversations that could be resolved in three messages and a shared document.

These are rarely productivity choices but are comfort rituals. The irony is that people above forty are often fully capable of adapting quickly. In fact, they frequently learn faster than younger users because they understand systems, context, and patterns better. The barrier is rarely intelligence and more of an emotional resistance to temporary incompetence. Somewhere after forty, many people unconsciously stop allowing themselves to become beginners. I know senior executives who manage budgets worth millions but cannot merge PDF files without assistance. I know academics capable of explaining complex philosophy who panic when asked to collaborate on online documents. I know entrepreneurs who built businesses from scratch but still call younger employees to ‘fix the Wi-Fi.’ These are not incapable people but are simply trapped inside technological identities formed decades ago.

The deeper issue is that modern economies increasingly reward adaptability over accumulated procedure. Knowledge now expires faster than ever, and entire industries transform within a decade. Artificial intelligence is already automating tasks that many professionals considered permanently human only a few years ago. In such a world, the most dangerous sentence after forty is not ‘I don’t know.’ It is ‘I have always done it this way.’That sentence quietly closes the future.

The strange thing is that our generation has already proven its adaptability many times over. We are perhaps the only generation that experienced analogue childhood and digital adulthood simultaneously. We used landlines, pagers, floppy disks, fax machines, CDs, USB drives, cloud storage, smartphones, and now invisible synchronisation systems operating somewhere in distant data centres we barely understand. Yet somewhere in middle age, many professionals unconsciously declare technological retirement while still expecting to remain professionally relevant for another twenty years.

What surprised me most after abandoning the mouse was not improved navigation speed, but the psychological shift that followed. Once the discomfort barrier was crossed, I became less intimidated by unfamiliar systems generally and started experimenting more freely. Keyboard shortcuts stopped feeling annoying and began feeling liberating. I approached software with curiosity instead of caution. One begins questioning inherited inefficiencies elsewhere in life, too. Do meetings really need to last an hour? Do I really need to check my email constantly? Do I really need fifty WhatsApp groups? Do I really need to preserve every professional habit developed in 2004 simply because it once worked?

Watch a child interact with new technology and understand it instinctively. There is no shame in experimentation, no fear of appearing foolish. They touch everything, fail repeatedly, laugh, retry, and eventually master the system through curiosity. Adults, especially middle-aged adults, approach new interfaces like diplomats entering hostile territory. We seek guarantees before experimentation because failure now feels reputational.

But perhaps productivity after 40 is not about optimisation at all. Perhaps it is about preserving beginnerhood. The willingness to temporarily appear incompetent may now be one of the most valuable professional skills of modern life. The transition is always awkward. During my early trackpad days, I frequently muttered at the laptop like an ageing cricket fan complaining about T20 leagues. I missed the mouse clicks, triggered accidental gestures and zoomed into absurd screen magnifications. At one point, I somehow rotated an image sideways and spent several minutes trying to restore civilisation. But adaptation has an invisible curve. Frustration suddenly became fluency, and my fingers learned what the ego resisted.

Now, when I see professionals unpacking increasingly elaborate mouse arrangements beside ultra-modern laptops, I feel less judgment and more recognition. I see a smaller version of the same human tendency that affects all of us, of carrying unnecessary tools because they once solved genuine problems. The real trap was never the mouse itself but was the assumption that long familiarity automatically equals permanent necessity. Finally, after 25 years, I finally escaped the mouse trap, and the amusing part is that the cage door had been open for years.

The Living Mountain

Author: Amitav Ghosh | 48 Pages | Genre: Fiction | Publisher: Fourth Estate India | Year: 2022 | My Rating: 7.5/10

The Living Mountain by Amitav Ghosh is a 48-page wonder of a striking ecological fable that narrates a profound moral argument. This book, published during the COVID-19 pandemic, feels less like a conventional story and more like a parable for the Anthropocene, urgent, allegorical, and quietly unsettling.

The narrative revolves around Mahaparbat, a sacred ‘living mountain’ revered by indigenous communities who coexist with it through restraint and ritual. This fragile balance is disrupted when outsiders, symbolically named ‘Anthropoi,’ arrive to exploit the mountain’s resources, triggering ecological and social collapse. The story, framed almost as a dream, distils humanity’s extractive relationship with nature into a stark moral conflict between reverence and domination.  

