Who Killed Benazir Bhutto?

The audacity of politicians, especially Pakistani rulers, to think rest of the people as dumb and ignorant baffles me beyond any limit. I mean, agreed, we are mere mortals who live and breath towards bright and preferably, comfortable future. And they (Pakistani rulers) are more of, well, Darth Vader. So, yes, there are itsy-bitsy differences. But in no way we are this dumb. Yes, we like to believe in ‘Slam Dunks’ or ‘Mission Accomplishments’. Hell, we are even ready to believe that Mr. Musharaff is a peace dove (worthy of Peace Nobel!) and working incessantly towards eradicating Al-Quaida. But we ain’t going to believe that Al Qaida killed Benazir Bhutto.

I am ready to believe some unknown extra-terrestrial, traveled thousands of light years just to kill a horse look alike political leader of a failed state on the Earth. But for the love of all that is sweet in on the mother earth, don’t tell me that Musharaff didn’t kill Bhutto. Please. Please have some mercy on my common sense.

After all this verbatim the question remains, who killed Benazir Bhutto? Indians? They have vested interest in keeping Pakistan in turmoil. They could kill her and keep Pakistan away from stable democracy. Americans? May be. There is no ulterior motive here in killing her. But then Americans ain’t exactly known for taking pragmatic steps. Al-Quida? Possibly. They left the paid membership of Pakistan Fan Club some time ago. By keeping Pakistan in turmoil their Terrorist Universities will certainly have bigger freshman class this year.

But in all these above ‘line-up’ characters we are assuming that Benazir’s killers want Pakistan in turmoil. Isn’t it possible that the Killer(s) may actually want to eliminate possible choices of powers in Pakistan’s politics (notice that I am not mentioning Democracy anywhere)? Apart from Pakistani elite class and Army there is no one in this whole universe (including E.T’s!) who wants to rule Pakistan. First, it is an Islamic state. Second, it’s a failed state. Repeat these two sentences again and again and you will have Pakistan in making. Yes, people would like to control them. But that’s just to make sure that they don’t send home-grown Terrorist talent as a Christmas gift but that’s about it. This logic takes out India and Americans out of equation.

It is hard to comment anything on Al-Qaida. The demarcation lines between reality and myth, reality and what Americans wants world to believe is so thin and blurred that to comment on Al-Qaida is throwing darts in the dark. (I miss them all even in broad day light. But that’s beside the point!) More ever it is next to impossible to pin-point where Al-Qaida stops and Taliban begins or where both stop and ISI (Pakistan’s CIA) begins. But even under these circumstances we can safely say that Al-Qaida will be least interested in Benazir Bhutto. More pressing concern for them at this point of time (Apart from Americans burning their tails) is Musharaff. However half hearted attempt it might be but Musharaff and Pakistani army – the only patron saint of Talibans, under pressure from US, is definitely not making these terrorists life easier. If anything then this blatant betrayal makes Musharaff as numero-uno target of Al-Qaida & Co. So, this takes them out of line-up too.

And, it leaves us in a weird situation where there are no killers in this murder investigation. Hmm….perhaps, she is still alive and plotting to take over Pakistan! All righty, let’s come back to the three dimensional world.

Musharaff ran Pakistan for straight 8 years. Unhindered power makes people crave for more power. I mean, this isn’t a revelation. But lately Bush government in order to show something to their home voters started pressing Musharaff to transition power to the democracy. Now, Musharaff already listened to US once and sent guns towards Taliban, the same organization that his Army nurtured for years. His grand plan was to take over Afghanistan and keep India in check by maintaining large resource of militants. All these plans came down tumbling in post-September 11 geo-political scenario. But he stuck with pragmatic note and sided with powerful master. But it is too much for him now that US is forcing him from his power. He could take care of Nawaz Sharif but Benazir was getting out of hand. She first stuck secret deal with Musharaff in order to gain entry into the country. But after getting support from US, she conveniently tried to back-stab Musharaff. Of course, this guy is not only a seasoned dictator but he still has strong backing of Army and he had enough. Ka-boom!!!

Of course, all this is too obvious. Yet, media and political class across the nations are refusing to see the reality. It is not easy to accuse anyone even in normal criminal cases, lest that includes political figures. In any case, who cares of justice anyways. There is only one option left in Pakistan and everyone has to cling to him

Modi Vs. Reality

In one of the most stupid electoral analysis of BJP’s stronghold in Gujrat, author summed BJP’s successes in Gujrat as ‘in 1995 they won on Ram Temple aftermath, in 2002 they won by killing Muslims and now, they will probably win because of Sonia Gandhi’s statement that generated communal fervor’ I mean, we ain’t talking about, Bihar – the corrupt state in India, or Orissa – the most backward state in India or not U.P. – most casteist or communal state in India but about Gujrat – the most industrialized state with one of highest literacy rate and state with best infrastructure in India. This may sound funny but it ain’t so. More ever, this analysis wasn’t published by mock journalists like Barkha Dutta or Rajdeep Sardesai or by leftist TV channel like NDTV but in Indian Express, supposedly premier name in Indian political journalism. And, if you read other electoral analysis in any newspaper, similar theme is hard to miss. By making such dumb analysis they effectively labeled Gujratis as dumb, communal and Hindu Talibani. And, electoral victories of BJP are surmised merely on the basis of communal Hindu frenzy generated by RSS and Co.

