Thursday, August 18, 2011
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Fear, hatred & annihilation
WORLD : RELIGIOUS THEOLOGY
Root of all fundamentalisms is the fear of being obliterated…22/11/2009
9/11 reminds the world the brutality of extremism that the US went through, which took lives of 2,993 people including the hijackers. The entire world knows that the brutality was the outcome of extremist religious theology – which is considered to bring peace. But unfortunately that came out to be one of the prime reasons of conflict in the society. Though there is enough written, talked and investigated about the issue – terrorism, there is a little scope of analysis on the fact that all extremisms – whether Muslim, Christian or Jewish – are rooted in a profound fear of obliteration.The historical case of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, where ten thousand to possibly one-hundred thousand Huguenots (French Protestants) were killed by the Catholic mobs out of fear that Catholics were losing power and getting increasingly overshadowed by the Protestants is worth to mention. Peace-mongering popes like Pope Gregory XIII showed his frustration stating that, "That massacre gave him more pleasure than fifty Battles of Lepanto." Another case of Christian extremism is the attempt by Guy Fawkes and other Catholic revolutionaries to overthrow the Protestant aristocracy of England by blowing up the Houses of Parliament.
Similarly, Jewish extremism was rooted from the same fear. Two incidents created a feeling among Jews of being ceased to exist, making them severely violent. First is the Nazi atrocity. Out of fear of being completely extricated by Nazis’ conspiracy, Jews took swords in hands. Second is insecurity of losing the Jewish state of Israel in the Middle East. Thus, it was irrelevant for Jews whether they were killing Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian or Palestinian, all were their enemies because all of them were against their land of Israel. And finally, Islamic faith became too “violent” in the modern days. Only God perhaps knows how many are killed by people influenced by Islamic extremism. However, history shows that Islamic terrorism is rooted from the days of the fall of Ottoman Empire. One of the reasons behind al-Qaeda’s coming into existence and Talibans or Iraqis becoming violent and are in killing spree today is the fact that they are severely afraid of losing their faith and culture due to excessive influence and domination by the West.
As China’s stand against Tibetans’ desire of achieving independence is gradually becoming visible, the Dalai Lama may continue to protest peacefully but common Buddhist Tibetans may not continue the same for long. Remember, it would not take much time for Tibetan Buddhists to be violent.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Kirill on a mission
RUSSIAN DIPLOMACY: ROLE OF ORTHODOX CHURCH
Is it the Orthodox Church that Putin is using in his new diplomacy?
Is it the Orthodox Church that Putin is using in his new diplomacy?
For the uninitiated, ‘Patriarch’ Kirill, the newly elected Patriarch in Russia, is alleged to have been and to still be a KGB agent. He has been very successful and influential in diplomatic issues, more regional than global. He succeeded to lay down the foundation of Orthodox Church in Cuba and Venezuela, where he is alleged to have secret political dialogues with top level diplomats like Fidel Castro. He is also one of the richest Russians in Russia with a personal wealth over $4 billion. Compare that with the Pope: rich, yes; millionaire, surely; but billionaire? (Even the Vatican operates on a budget deficit these days; one guesses after the billions of dollars payouts globally on child abuse cases). For the initiated, Russian neighbours including Ukraine are not ready to accept Russia’s presence and domination in their territory. On a key multiple tier diplomatic level, Russia desperately needs to keep its existence and influence in the neighboring states for its economic benefit and to retain supremacy. Thus, as it has exhausted all possible options, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is now all set to launch another contrivance to resolve political and diplomatic issues with its neighbours – the Russian Orthodox Church. Putin is trying to use the Orthodox Church quite cleverly, with the recent visit of Patriarch Kirill to Ukraine evidence of the same. Analytically, the 10-day visit of Kirill to various churches in Kiev and other cities of Ukraine might not seem very successful at the political level on the face of it, but it seems to have laid down a strong positive foundation in the minds of the common Ukrainians with respect to acceptability of anything Russian. Religion, especially the Christian Orthodox faith, has been very influential in the region, especially in countries like Ukraine, Georgia. About 17.3% of the Ukrainian population is of Russian origin. In addition, the long history of Christian faith binds people of these countries in common terms. There are three sects predominantly in Ukraine; Kiev patriarchate with 50.4% followers, which is predominant in the Western part of the country backed by the President, Yushchenko. The Moscow patriarch is another with 26.1% having enough support of Russian government. | |||
Finally, the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church with 7.2%. This demographic picture is giving substantial support to Patriarch Kirill to put forward the Russian political agendas. For the Russian polity, some of Kirill’s recent initiatives have been witness to clear political cognizance. His recent statement that it’s very important to increase Russian speaking presence in EU bodies was one of his first political remarks as Patriarch; interestingly, this statement garnered enough support in the Russian polity. But what separates him from his quite normal predecessors is that fact that he is the first Russian Patriarch in known history to consider himself as the universal patriarch for the world in the Christian Orthodox faith. That is quite a gargantuan consideration, given the expanse he is trying to address. But as his Ukraine trip showed, he is not without his stable followers. Kirill is also trying to strengthen the current weak relation with Georgia. In addition, his recent statement that “there are no conflicts, even most cruel, [and] no human hostility that could ever destroy the church unity, including the unity between the Russian and Georgian Churches” caught the attention of the intellectual Georgian community. Common Georgians look forward to Kirill’s visit more positively in Georgia now more than ever. Kirill’s further attention to control food consumption for joy and save the world from ruin has increased his general popularity and exemplified his knowledge in world economics. His speech in Crimea to thousands of people including Russian and Ukrainian navy personnel urging them for a peaceful cooperation was meaningful. He said, “Keep the Orthodox faith! Keeping the faith means not only attending church but building good relations with people,” more broadly between Ukrainians and Russians.
|
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Delhi Metro; systemic losses
01/10/2009
Is Delhi Metro a costly mistake? Well, it surely will become a national heritage once it gets completed, but would it qualify on the strictest parameter of becoming a financially sound public transport model? Or has it been set up just to beautify Delhi’s landscape on taxpayers’ money? Let’s see some interesting facts.
The concept of metros has never been a profitable business proposition internationally. There are 135 metros worldwide but only four metros have been successful in making profits. These are Hong Kong, Taipei, Singapore and Tokyo. The Kolkata Metro is another example of a staid loss maker. If the financial year 2004-05 saw it incurring losses of Rs.43 crores, last year stood at Rs 48.6 crores (It earned Rs.48 crore from passenger traffic against operating costs of around Rs.91 crore in the same year). In other words, tax payers are paying for the inefficiencies of metro’s employees and processes. The Delhi Metro railway project is purportedly one of Delhi’s brightest projects. The first phase of Delhi metro is complete and the total cost stood at around Rs.10,571 crore. The estimated cost of the second phase is Rs.8,118 crore. In spite of having the lowest fares compared to other metros internationally, Delhi metro has earned operational profits of Rs.398.69 crore. Since there is hefty capital investment and certain amount of operating cost involved, it seems that it will take many years to make net profit.
Claude Jeanrenaud, Council of Europe member, writes in his report, Funding of Urban Public Transport, “Urban public transport systems are systematically loss making,” the reason clearly being pricing travel tickets lower than true cost in an ostensible effort to cater to lower income groups, a clearly misdirected strategy at the cost of other taxpayers. Delhi Metro was not and should not be considered a social service effort, especially when it is not free money that is going in. It’s time to price its tickets higher; ruthlessly!
A new revenue model?