What makes the book compelling is its deliberate simplicity. Ghosh avoids dense scientific exposition, common in his earlier works like The Great Derangement, and instead uses myth and metaphor to communicate the climate crisis. This shift to fable is effective as it bypasses intellectual resistance and speaks directly to ethical intuition. The mountain is not just a setting but a sentient presence, embodying a worldview where nature is alive, reciprocal, and deserving of respect.

However, this same simplicity is also the book’s limitation. There is little narrative ambiguity or character complexity where the Anthropoi represent greed, the villagers represent harmony, and the trajectory is predictably tragic. Readers looking for layered storytelling or nuanced psychological depth may find it overly didactic. I thought that I was reading an Indian version of the Hollywood movie Avatar from 2009!

In a literary landscape crowded with sprawling climate narratives, The Living Mountain functions like a sharp intervention, almost a moral pamphlet disguised as fiction. It can be read in a single sitting, but its implications linger, forcing reflection on how modern development mirrors the destructive ascent of the Anthropoi.

The book also resonates with contemporary India and the Global South, where tensions between development and ecological preservation are immediate and visible. Ghosh subtly aligns indigenous knowledge systems with sustainability, challenging dominant models of progress that equate exploitation with advancement.The Living Mountain is less about storytelling and more about warning. This fable is didactic, symbolic, and purposeful. While it may lack narrative complexity, it succeeds as a powerful ecological allegory, reminding us that the crisis we face is not just environmental, but civilizational.

Digital Literacy vs Digital Confidence

The digital divide in rural India is often described as an access problem. Smartphones are becoming increasingly common, data is becoming more affordable, and women are increasingly present on digital platforms, sharing messages, watching videos, and making video calls. However, this apparent inclusion masks a deeper exclusion. When it comes to using technology for business, like sending payments, managing accounts, registering enterprises on platforms, or selling online, many rural women hesitate. The contradiction is striking as access and skills exist, but ownership and confidence do not. The real barrier to digital inclusion is not digital literacy, but digital confidence.

Consider the experience of a rural woman entrepreneur who runs a home-based food business. She owns a smartphone, uses WhatsApp comfortably, and receives digital payments from customers. Yet she avoids sending money digitally, hesitates to use business apps, and depends on a family member for anything that she thinks is ‘important.’ Her fear of ‘what if something goes wrong?’ is not about a lack of knowledge, but about a lack of trust in oneself. Across rural contexts in India, women are digitally present but not digitally empowered. While they are users of technology, but unfortunately not the decision-makers within it.

Most development programs approach this challenge through the lens of digital literacy. Literacy is usually defined as the ability to operate a phone, navigate apps, recognise icons, or complete basic digital tasks. Training programs, device distributions, and short workshops are designed to tick these boxes. Once completed, women are counted as digitally included. However, literacy does not translate into agency. Knowing how to open an app does not mean feeling confident enough to transact independently. Watching a demonstration does not prepare someone to make decisions in real situations. Literacy teaches what to do, whereas confidence determines whether one dares to do it.

Digital confidence, unlike literacy, is rarely named, measured, or funded. It refers to a person’s trust in their own ability to use technology without fear, their willingness to make mistakes, and their sense of belonging in digital spaces. This confidence is more psychological than technical, emotional rather than instructional. For rural women, digital confidence is shaped by years of social conditioning that discourages experimentation, independence, and risk-taking. Without this confidence, technology remains something to be handled carefully or delegated to others.

The reasons for low digital confidence among rural women are structural and gendered. Financial fear is a major factor, with stories of fraud, which are often exaggerated, circulating widely. A single mistake can lead to loss of money, blame from family members, or public embarrassment. Cash, by contrast, feels safe and visible as it can be counted, corrected, and recovered. In this context, avoiding digital tools becomes a rational choice rather than a sign of ignorance.

Gendered control over technology further weakens confidence. In many households, men act as informal gatekeepers of digital systems. Even when women own phones, passwords, banking apps, and registrations are often managed by husbands or sons. Over time, this creates dependence and reinforces the belief that digital decision-making is not a woman’s responsibility. What begins as ‘help’ slowly turns into exclusion.

