The Analyzt

Intelligence Dearth and Public apathy sustains Terrorism in India

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 02:43:00 +0000

First, I started this post immediately after the Gurdaspur attack. However, I was unable to finish it due to my interviews. As you might have guessed, my blog is pretty new and is not generating any income. To add to my difficulties, my fellowship is ending. So I need to find a job as soon as possible.

Ok, coming back to the post. From the time I started to write this post, i.e. from Gurdaspur attack, to until now one more attack has taken place in Udhampur followed by a series of ceasefire violations across the disputed border. What is interesting is that, our 'leaders' are conspicuous by their silence. I believe the world would not have forgotten their jingoistic din upon Indian Army's successful operation across Myanmar border. At that time, I had argued that it may not be able possible for Mr. Modi to repeat Myanmar success.

What is interesting is that no media or public questioned the ministers of their inaction after those jingoistic boasts until now. Interestingly, the parliament session was all about bills and next to nothing about security. Opposition, that was determined to return the favour, almost exclusively focused on the 'Lalit Modi - Sushma Swaraj' scandal that it totally diverted the public attention from what is necessary to something paltry. The public and media fell for this 'mocking bird', quiet readily.

Perhaps, the death of armed personals and civilians in these attacks and ceasefire violations are nothing to be paid attention to. I guess, in Indian psyche, these lives don't matter. It is unfortunate that the loved ones of those victims also failed to unite and say ' we had enough '. In India, which has one of the largest population under poverty, doesn't the lives and livelihoods of poor folks matter?

The problem is also compounded by the apparent dearth of intelligence among our intelligence community, as was evident by their repeated plagiarisms. Even in the recent case of Mr. Maran, it seems Indian intelligence community lifted parts from Wikipedia, which was noted by the preceding judge.

The terrorist attacks and the ceasefire violations are nothing new. Every time something of the likes happens, GoI is happy to point fingers at Pakistan and continue their business (whatever that is...). One of the foremost duties of a country to its citizens, is to provide security and livelihoods. needless to say India has been consistently failing on these counts...!

These attacks are the latest of the series of attacks Pakistan is waging against India since 1990s as a part of its asymmetric warfare strategy against India. The first thing, that should have caught the attention of anyone is how is that Pakistan is still successful? Hadn't India learnt anything? Or is the Pakistani Intelligence really intelligent relative to Indian intelligence? Or Indian intelligence is only concerned about the lives of VIP's? If so, is the Indian tax payer's wasting their money? However, no attention has ever been given to these important questions, neither by the media nor by the public.

A few years ago, 'The Hindu' published an analysis which revealed that just only a third of the IB's work force is working on Indian security the rest two-thirds were entrusted with spying on political opponents. No wonder, none of the political parties wants to provide the intelligence organizations a constitutional status and parliament oversight. These organization survive by the tax payers money, yet serve only their political bosses. In this context, the above questions attains immense significance. Yet, none of the media nor the public seems to be worried about it. I wonder if Gandhi, if alive, would have launched another Non-Cooperation Movement. Notable Gandhians like Anna Hazare and the likes also seems to be silent on this issue, which is really painful. However, it the public which has to wake up...!

To be fair, some questions do prop-up occasionally in the media on security during times of elections. On those occasions, the political parties show the statistics that says the number of fatalities to have gone down since the 1990s. While it may be true, it is also true that the ability to Pakistan-sponsored terrorism poses a greater danger, if ISIS determines to use this network to wage war on India. Pakistan would be more than happy to help ISIS. With India's achilles heels of corruption, nepotism and misuse of power, the implications are terrifying to imagine. It would be in the interest of India and the entire South Asia, to put an end to this unsettling problem of terrorism once far all.

Unfortunately, I think, neither the politicians nor these intelligence agencies are incapable of generating solutions. In their minds there are only four possibilities to deal with Pakistan:

Hand over the disputed regions to Pakistan
Attack Pakistan with over-whelming force and reclaim disputed regions
Continue to negotiate and CBMs
Give Pakistan a taste of its own medicine (covert operations)

Even an absolute idiot would be aware that none of the four choices would work. Handing over the disputed regions to Pakistan is a non-starter. India cannot do that and neither could Pakistan. Any political party/leader attempting this option is clearly committing a political suicide and putting the security of their respective countries at great peril. After all the jingoism and decades of mistrust, this is not going to be a possibility, not in any near future.