15/10/2009
One of the fastest growing nations, India faces a severe problem when it comes to effective and adequate revenue generation. For example, the government succeeded in generating only Rs.6,279.49 billion as gross tax collection while the proposed budget expenditure is Rs.9,532.31 billion in the budget year 2009-10. The country faces a budget deficit of Rs.2412.73 billion, which is 4.4% of GDP, a figure high for an emerging nation (in 2009, China’s budget deficit stood at yuan 111 billion, which is just 0.4% of the GDP). Since taxation is the major revenue source, the Indian government keeps attempting to look at increasing as well as ‘innovative’ ways generate more money. We looked around, and think we have one which will qualify in their standards. And that is to bring net based companies under an organised tax structure – beyond simply service and profits tax payments – on a narrow premise that we’re forwarding.
As a case study, search engine Google follows a unique revenue model with innovative products and services. It has AdWorks, which is a pay per click advertising program. This allows advertisers – on Google search and on other Google sites – to present their advertisements instantly to people who are looking for information similar to what the advertiser has to offer. And the advertiser pays Google for every click that surfers make on their links. Moreover, it has Ad-Sense, which allows Google to place clients’ advertisements on partner sites, wherein the partner sites earn part of the per-click payment. This unique double combo revenue model helped Google earn $21.79 billion in the FY2008, up from $16.59 billion in the last year. Even in the last quarter ending June 30, 2009, Google generated astounding revenues of $5.52 billion despite all talks of an economic slowdown. Yahoo is another internet service provider that generates a hefty chunk of money following a very similar revenue model. Yahoo Inc. generated $7.2 billion in the FY08 compare to $6.9 billion in the last year. In the last quarter ending 2009-06-03, Yahoo generated $1.57 billion.
There are thousands of other search engines, internet service providers, online news portals and community networks that attract millions of surfers and earn billions of dollars for simple clicks.
The critical issue is that a significant number of these clicks that generate the above said billions originate in India – where surfers clearly use national infrastructure (routers, cross-country transponders, transmission lines, and the works). We propose that the government taxes a small part of the revenue that various international and national net based companies earn through the pay-per-click route. That is, we’re proposing that in the same way as Google (through their Ad-Sense module) pays a part of their earned revenues to partner sites – if the click on Google’s client’s ad was made through the ad displayed on the partner’s site – Google should also then necessarily pay the Indian government a part of that pay-per-click revenue earned, if the click has been made inside the national boundaries of India.
Interestingly, online ad spending is on rise in India. The online ad expenditure in 2006 was around Rs. 2.1 billion, which increased to Rs. 4.5 billion in 2007. The same is expected to reach Rs.22.5 billion by the end of 2009. There are 2.707 million internet hosts while the country has 80 million internet users; even this is increasing drastically. Today, online advertising contributes $300 billion to the American economy (2.1% of the GDP). What say the Indian government partakes of some of it?
Why Iran will survive!!
IRAN : INNER STRENGTH
Iran’s changing strategies would perhaps bring back its old glory06/09/2009
Reacting to a question on whether Iran can survive against western threats during a press interaction, the Iranian Ambassador to India, HE, Seyed Mehdi Nabizadeh avowed that such an old culture and dynasty can not wipe out so easily. Though it apparently seemed an emotional response, an in-depth analysis exemplifies that Iran has been incorporating certain intellectual and effective policies which are likely to bring a tectonic shift for the nation. Apart from some of the attributes such as democracy, strong economy, energy hub and a strong military power which made it influential in the region, there are many other areas on this land yet to be explored as it experiences rapid transition. To begin with, Iran though along with many other anti-American nations is affected indirectly due to oil price decline, its proactive response is credible enough to praise and effective than some of the worst affected economies. Some of the immediate policy response were to prepare an annual budget, taking into consideration the new international prices to avoid the budget deficit, policy to increase more reliance over domestic tax income, reduction of increase in money supply and controlling inflation, creating institutions of funds for increasing absorption of the running domestic and international capital and most importantly forming a committee for analysing the results of the crisis over the country and initiation of adequate policy needs to confront the same.
A report by Harvard Polytechnic Massachuset published in the Washington Times stated that the world attention has been mainly diverted toward the progress of Iran in the nuclear field, whereas Iran presently is one of the ten developed countries of the world in the field of Stem Cells. Moreover, it also enjoys the highest place from the point of view of growth of scientific papers in the region as well as in the world. The number of world class scientific papers of Iran is around 26,000. According to a report by International Statistical Institute, Iran holds first place in the seven fields of mathematics, mechanical, polymer, chemistry, chemical engineering, nano technology and medicine in the region. It also reached 19th from 52nd in the world in the field of nano-technology during the last five years. It is one of the three important dam making countries of the world. It ranks among the ten countries of the world to have got access to the satellite production and launching technology. Iran is also progressing rapidly in the field of space technology. Interestingly, it also proved wrong to those who thought Iran to be not a foreign investment friendly country. During 1992-2009, it attracted over $34.6 billion of investment from abroad. Its trade with foreign countries amounted to a whopping $150 billion between 2000 to 2007. Iran also invested $62 billion abroad.
Now Iran is initiating an international exhibition of press and news agencies to be held in Tehran this year too to expand cultural dealings, interactions and sharing its thoughts on some of the significant issues with media. This would definitely help in reshaping its negative image across the world. All in all, Iran is doing substantially well. This might not bring back its old glory it had during the Ottoman Rule but importantly progress in Iran is beneficial for all; Iran itself, the Middle East region and the world broadly.
Neigh-bros!
INDIA : NEIGHBOUR
India can learn from some of the unique attributes of neighbours13/09/2009
Learning is a continuous process of gaining or inheriting knowledge and skill. There is no class or caste bar when it comes to learning from someone. However, the same is also applicable in trans-national relationship; especially a country can learn a lot from its neighbours. Many of the Latin American countries have gone democratic because, the big neighbour the US, inherited it successfully. Many preferred capitalism because it turned out to be a successful economic system in the US. Similarly, if European countries are somewhat equally prosperous and united, it is because each strived to learn lessons from neighbours. Even in Asia, China is perhaps a classic example. It's incorporation of positives of capitalism - initiating liberalisation and privatisation led by Deng Xiaoping after he found that neither the socialist command economy favoured by Communist Part of China (CPC) nor Maoist ideology of shifting from socialism to communism as exercised in agriculture but failed had actually worked in favour of an economy unique in itself. Initiating reforms in a communist country like China was not easy!
In that context, India has many to learn from its neighbours. To start off with, Bhutan, perhaps India’s closest neighbour possible, have some things unique to teach India, if fact, the world. No other country in the world perhaps witnessed such a peaceful transformation from monarchy to democracy that took place in the country in 2008. 100 years of monarchy went democratic silently. Credit goes to His Royal Majesty Jigme Singye Wangchuck, en spite of peoples' request the King democratised Bhutan simply for the sake of the future generations of Bhutanese. The speech of the incumbent king, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, delivered while inaugurating the first parliamentary session in its capital was unique in itself. We are so engrossed with Obama’s speech that we forget the fact that a 28 year old king can deliver such a revolutionary speech – rare in India! Another aspect to learn from Bhutan is infrastructure and architecture that the country has to offer. A tiny country surviving by donations can have better infrastructure than its donor. India had financed Bhutan's first two Five Year Plans (Bhutan is grateful for the fact though). India’s donation to Bhutan has gone up from just Nu.107 million to Nu.10 billion while Bhutanese government urges Indian authority to improve its infrastructure, what an irony!!! The kind of architecture Bhutan offers to the world remind us that architecture and wealth are not necessarily synonymous. Similarly, Pakistan may be its biggest headache for India but there is lot to learn from it especially when it comes to handling international politics and world diplomacy. It is such a country that can host world’s most dangerous terrorists like Laden, Baitullah Masood or Dawood Ibrahim and terror organisations while it can also maintain good relationship with world’s most powerful countries who spend billions of dollars to find and kill them. It’s not easy to do. India has also a lot to learn from Sri Lanka. Despite being a tiny and poor nation it has proved that if a country truly wants, it can overthrow world's dangerous terror group, LTTE.
