Firstly, a quick comment on gmail. I have all my mail on Gmail. My university mail gets forwarded to gmail (I have set it up to do so because the interface is very easy to use). All my data is on gmail. My tax returns, all my documents, everything. I am so dependent on gmail, that I am sure it is not healthy. Keeping all my eggs in the same basket is not a good idea. I am positive that some time down the line, there will come a day, where some malfuction (or sabotage) of some sort will erase all my data, leaving me high and dry. (Along with a significant proportion of internet users).
I am writing this little disclaimer because, when that day does come, I don't want to be blamed for not having enough foresight. I do want do go on the record as someone who has foreseen this coming. All the data I will have lost will be becuase of pure laziness. Serves me right, eh?
Back in 1905, when Albert Einstien was coming up with his theory of relativity, he did not have access to the vast amount of literature the average researcher has right now. Newton, when he came up with gravity, had to spend a lot of time to find giants to stand on the shoulder of. Pythagoras did not have the luxury of reading journals when he came up with his theorem.
Right now, if you go into any univeristy in the world, odds are you have a access to electronic copies of all scientific literature published in the last 50 years. And with VPNs and other modern miracles such as science driect, google scholar and engineering village, standing on the shoulders of giants has never been easier. You can do it from the luxury of your own bedroom. Or from a bus, what with wifi, laptops and all.
And to top all that, there's the search facility. Rather than laboriously look through various articles in journals at libraries, looking at keywords and then finding pertinent articles, (utlizing those cumbersome index cards) the modern researcher just goes to a search engine and types in what he or she is looking for.
Since technology is a collaborative work (i.e. people improve on the state-of-the-art ideas rather than reinvent the wheel), getting ideas across quickly has certainly speeded up research. (That's why the industrial revolution started only after gutenberg invented the printing press).
And now, with most journals scanning all their old copies and making available old papers as pdfs on the internet - the rate determining step of reseach (for any competent researcher) ceases to be the literature survey. It is now the actual work. We now can do in a day what Einstien and Newton could do in a month. And we can do it much better.
Of course, there's always the flipside. Research is getting tougher in most areas because of saturation. Even though it is getting easier to find out what has been worked on in the past, the amount of work which has been done in the past is also increasing. Consider a field like the one I am working on right now. (I won't talk about it in detail, since I'm trying to keep this blog anonymous). I come up with an idea, one fine day, and all excited, go an tell my adviser about it. He looks at it and says that it has already been done in 1982 by a couple of blokes. And then there's another publication we come up with - present it in a conference and all - even get it approved for a journal - and then we see another paper talking about something very similar.
Perhaps the ease of getting access of oceans of pertinent information - and then having to skim through all those oceans of information kind of run counter to each other.
It is indeed fortunate that all scientific literature has been organized so well that one can access it at the click of a button. Because keeping abreast of the nearly infinite scientific literature pertinent to one's field would be quite impossible if not for modern technology. But that said, I still am happier to be a researcher in the 2000s than a researcher in the 1900s.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
How much should one work?
The notion that the fruit of hard work is sweet has been indoctrinated into almost every educated human being. There's always this story about some juvenile pedaling all the way atop a hill and then enjoying the ride down , which is supposed to inspire one into persevering.
Common sense tells one that hard work is necessary to live a satisfied life (by maintaining a well-fed and satisfied family, essentially). Clearly, evolution can justify this heuristic. It is not impossible to see how the perseverant had an evolutionary advantage over the lazy. But with the absence of predators, stunning advances in medical science and abundance of food, we seem to have prevailed over a large component of evolution. With every passing year, it is getting safer and safer to say that we are not evolving any more. (Mike Judge makes a rather fascinating satirical exaggeration in Idiocracy).
But what if, in the modern context, common sense was all wrong? What if hard work was one of the reasons why there's a lot of trouble in the world today? What if hard work was the reason why the planet's climate is heating up every year? What if this obsession with overtime is forcing us to adopt a particularly ecologically unsustainable lifestyle?
Because the main motivation behind working hard is greed. Nothing wrong with greed, per se. But, a fairly strong case can be made contending that more people working hard results in more economic growth - and more economic growth results in a larger usurpage (sic) of resources on a limited planet. And since the west's GDP usually consists of significant lifestyle components, one feels safe in calling it an inefficient waste.
Every economy is gauged by how much it grows every year. Economists and policy makers try to stimulate growth, create prosperity and wealth. With 6 Billion people (and growing) on this planet - of which more than 4 billion are extremely poor - but getting richer all the same, some questions arise. The planet had a constant population of 300M poorer people before the middle of the 19th century. And then, it rose exponentially - despite British and American Imperialism, despite Hitler, despite genocide in Rwanda, despite the HIV virus and others.
Is it reasonable for us to expect to get richer every year, given that the per-capita resources on this planet are dwindling? Ground water is drying up under large cities. Forests are being cut at a frightening rate. Species are going extinct like there's no tomorrow. Fossil fuels are getting harder to find. Man made dams have more or less sealed the fate of the Colorado river and other major rivers around the planet. Himalayan glaciers are melting.
And on top of that, man made climate change is burning Australia; drying up America's southwest; Darfur, China and Iraq, to name a few. Hurricanes are getting more intense because of warmer oceans. More tornadoes in tornado alley.
Are fantasies of economic growth given such hostile conditions realistic? Is "lifestyle" economic growth justifiable? Considering that third world economic growth is for "survival" rather than lifestyle it is certainly more justifiable.
Perhaps we ought to sit down and make some smart decisions. Perhaps some legislation ought to be passed converting the week to a four day work-week (32 hours). This would ensure that no one gets paid exorbitant amounts of money to pillage the planet as they want. This will bring about less unemployment; there will be more equality - and the GDP will contract - having less of an impact on the environment.
Since almost all nations in the world have strict laws disallowing people from being employed more than 40 hours a week (without adequate compensation), how draconian is it to enforce a law that makes it 32 hours a week? (Of course, if you get paid $7.50 an hour, this 32-hour-workweek will start hurting you - so perhaps some thought ought to go into who should be asked to cut down working hours).
And the extra time people get can be dedicated to leisure - therefore enhancing the quality of life. Working less in the developed world is a win-win situation. From a personal, ecological and social perspective. Perhaps this shall increase the "Gross National Happiness" of the developed world. Perhaps this will make America as happy as Bhutan.
It is heartening to see these opinions make it to the Mainstream. The magazine, New Scientist had a remarkable issue on how economic growth is killing our planet, which makes a very strong case that the planet is in deep trouble because of economic growth. Alternet keeps coming up with brilliant articles every now and then.
Common sense tells one that hard work is necessary to live a satisfied life (by maintaining a well-fed and satisfied family, essentially). Clearly, evolution can justify this heuristic. It is not impossible to see how the perseverant had an evolutionary advantage over the lazy. But with the absence of predators, stunning advances in medical science and abundance of food, we seem to have prevailed over a large component of evolution. With every passing year, it is getting safer and safer to say that we are not evolving any more. (Mike Judge makes a rather fascinating satirical exaggeration in Idiocracy).
But what if, in the modern context, common sense was all wrong? What if hard work was one of the reasons why there's a lot of trouble in the world today? What if hard work was the reason why the planet's climate is heating up every year? What if this obsession with overtime is forcing us to adopt a particularly ecologically unsustainable lifestyle?
Because the main motivation behind working hard is greed. Nothing wrong with greed, per se. But, a fairly strong case can be made contending that more people working hard results in more economic growth - and more economic growth results in a larger usurpage (sic) of resources on a limited planet. And since the west's GDP usually consists of significant lifestyle components, one feels safe in calling it an inefficient waste.
Every economy is gauged by how much it grows every year. Economists and policy makers try to stimulate growth, create prosperity and wealth. With 6 Billion people (and growing) on this planet - of which more than 4 billion are extremely poor - but getting richer all the same, some questions arise. The planet had a constant population of 300M poorer people before the middle of the 19th century. And then, it rose exponentially - despite British and American Imperialism, despite Hitler, despite genocide in Rwanda, despite the HIV virus and others.
Is it reasonable for us to expect to get richer every year, given that the per-capita resources on this planet are dwindling? Ground water is drying up under large cities. Forests are being cut at a frightening rate. Species are going extinct like there's no tomorrow. Fossil fuels are getting harder to find. Man made dams have more or less sealed the fate of the Colorado river and other major rivers around the planet. Himalayan glaciers are melting.
And on top of that, man made climate change is burning Australia; drying up America's southwest; Darfur, China and Iraq, to name a few. Hurricanes are getting more intense because of warmer oceans. More tornadoes in tornado alley.