The second option is the favourite of hardliners in the opposition, which they would not embark upon if elected to power. The cost and expense of war, is well known. I'm not sure about Pakistan but if India provokes a war, the politicians who did has to answer the public for the lives lost, even if India wins the war. On the other hand, they may get support if this is in retaliation over a terrorist attack. However, for such a thing to happen, India has to maintain its entire armed forces battle-ready without giving any hints to Pakistan. This is both expensive and Pakistan is likely to get a whiff of India's plans. In such case, there won't be any attacks until Indian soldiers are tired and the forces loses their morale. Further, if India do attack and reclaims PoK, India would lose its stature as a peace beacon in the world stage and Pakistan will most likely collapse, resulting in a much greater threat than Pakistan itself. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal falling into the hands of Taliban or ISIS is a much greater threat than the Pakistan sponsored terrorism. Since this affects China and US and many of other the countries in region India would likely face international pressures against this option. It wouldn't be surprise if China jumps in the war to aid Pakistan and India is clearly not capable of a war at two ends. When would India be capable for such an eventuality is anyone's guess.

The third option is the favourite of the party and politicians, as well as the bureaucrats in power. The reason - its a no brainer. No wonder India is doing this for a very long time. The only problem with is approach is the apparent strengthening of security apparatus, which would usually mean oppression and harassment of some weaker sections of the society. Like the staging up of encounter deaths, where usually the dead are innocents. The fourth option is the recommendations from the security and intelligence analysts in India, which has its moral costs. If the enemy is ruthless at murdering innocents, could it be morally justified to do the same to his people who are innocents, who has no idea of his/her atrocities? Further, wouldn't the innocents affected by our actions become a fertile recruiting ground for more attacks? Gandhi is a genius for coming up with non-violence, because his intention was not to score tit-for-tat but settle the issue once far all. His movement also reduced collateral damage. In other words, none of the four options is likely to give the intended effect. Yet, our politicians pursue a no brainer with the confidence that the public is none the wiser. Hence, Mr. Singh's pursuit of the third solution is as expected.

In short, the problem of terrorism persists in India costing thousands of lives every year because of the following:

The attitude that lives of poor and middle class doesn't matter
The attitude that police and law enforcement officials can get away with human abuses and atrocities against innocents, poor performances, etc.
The inability and apparent apathy of the intelligence community and bureaucrats to generate out-of-box ideas and innovations
Red-tape that don't provide an opportunity to develop new ideas or incorporate new minds
Corruption, nepotism, etc.

As Sun Tzu says "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles...", Pakistan knows India well and acts with impunity costing the lives of innocent civilians. Yet, the only thing India is being good at doing is the losing innocent lives every year to this barbaric act with rhetoric ad nauseam. I would say that this is because of the red-tape, nepotism, corruption and the snobbish attitude towards to the poor and middle class, that drives away good talents and prevents the sprout of new ideas as the main cause of this continuing horror. In short, while the problem with Pakistan may be a Nehruvian legacy, its continuation is definitely due to the dearth of intelligence in our intelligence community and its snobbish attitude to harness the talents are lost to developed nations every year. It is also because of the defeated attitude of the surviving victims and their loved ones to stand up to the government, and the apathy of tax-payers who fail ask, "why should we pay for your comforts and security?".

Pakistan puts Modi in tight spot...!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 29 Jul 2015 02:41:00 +0000

Source: www.firstpost.com

On July 28^th 2015, three men in army fatigues crossed in the International border between India and Pakistan into the Punjab region of Gurdaspur that had claimed the lives of 3 civilians and 4 police officers and had left a over a dozen injured. Only last month, Indian media were booming with pride and Indian ministers were giving jingoistic rhetorics to the media, about the change in attitude of the GoI (Government of India) in accordance with the promise of Mr. Modi's government to get tough with Pakistan should there be another attack. However, in my previous post, I argued that it may not be possible for India to repeat the success in Pakistan. I guess, time has to come to prove me wrong... However, the government's less than normal media storm would indicate otherwise... In any case, hot pursuits are to come into effect in less than 72 hours and it is not yet, 72 hours... So we'll wait and see how Mr. Modi's reacts.