Learning is something that helps always, that which enlightens the thought process and keeps learners updated. For a country aspires to be a leader, it should also have the temper to learn from its fellow brethren leaving apart personal enmity, hatred and ego. India has ample scope to improve. Let not that aspirations go in vain.
Europe's fret is US' greed
EUROPE : INSECURITY
Is fining US firms deliberately reflecting it’s insecurity? 20/09/2009
Rules are meant to be broken. Well, this might be a famous aphorism in Asia but aptly inapplicable in Europe. Europe is a classic example which, on one hand, can attract big MNCs but on the other hand, can be too harsh on them when they indulge in fraudulent activities or bribery. Apparently, it is unique in itself in treating the MNCs.
The case of Microsoft is a famous one. The IT giant was heavily fined when it failed to meet the regulatory norms set up by the European Commission (EC). In 2008, the antitrust regulators fined a whopping $1.3 billion for not being able to comply with the antitrust laws since 2004 and thus bringing the total amount of fines on Microsoft to a gigantic $2.5 billion. In 2009, EC imposed a fine of $1.45 billion (£1.06 billion) on American giant, Intel Corporation on the ground that illegal anticompetitive practices of Intel would harm the continuation of a healthy competitive market. The EC, in fact, has gone unique in this century with its antitrust activities. It fined Archer Daniels Midland, along with 13 other leading pharmaceutical companies, which the EC suspected were seeking to control the European vitamin market. The most horrifying one was when EC blocked the $43 billion merger deal between General Electric and Honeywell on the ground that American firms are targeting and buying European firms to retain their growth. Surprisingly, the deal was allowed by the US regulators.
Recently, BAE Systems, an European giant engaged in the development, delivery and support of advanced defence, security and aerospace systems, has been given a deadline this month to negotiate with the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) for being allegedly involved in bribery in relation to the sale of aircrafts and air defence equipments to Czech, South Africa and Tanzania. This would mean that if BAE systems fails to negotiate with the SFO, as the director Richard Alderman avowed, it will end up paying a fine of millions from the £2.5 billion-plus contracts with these countries.
The region has always been a bright prospect for MNCs since decades. It is flooded with Foreign Direct Investment inflows. With new opportunities, South-eastern Europe as well as Commonwealth of Independent States are becoming more attractive. According to UNCTAD, these states attracted around $69 billion dollar foreign investments in 2007. The region is further attributed with one billion consumers.
Though fining MNCs is not a new phenomenon, it's unique way of treating MNCs is giving scope for debate. Undoubtedly strictness proves that the region is having stringent regulatory framework but sometimes its over-reactive regulatory approach seems to be biased against foreign firms, especially Americans. Many a time, American firms are ending up to be victims of Europe's strict regulation. It has also been witnessed that Europe often ends up debating the US vs Europe on issues like the GM crop. The US too fined £500 million to German's Siemens for bribery. However, fining the BAE system indicates that laws are common for all in Europe but the examples of Microsoft, Intel, GE and others epitomize that Europe is apprehensive of American firms and their aggressive approach. Does it mean that Europe is insecure? Hard to conclude but still debatable.
Making sense of democracy
PHILIPPINES : ELECTIONS
dynasties remain influential in the Asian politics27/09/2009
Philippines is all set to elect its 15th President. The country has scheduled to hold the Presidential, legislative and local election on May 10, 2010. A formal colony of Spain and the United States, Philippines has lot of hope from the upcoming President as the country has been hit hard by global recession. It further aims to revive its economy with a fresh election and a new president. Unfortunately, the reality doesn’t seem to be as glassy, as people of the country are expecting nothing drastic out of this election as the same old corrupt and greedy dynasties are going to end up running this beautiful south Asian country.
Family dynasties bind the politics of this land. Since its independence in 1946, politics has been dominated by old, powerful and rich dynasties. For example, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the incumbent President is from the very influential Diosdado Macapagal dynasty. Her father Diosdado Macapagal had ruled Philippines from 1961 to 1965. And very surprisingly, her two sons are also following her. They are already members of the nation’s lower house of parliament. What is more horrifying is that there are estimated 250 political families’ nationwide occupying positions at all level- at least one political family in every province, according to the Centre for People Empowerment in Governance, a nonprofit group that examines people participation in politics. It further says that 160 of the 265 members of Congress are from these clans. The Philippine Centre for Investigative Journalism also says that two-third of the members of Congress are from political dynasties. The Isabela province was dominated by Dy dynasty for decades. The influence of dynasties is so much so that it reminds the common Philippinos of the reintroduction of the electoral politics that was there in America in the 20th century where only the wealthy used to control the government. However, if closely viewed, it is not the case of just Philippines; there are many other Asian countries where politics is dominated by a few dynasties. The outgoing Prime Minister of Japan, Taro Aso is the grandson of a former PM while his wife is also the daughter of a former premier. Moreover, a quarter of parliamentarians and 40% of the legislators of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) belong to influential political families. The same is the case in Bangladesh, China, India, North Korea, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.
However, the issue is not that removing dynasties will guarantee good governance and transparency but that would certainly ensure and encourage the entry of fresh and new talents in the politics. This would certainly break the age-old bureaucracy- perhaps for a better democracy. Though, fortunately, Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino III is expected to make his debut in the upcoming Presidential election and seems to have been gaining popular support, unfortunately he is not being promoted for his charms but because of sympathy he has gained for his mother, Corazon Aquino, who died last month, who was Philippines’ democracy icon who overthrew dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Well, can we expect change here?
Health ads in unhealthy US
HEALTHCARE : AD SPENDING
Obama and his lobbyists not only shake but also shock the world…25/10/2009
Anything associated with the US surprises or shocks the world - be it its hyped space missions, interference in world diplomacy or booms or bursts in its economic activities. Even President Obama, recently, grabbing the Nobel peace prize surprised many while flabbergast the rest. Congratulations to him for his noble intentions and most importantly his ability to convince people across the border, though people are still waiting to see Obama and his administration working effectively other than making frivolous speeches. Moreover, the trend of healthcare ad spending in the US is going to shake rather shock the world. Surprisingly, Obama is giving more attention on how innovatively and effectively he can convince people to accept the plan rather how innovative and effective the plan actually is!
Undoubtedly, an important issue that concerns each American is the turbulent healthcare system. The surprising fact is that though the US spends highest on healthcare; it ranks way behind many European nations. Obama intends to overhaul healthcare with his reform plan which is yet to get through the US Congress and which requires popular public consensus too. That is where the game begins. Americans are bombarded with healthcare ads and similar programs. A recent figure revealed that healthcare reform ad spending reached $114 million mark, a figure believed to be the costliest ever. The Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political ads and national spending on healthcare, states that while $50 million was spent over the course of first seven months, the second $50 million was poured in just last six weeks. And as this 'healthy' debate is at a very crucial phase, about $1.5 million is spent daily on advertising and campaigns. There were 1 lakh commercial ads aired by 49 different groups in last 60 days. Obama himself went to dozen different talk shows to discuss and thus convince people to accept the healthcare reform. Healthcare ad spending on television is a small part of the total money being spent. Over $240 million was spent so far by hospitals, pharma companies, nursing homes and lobbyists. Americans for Stable Quality Care and Families USA promised to spend $12 million and $7 million respectively on ads and activities in support of the reform. Interestingly, Obama succeeded in convincing PhRMA, a drugmaker who opposed former President Clinton’s health overhaul 15 years ago. It also agreed to invest $150 million in support of the reform. However, ads against the reform have also increased tremendously reaching $32 million.