Are fantasies of economic growth given such hostile conditions realistic? Is "lifestyle" economic growth justifiable? Considering that third world economic growth is for "survival" rather than lifestyle it is certainly more justifiable.
Perhaps we ought to sit down and make some smart decisions. Perhaps some legislation ought to be passed converting the week to a four day work-week (32 hours). This would ensure that no one gets paid exorbitant amounts of money to pillage the planet as they want. This will bring about less unemployment; there will be more equality - and the GDP will contract - having less of an impact on the environment.
Since almost all nations in the world have strict laws disallowing people from being employed more than 40 hours a week (without adequate compensation), how draconian is it to enforce a law that makes it 32 hours a week? (Of course, if you get paid $7.50 an hour, this 32-hour-workweek will start hurting you - so perhaps some thought ought to go into who should be asked to cut down working hours).
And the extra time people get can be dedicated to leisure - therefore enhancing the quality of life. Working less in the developed world is a win-win situation. From a personal, ecological and social perspective. Perhaps this shall increase the "Gross National Happiness" of the developed world. Perhaps this will make America as happy as Bhutan.
It is heartening to see these opinions make it to the Mainstream. The magazine, New Scientist had a remarkable issue on how economic growth is killing our planet, which makes a very strong case that the planet is in deep trouble because of economic growth. Alternet keeps coming up with brilliant articles every now and then.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Terror on Valentine's Day
In a world with a collapsing financial system; with arbitrary military ventures shamelessly killing hundreds of thousands (in lieu of the deaths of a handful); with wildfires burning down nations; with temperatures going up on every molecule of the planet (despite the main perpetrators being in staunch denial of the fact), it is bizarre to see that profound jackass, Pramod Muthalik protest "love".
In a nation so dreadfully poor that 4 out of a 1000 women are forced to peddle their flesh for a handful of rupees; in a nation where 15% lives in the abject misery of slums; in a nation where people are discriminated on based on who they are born to (rather than how good they are), it is bizarre to see the aforementioned Muthalik resort to terror to protect what he perceives as a transgression of culture. His energies would be much better used in rehabilitating the 2 million prostitutes in India with compassion (for instance) - or just minding his own bloody business.
Just like all conservatives on the planet (Rush Limbaugh in the US comes to mind, as do the Bin-Ladens and that idiotic Dutch parliamentarian whose name has slipped my mind), I find it hard to agree with a single word he says.
Don't get me wrong here. It is not that I think Valentine's day is any less stupid - but it is just that I think Muthalik is more incredibly stupid (perhaps by a few orders of magnitude). This Valentine's day is an occasion manufactured by the card making companies to make a quick buck. It is not a religious tradition in any nation. It is a contrived, modern, materialistic occasion. Nothing wrong with it, of course, if you ask me. It's just stupid.
In a nation with such a shameful women's rights record like India, any discretion given to women should be lauded as a good thing. That Indian society is evolving to allow women (at least the economically well-to-do top 5%) a voice in whom they want to marry is a good thing. Not a bad thing. That unmarried women and men are testing the waters before they take the maritial plunge is a wonderful thing from a progressive perspective.
What aspects of Indian culture does it go against, Mr. Muthalik? Where in the great Indian manuscripts does it say that women must not be given roses to by men? Was Lord Krishna (eminent hindu diety credited with authoring the holy Gita) violating "Indian culture" by being quite the womanizer? (having 8 + 16000 "wives").
I'll tell you why that Pramod Mutalik (and his band of goons) is hell bent on ruining Valentine's Day. It all goes back to 1960, when he was a 20 something, and in desparately love with a maiden.
The day was Feb 14th. And love was in the air. Well, not in the air, but just in the air surrounding little Pramod. None around the said fair maiden. Now, little Pramod wanted to reach out to lady love. He ran out to his garden and started searching for roses. Alas, no roses were to be found. His cow had eaten them a few minutes ago. He sat down, disappointed.
And then he spied, with his little eye, a patch of vegetables in his neighbour's yard. There were tomatoes. Okras. And cauliflowers. Without much further ado, he proceeded on to his neighbour's garden, burgling the same. (As you can see, he was always quite a goonda).
So, when the maiden recieved a little cauliflower from Pramod, she did not do what he wanted her to. He wanted her to go down to the kitchen and cook up a quick saute. Nope. She just thew the hideous thing back at his face. (She hated cauliflowers too). His heart was broken. And that day he took a vow to disrupt all romances in the world. Especially on Feb 14th.
And thus was born the Indian Taliban. All because a maiden in Mangalore did not like her cauliflower.
In a nation so dreadfully poor that 4 out of a 1000 women are forced to peddle their flesh for a handful of rupees; in a nation where 15% lives in the abject misery of slums; in a nation where people are discriminated on based on who they are born to (rather than how good they are), it is bizarre to see the aforementioned Muthalik resort to terror to protect what he perceives as a transgression of culture. His energies would be much better used in rehabilitating the 2 million prostitutes in India with compassion (for instance) - or just minding his own bloody business.
Just like all conservatives on the planet (Rush Limbaugh in the US comes to mind, as do the Bin-Ladens and that idiotic Dutch parliamentarian whose name has slipped my mind), I find it hard to agree with a single word he says.
Don't get me wrong here. It is not that I think Valentine's day is any less stupid - but it is just that I think Muthalik is more incredibly stupid (perhaps by a few orders of magnitude). This Valentine's day is an occasion manufactured by the card making companies to make a quick buck. It is not a religious tradition in any nation. It is a contrived, modern, materialistic occasion. Nothing wrong with it, of course, if you ask me. It's just stupid.
In a nation with such a shameful women's rights record like India, any discretion given to women should be lauded as a good thing. That Indian society is evolving to allow women (at least the economically well-to-do top 5%) a voice in whom they want to marry is a good thing. Not a bad thing. That unmarried women and men are testing the waters before they take the maritial plunge is a wonderful thing from a progressive perspective.
What aspects of Indian culture does it go against, Mr. Muthalik? Where in the great Indian manuscripts does it say that women must not be given roses to by men? Was Lord Krishna (eminent hindu diety credited with authoring the holy Gita) violating "Indian culture" by being quite the womanizer? (having 8 + 16000 "wives").
I'll tell you why that Pramod Mutalik (and his band of goons) is hell bent on ruining Valentine's Day. It all goes back to 1960, when he was a 20 something, and in desparately love with a maiden.
The day was Feb 14th. And love was in the air. Well, not in the air, but just in the air surrounding little Pramod. None around the said fair maiden. Now, little Pramod wanted to reach out to lady love. He ran out to his garden and started searching for roses. Alas, no roses were to be found. His cow had eaten them a few minutes ago. He sat down, disappointed.
And then he spied, with his little eye, a patch of vegetables in his neighbour's yard. There were tomatoes. Okras. And cauliflowers. Without much further ado, he proceeded on to his neighbour's garden, burgling the same. (As you can see, he was always quite a goonda).
So, when the maiden recieved a little cauliflower from Pramod, she did not do what he wanted her to. He wanted her to go down to the kitchen and cook up a quick saute. Nope. She just thew the hideous thing back at his face. (She hated cauliflowers too). His heart was broken. And that day he took a vow to disrupt all romances in the world. Especially on Feb 14th.
And thus was born the Indian Taliban. All because a maiden in Mangalore did not like her cauliflower.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
India Unveils 10,000 Rupee Bungalow
Press Mistrust of India
------------------------------------------------
The Indian Government announced that it was planning to announce the inauguration of the word's cheapest bungalow in Mumbai a week from now. Details are a little sketchy at this point, but we have learned that the bungalow shall have a small garage to park the world's cheapest car in and a table to charge the world's cheapest laptop on. It shall also have a keyhole to (presumably) facilitate the installation of the world's smallest air-conditioner.
Majority of Mumbai's 22 Million (62%, to be exact) live in unimaginable poverty - without a roof on thieir head - (and clearly no air conditioner). A similar (though less dramatic) ratio suffers in other urban centers in India. The government's press release indicates that it wants every "slum dweller" to enjoy every luxury of modern life. We quote from the press release:
India's Ministry of human resources, headed by Arjun Singh, in partnership with the Civil Engineering Departments of the Indian Institutes of Technology at Chennai and Mumbai started work on the cheap bungalow project two years ago.
Though there is no official press release detailing the various construction methods and materials used in the bungalow, word has leaked that molasses, milk and twine were used liberally. Also used are polythene bags and methane gas (emitted by cows). Staircases are made of paper and walls are made of cinnamon.
Professor Ram Singh, the dean of IIT Madras proudly proclaimed "We would have finished this earlier had not our mess staff gone on strike because of missing supplies a year ago. We are proud of this significant achievement."