Men are often allowed to experiment, fail, and learn, while women, especially in rural settings, are not afforded the same grace. A mistake made by a woman is quickly interpreted as evidence that she should not be engaging in business or technology at all. This low tolerance for failure discourages curiosity and reinforces caution. When the social cost of error is high for women, playing safe becomes the only viable strategy.

Design and language barriers also play a role, as many digital platforms are not built for first-generation users. Interfaces are cluttered, English-heavy, and filled with technical or financial jargon. For women with limited formal education, each unfamiliar term reinforces a sense of exclusion. Technology begins to feel alien, designed for someone else, and confidence erodes further. The consequences of low digital confidence are visible in how rural women run their enterprises. As a result, businesses remain informal, small, and dependent on intermediaries. Family members or middlemen step in to handle digital aspects, capturing control and value. Instead of reducing inequality, technology ends up reinforcing existing power structures.

Evidence from the ground suggests that when confidence is addressed, outcomes change. In India’s SHG networks, women who participate in repeated, hands-on digital practice sessions gradually begin to transact independently. Rural women entrepreneurs who learn in peer groups adopt digital tools more confidently than those trained in isolation. The turning point is rarely a new app or feature; it is the moment a woman completes a task on her own and realises she can do it again.

Building digital confidence requires a different approach. Repetition matters more than certification. One-time trainings raise awareness, but confidence grows through continued practice. Peer role models are powerful, especially when women see others from similar backgrounds navigating technology successfully. Safe spaces for failure are essential, allowing women to learn without fear of financial or social consequences. Trusted human support through community facilitators, SHGs, or NGOs provides reassurance and continuity that technology alone cannot offer.

For policymakers, donors, and practitioners, this demands a rethinking of program design. Success should not be measured by the number of women trained or devices distributed, but by independent usage, decision-making, and willingness to explore digital tools. Budgets must allow for handholding, follow-ups, and time. Behavioural change cannot be rushed, and technology should not be treated as a shortcut to empowerment.At the policy level, digital public infrastructure holds enormous promise, but only if it is designed with gendered realities in mind. Women-first user experience, local-language interfaces, and community-based support systems are essential. Digital inclusion must be understood as a question of agency, not just access. Until rural women believe that the digital world belongs to them and they are confident to click, transact, and decide, technology will remain an accessory rather than a catalyst for entrepreneurship and change. The future of rural women’s enterprise will be built not just on smartphones, but on the transformative moment when a woman says to herself, I can do this,’ and acts without fear.

The cost of saying Yes 

I used to think that saying ‘yes’ was a virtue as it made me feel useful, reliable, even noble at times. I often ended up saying yes to a meeting, yes to a request, yes to a friend, yes to a ‘quick call,’ yes to a ‘small favour,’ yes to that extra responsibility that would ‘hardly take any time.’ My life looked like a well diversified portfolio of yeses. And like many portfolios built on optimism rather than fundamentals, it was collapsing. No one teaches you this early on in life, but every yes is a transaction. It has a cost, a return, and often hidden liabilities. Unlike money, the currency you are spending here is time, attention, and energy, and those accounts don’t send monthly statements! They just end up depleting until one day you find yourself staring at your calendar, wondering why everything feels full and nothing feels meaningful.

When someone says, ‘Can you just hop on a quick call?’ it sounds harmless, as ‘quick’ is a very reassuring word. It suggests efficiency, minimal disruption, and a small and contained transaction. In reality, a ‘quick call’ is rarely just a call. It is context switching, mental preparation, the call itself, the afterthoughts, and the residual distraction that lingers long after the call ends. Economists would call this a hidden cost, and I call it the reason my day disappears in fragments. I remember agreeing to review a document for a colleague. ‘It won’t take long,’ they said, and they were technically correct, as the act of reviewing took about only 20 minutes. But the real cost was closer to an hour. I had to pause what I was doing, understand a different context, switch cognitive gears, and then find my way back to my original work. The 20-minute task came with a 40-minute tax. Multiply that across a week, and you begin to understand how entire days vanish without a trace.