In democracies, organising political ad campaigns to influence people to vote is now an old phenomenon. Sadly, repeating the same in healthcare instead of debating crucial issues like whether to include public insurance option or how Canada is having an effective healthcare system following the same model with far lesser investment — is not going to improve the condition. It will be interesting now to see what next Obama comes up with.
Taste of the thunder
INDIA : AIRSPACE SECURITY
India no more ignores any security glitches01/11/2009
18th October, 2009. It was an ordinary Sunday for most of the Indians. But then this Sunday marked a historical day for India. For the first time, the country was resilient against those who break the laws. India detained an American Boeing 767. News channels were busy flashing and discussing this unconventional step by Indian authorities. The plane was coming from Fujairah, UAE, Middle East and was headed towards Bangkok along with 205 American marines. And reasons for detaining the plane were that it didn’t follow the guideline of using Indian airspace, it was grounded by Indian authorities at Mumbai airport. The plane took permission from Indian airport authorities but didn’t bother to seek AOR consent and clearance from the Indian Air Force. As per the norms, any military charter plane of any country needs approval from Indian Air Force, necessarily, in order to use Indian airspace. This norm was ignored in this case and hence, detention was the consequence.
However, this incident has certain positive corollaries for India. This has been the second instance of US violation of Indian airspace. The surprising thing is that US military has been repeatedly ignoring the mandatory procedures required for international air traffic. The US military intentionally violates air traffic out of its overconfidence that no one has the gumption to raise a finger against it. But this incident of detaining the American military plane for violating rules sent a strong signal as well as a warning to them. This made it clear that India is not Afghanistan or Iraq. One just can’t ignore the country’s rules. The blow will remain vivid in their minds. Another important thing that the incident conveyed is that India respects superpowers but not at the cost of law and order or sovereignty.
However, there is another important positive outcome. If we look at the recent past, India detained a UAE plane at Kolkata airport which was headed towards China for carrying weapons without prior approval from Indian authorities. In fact, nothing was informed about the weapons to any of the Indian Authorities. Similarly, a Korean ship was detained for suspicious reasons. Well, what do all these 'detention' incidents indicate? It speaks volumes about Indian military, intelligence and defence mechanisms, which are on high alert. It further exemplifies that the country has realised the need, urgency and importance in sophisticating its intelligence and advancing its defence mechanism.
As the country grows, threats from neighbours or interference of countries like China or Pakistan are ought to get loud. Moreover, with countries using and abusing Indian airspace for their own purpose be it transporting arms or transporting army, it becomes imperative for India to be cautious. With Airspace being used extensively for terrorism and other illegal activities, it is important for India to follow all the security measures. Surprisingly, India is rightly doing so. Long live India!
Monday, July 13, 2009
Please spend!!!
MONEY USAGE: MLA
MLAs need to use the funds
MLAs need to use the funds
India might have 450 million paupers; it has never been a poor nation in the sense of availability of funds. But sadly, it has always been a poor performer when it comes to the efficient allocation of these funds. The capital city itself is a stark indicator of this unfortunate situation; so one can imagine the issues with the rest of the country. According to a report by CAG that was released in 2006, there were 34 Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) of Delhi in the list of blacklisted MLAs, who hadn’t been able to utilise the funds allocated especially to them for their constituency development under the Assembly Constituency Development Programme (ACDP). The report stated that in the financial year of 2004-05, there were 3 MLAs who didn’t spend even a single penny for development. The remaining spent less than half of the amount that was allocated to them. Further researches reveal that even in the financial year of 2008-09, at least 12 MLAs haven’t fully utilised the funds allocated to them under ACDP and around Rs.75 lakh in funds have got lapsed. Similarly, in the state of Karnataka, a shocking 45% of the funds allocated under various drought or flood relief schemes remain unused. The state government had Rs.4.94 billion for drought and flood relief work, but it was able to spend only Rs.2.76 billion out of the same. In Tamil Nadu, information revealed under the RTI act depicts that an alarming 43% of the funds allocated to 15 MLAs remained unused in 2008. Around Rs.450 million had been allocated to those 15 MLAs. The scenario is pretty similar in most of the states. Actually, these MLAs are guilty of not doing the needful in envisioning the right kind of development projects and ensuring that they are successfully executed. This gives us a clear idea as to why most of these states face a dearth of modern infrastructure and facilities; besides lacking seriously in opportunities for the have-nots to improve their lot and lead better lives. |
Terminally well
HEADS OF STATE: NO MORE
Sigh... I resign with a heavy ‘head’
Holding the highest office of the State is gradually becoming tougher by the day. While Obama’s swearing in as President of the world’s most advanced democracy and Dr. Manmohan Singh’s second term as the Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy are some of the big achievements of democratic elections, the same year is also witnessing some of the erstwhile popular heads leaving office due to economic recession.
Facing sustained economic recession and lacking intelligent methods to resolve the situation, March 2009 saw Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek formally resigning, making the dream of a reformed European Union even harder as it is set to take a distinct position in ratifying the Lisbon Treaty. The economic crisis also had Latvian Prime Minister Ivars Godmanis being forced to resign after months of struggle on the Latvian political battleground.
Joining the inglorious recession casualty club is the Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme, who along with his government, resigned at the start of this year over a legal banking scandal amidst the breakup of Fortis Bank and its sale to BNP Paribas amidst the severe banking crisis. The recession and related industrial issues has also led to street demonstrations in Iceland forcing the Prime Minister Geir Haarde to reign. Hilariously, not to be left out, the Hungarian prime minister has also threatened to resign (though to his credit, he has not yet forwarded his formal resignation letter).
And on the other front, for a change, the UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown refused to resign despite his party’s shameful defence (or lack of it) of the expenditure bills of many MPs. What is the learning from all these? Jefferson, the author of America’s Declaration of Independence, had famously quoted, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% may take away the rights of the other 49%..” Interestingly, there is not even one reference to ‘democracy’ in the said Declaration. Thankfully, there are a million references to democracy in all the reports we presented to you... Democracy lives, like how...
Sigh... I resign with a heavy ‘head’
Holding the highest office of the State is gradually becoming tougher by the day. While Obama’s swearing in as President of the world’s most advanced democracy and Dr. Manmohan Singh’s second term as the Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy are some of the big achievements of democratic elections, the same year is also witnessing some of the erstwhile popular heads leaving office due to economic recession.
Facing sustained economic recession and lacking intelligent methods to resolve the situation, March 2009 saw Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek formally resigning, making the dream of a reformed European Union even harder as it is set to take a distinct position in ratifying the Lisbon Treaty. The economic crisis also had Latvian Prime Minister Ivars Godmanis being forced to resign after months of struggle on the Latvian political battleground.
Joining the inglorious recession casualty club is the Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme, who along with his government, resigned at the start of this year over a legal banking scandal amidst the breakup of Fortis Bank and its sale to BNP Paribas amidst the severe banking crisis. The recession and related industrial issues has also led to street demonstrations in Iceland forcing the Prime Minister Geir Haarde to reign. Hilariously, not to be left out, the Hungarian prime minister has also threatened to resign (though to his credit, he has not yet forwarded his formal resignation letter).