Even with this revolutionary building technique, it is anticipated that house construction rates shall not explode in Mumbai. Because building a house for Rs 10,000 is one thing - but purchasing land for Rs 2 crores is another. And that's why India is working on the Rs 50,000 spaceship to Mars, so that a lot of houses can be built on mars (as land is not expected to cost anything).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Why am I writing this article?
The answer is in two parts.
Part 1 and Part 2
All I can say is w.t.f.
------------------------------------------------
The Indian Government announced that it was planning to announce the inauguration of the word's cheapest bungalow in Mumbai a week from now. Details are a little sketchy at this point, but we have learned that the bungalow shall have a small garage to park the world's cheapest car in and a table to charge the world's cheapest laptop on. It shall also have a keyhole to (presumably) facilitate the installation of the world's smallest air-conditioner.
Majority of Mumbai's 22 Million (62%, to be exact) live in unimaginable poverty - without a roof on thieir head - (and clearly no air conditioner). A similar (though less dramatic) ratio suffers in other urban centers in India. The government's press release indicates that it wants every "slum dweller" to enjoy every luxury of modern life. We quote from the press release:
After a tiring day of begging at roadside intersections, we expect that the average beggar is quite tired. What better way to rejuvinate than soak in a warm bubble bath in your own personal bathtub in your very own bathroom?
India's Ministry of human resources, headed by Arjun Singh, in partnership with the Civil Engineering Departments of the Indian Institutes of Technology at Chennai and Mumbai started work on the cheap bungalow project two years ago.
Though there is no official press release detailing the various construction methods and materials used in the bungalow, word has leaked that molasses, milk and twine were used liberally. Also used are polythene bags and methane gas (emitted by cows). Staircases are made of paper and walls are made of cinnamon.
Professor Ram Singh, the dean of IIT Madras proudly proclaimed "We would have finished this earlier had not our mess staff gone on strike because of missing supplies a year ago. We are proud of this significant achievement."
Even with this revolutionary building technique, it is anticipated that house construction rates shall not explode in Mumbai. Because building a house for Rs 10,000 is one thing - but purchasing land for Rs 2 crores is another. And that's why India is working on the Rs 50,000 spaceship to Mars, so that a lot of houses can be built on mars (as land is not expected to cost anything).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Why am I writing this article?
The answer is in two parts.
Part 1 and Part 2
All I can say is w.t.f.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Global Warming Catch 22
Whichever way you look at it, you can't win with Global Warming.
Scientists seem to agree right now that human beings are responsible for the current increasing trend in world temperatures. And this scientific consensus has spurred Europe (and to a lesser degree, the US) into action. (Well, not into action, but into talking about action). Now, hypothetically, suppose this green rhetoric does indeed become green action - and we do avert the worst of climate change by the middle of the century. Suppose we do save the planet from the doomsday predictions of current scientists by timely action.
There's this old question that people associate with Erwin Schrodinger. If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody's around, does it make a sound? Is a fact a fact if no one observes it happen?
And similarly, if our actions do stop the planet from warming - but we can't ever prove comprehensively that they did - then was the planet warming in the first place? What's to stop some Rush Limbaugh's grandson from going and pontificating on air that global warming was an evil hoax perpetrated by the jealous developing world on America? After all, any global warming control plan is likely to force stringent caps on the emissions of the developed world, not the developing world (because the poor countries don't emit much per-capita). It is very likely that a successful anti-global warming campaign will get a more skeptical government in place in developed countries. And pollution will start again.
On the other hand, suppose we do what is likely: almost nothing. We talk a lot about reducing emissions, but we don't do anything, because a reduction in standard of living for the west is utterly unacceptable to its democratic voters. We don't stop the planet from warming. Whatever is left of the planet will regret listening to Limbaugh's nonsense. No one wins.
-----------------------
My stand on Climate Change
What do you think scientists would do if they were sure that the planet was warming because of human emissions? They would sit down together and form a huge committee and unanimously agree that is indeed happening. That's what they have done. The IPCC report.
To me, based on our current state of the art knowledge, it seems very probable that human carbon emissions are responsible for climate change.
Not one peer reviewed publication argues that the planet is not warming because of man. How many peer reviewed papers argue that tadpoles are human? None! How many peer reviewed papers argue that heat flows from cool areas to warm areas? None.
If you are skeptical of climate change, you are in essence arguing that the current process of peer review is fatally flawed. You are also arguing that the entire scientific community is governed by agendas of developing nations. A ludicrous notion.
If you have a fundamental reason to have such revolutionary philosophical stands, then you need listening to. Perhaps you're the next Einstein.
But if you have these stands just because you blindly agree with the simple minded incentive system that Rush Limbaugh (or James Inhoffe) are trying to sell, then your opinion is not your own. You're an impediment to progress - just like one of those Popes who imprisoned Galileo.
Faith in science is not blind faith. Faith in science is faith in human skepticism.
Scientists seem to agree right now that human beings are responsible for the current increasing trend in world temperatures. And this scientific consensus has spurred Europe (and to a lesser degree, the US) into action. (Well, not into action, but into talking about action). Now, hypothetically, suppose this green rhetoric does indeed become green action - and we do avert the worst of climate change by the middle of the century. Suppose we do save the planet from the doomsday predictions of current scientists by timely action.
There's this old question that people associate with Erwin Schrodinger. If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody's around, does it make a sound? Is a fact a fact if no one observes it happen?
And similarly, if our actions do stop the planet from warming - but we can't ever prove comprehensively that they did - then was the planet warming in the first place? What's to stop some Rush Limbaugh's grandson from going and pontificating on air that global warming was an evil hoax perpetrated by the jealous developing world on America? After all, any global warming control plan is likely to force stringent caps on the emissions of the developed world, not the developing world (because the poor countries don't emit much per-capita). It is very likely that a successful anti-global warming campaign will get a more skeptical government in place in developed countries. And pollution will start again.
On the other hand, suppose we do what is likely: almost nothing. We talk a lot about reducing emissions, but we don't do anything, because a reduction in standard of living for the west is utterly unacceptable to its democratic voters. We don't stop the planet from warming. Whatever is left of the planet will regret listening to Limbaugh's nonsense. No one wins.
-----------------------
My stand on Climate Change
What do you think scientists would do if they were sure that the planet was warming because of human emissions? They would sit down together and form a huge committee and unanimously agree that is indeed happening. That's what they have done. The IPCC report.
To me, based on our current state of the art knowledge, it seems very probable that human carbon emissions are responsible for climate change.
Not one peer reviewed publication argues that the planet is not warming because of man. How many peer reviewed papers argue that tadpoles are human? None! How many peer reviewed papers argue that heat flows from cool areas to warm areas? None.
If you are skeptical of climate change, you are in essence arguing that the current process of peer review is fatally flawed. You are also arguing that the entire scientific community is governed by agendas of developing nations. A ludicrous notion.
If you have a fundamental reason to have such revolutionary philosophical stands, then you need listening to. Perhaps you're the next Einstein.
But if you have these stands just because you blindly agree with the simple minded incentive system that Rush Limbaugh (or James Inhoffe) are trying to sell, then your opinion is not your own. You're an impediment to progress - just like one of those Popes who imprisoned Galileo.
Faith in science is not blind faith. Faith in science is faith in human skepticism.
Monday, January 26, 2009
A few thoughts on poverty and "Slumdog"
Just watched the movie this weekend, and first things first, I thought it was an excellent piece of storytelling. Let me just say that the amount of attention it is getting is justified, and leave it at that. This is not a movie review.
A significant amount of outrage (in India) has been directed at the depiction of extreme poverty in the movie. Newspaper editorials have called it "poverty porn". And, ironically, "slum-dwellers" have held rallies protesting what they call "poverty for sale". They also don't like being referred to as "dogs". (Though it is clear that the film-makers did not mean it in a pejorative way, they should have foreseen that the title could hurt the pride of people in the 'slums'. Is it possible to make a movie about slaves in America with the N-word in the title?). Amitabh Bachan (possibly the biggest name in Indian cinema) protested the depiction of poverty in the movie, contending that it portrays a "negative image" of India.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it is the first movie in a long time (if not the first ever) that focuses on the lives of people living in India's slums. Predictably, making movies about slums is not expected to make money if the target audience is the people that some slum-dwellers encounter at traffic signals. So, few Indian directors have the motivation to make a movie about slums.