Just in case if reader hasn’t read the newspaper lately (and it’s quite possible considering the news quality in Indian media) then BJP won handsomely in Gujrat. They won seats in Rural as well as Urban areas. They won votes among literate as well as illiterate people. They won across the caste lines and all this, with the campaign plank of development and slogans of ‘Vaibhav-shali Gujrat’. (Prosperous Gujrat) The election was fare and peaceful by best standard practices. No vote booth grabing, no liquor distribution in poor areas and no forceful vote stamping by party hooligans, which usually happens in U.P, Bihar and yes, our beloved West Bengal.

Then the obvious question that arises is that why Indian media is so resolutely against Mr. Modi or for that matter, against BJP? Having bias towards other political parties is one thing but in order to prove non-existing reality, generating false reports is all together different. Because, in that case there is certain agenda that Media lab wants to impose on people. I don’t want to go into conspiracy theories here but it boggles my mind to see India media so far removed from the reality, so much immersed into self-gratification and sensationalism and worst, being judgmental in publishing news.

The reality is that Mr. Modi was bound to win the election from the day one. He is non-corrupt as well as progressive. His schemes for primary education as well as woman’s education are worth laudable. His zeal to build infrastructure is stupendous and his ability to fight pinko-leftist and psudo- human right activist are legendry. But I guess, these are the precise reasons Media hates him. But as I said earlier, it’s ok if he is not a darling of Media but that doesn’t mean they will paint him as a villain.

I think Mr. Modi doesn’t play by the rules, usually written and ‘enforced’ by Nehruvian Media. He don’t’ talk bull shit. He doesn’t harp on caste politics. More ever, he doesn’t worry about minority appeasement. I mean, not doing minority appeasement is usually equated as treason by ‘secular’ media. (It’s a different matter that in recently published government survey about Muslim community, Muslims in Gujrat are better off than most of the other part of the country.) He is tough on terrorist. He doesn’t mind killing terrorists in fake encounters. And, in a country where expressing Hinduism is a taboo, he is unabashedly, Hindu.

It is pity that the reality that Media is trying to portray is in fact, work of their imagination. This is how they would love to see in reality but sadly it ain’t so. But in this game of ‘communalism’ that media loves to play, the ultimate looser is a common man. Because, he (not in gender way) doesn’t want anyone else to decide what is good and what is bad for him but merely needs information, pure information, and unbiased, non-partisan information from the media. Isn’t that what media is supposed to do anyway?

Gandhi

Gandhi ji baffles me. I always find him very intriguing. His life moves effortlessly from one end of spectrum to other. He believed in peace. But his zealotry in handling any situation with peaceful manner often caused India and Indian independence movement major setbacks. He wanted all voices to be heard but at the same time, he was quite autocratic in his decisions. He created fierce followings as well as fierce opposition. Anything and everything related to him were extremities. And, as always, extremities always meet. In Gandhi ji's case, his actions and his personalities were the reason behind such extremities. His audacity to challenge the might of British empire with seemingly innocuous method of Satyagraha was outlandish by all accounts but it worked. It did wonders. At the same time his timidity in taking necessary and stern actions right before partition cause untold misery.

Contradiction ran amok in his personal life as well public.It seems his personality was in constant turmoil. Reading his autobiography gives us valuable insight into his philosophy, which was imposed on Indian people and changed the course of independence struggle.

Since his childhood, knowingly or unknowingly, he always carried certain notion about what is right and what is wrong, who is good and who is not. But these principals proved elusive to him. And, he was absolutely self-absorbed in his quest of achieving this mirage. He was married happily and had a nice family. But then he wanted to live austere life. So, in the midst of his family life he decided to take a vow of celibacy. Such efforts weren't exactly logical. More ever, he never fully understood that someone is going to face repercussions of his abnormal actions. Or perhaps, it never occurred to him that his ideals, his quests might be contrary to some one else's beliefs. This pattern of kept recurring even in his public policy decision. For better, for worst.

He was a politician. Leading a political movement of freeing a country from clutches of colonial superpower was always going to be a treacherous journey. It wasn't any Saint's job or perhaps, person doing this shouldn't be called as a Saint. But then, Gandhi ji wanted to be a saint as well as a politician. This contradiction was obvious to create trouble. For example, he was successful in stirring up Indian society to stand up against British power in 1921 but then with one violent incidence and he decided to call off raging movement. Reason, he wanted a strictly non-violent movement, that is, Saintly way. Now, no one was questioning his leadership, his motives or perhaps, his methods. But his zealotry in forcing 'peaceful' movement on Indian people was quite contrary to vary philosophy he was trying to espouse. Similar thing happened during the riots of Mophala in Kerala, a precursor to his actions during partition.

When India needed a stern leader during the bloody days of partition, instead of using his towering stature Gandhi ji not only failed in his basic duty but he impeded efforts of others who were taking necessary decisions. Razakar's were creating havoc in central India, Punjab and Bengal was literally flooded with blood and here, our esteemed leader wanted peace by asking only one community to stop retaliating. This was beyond redemption.

Contrary to popular culture he was not sole reason behind independence but he was one of the very few important reasons behind independence. Lokmanya Tilak set up stage, a perfect political launching pad for independence movement and Gandhi ji used that pad to take movement to next stage. His efforts to mobilize people for the cause are unparalleled in Indian history. Irrespective of casts, clans, gender, region and to certain extent religion, masses readily stood besides him. Trusting him with their lives. At best Indian society at that time can be described as fragmented, timid and non-confident. Gandhi ji successfully stirred flames of independence amongst these lost souls. It was truly a superhuman effort.