And on the other front, for a change, the UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown refused to resign despite his party’s shameful defence (or lack of it) of the expenditure bills of many MPs. What is the learning from all these? Jefferson, the author of America’s Declaration of Independence, had famously quoted, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% may take away the rights of the other 49%..” Interestingly, there is not even one reference to ‘democracy’ in the said Declaration. Thankfully, there are a million references to democracy in all the reports we presented to you... Democracy lives, like how...
‘Which’ hunt?
IRAN: ELECTION
Iran’s done well as a democracy
Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is back on the seat of power, but victory celebrations have been dampened to an extent by a string of violent protests post the elections. The protesters, led by opposition party leader Mir Hossein Mousavi maintain that the election results were fraudulent. However, the authorities have ruled it out. While they admitted irregularities, they have maintained that they were not large enough to affect the landslide victory. So finally, he can afford to get back to business.
Global reaction has been mixed, though, and understandably so. Countries like India, China, Venezuela, Russia, Brazil, Sri Lanka and Pakistan (besides the Middle East) have appreciated and congratulated Ahmedinejad. Ironically, most of the western countries including the US, France, UK, Dutch were mute during the peaceful election and suddenly got into action as the violence spread. So much so that French President Nicholas Sarkozy branded the election result as a fraud and attributed the subsequent unrest as the result of Ahmedinejad’s failures in his first term. There were also many discreet protests against Obama’s as well as Sarkozy’s victory but these were never brought into limelight by the western media. Such petty gestures only show the Western world in a poor light, and elevate Ahmedinejad further in the eyes of the Iranian people.
In fact, Iran has proved to be a fine example of a democracy in this election. Going by voter turn out rate, Iran fared better than many successful democracies. Iran had voter turnout of 85%, slightly better than France, which had 84% in its 2007 presidential election and the US, which had a mere 61% voter turnout in 2008 presidential election. Rather than wasting their time in wishing Ahmedinejad away, the western world would do better to accept the reality and look to improve their relations with Iran.
Iran’s done well as a democracy
Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is back on the seat of power, but victory celebrations have been dampened to an extent by a string of violent protests post the elections. The protesters, led by opposition party leader Mir Hossein Mousavi maintain that the election results were fraudulent. However, the authorities have ruled it out. While they admitted irregularities, they have maintained that they were not large enough to affect the landslide victory. So finally, he can afford to get back to business.
Global reaction has been mixed, though, and understandably so. Countries like India, China, Venezuela, Russia, Brazil, Sri Lanka and Pakistan (besides the Middle East) have appreciated and congratulated Ahmedinejad. Ironically, most of the western countries including the US, France, UK, Dutch were mute during the peaceful election and suddenly got into action as the violence spread. So much so that French President Nicholas Sarkozy branded the election result as a fraud and attributed the subsequent unrest as the result of Ahmedinejad’s failures in his first term. There were also many discreet protests against Obama’s as well as Sarkozy’s victory but these were never brought into limelight by the western media. Such petty gestures only show the Western world in a poor light, and elevate Ahmedinejad further in the eyes of the Iranian people.
In fact, Iran has proved to be a fine example of a democracy in this election. Going by voter turn out rate, Iran fared better than many successful democracies. Iran had voter turnout of 85%, slightly better than France, which had 84% in its 2007 presidential election and the US, which had a mere 61% voter turnout in 2008 presidential election. Rather than wasting their time in wishing Ahmedinejad away, the western world would do better to accept the reality and look to improve their relations with Iran.
Damn that rose!
POLITICAL PARTIES: OPPORTUNISM
A party is a party, by whatever name you call it, right? Yeah, right...
We wanted this one to be a frivolous piece (aren’t all of our articles?). It started with a strange trivial piece of history that took quite a lot of us quite a lot more double checks to confirm; but when we did, it put us on to something more trivial, something that possibly can’t add to your intellectual base this century – or the next. But given the irresistible urge we regularly have in bringing to you facts that generally can make even electricity (used here as a noun) go off to sleep, we decided any which way to present to you this trivia.
First, the curious historical fact playing shamelessly to the famous Shakespearian rose (...is a rose). During the regime of Richard M. Nixon, the 37th US president, finding Republican economic policies ineffective, Nixon borrowed all Democratic policies shamelessly, including Keynesian management theories. But that’s not where we come from or even half as eye opening as what happened next. Nixon, shockingly, went on to the extent of proposing that the Republican party name be changed to Conservative!! And why? Polls ostensibly showed, then, that a majority of the voters identified themselves as conservatives. Not that Nixon was known for thinking straight – but to imagine that you can fool masses with just a change in the party’s name... well, might probably be right. And it motivated us to look at all the Einsteins globally who have got it brilliantly right, seemingly!
Leading the butcher’s dozen is the State Peace and Development Council. Guess which country this peace loving party rules? Burma. It’s the name given by the ruling army to its own so-called party. Next in line is the People’s Front for Democracy and Justice, the ruling party of Eritrea, which strangely – or perhaps not so strangely – doesn’t allow any other party, and doesn’t seem to be that much in love with democracy either.
So what if Vladimir Putin has been accused by various observers and political bigwigs of operating Russia in a Mafia-like manner by not allowing civilians have their fair, democratic and free say? His political progeny Medvedev is not far behind when it comes to understanding Shakespeare. If United Russia is Putin’s ruling (rightist?) party, Medvedev supports various other interestingly named ‘opposition’ parties like Fair Russia (supposedly leftist, has recently shallowly repledged allegiance to Putin/Kremlin) and Civilian Power (used to claim that “freedom for every civilian” was their highest value; in 2008, once the sham was over, they supported Kremlin openly).
And how can we leave the Brits out of the discussion? If anyone can tell us how labour friendly has been UK’s famously ruling Labour Party, we’ll tell them how supremely patriotic has been Robert Mugabe’s National Union Patriotic Front. And if you had an issue with the name that the former Soviet dictator Saparmurat Niyazov gave to the only autocratic party existing in Turkmenistan – the Democratic Party of Turkmenistan – then you perhaps forget that there’s a wonderful li’l country down south somewhere run by the loving, harmonious and modestly impressive Kim brothers; it’s known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Well, Shakespeare could never have understood his own statement as well as we did. For a dictator, is a dictator, is a dictator, by whatever name you call his party...
A party is a party, by whatever name you call it, right? Yeah, right...
We wanted this one to be a frivolous piece (aren’t all of our articles?). It started with a strange trivial piece of history that took quite a lot of us quite a lot more double checks to confirm; but when we did, it put us on to something more trivial, something that possibly can’t add to your intellectual base this century – or the next. But given the irresistible urge we regularly have in bringing to you facts that generally can make even electricity (used here as a noun) go off to sleep, we decided any which way to present to you this trivia.
First, the curious historical fact playing shamelessly to the famous Shakespearian rose (...is a rose). During the regime of Richard M. Nixon, the 37th US president, finding Republican economic policies ineffective, Nixon borrowed all Democratic policies shamelessly, including Keynesian management theories. But that’s not where we come from or even half as eye opening as what happened next. Nixon, shockingly, went on to the extent of proposing that the Republican party name be changed to Conservative!! And why? Polls ostensibly showed, then, that a majority of the voters identified themselves as conservatives. Not that Nixon was known for thinking straight – but to imagine that you can fool masses with just a change in the party’s name... well, might probably be right. And it motivated us to look at all the Einsteins globally who have got it brilliantly right, seemingly!
Leading the butcher’s dozen is the State Peace and Development Council. Guess which country this peace loving party rules? Burma. It’s the name given by the ruling army to its own so-called party. Next in line is the People’s Front for Democracy and Justice, the ruling party of Eritrea, which strangely – or perhaps not so strangely – doesn’t allow any other party, and doesn’t seem to be that much in love with democracy either.