No one dares contend that what the movie depicts is anything but reality. What the movie shows, is unfortunately all to real in Mumbai's slums. Or the the slums of any city, town or village in India. Arguments that the movie exposes India's underbelly - and that you would find similar stories in other nations if you dug deep enough are probably correct. Except that you don't have to dig too deep in India. 80% of India lives on less that Rs 80 a day. 14% of India lives on Rs 20 a day. And if you earn less than Rs 20 a day, odds are you live in a slum. Therefore, at least 5-10% of India lives in slums (this could be as high as 15%). Now, let's do some math here. 5% of 1.2 Billion is 60 million. Or 8 times the size of Israel. 3 times the size of Australia. 15% of a Billion is more than half the size of the US. If slums are 15% of India's population, then India's slums alone would be the world's 6th most populated nation. India has more slum dwellers than the Population of Pakistan, if we were to take the 15% estimate.
60% of Mumbai's 22 Million are slum dwellers. Mumbai alone has almost as many slum dwellers than twice the population of the entire nation of Israel.
Now, Mr. Bachan. Underbelly. Really?
Prosperous Indians don't empathize with the plight of the slum-dwellers in India. Rich Indians have made themselves numb to poverty (or otherwise, they just can't survive with so much of it all around). People know it exists, but just cannot do anything about it. So they ignore it.
This draws a parallel to former American Vice-President's (Al Gore's) Nobel Prize winning documentary, 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Most Americans know that the planet is warming, but are just not able to do anything about it. It is still likely that Global warming will go unabated - even though a good movie was made about it. On similar lines, slum poverty in India shall continue unabated (until economics sets it right) - even though a good movie has been made about it.
If the movie's masterful humanization of the predicament of the under-privileged arouses some empathy among the more fortunate upper classes; if this movie makes extreme poverty a larger electoral issue; if this movie motivates more youngsters to dream big and work hard, then it also deserves a Nobel Peace prize.
But something tells me that once all the hype is done, it will be back to business as usual in the media. And Dharavi will still be as miserable as ever.
A significant amount of outrage (in India) has been directed at the depiction of extreme poverty in the movie. Newspaper editorials have called it "poverty porn". And, ironically, "slum-dwellers" have held rallies protesting what they call "poverty for sale". They also don't like being referred to as "dogs". (Though it is clear that the film-makers did not mean it in a pejorative way, they should have foreseen that the title could hurt the pride of people in the 'slums'. Is it possible to make a movie about slaves in America with the N-word in the title?). Amitabh Bachan (possibly the biggest name in Indian cinema) protested the depiction of poverty in the movie, contending that it portrays a "negative image" of India.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it is the first movie in a long time (if not the first ever) that focuses on the lives of people living in India's slums. Predictably, making movies about slums is not expected to make money if the target audience is the people that some slum-dwellers encounter at traffic signals. So, few Indian directors have the motivation to make a movie about slums.
No one dares contend that what the movie depicts is anything but reality. What the movie shows, is unfortunately all to real in Mumbai's slums. Or the the slums of any city, town or village in India. Arguments that the movie exposes India's underbelly - and that you would find similar stories in other nations if you dug deep enough are probably correct. Except that you don't have to dig too deep in India. 80% of India lives on less that Rs 80 a day. 14% of India lives on Rs 20 a day. And if you earn less than Rs 20 a day, odds are you live in a slum. Therefore, at least 5-10% of India lives in slums (this could be as high as 15%). Now, let's do some math here. 5% of 1.2 Billion is 60 million. Or 8 times the size of Israel. 3 times the size of Australia. 15% of a Billion is more than half the size of the US. If slums are 15% of India's population, then India's slums alone would be the world's 6th most populated nation. India has more slum dwellers than the Population of Pakistan, if we were to take the 15% estimate.
60% of Mumbai's 22 Million are slum dwellers. Mumbai alone has almost as many slum dwellers than twice the population of the entire nation of Israel.
Now, Mr. Bachan. Underbelly. Really?
Prosperous Indians don't empathize with the plight of the slum-dwellers in India. Rich Indians have made themselves numb to poverty (or otherwise, they just can't survive with so much of it all around). People know it exists, but just cannot do anything about it. So they ignore it.
This draws a parallel to former American Vice-President's (Al Gore's) Nobel Prize winning documentary, 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Most Americans know that the planet is warming, but are just not able to do anything about it. It is still likely that Global warming will go unabated - even though a good movie was made about it. On similar lines, slum poverty in India shall continue unabated (until economics sets it right) - even though a good movie has been made about it.
If the movie's masterful humanization of the predicament of the under-privileged arouses some empathy among the more fortunate upper classes; if this movie makes extreme poverty a larger electoral issue; if this movie motivates more youngsters to dream big and work hard, then it also deserves a Nobel Peace prize.
But something tells me that once all the hype is done, it will be back to business as usual in the media. And Dharavi will still be as miserable as ever.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
On Closing Guantanamo
It is heartening to see the Obama Administration take concrete steps towards closing the Guantanamo bay (Gitmo) prison and other secret CIA prisons. Because the whole idea of secret prisons is what one associates with rogue governments - like Nazi Germany. Not the US - the self-proclamied model democracy for the rest of the world.
Gitmo goes against every liberal principle that America prides itself for. In the US, you are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. But in Gitmo, you are presumed guilty unless proven innocent. There's 265 detainees in Gitmo - of which people expect more than a 100 are innocent. (Some 60 are cleared for release already- but their countries won't accept them back!) 470 have already been released without being charged, clearly indicating that they were imprisoned without cause.
Isn't that an egregious travesty? An egregious travesty that 600 innocent people have been detained for no fault of their own in the most depressing place on earth? If you imprisoned one innocent US citizen without giving him or her the right to a fair trial in the US, all hell would break loose.
Commentators have not stressed this point enough. The US government is holding some prisoners arbitrarily (without cause). This is as bad as what Bush killed Saddam for doing. It is tough to imagine such a situation this day and age, especially in an "enlightened democracy". The Bush administration seemed be stuck in the 1400s in attitude. Disgusting. And finally, good riddance!
America has a wonderful judicial system. If you c0mmit a crime in the US, odds are you will be caught and sent to jail. If you murder someone, then you can even be sentenced to death. With this the case, why the hindrance of trying some of the Gitmo detainees here? If there is evidence against some of those terrorists, then it is inconceivable that the terrorists will be released. It is absurd to think that Khaled Sheikh Mohammed will ever be roaming the streets of NYC any time soon. He will probably be living inside one of those maximum security prisons, with (one hopes) a physically abusive room-mate. He might even get the fatal injection. I'm all for that if there's evidence against him.
And if there's no evidence against some prisoners, why on earth should they be incarcerated*? Let the innocents go! Don't mope about them roaming free. You're innocent too (odds are). And you're free. Don't you sense a pattern here? If you don't commit a crime, then ought you not be free?
To me there's no difference between a serial rapist and a terrorist. They're both horrible people. Why does the serial rapist also not deserve the hopeless isolation of a Gitmo, if someone who you think is a terrorist does?
Obama looks like a smart principled man, clearly intent on bringing the US out of the dark ages that the Bush/Cheney arrogance has buried them into. One can only wish him the best of luck. Terrorists are enemies of liberalism. And with Bush and Cheney in power, it looked like the terrorists had prevailed over liberalism. One hopes that Obama turns this thing around.
* It could (and has been) agrued that evidence is not usually gathered by troops who do capture terrorists - because the troops are not trained policemen. This is clearly an impediment to a proper trial. There will always be a scarcity of evidence against these "enemy combatants" for this very reason.
In my opinion, this ought not be a reason to deny them of a trial. Because, one must honor the possibility that the suspect in question is actually innocent. Judges are smart. They can make a case-by case judgement, trusting witnesses rather than docmentary evidence.
Gitmo goes against every liberal principle that America prides itself for. In the US, you are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. But in Gitmo, you are presumed guilty unless proven innocent. There's 265 detainees in Gitmo - of which people expect more than a 100 are innocent. (Some 60 are cleared for release already- but their countries won't accept them back!) 470 have already been released without being charged, clearly indicating that they were imprisoned without cause.
Isn't that an egregious travesty? An egregious travesty that 600 innocent people have been detained for no fault of their own in the most depressing place on earth? If you imprisoned one innocent US citizen without giving him or her the right to a fair trial in the US, all hell would break loose.
Commentators have not stressed this point enough. The US government is holding some prisoners arbitrarily (without cause). This is as bad as what Bush killed Saddam for doing. It is tough to imagine such a situation this day and age, especially in an "enlightened democracy". The Bush administration seemed be stuck in the 1400s in attitude. Disgusting. And finally, good riddance!