Thus he understood what is needed to be done to unite people for political struggle i.e. he was a perfect political leader but then at critical junctures his inner urge to become a Saint would take hold of him. To say his inner conflicts caused untold misery would be an understatement.

In the heat of partition his limitations came into fore. The visage of invincibility suddenly started looking more like showmanship and his ideals listless. Contradiction followed him to his end, his followers, sensing the imminent fall of this grand sire, rushed to commodities his principals in the market of petty politics. All this was too much for him to bear. Instead of being more attentive, Gandhi ji retired into his world of Maun-Vrat and Upavaas. The irony is not that monsters his indecisions created ended up consuming him but these monsters made cruel joke of his principals by elevating him to the Godly status.

He was a mortal human being who did superhuman things. Some of his principals were outdated and ill-informed but then some where bang on the target. In any case he shouldn't be an object of loath. We need to take what suits our time and move on. It is better than making mockery of this great person and hurting our own generation.

Stock Market and the Economy

Discussing Stock Market always excites people. Tell people that you are a trader and people will start asking you for ‘tips’ immediately. Some people are nuts about stock market and some people just hate the idea of investing directly into stock market. The irony is both are right. Risk to invest money for short term usually outweighs the returns while investing for long term is probably a better idea. Still, stories of traders walking off with Corvette as a bonus or people jumping out of windows because huge losses are permanently imbibed on the psychic of modern societies. But why stock market is so important for economies?

Stock markets are hallmark of capitalistic economies. It is one of the most important system in Capitlism to raise money. Now, they can raise capital either by borrowing money from banks or floating bonds in the market or taking company public. When a company goes public, stock market comes into the picture. A company divides its worth into stocks. They sell those stocks on Stock Market to general public and raise capital. A stock holder owns part of the company, though, he/she doesn’t have any say in day-to-day running of the company. Later, those stocks get traded over and over according to news, rumors and performance of that perticular firm. But capital that, company raised initially remains the same.

Now as returns of stock market – over the period of time – are usually greater than interest rate of bank, more and more people invest money in the stock market. In developed economies percentage of population involved in stock market is quite high. For example, in US, more than 50% of people have their money in stock market while in China it’s mere 7%. So, it is quite clear that when stock market crashes lot of public equity vanishes. But this usually happens when market is floating high on the cloud nine of speculations. For example, the tech bubble of 2000.

Another factor that is related to above point is that as stock market lures people with higher results, greater part of household savings or pension plans is invested to stock market. Obviously, when market tanks, household savings and pension plans goes down the drain too!

The second factor to gauge importance of stock market is the value of tradable stocks. These tradable stocks doesn’t include equity held by government. As this value increases it affects economy more and more. In China, for example, value of stocks traded is only 25% of GDP. But in US, value is 150%. (In India this percentage is more than 100%)

Third, if stock market is on roll then it becomes easier for companies to raise money through the market and there by invest more. But when stock market crashes the investment decreases affecting economic growth on longer term.

Thus stock market is quite important to economy but without these above factors, it doesn’t affect economy as much as it is believed. That is, stock market melt down in China won’t be as detrimental to Chinese economy as it is predicted. But swings in stock market have puissant effect on public psyche. So, it is understandable that when stock market dives everyone is talking about economy going down but it doesn’t have to be so.

Hindu Renaissance

It seems Hindus are destined to take fault for every possible ill in our society. Now, considering more than 85% of our population is Hindu so,it is quite obvious that Hinduism or at least, Hindus are responsible for social problems. But what bothers me is that Hindus are the victims here. Victims of bloody and torcherous history. The situation that they are facing today is the result of constant warfare and invasion for last thousand years. How come Hinduism that bore the brunt of Islamic genocides and plunders and lost 1/3 of its population to Abrahmic religions, stands on trial for everything that is bad in India? Isn't there a tiny possibility that the ills we are facing are caused because our society cocooned itself in order to survive from continuous invasion?

Worst thing is that modern day politics dictates Hindu sects like Sikhs, Jains and neo-buddhists to consider Hinduism as main threat to their existance. One reason is our political system since independence (thanks to Mr. Nehru) made joke out of Hinduism. Hindus are compartmentalized and marginalised in their own land. The imprints of extrimely biased education system are quite evident on Hindu mind as we don't know our history. We don't know meaning of our traditions and our heritage. That's why we are usually on the backfoot when sects like Sikkhism, Jains and Buddhists attack Hinduism with blatent lies.

Still worst, our insecurity oozes out whenever faced with Islamic terrorists and Christian. We suddenly start parroting alien concepts like secularism and conveneantly misinterprit the spirit of sarva-dharma samabhaav.

With such a non-confidense and lack of knowledge, are we going to survive in next century?

I agree that we should embrace these enstranged children of ours more tightly. They are slinging mud at us only because they gain political profits out of it. But most of believe that that somehow someone will take care of problem and that ain't going to happen for sure. As more and more Hindus make economic progress as their priority numaro uno and rightly so, I think we are going to witness further dip in Hindu traditions, Hindu population and awareness for Hinduism before we see possible resurgence. Swami Vivekananda said that unless a person is sure about his/her two meals every day, he/she ain't going to think about Hinduism. (Of course, Muslim people are opposite but that's why Hinduism and Islam is two opposite ends of spectrum.)