So what if Vladimir Putin has been accused by various observers and political bigwigs of operating Russia in a Mafia-like manner by not allowing civilians have their fair, democratic and free say? His political progeny Medvedev is not far behind when it comes to understanding Shakespeare. If United Russia is Putin’s ruling (rightist?) party, Medvedev supports various other interestingly named ‘opposition’ parties like Fair Russia (supposedly leftist, has recently shallowly repledged allegiance to Putin/Kremlin) and Civilian Power (used to claim that “freedom for every civilian” was their highest value; in 2008, once the sham was over, they supported Kremlin openly).
And how can we leave the Brits out of the discussion? If anyone can tell us how labour friendly has been UK’s famously ruling Labour Party, we’ll tell them how supremely patriotic has been Robert Mugabe’s National Union Patriotic Front. And if you had an issue with the name that the former Soviet dictator Saparmurat Niyazov gave to the only autocratic party existing in Turkmenistan – the Democratic Party of Turkmenistan – then you perhaps forget that there’s a wonderful li’l country down south somewhere run by the loving, harmonious and modestly impressive Kim brothers; it’s known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Well, Shakespeare could never have understood his own statement as well as we did. For a dictator, is a dictator, is a dictator, by whatever name you call his party...
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Why defeating Taliban is vital
PAKISTAN : STABILITY
It will surely mitigate the age-old predicament of separatism
There is lot said about India’s closest but deadly neighbour Pakistan. Apart from its internal conflicts, economic doldrums and social unrest, growing separatist movements in several provinces are also a reason for instability. Movement for separate states has its roots since 1950s. Separation of East Pakistan (currently Bangladesh) in 1971 is the first outcome of it. The last decade has been at its peak with innumerable severe demonstrations witnessed in several provinces. There was agitation seen in Sindh over Government’s discriminatory policy of resource allocation. Pakistan saw marches, protests and demonstrations in Balochistan. Emergence of Ataullah Mengal, an exiled Balochi who popularised the concept of separate Balochistan as recently as 2004 proved the relevance of urgency. There were debates on whether Punjab should also be given status of an independent state. Tough there were internal discriminations which were responsible for separatism, there were external interventions too. Pakistan's Senate Committee on Defence blamed British Intelligence for illogical interference, support and aid to Balochi separatists. The US military lieutenant colonel Ralph Peters reiterated on several occasions that North Western Frontier Province (NWFP) should be separated from Pakistan and included with Afghanistan. CIA and Mossad are also allegedly said to have links with Balochi separatists.There is also a strange co-relation between separatism and military regime. Military has ruled Pakistan for over half of its six decades of democratic history and every time, it had to pay a huge price. Pakistan lost Bangladesh during General Yahya’s regime, Siachen during Zia-ul-haq’s regime and lost faith of Afghanistan during Musharraf’s presidency. But, there now seems to be some hope. Though separatism is not a history but as democracy is gradually installing after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and central political parties are overshadowing popularity of regional parties along with their weak separatist agendas; it can see some light of unity. The more it closes towards victory against Taliban in the Swat Valley and across the NWFP; more people are joining for the cause of Pakistan than the cause of their provinces. And as the country is in the final stage to launch a full-fledge military operation against the main Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, it seems to mitigate Pakistan’s age-old severe predicament of separatism, both psychologically and physically. Breaking the necks of Talibans will indirectly also destroy the confidence of others with similar intentions. History also testifies the fact that foreign economic and military aid can only provide temporary relief to its woes unless there is strong intention to eliminate Talibans, install democracy and impose centralised, indiscriminatory policies. Perhaps, for the first time in history, Pakistan seems to be on the right track but, can it finally make it?
It will surely mitigate the age-old predicament of separatism
There is lot said about India’s closest but deadly neighbour Pakistan. Apart from its internal conflicts, economic doldrums and social unrest, growing separatist movements in several provinces are also a reason for instability. Movement for separate states has its roots since 1950s. Separation of East Pakistan (currently Bangladesh) in 1971 is the first outcome of it. The last decade has been at its peak with innumerable severe demonstrations witnessed in several provinces. There was agitation seen in Sindh over Government’s discriminatory policy of resource allocation. Pakistan saw marches, protests and demonstrations in Balochistan. Emergence of Ataullah Mengal, an exiled Balochi who popularised the concept of separate Balochistan as recently as 2004 proved the relevance of urgency. There were debates on whether Punjab should also be given status of an independent state. Tough there were internal discriminations which were responsible for separatism, there were external interventions too. Pakistan's Senate Committee on Defence blamed British Intelligence for illogical interference, support and aid to Balochi separatists. The US military lieutenant colonel Ralph Peters reiterated on several occasions that North Western Frontier Province (NWFP) should be separated from Pakistan and included with Afghanistan. CIA and Mossad are also allegedly said to have links with Balochi separatists.There is also a strange co-relation between separatism and military regime. Military has ruled Pakistan for over half of its six decades of democratic history and every time, it had to pay a huge price. Pakistan lost Bangladesh during General Yahya’s regime, Siachen during Zia-ul-haq’s regime and lost faith of Afghanistan during Musharraf’s presidency. But, there now seems to be some hope. Though separatism is not a history but as democracy is gradually installing after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and central political parties are overshadowing popularity of regional parties along with their weak separatist agendas; it can see some light of unity. The more it closes towards victory against Taliban in the Swat Valley and across the NWFP; more people are joining for the cause of Pakistan than the cause of their provinces. And as the country is in the final stage to launch a full-fledge military operation against the main Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, it seems to mitigate Pakistan’s age-old severe predicament of separatism, both psychologically and physically. Breaking the necks of Talibans will indirectly also destroy the confidence of others with similar intentions. History also testifies the fact that foreign economic and military aid can only provide temporary relief to its woes unless there is strong intention to eliminate Talibans, install democracy and impose centralised, indiscriminatory policies. Perhaps, for the first time in history, Pakistan seems to be on the right track but, can it finally make it?
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Myth with green collar jobs
GREEN MANIA: JOB CUTS
Real focus should be on reducing pollution and not subsidising jobs
17/05/2009
In December, 2008; about 11,000 metal workers marched before the EU headquarters to protest against EU's new global warming policies which aimed at creating more green collar jobs. They were afraid that their industries would be badly affected by it and they will end losing their jobs. Reason? The new stringent pollution control norms would make their products much more expensive and eventually make them uncompetitive in the global markets. In the US, Obama, on the similar lines, announced his endeavour to boost the green industry and that creating five million green collar jobs is one of the major priorities of his economic recovery plan. He in his speeches, reiterated the efficacy and indispensability of renewable energy and praised Spain and other European countries as to how their governments have utilised their taxpayers’ money in creating employment opportunities and in revolutionising the green industry to make it a blueprint of success. But recent researches show that Spain's investments in creating green collar jobs depict more of a cautionary tale, than what Obama avowed! A recent study by King Juan Carlos University reveals that investments in creating green collar jobs have, in contrast, destroyed many jobs of other industries. The same study states that Spain invests € 571,138 to create a single green job, including subsidies worth over €10,00,000. Moreover, too much focus on the green industry destroys 2.2 jobs in other industries for every job created in the green industry. Going by that estimation, US will lose about 9 jobs for every 4 green jobs it will create and it would have to sacrifice 6.6-11 million jobs in other industries to create 3-5 million green jobs as Obama promised. San Diego is one of the US biggest destinations for green jobs but surprisingly a recent study by the US Conference of Mayors reveals that there has been no considerable change witnessed there in the green collar job market as a result of Obama's promises, supports and subsidies. UK too has been doing everything for the sustainability of green jobs but in reality the green industry is actually firing people. Emergence and growth of green industry is imperative but problem is that the growth is not because of productivity and increase in consumption of green energy. On the contrary, it's more because of massive government investments. The present trend of re-emphasising on creating more green collar jobs rather than productivity is actually encouraging low-paying, less sustainable conditions and making the industry less competitive. Green industry along with green collar jobs should be encouraged, but the way Obama wants, his plan might not yield much results and might end up repeating what most of the European countries ended up with, i.e. more chaos, more protests and of course more pollution and job cuts.