In the mean time, let look into the attack and the options India has. Though the attack itself is limited in the damage and definitely lacks in scale and media attention compared to 26/11 attack in Mumbai, it has some similarity. Both have used 'fidayeen' style attacks using small arms and in both the cases, there were intelligent inputs on possible attacks that were ignored by the government, concerned. By this attack, Pakistan attempts to:

Discredit Mr. Modi and his government in the international arena as "toothless paper tiger".
Give Congress and Pro-Pakistan lobbies tooth to pressure government that talks are the only forward, while people are well aware that it had only cost their lives and livelihoods
Prove their ability to still carry-out attacks in India from across border, to their dwindling supporters in India and possibly to enlist IS.

It is also highly likely that the attack is the result of the thaw in Indo-pak relations. Whenever, Indo-Pak relation sees a thaw, it had almost always followed by an attack in large or small scale. The best example is the Kargil war in 1999 which immediately followed, within months, after the Lahore summit and the historic bus journey of Mr. Vajpayee in February 1999. Similarly, the Agra Summit in July 2001 was followed by an attack on Indian Parliament in December 2011. Many such examples could be given. In all these cases, one similarity is that the attacks almost always followed within months after a thaw in relations. The current attack too, follows the same pattern. It has happened within months (actually within days...) after Ufa summit. So, one thing is for sure, unless and until Pakistan change it attitude or India grows its tooth, innocent Indians are going to lose their lives every time Indian politicians tries to become Gandhi or fall prey to the Pro-Pakistani (Pro-talk) lobby.

While the pattern of attack stands, what is a mystery to me is why? Is the Pakistani Government taking Indians to be fools or think that Indians cannot fight back as some late Pakistan' President thought, is anyone' guess. It is also likely that Pakistan is run by parallel governments, one that is publicly recognized to take the blame and lose power for the act of the other, which is shadows (at least in legal terms... read Pakistan military). While the first possibility still lacks solid evidence, the history of Pakistan Army over-throwing Pakistan Government one too-many times stands evidence for the second possibility. Even US had to toe Pakistan Army's line to get its work done in Afghanistan. In fact, US bought Pakistan's support for its actions in Afghanistan through its multi-billion dollar aids. And its inability to keep Pakistan Army in check, in spite of these largesse, to do its bidding could be attributed to its not so successful campaign in Afghanistan.

In any case, Mr. Modi is now in a fix. Unlike Myanmar, Pakistan Army is hostile to Indian interests. In fact, it is the perpetrator of the shadow war that is costing hundreds of Indian lives every year. If India tries to emulate its Myanmar actions, Pakistan has the capabilities to retaliate and will do for sure. Thanks to China. Extraction is much more difficult than intrusion, in this context. If Mr. Modi, decides to get tough with Pakistan he can only push Indian soldiers for a suicidal mission, which may not go well with Indian public and may not even succeed. India lacks the stealth technologies that are necessary for the successful penetration of Pakistani airspace, any way. Even if he tries to cover it up, it would crop-up for sure in future and elections would be a very bad time for such information to be leaked.

Thanks to I.K Gujjral's misplaced bonhomie India lacks covert action capabilities against Pakistan while the latter maintains and nurture its asymmetric advantage over India. In spite of the advise of many security and strategic analysts, the successive governments of India hesitates to reinstate the covert operation capabilities of Indian intelligence. For one, they don't want to be seen as anti-Gandhian. The other is the successful lobbying by Pakistan sponsored pro-talk groups in India and other nations. Hence, covert action is not a possibility.

The third option, that Mr. Modi could resort to is to make precision missile attacks. Indian missile systems seems to have that technology. For example, Brahmos and Shaurya missiles of India are capable of attacking Pakistani targets close to border with precision. Their speed makes interception difficult. However, this would invariably invite the wrath of Global community as Pakistan would claim that Indian attack had killed innocent lives. For such attack, intelligence should be accurate. If it was found later that India attacked and killed innocent civilians, it would be left with a red-face in the global arena and its non-aggressive peaceful history stand blemished. This option is the most viable, if Mr. Modi decides to walk the talk... However, India has to risk a war with Pakistan, as it is highly likely that Pakistan escalates the conflict to a full fledged nuclear war.

The fourth option, is the easiest and is the most often used by the successive governments. Condemn Pakistan's actions, some more rhetorics, some increase in defence budgets and as usual try to mount International pressure... Probably, also throw a "mocking bird", some missile advancement or achievement that could take the sight of public from this attack. This option only make him another paper tiger. However, in all likelihood, this would be the most likely course Mr. Modi might take, given India's predilections and past responses...!