Coming back to economics, right now majority of Hindus are worried about their income. They are working really really hard for making more and more money and then spending as much as possible on luxuries. It is understandable. This is probably the first time that Indians, in general, are seeing so many opportunities to progress. But the flip side is that either they ignore their religious traditions or young generation grow ignorant of their religious background. But as they grow economically stable, I hope that 'Hindu gene' will kick in and they will start working towards betterment of Hindu society. One can see similar thing happening withNRI's. They are econmically stable and financially rich. That's why we see more awareness amongs them about problems faced by Hinduism and more probability of NRI's working towards betterment of Hindu society. It's going to take at least half of a century for economic progress to encompas all most billion Hindu people, but do we have that much time? We are going to face another onslaught of Islamic and Christian terrorism within next 20 years. In the mean time our political system will be more minority appeasing, more corrupt and will be admantly anti-Hindu. How are we suppose to face this?

There are three kinds of people, one who blessed with absolute ignorance. Second who think someone will take care of problems and that 'someone' doesn't include them. And, third who believe that Sanatan Dharma faced with such problems before and came out triumph. True, we faced with similar kind of problems before. For the sake of convenience, I will divide Hindu history into three broad parts. First one, before Islamic invasion, second one, from Islamic invasion till independence and third time period is since independence. During first part the greatest threat we faced was from Buddhism. This closest relative of ours literally gobbled us from inside out. All though, Buddhism emerged as more refined version of Hinduism sans rituals, later on it tried to disown Hinduism and stumbled badly. Things never looked bright for Buddhism since then. But Buddhism held mirror to Hinduism and unwittingly, end up strengthening roots of Sanatan Dharma. Islamic invasion was absolutely brutal and bloody. This kind of religious ferocity and unprecedented violence was something Hinduism never witnessed in its a-historical past. Though it took few hundred years for Hinduism to regroup and fight back. These efforts weren't exactly coordinated and missed quite a few golden opportunity(we lost one third of our population and one third of our land to Islam) but Hinduism still survived. We are still majority in Indian subcontinent.

That was that. It all happened in past. All this was result of sacrifices made by innumerable souls. Some we know like Shivaji or Maharan Pratap and some we don’t know like Khokars of Afghanistan or Raja Harpal Dev of Devgiri or Ahoms of Assam. But the most important thing that was common among all these people was they were ready to sacrifices their life for the cause. And, they knew who their enemies were. Not only this ‘sacrifice for cause’ thing is missing in present generation, we have absolutely no clue about our enemies either.

Let me finish this blog by giving an example -: Christian missionaries put together a study in which they figured out how much money it takes to convert a Hindu? They divided that part according to regions, castes, education and language. And, with this study (I am not saying this study is statistically correct) they know where to push for further prosyletization. So, they using their capitalistic mindset to ‘harvest’ more souls.

How’s that? How are we supposed to counter this with stupid caste and regional politics?

Complexities of Debt and Securities Market I

With housing market crashing down, market is behaving quite cautiously. The effects of housing crash took two of Bear Sterns hedge funds to cleaners. Failures of these two respected hedge funds, which has more than $20 billion of investments, bares the inner world of extremely complex debt and securities market of Wall Street. I will try to shed some light on these intricacies.

Since last few years US housing market was going through housing boom. This was possible because loans were given to the people with bad or not-so-good credit history. These home loans are known as sub-prime lending. But institutions who loaned money to these people didn’t wanted to carry this risk entirely. So, they packaged those loans into bonds and sold them to investors further. Thus, if they are lending money with 10% interest rate, they packaged this loan into bond and sold them to the market by promising say 5% interest rates. Since 2000, more than $1.8 trillion of such bonds back by home loans are sold in the market. Now value of these bonds are affected adversely as number of defaulters or late payments are increasing. But the underlying concept behind this procedure is simply to spread the risk by repackaging and selling an already sold financial product.

The next step of this chain is to pool these bonds, that in derive their value from some other entity, into one product. They are known as Collateralized Debt Obligations (or CDO’s) So, some CDO’s contain less risky bonds and some contain high risk (and obviously high return ) bonds. But the funny thing is institutions and hedge funds that invest in these CDO try to further stretch the risk potential of their investments. So, for example, if a Hedge Fund decides to invest a grand in CDO’s, they will invest only 100 bucks of their own money and they will borrow rest from some other institution. Thus, it is clear if a particular set of CDO went down, it sends shivers through out the market. Because directly or indirectly lot of investors are involved in it.

Is Indian economy running out of gas?

The recent sudden increase in dollar value of rupee ruffled quite a few feathers. At least, my roomies who regularly send money to India have lost their sleep. In last month or so, the Rupee value of Dollars decreased from around Rs. 44 to Rs. 40. It means, Rupee is getting costly. There are bunch of reasons behind it. Most of the people believe that monetary policy is solely responsible for this hike but it is much more complex. And, getting perceptive on this issue will help us to understand the rising inflation in India too. If Government Of India failed to act on either inflation or on rising rupee, the over heated Indian economy will come to screeching stop. Of course, the effects won’t be too pleasing !

India became a service sector giant in last few years. More than 50% of India’s GDP is contributed by service sector. Instead of making standard transition from agricultural based economy to industrial and then to service sector, India jumped straight from agriculture to service sector. Thus Rupee is in heavy demand in international market as India’s exports of services are rising. Also, Indian expatriates are sending unprecedented amount of money back to their home land. That’s why Rupee is getting costlier i.e. it is taking less Rupees to buy a dollar. But if Rupee becomes costlier then we will loose our export advantage. For example, it will be expensive for American software companies to outsource to India and they will scale back on outsourcing if Rupee continues to gain strength. But populist policies is forcing Government of India to making Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to put more money in the market and dilute the Rupee value. It was doing that for all most an year but such forced treatment on an all ready sick patient is surely going to have awful side effect. So, we have rising inflation as there is more supply of money than demand.