Then there is the opportunity cost of the yes you don’t see. In economics, every choice comes with the value of the next best alternative you give up. When I say yes to a meeting at 6 PM, I am not just committing to that meeting, I am also saying no to my evening unwind, a conversation with family, reading, thinking, or simply doing nothing. The problem is, I don’t feel that loss immediately, and so I consistently undervalue what I am giving up. This is how you end up living a life where your time is fully allocated but poorly invested. I once agreed to attend a weekend workshop because it sounded interesting and, more importantly, because it felt rude to decline. That weekend, I missed a relaxing lunch at home that I didn’t realise I needed. The workshop was fine, but if I am honest, it wasn’t worth what I gave up. The return on that yes was modest, but the opportunity cost was high. The economy of my time had a deficit, which I wasn’t accounting for properly.

If saying yes were purely an economic decision, we would all be much better at it, but it is also deeply social. We say yes because we want to be liked, and we don’t want to disappoint someone. We say yes because somewhere along the way, we learned that being agreeable is a sign of being good. There is also a subtle reputational economy at play, and saying yes signals availability, cooperation, and enthusiasm. It makes you look like a team player, a dependable friend, a responsive colleague. Saying no, on the other hand, feels risky as it might signal disinterest, arrogance, or boundaries. And so, we keep saying yes, not because it makes sense, but because it feels safer. I have done this more times than I can count—agreed to calls I didn’t need to be on, events I didn’t want to attend, responsibilities that stretched me thinner than I should have allowed. Each yes was small, reasonable, and socially acceptable, and together, they created a life that felt crowded but curiously unfulfilling.

There is also the law of diminishing returns quietly operating in the background. The first few yeses in your day are productive as they move things forward, create value, and strengthen relationships. But beyond a certain point, each additional yes adds less value and more strain. The sixth meeting of the week on the same thing is not as useful as the first. The fifth commitment in a day is not as meaningful as the second. The twentieth favour you agree to does not make you twenty times more helpful, and only makes you feel exhausted. I realised this one evening when I found myself in a meeting, nodding at the right moments, contributing just enough to appear engaged, but mentally somewhere else entirely. I wasn’t adding value anymore and was just present in body, absent in mind. That was a negative return on yes, a clear sign that my internal economy was out of balance.

There is a phrase I have used liberally in my life, ‘I will manage.’ It is a beautiful phrase because it is optimistic, confident, and slightly heroic. It suggests resilience, capability, and a willingness to take things on. It is also, more often than not, a lie. ‘I will manage’ is what we tell others when we overcommit. It is what we tell ourselves when we ignore constraints. It is the verbal equivalent of taking on more debt without checking your balance, which keeps accumulating steadily. Until one day, you are not managing, only barely coping, moving from one commitment to another with a vague sense of urgency and a constant feeling of being behind.

If saying no is so rational, why is it so difficult? Because no is final and forces you to prioritise. Yes, on the other hand, keeps options open as it delays decision making. It allows you to feel helpful without immediately confronting the cost. There is also a psychological discomfort in saying no. It creates a moment of tension, however brief, between you and the other person, and we are wired to avoid that tension. But every time we avoid that small discomfort, we create a larger one for ourselves later. The stress simply shifts location from a brief external awkwardness to a prolonged internal burden.

What I have slowly come to realise is that no has compounding benefits. The first few noes feel awkward, even slightly uncomfortable. You second guess yourself, wondering if you were too blunt, too inflexible, or too selfish. But over time, your calendar starts to breathe, your days have space, and your work becomes more focused. Your relationships become more intentional because you are choosing them, not squeezing them in. When I started saying no more consciously, I noticed a real shift. I had time to think, to read, to do things without constantly rushing to the next commitment. The quality of my yeses improved because they were fewer and more deliberate.

For me, saying no is not about rejecting others, but more about protecting something. Sometimes it is protecting my time, energy, attention, and occasionally, my sanity. Instead of thinking, ‘I am letting someone down,’ I think, ‘I am choosing where to show up fully with intent.’ Of course, saying no does not require bluntness or indifference. There is an art to it, though I am still in the learning phase. A thoughtful no acknowledges the request but remains clear about the boundary. You need not overexplain or apologise excessively. ‘I won’t be able to take this on right now.’ Or ‘I would love to, but I don’t have the bandwidth this week.’ Or ‘I am focusing on a few priorities at the moment, so I’ll have to pass.’ These are decisions and not rejections, and they make life coherent.