In short, Pakistan in a single act has called off Mr. Modi's bluff in Myanmar and had made his Government get caught in its own rhetorical trap. The world now waits to see if Mr. Modi can walk his talk... Or is he yet another paper tiger?

Harper Immigration Policies destroy talents...

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 28 Jul 2015 02:45:00 +0000

Canada is gripping with election fever but none of the parties seem to address or even acknowledge the misplaced immigration policies of Mr. Harper. This, while Canada's Global Competitive Index (GCI) ranking, a measure by World Economic Forum (WEF) on the ability of a country to bring prosperity to its population, has slipped to 15^th in 2015. GCI takes over 110 variables into account for the estimation. However, by comparing with US, I think the flawed immigration policies and the system skewed against immigrants could be one of the reasons along with spending cuts to R&D.

It seems there is a lot of groups lobbying to restrict immigration. To an extent, it is true that some tend to import cheap labor but skilled-immigrant population actually helps Canadian economy more than it hurts. For example, African doctors who migrated to Canada saved over 400 million dollars while costing their home countries billions. Assuming an average citizen of Canada makes a million dollars during his productive period, the savings mean 400 more jobs or possibilities to invest in opportunities that could produce even more jobs and consequently more income to the Govt. However, in an attempt to fix this problem the immigration policies enacted, actually seem to aggravate this problem and in some cases, pushing of skilled immigrants out of the country or derogate them to lower jobs. Thanks to improvement of conditions in Asia and the flawed immigration policies, Canada is now seeing reverse immigration.

Prof. McNiven, in an interview to CBC in 2012 said that PhDs from developing countries were lured to Canada with high hopes only to find that their qualifications were not enough making them to drive taxis and work in restaurants. He also mentioned that it is due to the Canadian Government's intention to keep the higher paying "good jobs" among Canada-born young people. He was also correct in saying that Canada needs immigrants with minimal skill and a lot of drive. From my experience, if I'm to recruit some one to my team or company, more than the skill they have I would look for their ability to acquire the skill. Hence, I agree with McNiven on accepting immigrants with minimal skill and lot of drive. However, the same conditions ("good jobs" for Canadians) still exist and the flaws in the system still helps the industries bring cheap labor instead of attracting and retaining talents - resulting in brain drain.

As case in point is the situation of postdocs and scientists, visiting Canada to work in Federal and other laboratories across Canada. These immigrants add to skilled workforce involved in the development of technologies and science which ultimately benefit Canada. However, when these postdocs want to find an academic position in an University after their tenure as a postdoc or move to industries, they hit a "glass wall". Since companies are not much inclined to spend time and money (a requirement by CIC), a residency becomes a requirement for a job offer. However, according to the current system, one needs a "valid" job offer to get invited to apply for residency. The end result is either under-utilization or drain of talents. If I'm not wrong, I guess the labs and government perceive these postdocs as expendable cogs. In other words, they are doing the same thing that they want others not to do - exploit immigrants and import cheap labor. What they fail to realize is that these young minds, while they do bring new ideas on their arrival also leave with more ideas on their departure. In addition to attributing to the attrition of talents, the scenario could very well play against Canadian interests in geo-politics.

On the other hand, according to the current point system, the people who would enter Canada are IT and similar professionals, under paid by their company back at home. When these companies bring these professionals, usually they are brought on deputation and instead of a full payment, they would receive allowances. However, after a year these professionals would be eligible for Experience Class immigration and since they already have a "valid" job offer with LMO (Labor Market opinion), they would be successful in immigrating to Canada. I leave it to the readers to determine which one is good for the country in short and long term.

The start-up visa program, is also a bit tricky and may not be effective in retaining talents. First, most of the postdocs prefer a scientific career. After all, they chose to do PhD when they could have very well proceeded to become an MBA, right? Also, it might be difficult for the postdocs in the Federal labs to bring together a team to form a start-up. At the most, some one in some universities could apply for the Start-Up visa program. From what I understand, there had not been many success stories. A person with right business mind, also may not be interested to create a startup/company here because of the cost of labor and raw materials, as well as the size of markets. For example, India and China are bigger markets than Canada.