In short - : As India’s exports are rising (service sector) Rupee value increasing in international market and to keep it artificially down RBI is printing more money which in turn is increasing inflation.

But recent increase inflation can’t be attributed solely to the lax monetary policy. Sustained GDP growth of last 25 years or so is more related to internal consumption than export based economy. There are various reasons for continuing increase in internal consumption. Of course, easiest of them is huge population. But other reasons are quite subtle India’s middle class is burgeoning and their apatite for luxurious goods is increasing rapidly. In the mean time, India is slowly catching up industrialization too. All though, government is waking up slowly to the realities of shabby infrastructure, the projects such as golden quadrangle road is consuming lots and lots raw material. But sadly, the supply side is unable to keep up with this rapidly rising demand. The second step of green revolution never took place. Hence, rising population is straining food supplies. Rigid labor laws and strict government control stunted the manufacturing industries. And now they can’t provide enough of cement, steel or tar. Thus inflation has more to do with demand than monetary policy.

All these signs are pointing towards over heating of the economy. Instead of loosening the bottle necks of the economy, government, admittedly because of useless leftist parties, is forcing more and more populist policies down economies throat. We need more fuel to keep economy running at this pace otherwise it is fast hurtling towards some serious trouble.

Bharat and Indian Government II

I am continuing my argument regarding to Mr. Prime Minister’s recent comments about conspicuous spending of rich Indians. I am throwing some facts that I got from recently published article of Mr. Guru Charan Das in Foreign Affairs. The facts and last Italic paragraph are of Mr. Guru Charan Das. The first three facts proves how much India has progressed in last 25 or so years. And, then how much of that progress is done in spite of Government of India rather than vice versa.

• The country's economy grew at 6 percent a year from 1980 to 2002 and at 7.5 percent a year from 2002 to 2006

• In the past two decades, the size of the middle class has quadrupled (to almost 250 million people), and 1 percent of the country's poor have crossed the poverty line every year.

• As a result, inequality has increased much less in India than in other developing nations. (Its Gini index, a measure of income inequality on a scale of zero to 100, is 33, compared to 41 for the United States, 45 for China, and 59 for Brazil.)

• For now, growth is being driven by services and domestic consumption.

• Consumption accounts for 64 percent of India's GDP, compared to 58 percent for Europe, 55 percent for Japan, and 42 percent for China.

• Only 10 percent of credit goes to the private sector in China, even though the private sector employs 40 percent of the Chinese work force. In India, entrepreneurs get more than 80 percent of all loans.

• Software and business-process outsourcing exports have grown from practically nothing
  to $20 billion and are expected to reach $35 billion by 2008.

• A recent national study led by Pratham, an Indian nongovernmental organization,
  found that even in small villages, 16 percent of children are now in private primary schools. These kids scored 10 percent higher on verbal and math exams than their peers in public schools.

• At government health centers, meanwhile, 40 percent of doctors and a third of nurses are absent at any given time. According to a study by Jishnu Das and Jeffrey Hammer, of the World Bank, there is a 50 percent chance that a doctor at such a center will recommend a positively harmful therapy.

Thus it is clear that privatization - one way or other - has helped the middle class carrying burden of growth. And sadly, Indian government failed in doing basic duties.

After India's independence, Nehru attempted a state-directed industrial revolution. Since he did not trust the private sector, he tried to replace the entrepreneur with the government -- and predictably failed. He shackled private enterprise with byzantine controls and denied autonomy to the public sector. Perhaps the most egregious policy was reserving around 800 industries, designated "small-scale industries" (SSI), for tiny companies that were unable to compete against the large firms of competitor nations. Large firms were barred from making products such as pencils, boot polish, candles, shoes, garments, and toys -- all the products that helped East Asia create millions of jobs. Even since 1991, Indian governments have been afraid to touch this "SSI holy cow" for fear of a backlash from the SSI lobby.

Fortunately, that lobby has turned out to be mostly a phantom -- little more than the bureaucrats who kept scaring politicians by warning of a backlash. Over the past five years, the government has been pruning the list of protected industries incrementally with no adverse reaction.

The last paragraphs proves the moronic ways the Labor Laws are administered in India. Since 1991 successive governments tried to dismantle these ‘legacy’ industries. The results were mixed until our beloved Mr. Manmohan Singh came to the power. The first thing his government did is to scrap the disinvestment commission that used to overlook the process of disinvestment under Vajpeyee government.

Possible Fallouts Of Recent Caste Violence

The recent caste violence of Gujjar community in Rajasthan is quite unsettling. This situation can be analyzed in two ways and unfortunately for India, both of them are harbinger of dark times ahead. The infuriating thing is that this particular ‘caste’ is not fighting for social justice but rather to prove its ‘backwardness’.
The suspicious pattern that emerges from controversy of Dera Sacha in Punjab and then Gujjar violence in Rajasthan is that, both of these states are ruled by non-Congress governments. Congress party since the days of Indira Gandhi can’t stomach non-Congress political parties ruling at state level. In her draconian quest of power, Indira Gandhi fermented trouble in North-Eastern states, Kashmir, Punjab and in Tamilnadu. Fortunately, Tamilnadu remained peaceful (and Sri Lanka bore the brunt) but Punjab paid dear price. While North Eastern states and Kashmir are still burning.