America has a wonderful judicial system. If you c0mmit a crime in the US, odds are you will be caught and sent to jail. If you murder someone, then you can even be sentenced to death. With this the case, why the hindrance of trying some of the Gitmo detainees here? If there is evidence against some of those terrorists, then it is inconceivable that the terrorists will be released. It is absurd to think that Khaled Sheikh Mohammed will ever be roaming the streets of NYC any time soon. He will probably be living inside one of those maximum security prisons, with (one hopes) a physically abusive room-mate. He might even get the fatal injection. I'm all for that if there's evidence against him.
And if there's no evidence against some prisoners, why on earth should they be incarcerated*? Let the innocents go! Don't mope about them roaming free. You're innocent too (odds are). And you're free. Don't you sense a pattern here? If you don't commit a crime, then ought you not be free?
To me there's no difference between a serial rapist and a terrorist. They're both horrible people. Why does the serial rapist also not deserve the hopeless isolation of a Gitmo, if someone who you think is a terrorist does?
Obama looks like a smart principled man, clearly intent on bringing the US out of the dark ages that the Bush/Cheney arrogance has buried them into. One can only wish him the best of luck. Terrorists are enemies of liberalism. And with Bush and Cheney in power, it looked like the terrorists had prevailed over liberalism. One hopes that Obama turns this thing around.
* It could (and has been) agrued that evidence is not usually gathered by troops who do capture terrorists - because the troops are not trained policemen. This is clearly an impediment to a proper trial. There will always be a scarcity of evidence against these "enemy combatants" for this very reason.
In my opinion, this ought not be a reason to deny them of a trial. Because, one must honor the possibility that the suspect in question is actually innocent. Judges are smart. They can make a case-by case judgement, trusting witnesses rather than docmentary evidence.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
How rich is the average Indian?
The recent trip to India was an eye-opener of sorts. I had always been cognizant of there existing a significant parallel economy in India. But this current trip, I interacted with people familiar with the tricks of the trade. Presenting a few thoughts that I feel are pertinent:
Black money is undeclared money, money that has never seen a bank account, money that the government does not know exists; money that has not been taxed. Almost all Indians who deal in real estate have a secret stash of black money hidden under a mattress somewhere. And this is perhaps a reason why you don't see Indians use cards and checks while doing their groceries; they use cash.
Incidentally, some speculative articles in the popular press (not peer reviewed, mind you) contend that black money is saving the Indian economy from a US economy type fate in this credit crunch. Anecdotal evidence talking about Sony Bravias (worth a few lakhs) still selling despite hell having broken loose in other markets seems to corroborate this notion.
The size of the Indian black economy defies quantification. It is unanimously agreed that India's black economy is at least 20% of the size of its GDP. Some estimates hold that a conservative estimate of India's unofficial economy is around 50% of the GDP. And I have it from a few personal sources that the black economy is roughly equal in size to the actual GDP.
When we consider the annual per-capita income of India (or annual per-capita GDP, for that matter), do we also factor in the black component? We quote that the per-capita income of India is $2600 per year (based on PPP) - and we lament fact that we are living in a poor country. But, if 50% of the economy is black, then the per capita income would turn out to be $3900 per year. A significant change. Maybe Indians are as rich as Sri Lankans, it looks like. And If the economy were equal in size to the black economy, then India's per capita income would be $5200, almost on par with that of Egypt. (Of course, Egypt and Sri Lanka probably have under-reported their economies too, but not as badly as India).
Black money is undeclared money, money that has never seen a bank account, money that the government does not know exists; money that has not been taxed. Almost all Indians who deal in real estate have a secret stash of black money hidden under a mattress somewhere. And this is perhaps a reason why you don't see Indians use cards and checks while doing their groceries; they use cash.
Incidentally, some speculative articles in the popular press (not peer reviewed, mind you) contend that black money is saving the Indian economy from a US economy type fate in this credit crunch. Anecdotal evidence talking about Sony Bravias (worth a few lakhs) still selling despite hell having broken loose in other markets seems to corroborate this notion.
The size of the Indian black economy defies quantification. It is unanimously agreed that India's black economy is at least 20% of the size of its GDP. Some estimates hold that a conservative estimate of India's unofficial economy is around 50% of the GDP. And I have it from a few personal sources that the black economy is roughly equal in size to the actual GDP.
When we consider the annual per-capita income of India (or annual per-capita GDP, for that matter), do we also factor in the black component? We quote that the per-capita income of India is $2600 per year (based on PPP) - and we lament fact that we are living in a poor country. But, if 50% of the economy is black, then the per capita income would turn out to be $3900 per year. A significant change. Maybe Indians are as rich as Sri Lankans, it looks like. And If the economy were equal in size to the black economy, then India's per capita income would be $5200, almost on par with that of Egypt. (Of course, Egypt and Sri Lanka probably have under-reported their economies too, but not as badly as India).
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Stop Attacking Civilians in Gaza Now
Penalizing innocent public for sins of their leaders is unacceptable.
Shame on Bush for attacking Iraq and Afghanistan. But that' s another story altogether, because the US is a superpower, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop the US in these situations.
But Israel is a minute country on the scale of things (with a population slightly less than the Hyderabad metro area). I think the weight of international public disapproval and scorn can make the shameless, barbaric Israeli leadership relent. (Especially, if the American public who are Israel's patrons, indirectly, disapprove of this)
I implore all readers of this blog who agree with me to sign this petition. Though this petition probably won't stop anything, at least it will help pile the scorn on Israel's shameful actions.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/938380652
Shame on Bush for attacking Iraq and Afghanistan. But that' s another story altogether, because the US is a superpower, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop the US in these situations.
But Israel is a minute country on the scale of things (with a population slightly less than the Hyderabad metro area). I think the weight of international public disapproval and scorn can make the shameless, barbaric Israeli leadership relent. (Especially, if the American public who are Israel's patrons, indirectly, disapprove of this)
I implore all readers of this blog who agree with me to sign this petition. Though this petition probably won't stop anything, at least it will help pile the scorn on Israel's shameful actions.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/938380652
Friday, January 09, 2009
The first post of 2009
Had very wholesome and satisfying trip home to India. Back in the US now, in a BA flight from London - which was mostly empty. Another sign of the recession.
2009 looks like it won't me much fun for the investor. India shell shocked by the disgusting Satyam fiasco. US bleeding jobs all the time. And with cheap fuel, looks like all those "green" initiatives have died. Like the dinosaur.
The US is planning to spend its way out of a crisis it spent its way into. Cannot but be pessimistic about the whole idea. Common sense tells me that this crisis will shock the US to economy contract (per-capita) and curb its over-indulgence and focus on efficiency, for a change. (This will happen when the Chinese investors who are financing the US deficit realize that the US is no more a good investment).
2009 does not look like a good time for doves. Israel inflicting shameless and ruthless attacks on Gaza with an eye on its own local elections. Just why this is not termed terrorism is beyond me. And India and Pakistan seem to be exchanging heated invective every moment. But I don't see that turn into full scale war - because India's interests are in line with those of the government of Pakistan's - and most of the Pakistani people's (much as they would had to admit). Getting rid of the terrorists.
2009 looks like it won't me much fun for the investor. India shell shocked by the disgusting Satyam fiasco. US bleeding jobs all the time. And with cheap fuel, looks like all those "green" initiatives have died. Like the dinosaur.
The US is planning to spend its way out of a crisis it spent its way into. Cannot but be pessimistic about the whole idea. Common sense tells me that this crisis will shock the US to economy contract (per-capita) and curb its over-indulgence and focus on efficiency, for a change. (This will happen when the Chinese investors who are financing the US deficit realize that the US is no more a good investment).
2009 does not look like a good time for doves. Israel inflicting shameless and ruthless attacks on Gaza with an eye on its own local elections. Just why this is not termed terrorism is beyond me. And India and Pakistan seem to be exchanging heated invective every moment. But I don't see that turn into full scale war - because India's interests are in line with those of the government of Pakistan's - and most of the Pakistani people's (much as they would had to admit). Getting rid of the terrorists.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Easy Economic Stimulus for India?
In India now. Not very impressed with Rs 52 per liter petrol when crude oil is trading at $40 a barrel.
A liter of petrol costs around Rs 52 in India right now. That translates to $4.06 a gallon. That's how much the US used to pay, back in July, when everyone was weeping about how unaffordable everything was. Right now, average cost of a gallon of gas is around $1.70 in the US. That is Rs 21 per liter (after taxes). When times were bad the US paid $4.10 per gallon, India paid $5.
Now, then, India is clearly a low income tax nation (i.e. there's very few rich blokes who pay their 33%). So, of course, the petrol tax must be a significant cash cow for the government. Reducing the petrol tax to zero, therefore, is not a tenable solution. And kicking it up to infinity also will kill tax revenues by asphyxiating demand. Clearly, there is a case for an optimum tax rate which shall yield maximum revenue to the government.