The goal is not to eliminate yes, but to make it meaningful again. A well placed yes to a project you care about, a conversation that matters, a moment that enriches your life has immense value. But for that yes to exist, it must be protected by many noes. In economics, scarcity creates value, therefore, if your yes is abundant, it is cheap. If it is scarce, it is meaningful. I still say yes, probably more than I should, as old habits die hard. But I am more aware now, as I try to pause a little longer before responding. I ask myself simple questions, like what is the real cost, what am I giving up, and is this the best use of my time right now? Sometimes the answer is still yes, but increasingly, it is no. In the end, the economics of saying yes is not about maximising how much you can take on. It is about optimising what truly matters, because a life filled with yeses may look productive from the outside, but a life shaped by thoughtful noes is a life that actually adds up.

Are you time-poor?

Somewhere between the invention of the pressure cooker and the arrival of 5G, we Indians collectively misplaced something really important: Time. Not lost in a dramatic, cinematic way, without violins or slow motion, but more like a wallet lifted from your back pocket in a crowded Metro. One moment it was there, lazy afternoons, unplanned conversations, the comforting stretch of doing nothing, and the next moment, gone. In its place, we now have Google Calendar reminders, WhatsApp notifications, and a persistent feeling that we are always slightly late for something, even when we are sitting still. Welcome to the era of time poverty, where your bank balance may look respectable, your Zomato order history may be thriving, and your LinkedIn profile may be aggressively inspirational, but your time account is permanently overdrawn.

Let’s rewind a bit, not to some sepia-toned village fantasy, but just a generation ago, in the same cities we inhabit today, where life had a different rhythm. Time was not abundant in a literal sense, as people still worked hard, commuted, raised families, but it felt less fractured. Evenings were events in themselves, when people sat outside their homes discussing politics and cricket over multiple cups of tea, and that one neighbour who always seemed to have too many visitors. Children played gully cricket until the ball inevitably landed in someone’s kitchen, leading to heated negotiations that doubled as character-building exercises. Mothers called out from balconies and verandahs with a mix of authority and affection, summoning children home before darkness turned into parental anxiety. There were fewer choices, yes, but also fewer decisions to make. Dinner was whatever was cooked, and nobody spent fifteen minutes comparing paneer butter masala across twelve delivery apps while reading 237 reviews written by people who clearly have too much time.

The great unifier, television, had one channel, Doordarshan, maybe two if you were fancy. If you missed your favourite show, you missed it, as there was no replay, no binge-watching, no existential spiral at 2 AM where you question your life choices while watching the fourth episode of something you don’t even like. And waiting, ah, waiting was a legitimate activity. We waited for letters, for phone calls on the clunky telephone sets, for exam results. Waiting was not seen as wasted time; it was just part of time itself, like monsoons or power cuts. Our minds wandered, conversations happened, and occasionally, we even ‘thought’ our own thoughts without an algorithm suggesting what to think next!

Now fast forward to urban India today, where time is not just scarce but seems to be actively hunted. A typical weekday begins with negotiation between you and your alarm clock, which has now evolved into a relentless life coach with a snooze button. Before your feet even touch the ground, your thumb has already scrolled through emails, news updates, Instagram reels, and three subtle reminders that everyone else seems to be doing better than you at 7:17 am in the morning. We often eat breakfast alongside a call that begins with ‘Can you hear me?’ and ends with ‘Let’s take this offline,’ a phrase that has single-handedly consumed more human hours than traffic jams.

If time poverty had a national symbol, it would undoubtedly be the urban traffic. Whether you are inching along the Delhi-Gurgaon expressway, contemplating your life choices at Bengaluru’s Central Silk Board junction, or performing advanced geometry in Mumbai’s local trains, your commute is not just a journey, but a full emotional experience. You begin with hope, perhaps even optimism, maybe today will be different, maybe traffic will be lighter, signals more cooperative, humanity kinder. Ten minutes later, you are recalibrating your expectations, bargaining with Google Maps, and listening to podcasts or FM radio not out of curiosity but as a coping mechanism. By the time you reach your destination, you have experienced a full spectrum of human emotion and possibly learned a new cuss word, none of which you will remember by lunchtime.