It was not only unthinkable but all most blasphemous to imagine India being ruled by a non-Gandhi person. Luckily, P.V. Narsimharao, the first non-Gandhi prime-minister to complete five years of tenure, didn’t continued this old tactics of destabilizing non-congress state government. But the old ‘gang’ of Indira Gandhi is back in the power. First we have central governments faltering in Naxal hit areas only because these states are ruled by non-Congress government. Then as this ‘gang’ is feeling more cozy in the power, they started trouble in Punjab and now in Rajasthan. I suspect either Madhya Pradesh or Gujrat will be the next target. We will either see communal violence flaring in these two states or perhaps, continuation of caste violence.

The second conclusion is more dark and of course, is fall out of policies implemented by current government only. This caste violence is tight slap in the face of anyone who supports limitless affirmative policy. It is surely sowing seeds of deep distrust between various Hindu communities. The worst thing is that the government which is inciting violence for few extra votes, will judge who qualifies for ‘backward’ status. Of course, this backward status has nothing to do with being backward. And, in any case what is the definition of ‘backwardness’? If economical status is the criteria then half of India regardless of caste lines can be labeled as backward. If not, then Hindu caste system is way to complex to draw clear demarcation lines various communities.

With rapidly increasing education and host of social movements in last seventy years, Hindu society was realigning itself internally. Obviously, such progressive social movements are quite complex to describe but our ‘secular’ government deeply distrust anything that is genuinely Hindu. With rise of vote bank politics it was quite obvious that government will do its best to destabilize Hindu society. The tiny minority of so called ‘Dalit’ activists and communist dominated media have literally made it impossible to have any sensible dialogue over social justice. The strategy is just to muddle the water rather than to debate honestly. Thus, instead of caste lines getting blurred, they are vigorously getting drawn again. Though, the current motive of distinguishing ones’ caste is political, the differences will soon be stark enough for us to see recurring caste violence.

In nutshell, even if the recent rampage over castes is politically incited or perhaps, new trend in the society to reap the profits of affirmative policy, the ultimate looser is Indian society.

On the lighter side if everyone tried to become ‘backward’ then no one will really be ‘backward’ !

Bharat and Government of India

Yesterday prime minister of India, Mr. ManMohan Singh in his address to CII (Confederation of Indian Industries) emphasized on ‘inclusive’ nature of the growth. He said “India has made us. We must make Bharat...vulgar display (of wealth) insults the poverty of the less privileged” His assessed that rapidly rising income inequality in India is a source of concern and it may lead to social unrest in the future. I can’t agree with Mr. Singh on this point more. He further said that people with money should not flaunt their wealth and there is a need to limit the executive pay. But somehow I smell political motive and hypocrisy in his statements. He was the best finance minister India ever had and he is fast turning into the worst prime minister India will ever have.

There is no doubt income gap is rising at breath taking speed in India. People who are working in the IT sector are earning unprecedented amount of sum. Whether their pay is unnecessary is not a question here. It’s simple supply and demand graph and right now, Indian IT is in high demand. Secondly, people living in the cities are earning far more than people living in villages. With service sector rising rapidly, it is no brainier that there are more opportunities in the cities than in country side. But even in cities, people with education are earning far more than uneducated. And, uneducated in the cities are earning far more than uneducated people in countryside. But I don’t think we can change wealthy life style of middle class or rich class. Last time I checked India was still a democracy and more ever, with adaptation of western style capitalism it is next to impossible to keep check on people’s life style. I mean, increasing spending and lavish life style is the solid rock on which western style capitalism stands.

I strongly believe that we should adapt any foreign concept according to Indian life style, culture and ethos. So, what Mr. Singh fits well with me but the thing that I don’t understand is that his government failed to do basic stuff that government was supposed to do and now he is asking middle class to curb on their life style. That’s moronic. No wonder that the industry in its report card gave this government mere 30% . The infrastructure work has literally stopped. The road building is going no where. The SEZ’s have become political fire balls. Dismantling of legacy government industries has been stopped. The inflation is going up way more than government statistics suggests. We are heading towards electricity shortage chaos. The security of the country is in jeopardy with recurring bomb blasts across the country. His frivolous affirmative policy is surely going to wreck havoc in coming generations. The list just doesn’t stop.

Indian economy is emerging challenge to China and US. The Indian government should work in tandem with Indian industry and stop foreign domination of Indian markets. In case if Indian industry start using predatory tactics in order to make profits then yes, government should intervene. But right now they are still growing and instead of helping them grow, this government is sabotaging the future of Indian industries. More ever, there is lot of stuff that government is supposed to do and it’s not doing. For example, government should concentrate on providing better primary education, better roads connecting villages to cities and better health care to children. It should work towards betterment of higher education. To believe that five or six IIT’s and IIM’s is going to take India to next century is dumb. If anything, government can ask industries to work towards establishing some sort of business model that will stop constant flow of people from countryside to cities. Or should start something like Gramin Bank to make villages independent of city economies. Dang! This list doesn’t stop either.

Rather than blaming conspicuous consumption of middle class and asking executive to earn less, government should work more actively towards stemming inflation. If Mr. Singh is yapping to gain politically then I am ready to understand his logic but if not then someone needs to tell him that he is an economist!

Globalization and future conflicts

Globalization and capitalism usually work in tandem. In the tussle between communism and capitalism, capitalism was conclusively proved as a sole winner. But the effects of this rapid transformation of global financial scenario are still mixed. On one hand we have enviable growth rates of Asian economies and on the other hand we have plunder of African natural resources as well as seemingly perennial financial instability in South America. Obviously, we have fierce opposition to globalization through out the world. With dramatic improvement in the telecommunication and physical infrastructure, globalization is virtually unstoppable. But if we don't manage it well then the rapidly changing world order will soon result into conflicts between world powers.