My expectation is that this "optimum" tax rate is probably not what is being levied right now. I believe that the petrol tax rate ought to go down - and that petrol ought to be available at a cheaper rate. Perhaps Rs 35 a liter or so. We're probably in the regime where lower tax rates equal larger revenues by stimulating demand.
Clearly, there shall be ecological repercussions. Indians consuming more shall emit more. And in a warming planet that would not be good news. But one must keep Shyam Sharan's words in mind while comparing Indian CO2 emissions with the emissions of the developed world. "Ours are survival emissions. Yours are lifestyle emissions". Worrying about Indians consuming a tad bid more when Americans (and the rest of the world) are hedonistically over-indulging is misplaced, stupid altruism. The bottom line is, India must consume more, emit more to raise its billion from poverty. Any reduction in emission must come from the developed world. Not India.
So, here's my suggestion to MMS and Chidambaram (and whoever else it may concern).
Cut fuel taxes. People will buy more cars. (Roads will get more congested - but that will result in greater and quicker infrastructure development and public transport use). More cars mean more demand. More manufacturing. More jobs. This will act like a stimulus which shall not be financed by a deficit. A win-win situation for all. (Even the environment as the resulting increase in demand shall increase fuel prices around the world a bit) - therefore increasing petrol prices in regions that use it inefficiently (the US basically).
Europe has a good incentive to keep prices low. They're plenty rich anyway and they need to curb their per-capita emissions. India can afford to keep it cheap. We're desparately, miserably poor. We need to emit more to develop more. Cut fuel prices now!
A liter of petrol costs around Rs 52 in India right now. That translates to $4.06 a gallon. That's how much the US used to pay, back in July, when everyone was weeping about how unaffordable everything was. Right now, average cost of a gallon of gas is around $1.70 in the US. That is Rs 21 per liter (after taxes). When times were bad the US paid $4.10 per gallon, India paid $5.
Now, then, India is clearly a low income tax nation (i.e. there's very few rich blokes who pay their 33%). So, of course, the petrol tax must be a significant cash cow for the government. Reducing the petrol tax to zero, therefore, is not a tenable solution. And kicking it up to infinity also will kill tax revenues by asphyxiating demand. Clearly, there is a case for an optimum tax rate which shall yield maximum revenue to the government.
My expectation is that this "optimum" tax rate is probably not what is being levied right now. I believe that the petrol tax rate ought to go down - and that petrol ought to be available at a cheaper rate. Perhaps Rs 35 a liter or so. We're probably in the regime where lower tax rates equal larger revenues by stimulating demand.
Clearly, there shall be ecological repercussions. Indians consuming more shall emit more. And in a warming planet that would not be good news. But one must keep Shyam Sharan's words in mind while comparing Indian CO2 emissions with the emissions of the developed world. "Ours are survival emissions. Yours are lifestyle emissions". Worrying about Indians consuming a tad bid more when Americans (and the rest of the world) are hedonistically over-indulging is misplaced, stupid altruism. The bottom line is, India must consume more, emit more to raise its billion from poverty. Any reduction in emission must come from the developed world. Not India.
So, here's my suggestion to MMS and Chidambaram (and whoever else it may concern).
Cut fuel taxes. People will buy more cars. (Roads will get more congested - but that will result in greater and quicker infrastructure development and public transport use). More cars mean more demand. More manufacturing. More jobs. This will act like a stimulus which shall not be financed by a deficit. A win-win situation for all. (Even the environment as the resulting increase in demand shall increase fuel prices around the world a bit) - therefore increasing petrol prices in regions that use it inefficiently (the US basically).
Europe has a good incentive to keep prices low. They're plenty rich anyway and they need to curb their per-capita emissions. India can afford to keep it cheap. We're desparately, miserably poor. We need to emit more to develop more. Cut fuel prices now!
Monday, December 15, 2008
Shoes?
Why would anybody do this? Is there a rhyme or a reason to the way some people behave?
You take a leap of faith and send in your troops to liberate a country from a tyrant (even though the tyrant probably was not going to harm you or your people, making this deed all the more altruistic). You sacrifice 5000 of your troops in this noble endeavor.
You take a beating in the court of public opinion in your own country because you sacrificed 5000 precious lives to liberate a nation of 25 million from the throes of an evil, genocidal dictator.
Clearly, having been such a savior, you would expect a little gratitude. You would expect, perhaps humble words of thanks. Tears of affection, perhaps. But shoes? Would you expect shoes to be thrown at you when you were so instrumental to the state of freedom Iraq is in?
What was the attacker thinking? Every Iraqi is obviously happy now, that he has been liberated from the evil dictator. How can anyone bear animosity towards such a benevolent benefactor? Human beings are such ingrates. Dear reader, let this be a lesson to you: the next time you see a dictator, don't liberate his subjects. They will throw shoes at you later.
Or, you could refrain from killing 4% of the subjects while liberating them. That could help.
You take a leap of faith and send in your troops to liberate a country from a tyrant (even though the tyrant probably was not going to harm you or your people, making this deed all the more altruistic). You sacrifice 5000 of your troops in this noble endeavor.
You take a beating in the court of public opinion in your own country because you sacrificed 5000 precious lives to liberate a nation of 25 million from the throes of an evil, genocidal dictator.
Clearly, having been such a savior, you would expect a little gratitude. You would expect, perhaps humble words of thanks. Tears of affection, perhaps. But shoes? Would you expect shoes to be thrown at you when you were so instrumental to the state of freedom Iraq is in?
What was the attacker thinking? Every Iraqi is obviously happy now, that he has been liberated from the evil dictator. How can anyone bear animosity towards such a benevolent benefactor? Human beings are such ingrates. Dear reader, let this be a lesson to you: the next time you see a dictator, don't liberate his subjects. They will throw shoes at you later.
Or, you could refrain from killing 4% of the subjects while liberating them. That could help.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Few Thoughts on the Indian State Elections
The media is rife with stories about maturing Indian voters "not being swayed by divisive rhetoric" purveyed by the BJP. The liberal in me likes that take, but the skeptic in me cannot help but wonder, Really?
Terror has been a given in India for a long time. Terrorists slaughtered 24 in Delhi a few weeks ago. And people must remember the horrible incidents in Modi- governed Ahmedabad (and almost in Surat) earlier this year, not to mention Guwahati, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Delhi... . These attacks in Mumbai don't change anything. The common man in India knows that. Analysts, of course, have an elitist bias - and to them the Mumbai attacks have a deeper emotional significance.
National issues in India seldom outweigh local issues. One of the rare occasions they did outweigh local issues was when the elecorate threw out Indira Gandhi's paranoid emegency. But terror is nowhere as significant as the emergency. Terror in India is little more than an unpleasant irritant - something that should certainly be dealt with - but not something that should occupy center stage when farmers are commiting sucide by the lakh.
If any national party wants to make terror a national issue in the elections, I am sure that the electorate will reject it - because it is not as significant an issue as others. Last time the BJP tried something stupid like this, it lost badly. (Remember India Shining? What a travesty that was!. When farmers on the verge of commiting suicide and the desperate poor struggling to eke out a living were informed that their nation was shining, the boot is what they got).
To me, it is not as if the electorate has developed a maturity overnight. India has always had a functioning democracy (as has been proven by the voters booting out Ms. Indira Gandhi - and rejecting the irrational "India Shining" campaign). The voters have voted for development in Delhi. Ms. Dixit is doing a great job over there. Voters appreciate the MP and Chattisgharh BJP governments - which are actually doing good work.
And that's why Modi stays in power in Gujarat. Whatever we liberals might say about him, he does have a staunch development record. The Indian voter is trying to vote his/her way out of poverty. And statistically, terror is a little too minor to scare the electorate right now.
Terror has been a given in India for a long time. Terrorists slaughtered 24 in Delhi a few weeks ago. And people must remember the horrible incidents in Modi- governed Ahmedabad (and almost in Surat) earlier this year, not to mention Guwahati, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Delhi... . These attacks in Mumbai don't change anything. The common man in India knows that. Analysts, of course, have an elitist bias - and to them the Mumbai attacks have a deeper emotional significance.
National issues in India seldom outweigh local issues. One of the rare occasions they did outweigh local issues was when the elecorate threw out Indira Gandhi's paranoid emegency. But terror is nowhere as significant as the emergency. Terror in India is little more than an unpleasant irritant - something that should certainly be dealt with - but not something that should occupy center stage when farmers are commiting sucide by the lakh.