And then come the meetings, those sacred rituals of modern work culture where time doesn’t exactly die, it dissolves. Meetings to prepare for meetings, meetings to debrief previous meetings, and meetings that exist solely because someone somewhere feared the silence of not having a meeting. Entire hours are spent discussing action items that could have been bullet points in an email, that could have been a message, that could have been… nothing. Ironically, in our relentless pursuit of productivity, we have created systems so elaborate that they ensure we have no time left to actually produce anything. Efficiency has become a performance, and everyone is performing.

Of course, technology was supposed to save us, and in many ways, it has. Tasks that once took hours now take minutes, information is accessible instantly, and communication is effortless. But somewhere along the way, technology stopped being a tool and started behaving like a very needy companion. Your phone, that sleek little rectangle of promise, is now a workplace, an entertainment centre, a social hub, and an anxiety generator rolled into one. You pick it up to check the time and resurface twenty-seven minutes later, having watched three reels, replied to two messages, ignored five, read half an article, and completely forgotten why you picked it up in the first place. Time isn’t just being spent; it is being nibbled away in tiny, invisible bites.

Urban India today offers an abundance of choices in the form of food, experiences, careers, and content. But abundance comes with a hidden tax in the form of decision fatigue. Earlier, dinner was simple, and now it is an exercise in research, comparison, and occasional soul-searching. Even leisure has become labour, as watching a movie involves navigating multiple platforms, genres, languages, and algorithmic suggestions, each insisting it knows you better than you know yourself. By the time you decide what to watch, you are too tired to watch anything. The freedom to choose has quietly transformed into the burden of choosing.

Friendships, once spontaneous and effortless, are now managed with the precision of project timelines. ‘Let’s catch up’ translates into checking calendars, blocking slots, rescheduling due to unforeseen commitments, and finally meeting for exactly sixty minutes before someone inevitably says, ‘I have an early morning tomorrow.’ Even weddings, those grand celebrations of chaos and joy, have been optimised for efficiency. Destination weddings over long weekends, carefully curated guest lists, and itineraries that resemble conference agendas. Nothing says romance like a well-managed Google Sheet.

But perhaps the most insidious aspect of time poverty is lack of attention rather than the lack of hours. You may technically have free time, but your mind is rarely free. You are at dinner, but thinking about work. You are on vacation, but checking emails. You are resting but feeling guilty about it. The boundary between work and life hasn’t just blurred; it has politely excused itself and left the building. What remains is a constant hum of ‘I should be doing something,’ a background noise that turns even moments of rest into opportunities for anxiety.

In India, this phenomenon feels particularly intense because of the unique cocktail of factors at play. Rapid urbanisation has stretched infrastructure beyond its limits, turning simple commutes into endurance tests. Aspirational pressure ensures that everyone is constantly striving for better jobs, better salaries, better lifestyles. Digital adoption has been fast and enthusiastic, compressing decades of technological evolution into a few short years. And social expectations are layered on top of all this that rarely reduce, even as professional demands increase. The result is a society trying to operate at first-world speed with third-world infrastructure and fourth-world patience.

So are we truly poor in time? Or have we simply allowed time to be colonised and constantly interrupted? The uncomfortable truth is that it is a bit of both. We are busier, yes, but we are also more distracted. We have more tools, but less control. We are connected, but not always present. Time poverty, then, is not just about scarcity, but more about how we experience the time that we have. It is the difference between a long, uninterrupted conversation and a series of half-hearted replies. Between a meal savoured and a meal consumed while scrolling. Between living time and merely passing through it.

The solution, if there is one, is unlikely to be dramatic. Most of us are not about to quit our jobs and retreat to the Himalayas like some of our friends have, and even if we did, we would probably post about it online. But small shifts are possible, like protecting pockets of uninterrupted time, reducing unnecessary decisions, and occasionally allowing ourselves the radical act of doing nothing. These are not grand gestures, but they are meaningful ones. They remind us that time is not just something to be managed but something to be experienced.

We often say, ‘I don’t have time,’ when what we really mean is, ‘Something else has taken priority.’ Time poverty is not just a condition but a consequence of choices, both ours and the systems we inhabit. In a country that has mastered the art of jugaad, perhaps it is high time we apply that ingenuity to time itself. Because somewhere between the past we romanticise and the present we rush through lies a simple, almost rebellious idea that what if we stopped trying to save time and started trying to live it?

Stay informed with curated content and the latest headlines, all delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now to stay ahead and never miss a beat!

Skip to content ↓