The federal and provincial labs that host visiting fellows and scientists also provide next to nothing opportunities to build their skill-sets or acquire new skills, to help them move to industry or to improve their employability. This actually aggravates the postdoc crisis. I had attended a few interviews from data science start-ups. Though I have a good understanding on time series data and have been dealing with extremely discontinuous data, and, as any postdoc, acquire the programming skills along the way to complete my tasks, these start-ups invariably rejected opportunities as I was lacking skills in Hadoop or Scala. I was hoping to have an opportunity to acquire those skill sets. However, if I have to acquire them myself I need over 24hrs (I already sleep only for 4 hrs) and more money to set-up my own infrastructure to acquire the experience that these companies, apparently seek. Further, the regulations in effect, prohibits postdocs from attending International conferences (even when they have results to present. The same is the case for Federal Scientists as well.), which are vital to their career development. In short, the policies of the Canadian Government effectively destroys young scientific minds.

I guess these are what some call as invisible racism and Harpers Govt. is not just helping brain drain but effectively destroying them. I think it would do more good to Canada if the underlying problems that hinders the realization of the full potential of immigrant talents are addressed instead of directing racial slurs. However, both the opposition and the public seem to be oblivious to the issue... I guess, immigrant postdocs should be warned against coming to Canada... Would you agree?!

Note to Readers: I have been off for a couple of weeks, as I have been attending interviews. I greatly appreciate your patience and your continued support.

Tsipras' Proposal: Who is he kidding?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 18:02:00 +0000

I was impressed by Tsipras' political maneuver in the bail out negotiations, that I was surprised and shocked by his U-turn. Reading through his proposal, I'm more than disappointed to find nothing new. In other words, the proposal is almost the same as was demanded by the Troika. To make things worse, the parliament jumped in with him, today.

Greece's proposal for EU bail-out aims at attaining a fiscal surplus of 3.5% of GDP by 2018. An ambitious target, nonetheless achievable. However, I strongly doubt if the proposal put forth could ever achieve it. It fails to recognize the driver behind the fundamental problem that led Greece to this debacle in the first place. I'm confident that the creditors are wise, but wants Greece to swallow its one poison, so that they can make bucks of the market.

To start with the proposed VAT reform, Greece aims at taxing restaurants and catering services at 23%. This would mean that franchise outlets like McDonald's and KFC could lose it attraction, pushing the unemployment rate higher, which would only reduce government income. Further, operating business would tend to highly under-report their income, leading to loss of revenue. The proposal, elsewhere, mentions of strengthening the enforcement agencies by criminalizing tax evasion. Won't that increase the overhead cost for tax collection?

The VAT reforms put forth by Greece also aims at reducing tax for theaters whose tax would now stand at 6%. I wonder, why is this preferential treatment to the theaters. First of all, in a tough economy, not many would have enough disposable income to enjoy the comforts of theaters. Second, it would encourage youngsters to look forward to theaters as sustainable sources of employment, which is not the case as one could observe from all over the world.

Another thing in the VAT reforms that I couldn't quite understand is, why the basic food should cost more than the pharmaceuticals? Basic food, along with energy and water, is to be taxed at 13% while pharmaceuticals are to be taxed at 6%. So, is Tsipras encouraging Greece to an unhealthy lifestyle? Or is he favouring the pharmas? This is akin to asking Greece to fall sick as it is cheaper to have medicines than to have food. Would sick population contribute to economy?

Further, the proposal put forth aims at tightening the definition of farmers to bring more people in the tax ambit. However, I think this proposal is made to target either small farmers or large farmers. Who is going to be targeted, we have to wait until Tsipras "defines" who is a farmer? Further reforms to Fiscal structural measures, aims at increasing corporate tax to 28% from 26%. I'm not sure, if Tsipras and his finance minister are in their own perceived state of Greece superiority. While, most of the population is unemployed, the hike in corporate tax would only increase in flight of capital and jobs. Further, those corporations who remain to operate in Greece would not be able to compete globally, again leading to loss of jobs and government revenue. I would like to draw attention to the Laffer Curve on taxation. This study is highly controversial and in some cases disproved. However, I think in the case of Greece, it may hold good as it may encourage foreign investments and corporations to operate from Greece.