If any national party wants to make terror a national issue in the elections, I am sure that the electorate will reject it - because it is not as significant an issue as others. Last time the BJP tried something stupid like this, it lost badly. (Remember India Shining? What a travesty that was!. When farmers on the verge of commiting suicide and the desperate poor struggling to eke out a living were informed that their nation was shining, the boot is what they got).
To me, it is not as if the electorate has developed a maturity overnight. India has always had a functioning democracy (as has been proven by the voters booting out Ms. Indira Gandhi - and rejecting the irrational "India Shining" campaign). The voters have voted for development in Delhi. Ms. Dixit is doing a great job over there. Voters appreciate the MP and Chattisgharh BJP governments - which are actually doing good work.
And that's why Modi stays in power in Gujarat. Whatever we liberals might say about him, he does have a staunch development record. The Indian voter is trying to vote his/her way out of poverty. And statistically, terror is a little too minor to scare the electorate right now.
Friday, December 05, 2008
How big a problem is terrorism in India?
Based on the list of terror attacks for 2008 in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2008), the question (title) has been addressed.
Here are the results:
Iraq: 728 deaths, at 29.12 deaths per million people
Sri Lanka: 214 deaths at 10.7 deaths per million people
Pakistan: 646 deaths at 3.91 deaths per million people
Israel: 13 deaths at 1.9 deaths per million people
India: 364 deaths at 0.4 deaths per million people
These statistics cannot be fully accurate, because terrorism is a tough term to define. For instance, all the Sri Lankan deaths are essentially because of Hindu terrorists (LTTE). Those deaths are included in this survey, wheras shootings like the Virginia-tech massacre would not be. That's why the US has 0 deaths. Statistics pertaining to India also include Naxalite encounters - but not muders.
Compare that with crime rate. India has 32,000 murders every year - which is 29 deaths per million. Basically that means one is 100 times more likely to be killed by a murderer than an islamic terrorist. And now, let's get to India's 130,000 annual road accident deaths - or 150 deaths per million. This makes India's roads five times more dangerous than terrorism in Iraq, by far the world's most terrorist encumbered state. If India re-allocated 90% of her defence budget to road-infrastructure, even in these apparently "troubled" times, more Indians would live.
These statistics make one question very basic assumptions regarding security. Islamic terror is certainly not a problem worth losing sleep over, if statistics are to be believed.
People contend that statistics hide more than they reveal - a thoroughly debatable contention. What does one have to go by, if one doubts the credibility of statistics?
Is outrage proportional to how wealthy the victims are? 180 dead in Rich Mumbai, the whole planet comes to a standstill. 200 dead in Mumbai (2006) - and hardly anybody notices. Clearly, socio economics is a factor.
What do you think?
As an aside, clearly, terrorism is a problem in Iraq. That's something that statistics show immediately. And this is considered one of the better years for Iraq. Iraq witnessed the destruction of its entire middle class and death of a million people - and the ruin of 20 million more - all because of "bad intelligence".
Here are the results:
Iraq: 728 deaths, at 29.12 deaths per million people
Sri Lanka: 214 deaths at 10.7 deaths per million people
Pakistan: 646 deaths at 3.91 deaths per million people
Israel: 13 deaths at 1.9 deaths per million people
India: 364 deaths at 0.4 deaths per million people
These statistics cannot be fully accurate, because terrorism is a tough term to define. For instance, all the Sri Lankan deaths are essentially because of Hindu terrorists (LTTE). Those deaths are included in this survey, wheras shootings like the Virginia-tech massacre would not be. That's why the US has 0 deaths. Statistics pertaining to India also include Naxalite encounters - but not muders.
Compare that with crime rate. India has 32,000 murders every year - which is 29 deaths per million. Basically that means one is 100 times more likely to be killed by a murderer than an islamic terrorist. And now, let's get to India's 130,000 annual road accident deaths - or 150 deaths per million. This makes India's roads five times more dangerous than terrorism in Iraq, by far the world's most terrorist encumbered state. If India re-allocated 90% of her defence budget to road-infrastructure, even in these apparently "troubled" times, more Indians would live.
These statistics make one question very basic assumptions regarding security. Islamic terror is certainly not a problem worth losing sleep over, if statistics are to be believed.
People contend that statistics hide more than they reveal - a thoroughly debatable contention. What does one have to go by, if one doubts the credibility of statistics?
Is outrage proportional to how wealthy the victims are? 180 dead in Rich Mumbai, the whole planet comes to a standstill. 200 dead in Mumbai (2006) - and hardly anybody notices. Clearly, socio economics is a factor.
What do you think?
As an aside, clearly, terrorism is a problem in Iraq. That's something that statistics show immediately. And this is considered one of the better years for Iraq. Iraq witnessed the destruction of its entire middle class and death of a million people - and the ruin of 20 million more - all because of "bad intelligence".
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
No War, Please
There seems to be word that the Indian Government is planning to take out some "terrorist training schools" in Pakistan. India must avoid doing so at all costs. Because doing so will be (justifiably) looked at as a deed of agression - and before we know it, a nuclear war looms in the sub-continent, pushing the planet closer to doomsday.
Firstly, the civilian government in Pakistan seems to be well-intentioned. The president, Mr. Zardari, seems to be as dovey as they come in Pakistan. Clearly, the politicians want peace - as do the people.
With Pakistan, one can never be too sure about its Army - and certainly not about the ISI. They could very well be aiding the terrorists, analysts feel. (But why they would like to blow up their own hotels, and keep killing their own people is beyond me). So, there's probably rogue elements of the army and rogue islamist elements of the ISI which are creating these problems.
Since the expectation ias that these radical elements are rogue - and not the norm, there could be a strong case to force the apparently well-intentioned government's hand - and make the army bomb the terrorist camps - or authorize the Indians and Americans to bomb the areas in question.
It is imperative that the Pakistani government in power be treated with care. Because, if some islamist nutjob yanks power away from Zardari through a coup (because of some way-too-unpopular measures Zardari is forced to take), we have a terrorist state with a nuclear bomb - which is a bone-chilling possibility. The terrorists would not think twice before using said bomb on India.
Whatever is done has to be done with care; with minimal entropy generation. Because disgruntlement today means more terror tomorrow. And there's a whole lot of potential terrorist recruits. Pakistan's population is 160M.
Firstly, the civilian government in Pakistan seems to be well-intentioned. The president, Mr. Zardari, seems to be as dovey as they come in Pakistan. Clearly, the politicians want peace - as do the people.
With Pakistan, one can never be too sure about its Army - and certainly not about the ISI. They could very well be aiding the terrorists, analysts feel. (But why they would like to blow up their own hotels, and keep killing their own people is beyond me). So, there's probably rogue elements of the army and rogue islamist elements of the ISI which are creating these problems.
Since the expectation ias that these radical elements are rogue - and not the norm, there could be a strong case to force the apparently well-intentioned government's hand - and make the army bomb the terrorist camps - or authorize the Indians and Americans to bomb the areas in question.
It is imperative that the Pakistani government in power be treated with care. Because, if some islamist nutjob yanks power away from Zardari through a coup (because of some way-too-unpopular measures Zardari is forced to take), we have a terrorist state with a nuclear bomb - which is a bone-chilling possibility. The terrorists would not think twice before using said bomb on India.
Whatever is done has to be done with care; with minimal entropy generation. Because disgruntlement today means more terror tomorrow. And there's a whole lot of potential terrorist recruits. Pakistan's population is 160M.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
A Few More Thoughts on Terror in Mumbai
CNN, FOX News and MSNBC are carrying live feeds from Mumbai from various local news channels. They did not do this during the 2006 August / Sep Attacks that killed 200. They did not do it in the Delhi Blasts. Not during the Hyd Blasts. But they're covering this non-stop today. Why this sudden interest? Clearly, the answer must be in who is being targeted. With business interests and American citizens being targeted, the issue clearly demands more coverage in the US media.
All that is understandable, but calling this India's 9/11 (as analysts on various networks have repeatedly asserted) is incorrect. India has been grappling with terrorists for the best of 10 years right now - and is probably one of the most terror-incident prone places on the planet. This is certainly not India's 9/11. India has had more deadly terror attacks in the recent past. If any thing, this could be considered one of India's vast array of mini-9/11s.
Clearly, the perpetrators have roots in Pakistan or at least have been backed by the Pakistani ISI - an educated guess most people are making on TV. The "Deccan Mujahideen" is probably just a front for this. But I sincerely hope this does not derail talks between the Indian and the Pakistani governments. Pakistani democracy is probably one of the only hopes for stability in the region. The Pakistani government is too impotent and powerless to deal with these creeps - and is more in need for help than blame. The leigitimate Pakistani governemnt needs to be strengthened.