Most of the world considers western countries as a benchmark of development. And, western economies, more specifically US economy, are based solidly on the base of higher consumption. In their quest to provide luxurious lifestyle (luxurious as compared to the lifestyle of non-western world) they are gobbling huge amounts of resources. Apart from the fuel based amenities, free trade economic model i.e. globalization, provides opportunity for each and every individual to have a life style that for all practical purposes was rich game few decades ago. Of course, such a lifestyle is still out of reach majority of the non-western population. It is not only impossible to provide such lifestyle to every one but attempt to do so will have disastrous environmental effects. For example, if all of the Chinese population is provided with standard US life style then earth will be empty of any resources in just three years.

Sadly, increasing pressure from western countries to open the markets of India and China and pursuit of these two behemoths to provide western life style to their citizens is straining world's natural resources to breaking point.

It’s a vicious cycle. Without consumption there is no capitalism and supposedly, no growth. But with more consumption we have rapid environmental degradation and conflicts over natural resources will follow.

With all most 2.4 billion people i.e. one third of world population in the world embracing rapid capitalization, we should brace ourselves for drastically new world in every possible way. None of the western countries even in their hey-days of growth managed more than 3% economic growth consistently. On the other hand China is clocking all most 9% for last thirty years and India on an average managed 6 to 7% in last fifteen years or so. As more and more people enter in the class bracket of income, the consumption of every thing is going to go up. If their consumption doesn’t go up then the capitalistic model won’t work and that will result into immediate chaos. In order to sustain consumption level, it will be imperative for the two countries to capture more and more of the world resources. The problem doesn't just stop there. We still have Europe and US as kings of consumption and more ever they most of the world resource under their belt. And, yes, they have technologically advanced armies to protect those resource. For example, if US end up stabilizing Iraq then they will have the second highest Oil reserve under their thumb. Thus it will not only safeguard their oil interest but they will control over the growth of India and China.

So, it seems that future conflicts will be over world resources than terrorism. We don't need Oracle to figure this out. But the point is that time is fast running out for stopping such conflicts. China and India are rapidly advancing their armies. Though, it will be years before they can compete with US army, but then we don't need 'equal' forces for wholesome destruction. Few nuclear missiles sprinkled around the globe and we are back to the stone age.

Bush's Legacy

“Mr. Gonzales, do you remember the events of 29^th September 2006?” Asked one of the Senator. “No” replayed Mr. Gonzales. “You don’t remember that you had a meeting in your office about the possible firings of the District Attorneys on that day?” another shot at Mr. Gonzales. “My schedule says that I had that meeting 8 of that morning but I don’t recall the happenings of that meeting” replied out beloved attorney general. And, here I thought that general of the country is supposed to be an honest and intelligent lawyer !

All though I was aghast to see clips of Gonzales’s testimony to the congress, if we take a look at the larger picture of the Bush administration, it is not at all surprising to see such a high level of incompetence. Each and every step that Bush administration took, at least with respect to foreign relation, is full of blunders, inanity and absolute arrogance in both. Of course, that’s what is expected from an administration whose chief (i.e. the President) is as dumb as our George W. Bush. I have tried to see a bit of wisdom or a bit of sense in his eyes but naada. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. He doesn’t know what he is talking about nor does he have any clue of what he is doing. And the worst thing is he doesn’t know that he doesn’t know. Of course, his administrative staff is to be blamed equally for all the ills. But the scariest part is that his subordinates are extremely shrewd and they know what they are doing. These rats are going to leave the ship soon but Mr. Bush's legacy will go down with this Titanic for ever.

Post September 11, it was obvious to attack Afghanistan but it was soon clear that bombing Afghanistan was by popular demand and the real target was Iraq. Now, every known living organism on the earth (except for the some in US) knew that Iraq has nothing to do with September 11 attacks. But bush administration first tried to connect the non existing dots on the map and later when their leitmotif of fighting against terrorism failed they changed their tune to planting democracy in the middle east. Even if we accept the new found mission as a noble one, the administration is doing miserably in that. The terrorism never emanated from Iraq (ahem, Pakistan and Saudi. Anyone?) and democracy can’t be forced on any society.

Thinking strictly from geo-political point of view, I am ready to admit that it makes sense in sitting near to the terrorist hot-spots. By having solid base in the middle east it will be easier to keep tabs on Iran, Saudi and on Pakistan. But by sheer arrogance Bush administration failed to subdue an already battered nation and mess up the whole logic of invading that country. They let the Bathist forces dissolve in the Iraq society. The problem is, these Bathist forces are heavily armed and posses technological know-how of bombings. Gosh ! now that was stupid. Thus each and every Iraqi in Baghdad and ‘bloody’ triangle around it became a suspect, a potential suicide bomber. Without any active support from the Iraqi society, it is impossible to contain the Shia and Sunni violence. Though a spectator of this gory violence between two warring sects, the US with it’s gaucherie public relation is taking the blame.

In the mean time, Iran is dangerously close in acquiring nuclear weapons and North Korea already posses some. Pakistan is double timing both US and Taliban. Russia is growing belligerent. South American nations are increasingly getting engulfed into rabid Chavezesque anti-Americanism.

Increasingly getting isolated by failures in foreign affairs, even Mr. Bush’s internal policies are seriously questioned by his peers. True he is not running for the Presidential election but it seems that his legacy is going to haunt US as well as rest of the world for quite a sometime to come.

The Real Hero.