Real focus should be on reducing pollution and not subsidising jobs
17/05/2009
In December, 2008; about 11,000 metal workers marched before the EU headquarters to protest against EU's new global warming policies which aimed at creating more green collar jobs. They were afraid that their industries would be badly affected by it and they will end losing their jobs. Reason? The new stringent pollution control norms would make their products much more expensive and eventually make them uncompetitive in the global markets. In the US, Obama, on the similar lines, announced his endeavour to boost the green industry and that creating five million green collar jobs is one of the major priorities of his economic recovery plan. He in his speeches, reiterated the efficacy and indispensability of renewable energy and praised Spain and other European countries as to how their governments have utilised their taxpayers’ money in creating employment opportunities and in revolutionising the green industry to make it a blueprint of success. But recent researches show that Spain's investments in creating green collar jobs depict more of a cautionary tale, than what Obama avowed! A recent study by King Juan Carlos University reveals that investments in creating green collar jobs have, in contrast, destroyed many jobs of other industries. The same study states that Spain invests € 571,138 to create a single green job, including subsidies worth over €10,00,000. Moreover, too much focus on the green industry destroys 2.2 jobs in other industries for every job created in the green industry. Going by that estimation, US will lose about 9 jobs for every 4 green jobs it will create and it would have to sacrifice 6.6-11 million jobs in other industries to create 3-5 million green jobs as Obama promised. San Diego is one of the US biggest destinations for green jobs but surprisingly a recent study by the US Conference of Mayors reveals that there has been no considerable change witnessed there in the green collar job market as a result of Obama's promises, supports and subsidies. UK too has been doing everything for the sustainability of green jobs but in reality the green industry is actually firing people. Emergence and growth of green industry is imperative but problem is that the growth is not because of productivity and increase in consumption of green energy. On the contrary, it's more because of massive government investments. The present trend of re-emphasising on creating more green collar jobs rather than productivity is actually encouraging low-paying, less sustainable conditions and making the industry less competitive. Green industry along with green collar jobs should be encouraged, but the way Obama wants, his plan might not yield much results and might end up repeating what most of the European countries ended up with, i.e. more chaos, more protests and of course more pollution and job cuts.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Why Modi needs to be Modi’fied
OUTCOME: STATE PATRONAGE
Though crony capitalism is not the want, perhaps a modified model...
Nothing is right unless it gives results and nothing is wrong unless it fails to produce any results. There has been considerable criticism for state patronage in private business. It all started with the setting up Ratan Tata’s ‘prestigious’ Nano project in West Bengal. To encourage Ratan Tata, the West Bengal government agreed to provide a loan of Rs. 200 crore at a shockingly low interest rate of 1%. Tata (perhaps correctly) left West Bengal despite his “gun to the temple” theory; and entered straight into the alms of Gujarat. If the Left can do it right, the Right wants to do a Left it seems. This time, the Modi government has assured more gifts for Ratan Tata with a promise to provide a loan of Rs.9,570 crore (five times of what West Bengal promised) with an interest rate of 0.1% (whoa!!!) that is payable after 20 years. One wonders whether the Nano will also be made available on such lucrative rates to its customers. But wait, there’s more! Modi has also provided land worth another Rs.1,000 crore. Similar cases are strewn across (refer B&E’s Crony Capitalism issue, Feb 5, 2009). Eg, the Maharashtra government recently announced free land for all industrialists who agreed to invest in backward regions and hold 80% of the job for local people. These incidences have drawn national attention and brought severe criticism for the government’s irresponsibility and lack of accountability. It is true that the government has spawned generations after generations of crony capitalists. But rather than blindly criticise the government and hack off the State’s connect with the private sector, this is a good time to ruminate and work out a better model of an efficient public-private partnership. Given the fact that leaving projects with government departments more or less achieves nothing, private companies should be provided support albeit on a commercial basis (rather than on the back of questionable subsidies).
A beggar means an Arab?!?!
RACIST: ENGLISH DICTIONARIES
And the US ex-Veep was a Dick! Online dictionaries shock in racism
Why this hasn’t created a global controversy is a wonder to us! Over time, the world has seen the emergence of different kinds of racists; English dictionaries now join the inglorious club. To start off with, the San Francisco based online dictionary, www.freethesaurus.net, provides the synonyms of various English words. Imagine our surprise when we noticed that the synonym for the word ‘beggar’ is given as ‘Arab’. That for the word ‘terrorist’ are ‘Castroist, Communist, Leninist, Maoist and Marxist’. A ‘loafer’ is again our lucky ‘Arab’; an ‘atheist’ is a ‘blasphemer’, and so on so forth! If freethesaurus.net was too free for our digestion, Webster’s dictionary churns it further, hilariously defining ‘fundamentalism’ as a movement in American Protestanism that arose in the 20th century. The Oxford dictionary rocks the cradle by defining ‘fundamentalism’ as “strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion, especially Islam.” There, we get it now; how English tutored kids understand Islam.Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn was embroiled in a censorship controversy recently. The repeated use of the word ‘Negro’ in the classic saw virulent objections from African-American community. While the teaching community tried to justify Twain’s work on its literary value, the naysayers said that by that logic, even Hitler’s concepts would qualify as quite ‘literary’ in comparison. Well, while we personally stick to the literary stand, we also know there are some things you can change and some you cannot. Online dictionaries surely are the biggest hypocrites here that can be changed and should be regulated on their usage at the soonest. But yes, there are some synonyms that can never be changed. Richard Cheney is the former US Vice President. You got it, ‘Dick’ is what he’ll be called years hence too...
Can Obama ‘barrack’ racism?
RACISM: THE US
Believe it or not, the world will witness the resurgence of a new era of racism than the end of it...
Obama’s win in the US Presidential election and his swearing in as the first African-American President was predicted to be a case study on the beginning of a new era But perhaps history doesn’t want it to happen that way. And thus even before the euphoria over his historic swearing in has settled down, the dark side of the American racism has started raising its dirty head. And for some it was not absolutely unexpected either. And the more unfortunate thing is that even Obama’s charisma and his incredible campaign for nearly one and a half years could not bridge much of the deep divide that run deep between the Whites and the Blacks of the US.President elect Barack Obama himself was skeptical about it. His confession at a civil rights group’s convention stating – ‘our work is not over, mere electing me President doesn’t mean our work is over, we got more work to do’ to the NAACP bears testimony to it. In fact, the ugly aspect of racism was blatantly evident in the presidential election result itself. The voting pattern between two presidential candidates- John McCain and Barack Obama was biased and discriminatory. A closer scrutiny at the voting pattern reveals that McCain won greater support in white dominated counties of states like Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Northern Texas. For example, about 80% of the voters in Arkansas are Whites and 70% of them unanimously voted for McCain. The same was witnessed in case of Obama who equally gained greater support from Blacks and minority groups. Research reveals that 67% of Latinos and 62% of Asian voters voted in favour of Obama. It wasn’t a surprise that 88-95% of Black voters who comprise 13% of total the US population unhesitatingly supported him. Well, even the most die hard optimist who would love to find a silver lining in it would accept rather grudgingly that if this does not exemplify racism then nothing else perhaps does. However, moving further, what was a little more horrifying than this was the fissures among the Democrat leaders. Reports state that when Obama was to take oath, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was busy convincing Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and other Democract leaders to replace Obama’s vacancy at the Senate by any of the two White women (Veteran Affairs Chief Tammy Duckworth or Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan) and rejecting the three potential Black candidates namely Jesse Jackson, Jr. Danny Davis and Emil Jones.