Perhaps the strongest response to this horrible issue would be a joint statement issued by Pakistani Prime Minister Zardari (or the Prime Minister, Gillani) and their Indian counterpart, MMS, affirming friendship in this time of terror. It is important not to fall into the animosity trap. Pakistanis are just like Indians - just as terror prone, just as scared. The terrorists want confrontation with India. Bellicose rhetoric would stifle encouraging signs shown by Zardari recently - a victory for the terrorists.
All that is understandable, but calling this India's 9/11 (as analysts on various networks have repeatedly asserted) is incorrect. India has been grappling with terrorists for the best of 10 years right now - and is probably one of the most terror-incident prone places on the planet. This is certainly not India's 9/11. India has had more deadly terror attacks in the recent past. If any thing, this could be considered one of India's vast array of mini-9/11s.
Clearly, the perpetrators have roots in Pakistan or at least have been backed by the Pakistani ISI - an educated guess most people are making on TV. The "Deccan Mujahideen" is probably just a front for this. But I sincerely hope this does not derail talks between the Indian and the Pakistani governments. Pakistani democracy is probably one of the only hopes for stability in the region. The Pakistani government is too impotent and powerless to deal with these creeps - and is more in need for help than blame. The leigitimate Pakistani governemnt needs to be strengthened.
Perhaps the strongest response to this horrible issue would be a joint statement issued by Pakistani Prime Minister Zardari (or the Prime Minister, Gillani) and their Indian counterpart, MMS, affirming friendship in this time of terror. It is important not to fall into the animosity trap. Pakistanis are just like Indians - just as terror prone, just as scared. The terrorists want confrontation with India. Bellicose rhetoric would stifle encouraging signs shown by Zardari recently - a victory for the terrorists.
Who isn't sick of terror?
It's a sick feeling, knowing that right now, at this very moment in time, there is a horrible, perverted army of terrorists targeting one of the world's densest and most populated cities: Mumbai.
I do hope that every one of the perpetrators is either killed tonight - or brought to justice, sentenced as strictly and as soon as possible. This is one of the times that makes me glad that India has the death penalty.
Of course, there is an expectation that these attacks are somehow associated with Islamic terror. It is indeed a very likely scenario that the bunch of loons that call themselves the Indian Mujahideen are responsible for this - but I suppose the "Hindu terror" angle will also be investigated. (Personally, I don't think the Hindu terror angle is tenable here - but how can one be sure without investigating?)
I hope Mumbai does not over-react to this. Mumbai has a tendency to riot - as has been ignominously demonstrated in 1992. Mumbai has been experiencing terror periodically after 1992 - and large scale rioting has not taken place.
I wish the people of Mumbai a speedy recovery from this horrbile incident. I hope the death toll does not go up anymore, and I hope that the terrorists get what they deserve - imprisonment in an Indian jail with angry Indian inmates who like beating people up (not killing them). I don't want the guards providing any security to these terrorists.
If this kind of terrorism (the killing of innocents) is martyrdom in any faith, any place on this planet, we need to question whether the purveyors of such rhetoric ought to be regarded as human beings at all - or ought they be anhillated, like the small pox virus has been anhillated from the face of the planet?
I do hope that every one of the perpetrators is either killed tonight - or brought to justice, sentenced as strictly and as soon as possible. This is one of the times that makes me glad that India has the death penalty.
Of course, there is an expectation that these attacks are somehow associated with Islamic terror. It is indeed a very likely scenario that the bunch of loons that call themselves the Indian Mujahideen are responsible for this - but I suppose the "Hindu terror" angle will also be investigated. (Personally, I don't think the Hindu terror angle is tenable here - but how can one be sure without investigating?)
I hope Mumbai does not over-react to this. Mumbai has a tendency to riot - as has been ignominously demonstrated in 1992. Mumbai has been experiencing terror periodically after 1992 - and large scale rioting has not taken place.
I wish the people of Mumbai a speedy recovery from this horrbile incident. I hope the death toll does not go up anymore, and I hope that the terrorists get what they deserve - imprisonment in an Indian jail with angry Indian inmates who like beating people up (not killing them). I don't want the guards providing any security to these terrorists.
If this kind of terrorism (the killing of innocents) is martyrdom in any faith, any place on this planet, we need to question whether the purveyors of such rhetoric ought to be regarded as human beings at all - or ought they be anhillated, like the small pox virus has been anhillated from the face of the planet?
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
My Problems with Prop 8
Firstly, I don't remember what the correct answer to Prop 8 is. I know that it concerns gay marriage - but I don't know whether the correct answer is "yes" or "no". If you support gay marriage, do you have to vote "yes" or "no"? It's confusing. Wonder how many people were as confused as I am right now. Is there even a minor chance that it tipped the election one way or the other? Or did these votes cancel out?
But my real problem with all the hullabaloo about prop 8 is that the whose issue is merely token. Besides the symbolic "right" of getting married, there was little else at stake. Current civil unions in most US states are pretty much as good as marriages, legally. Homosexuals are not being persecuted in America - even in extremely conservative Texas. Spending vast amounts of money on campaigning for this largely token and symbolic right (of little practical value) when actual homosexuals are being stoned to death in the muslim world; being harassed for bribes by corrupt policemen in India is a shame.
Gay rights groups are being selfish. They are fighting for a luxury in this country when they could spend the same money on actual gay rights (and human rights, for that matter) around the world.
I expect that my viewpoint is unique in that it has a more international perspective considering that I am not an American citizen. I don't blame American liberals for not sharing this with me - being raised in the most prosperous society on the planet does blind and insulate one from actual ground realities around the rest of the planet.
But my real problem with all the hullabaloo about prop 8 is that the whose issue is merely token. Besides the symbolic "right" of getting married, there was little else at stake. Current civil unions in most US states are pretty much as good as marriages, legally. Homosexuals are not being persecuted in America - even in extremely conservative Texas. Spending vast amounts of money on campaigning for this largely token and symbolic right (of little practical value) when actual homosexuals are being stoned to death in the muslim world; being harassed for bribes by corrupt policemen in India is a shame.
Gay rights groups are being selfish. They are fighting for a luxury in this country when they could spend the same money on actual gay rights (and human rights, for that matter) around the world.
I expect that my viewpoint is unique in that it has a more international perspective considering that I am not an American citizen. I don't blame American liberals for not sharing this with me - being raised in the most prosperous society on the planet does blind and insulate one from actual ground realities around the rest of the planet.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Traffic Monitoring
I have always suspected that at least a million people frequent my blog every week - and that they are too nice to leave comments. So, in order to track them, I have installed a traffic monitor widget (which you shall find if you scroll down). This will help me show off my huge traffic. Maybe I can install some google ad thingy and become a millionaire overnight.
In other news (not that this is a news site), they're sending traffic policemen to the moon to regulate all the cars that are probably being driven there.
In other news (not that this is a news site), they're sending traffic policemen to the moon to regulate all the cars that are probably being driven there.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
On banning Deshdrohi
Arguments regarding social stability might be enticing - and quite convincing. But I urge the government not to give into the temptation of playing big brother.
Usurpage of personal liberties starts with something minor like banning a movie - but it is a slippery slope - and eventually, India will be a liberal democracy no more. Making people pay for merely expressing their own opinion goes against the very fabric of our democracy - the same democracy that Gandhi, Patel and countless others laid down their lives for.
Most of the Indian electorate is vastly conservative (and does not have a liberal bone in the body) - and would probably not be fully opposed to some measure like this. This perhaps poses an existential question to the notion of free speech (which the west takes for granted). Should the government compromise on free speech for the sake of public safety?
When faced with such a choice, the solution is clearly a no-brainer. Free speech is a luxury in comparison with the right to live. Free speech, alas, seems to be more of an elitist notion in a nation of unfathomable poverty.
There goes another ideal.
Usurpage of personal liberties starts with something minor like banning a movie - but it is a slippery slope - and eventually, India will be a liberal democracy no more. Making people pay for merely expressing their own opinion goes against the very fabric of our democracy - the same democracy that Gandhi, Patel and countless others laid down their lives for.
Most of the Indian electorate is vastly conservative (and does not have a liberal bone in the body) - and would probably not be fully opposed to some measure like this. This perhaps poses an existential question to the notion of free speech (which the west takes for granted). Should the government compromise on free speech for the sake of public safety?
When faced with such a choice, the solution is clearly a no-brainer. Free speech is a luxury in comparison with the right to live. Free speech, alas, seems to be more of an elitist notion in a nation of unfathomable poverty.
There goes another ideal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)