How do you define greatness of a person? Who do we think is worth enough to be called a Hero? Is it that he – as a leader - survived toughest time of the history ? If that’s the case, what is the definition of ‘toughest time’? Is it that he lead the nation to the dizzying height of the success? Then, in that case, what is the definition of the ‘success’?. Or is it that he – as a leader - astutely lead an already established empire and succeeded in maintaining the hegemony? Of course, the definition tough times or success will vary drastically according to the time and situation. More ever, the society that person belongs to also play important role in shaping the nature of greatness of a person. Apart from being brave, intelligent and inspiring, that person not only needs to be on the winning side in order for the world to understand his greatness, but also the nation that he commanded and voiced needs to understand the consequence of his deeds for it be immortalized. There are number of examples where the extremely gifted people failed to grab the attention and ended up surrendering meekly to the unresponsive, pathetic and regressive society.

Thus it is quite hard to pinpoint exact reason behind greatness of a particular personality as time, situation and society plays great role in shaping a personality. Having said that, there are some common traits in great people – whether he is a political leaders, military general, ideologues or philosopher - who change the course of the history and future of the lackadaisical society drastically. That person is a rebel at the core because the ability to question the contemporary practices is a necessary first step towards revolutionizing the society. But Revolution doesn’t mean complete destruction of reigning social structure and forceful imposition of ‘new’ ideas because such a charade always fails. The genius of a great person becomes evident at the way he seamlessly institutionalizes his revolutionary ideas with contemporary social structure. The process of social change is usually very slow. And a leader understands this shortcoming of the society and yet manages to inject the vigor and confidence in the society. It is not that he is undefeated in all the contests. But he understands the nature of the defeat better than other looser. He learns from his mistakes and make sure that he doesn’t repeat the same mistake. At the end of the day – by hook or crook - he emerges victorious because of tremendous confidence and unflinching conviction in the cause.

To certain extent, heroes of the one society can be villains for the other. But then there are some deeds that transcendence the political and cultural boundaries. Such examples are quite rare. These people make cause more important than their persona. The rallying cry is the necessity to take action rather than personal whim. The result is counted on the basis of its effect on the cause rather than personal success. And, that’s precisely make them stand out among the other leading minds of the history. These great people attain higher degree of success even after their death. Because during their life time they rear such high quality of talent and imbibe the next generation with quintessential philosophy, that the next generation not only further the cause but take the success to the next level. Their legacy continue to live for hundreds of years and when ever society finds itself confused and under siege, these great people act like a bacon of hope the lost generations.

Such heroes are quite rare. And, in the last thousand years of Indian history, only Shivaji fits all the criteria described above.

Iraq : Now What?

The recent reports about U.S. pulling out the troops from the Iraq all together or at least, not increasing the troop level is depressing as well as sickening. The common arguments in pulling out troops goes like this - One, US has no business of being in the Iraq at first place and we need to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible. Second, US is the rallying point for the Jihadist in the middle-east and if US disappears from the scene then the budding jihadist movement will fizzle out. And, third one - the most inane one amongst the others - is that Iraq war is hurting US economy and war expenditure is burdening the US budget.

So, let's deal with each of these three points one by one.

I partially agree with the first point. US should have never invaded Iraq. They should have attacked Iran or Pakistan (or better Saudi Arabia). Iran is soon going to emerge as te spokesperson for all the terrorist attack around the world, whether the jihadist like it or not. And Iran with its huge oil reservior is going to hold world economy at the ransom. If they get the nuclear weapons then the scenario is going to be worst than expected. So, it would have been prudent to root out the evil in its childhood. Of course, Iran would have provided the stiff resistance but defeating them would have been worth every penny spent and every life lost. About Pakistan - to say anything against this cancerous country would be an understatement.

Second, US was a rallying point for the Jihadist for long time. Way before the Iraq war. Remember the September 11 attack ? It happened before Iraq war ! In any case it makes sense to engage enemy in their own backyard. And, even if US did leave Iraq, the Jihadist movement will gain strength because they will project US exit as their victory. Also, the current violence in Iraq is the result of infighting between Shia’s and Sunnis rather between US army and Muslims. It may sound preposterous but US seems to more like a bystander in the gory play between Iraqi Shia’s and Sunnis.

Third, Is Iraq war really hurting the economy? I mean China and India are on the roll here And, all the economic indicators in the domestic US economy are positive with corporate profit are over the roof. (and so are the corporate pay checks ! ) And, If unemployment and poverty level is increasing in US in last few years then it has more to do with Bush governments domestic policies than foreign policies.

But the concerns that are raised against the war stems from the fact that most of their American citizens refuse to believe that their country is indeed a superpower. They have to understand that they are the sole superpower in the world and with characteristic traits like - tremendous military expenditure, insatiable consumer appetite for everything and insurmountable habit of the political class to meddle into the internal matters of other countries – they (America) for all practical purposes are an empire.

And, to maintain an empire i.e. to maintain the higher level of living standard and continuous growth, they have to invade – physically or financially - other countries in order to grab and secure the valuable and limited natural resources. I mean, that’s what empires do.

The Bush government media relations are quite pathetic. Bush is an extremely dumb person to begin with but more ever, they advertised, marketed and executed this war quite shabbily. If US government balking under the pressure from the opposition party, decides to bolt from the Iraq, not only Muslim terrorist wreck havoc across the globe but US will cease to be an empire.

In any case, given a choice between US and Saudi fuckers or knuckle head like Ahmadinejad, dominating the Oil resources, I will always choose the US.