Yet the fissures run deeper than what is visible to naked eyes. Bruno Serato, the Presidential-themed restaurant owner in the Anaheim, White House, e-mailed his announcement to some of his several high profile customers that he has dedicated a special room to Obama as has been the customary in the presidential theme (in the past he dedicated similar rooms for Nixon, Reagon, Carter, Kennedy, Washington and Jefferson). But then this time, he literally got the shock of his life with strange and revulsive responses from some of his regular customers. Some of the replies indicated utter disregard for Obama. Later when Serato revealed some of the angry responses to the press, one read as follows , ‘I am not an Obama supporter, I could never be and as much as having an African-American in the White House could be a good thing, having one with Marxist ideals is certainly not a good thing! I will not be patronising your restaurant, much less the Obama Room.’ The next one goes as ‘Do not insult us with a Barack Obama room. … You have no idea whether he is a great leader or a hopeless socialist. You may regret your hasty judgement of what he will do to this country. May you remain Orange County’s hidden treasure with the emphasis on Hidden.’ The one as ‘you must be kidding? He didn’t do anything yet other than weaken our internal security. May be you could house all the Gitmo internees there instead.’ Moreover, tensions between the national and state security forces are not at all healthy for the US or its president. No one can kill an American President without involvement of someone from its own intelligence forces (read: Vantage Point). Obama’s failure to replace FBI director Robert S. Mueller reveals Obama’s hard struggle against racism. Muller was appointed FBI director in 2001 by former President, George W. Bush and was obvious to be replaced by someone nominated by the next President. When Obama pronounced his time tested aide Sandy Berger as the next FBI director, Muller didn’t agree to resign and made it clear that he intends to complete his first ten years term which will be over by 2011.
In another case, though Obama succeeded to replace the CIA’s director by the former Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, he had to face huge criticism from press, polity and public. Adding salt to the woes, the relation between the President and New York Police Department (NYPD) is exemplified by the recent cartoon controversy in New York Post. In it, two NYPD policemen were shown shooting a chimpanzee with a caption that read, ‘they’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.’This agitated Black civil rights activists. These issues raised questions over the extent of control Obama has on the intelligence and security establishments of US. One has to remember that US is nothing much without its key intelligence agencies and the world’s most sophisticated armed forces. Amidst all these, the arrest of two Tennessee guys- Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselmen who were planning to kill 102 African-American children and then assassinate Obama vindicates the resurgence of white racists and reminds the assassination of another American President John F. Kennedy. It’s better to hope less than to expect that Obama can completely end racism. He can at best abolish it from English language. If he does, it would just be the word and not its essence that would be wiped from earth and especially from the US. Poor Obama.
Believe it or not, the world will witness the resurgence of a new era of racism than the end of it...
Obama’s win in the US Presidential election and his swearing in as the first African-American President was predicted to be a case study on the beginning of a new era But perhaps history doesn’t want it to happen that way. And thus even before the euphoria over his historic swearing in has settled down, the dark side of the American racism has started raising its dirty head. And for some it was not absolutely unexpected either. And the more unfortunate thing is that even Obama’s charisma and his incredible campaign for nearly one and a half years could not bridge much of the deep divide that run deep between the Whites and the Blacks of the US.President elect Barack Obama himself was skeptical about it. His confession at a civil rights group’s convention stating – ‘our work is not over, mere electing me President doesn’t mean our work is over, we got more work to do’ to the NAACP bears testimony to it. In fact, the ugly aspect of racism was blatantly evident in the presidential election result itself. The voting pattern between two presidential candidates- John McCain and Barack Obama was biased and discriminatory. A closer scrutiny at the voting pattern reveals that McCain won greater support in white dominated counties of states like Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Northern Texas. For example, about 80% of the voters in Arkansas are Whites and 70% of them unanimously voted for McCain. The same was witnessed in case of Obama who equally gained greater support from Blacks and minority groups. Research reveals that 67% of Latinos and 62% of Asian voters voted in favour of Obama. It wasn’t a surprise that 88-95% of Black voters who comprise 13% of total the US population unhesitatingly supported him. Well, even the most die hard optimist who would love to find a silver lining in it would accept rather grudgingly that if this does not exemplify racism then nothing else perhaps does. However, moving further, what was a little more horrifying than this was the fissures among the Democrat leaders. Reports state that when Obama was to take oath, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was busy convincing Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and other Democract leaders to replace Obama’s vacancy at the Senate by any of the two White women (Veteran Affairs Chief Tammy Duckworth or Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan) and rejecting the three potential Black candidates namely Jesse Jackson, Jr. Danny Davis and Emil Jones.
Yet the fissures run deeper than what is visible to naked eyes. Bruno Serato, the Presidential-themed restaurant owner in the Anaheim, White House, e-mailed his announcement to some of his several high profile customers that he has dedicated a special room to Obama as has been the customary in the presidential theme (in the past he dedicated similar rooms for Nixon, Reagon, Carter, Kennedy, Washington and Jefferson). But then this time, he literally got the shock of his life with strange and revulsive responses from some of his regular customers. Some of the replies indicated utter disregard for Obama. Later when Serato revealed some of the angry responses to the press, one read as follows , ‘I am not an Obama supporter, I could never be and as much as having an African-American in the White House could be a good thing, having one with Marxist ideals is certainly not a good thing! I will not be patronising your restaurant, much less the Obama Room.’ The next one goes as ‘Do not insult us with a Barack Obama room. … You have no idea whether he is a great leader or a hopeless socialist. You may regret your hasty judgement of what he will do to this country. May you remain Orange County’s hidden treasure with the emphasis on Hidden.’ The one as ‘you must be kidding? He didn’t do anything yet other than weaken our internal security. May be you could house all the Gitmo internees there instead.’ Moreover, tensions between the national and state security forces are not at all healthy for the US or its president. No one can kill an American President without involvement of someone from its own intelligence forces (read: Vantage Point). Obama’s failure to replace FBI director Robert S. Mueller reveals Obama’s hard struggle against racism. Muller was appointed FBI director in 2001 by former President, George W. Bush and was obvious to be replaced by someone nominated by the next President. When Obama pronounced his time tested aide Sandy Berger as the next FBI director, Muller didn’t agree to resign and made it clear that he intends to complete his first ten years term which will be over by 2011.
In another case, though Obama succeeded to replace the CIA’s director by the former Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta, he had to face huge criticism from press, polity and public. Adding salt to the woes, the relation between the President and New York Police Department (NYPD) is exemplified by the recent cartoon controversy in New York Post. In it, two NYPD policemen were shown shooting a chimpanzee with a caption that read, ‘they’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.’This agitated Black civil rights activists. These issues raised questions over the extent of control Obama has on the intelligence and security establishments of US. One has to remember that US is nothing much without its key intelligence agencies and the world’s most sophisticated armed forces. Amidst all these, the arrest of two Tennessee guys- Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselmen who were planning to kill 102 African-American children and then assassinate Obama vindicates the resurgence of white racists and reminds the assassination of another American President John F. Kennedy. It’s better to hope less than to expect that Obama can completely end racism. He can at best abolish it from English language. If he does, it would just be the word and not its essence that would be wiped from earth and especially from the US. Poor Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)