The put-forth proposal proposes to provide disincentives for early retirement. However, I think it is infringing upon one's personal rights. Smart youngsters, would most likely take undeclared works and stash the money in some foreign accounts to cash during retirement. Of course, the proposal aims at identifying undeclared works. But how is Tsipras going to make that work? The law enforcement agencies as well as those who undertake those jobs are going to benefit from such works. The former through bribes and the later through additional untaxed income. I think Tsipras and his finance ministers are in the era of "barter system". Now the youth can take jobs from anywhere and earn from anywhere, store their revenue as bitcoins and cash them when they require. How is Tsipras going to address this issue? Ban Internet? Or create an agency to investigate and enforce compliance? Where is he going to pay the overhead cost of setting up the infrastructure from? From more debt?

The proposal also aims to hire more managers to make the system efficient. Even the Tories in Canada do the same. At least they have a hidden agenda, their meaning for efficiency is shutting down services and cutting federal jobs. So, does Tsipras have the same in his mind? If so, unlike Canada, Greece unemployment will rise leading to social and economic backlash. Is he prepared to deal with that? More importantly, does he have enough money (required to pay severance, unemployment benefits, etc.) to deal with that?

The proposal aims at adjusting zonal property taxes, preventing fuel smuggling, etc., but fails to provide any incentives to encourage declaration of true income, increase employment, attractive industries, attract foreign investments and lacks a sustainable path to compete in global market. At the most the proposed measures would aggravate Greece's debt and unemployment crisis. Grexit may have been a better alternative.

It seems Tsipras out maneuvered not only the EU but also successfully fooled the Greece electorate.

Austerity aids who?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 11:36:00 +0000

...Governments run by people who are either rich or supported by rich, have only the best interest of the rich in their minds...

In my previous post, I had argued that austerity would only lead to further austerity as it shrinks the economy. Keynesian Theory of economics is a classical theory that every student of economics would come across. Then, why are the EU nations and IMF administering the hard-pill of austerity on Greece. Why UK administers austerity when it has only increased poverty? Why is Canada administering austerity, when it claims to be well-off in the media? Why is US administering austerity? Some one should be benefitted by it, right? Who gets benefitted by austerity and who loses?

Runners first

During the European Debt Crisis in the later part of 2008, many European countries assumed the indebtedness of their banks to prevent them from failing. This left many of the European countries in debt to the extent they were not able to pay their debts without assistance from third parties such as EFSF (European Financial Stability Facility), ECB (European Central Bank) and IMF (International Monetary fund). Since many of these organizations require austerity as a part of their bail-out programs, countries are forced to impose austerity measures.

For example, Ireland imposed austerity measures when it assumed the debts of its private sector banks and had to be assisted by the EU and IMF. While Ireland eventually recovered and ended its austerity in the 2015 budget, the impact of austerity was substantial. Property values collapsed making people pay mortgage more than what their property worth. The economy shrunk resulting in widespread employment which rose from 4.2% in 2007 to 14.6% in 2012. Ireland also saw huge emigration with around 34500 people leaving Ireland between 2009 and 2010. However, the impact of these measures were felt most by those who could not bear it.

Similarly, austerity measures imposed by UK due to its bank bail-outs were also affecting the poorest population who could hardly bear the impacts. As of 2014, close to a quarter of the UK population are in poverty. Unemployment rate rose from around 5.7% in 2007 to over 8% in 2012. However, since 2012 unemployment rate has shown gradual decrease. However the austerity was again found to affect the poorest of population.

Though here two countries are taken as an example, we could make a point that the poorest of poor are those who'd be affected the most, the losers to austerity. This is also because the poor are the biggest consumer of public services, which takes the major hit due to spending cuts. If people tend to commit suicide then austerity is effectively eliminating poor instead of poverty.

Winners next

Naturally, those who hold and control government debts gains the most. When the governments bailed the banks, the investors benefitted from the austerity as their assets grew while the poor suffered as it is their jobs and earnings which was taken to pay for bailing out the banks. Naturally, investors and the wealthy were the big winners.

Further, when the governments cuts its services and shrinks its work force, the private sectors see a increase in the supply of labor. Most of these labor could be acquired at low cost, particularly for short-term. Temporary workers are neither paid on par with the permanent workers nor have the benefits of the latter, in many countries. Further, their employees could be forced to put on more hours at work with the threat of lay-off. In other words, austerity helps big corporations and the wealthy to exploit the labor of the poor.

Naturally, the rich-poor divide has grown sharply since 2007 with many billionaires seeing large increase in their wealth.

Conclusion

Clearly, Austerity aids the rich, corporations and the investors...

There are many studies hailing the rich and the reason for the growth of their wealth as due to their wise investments. However, these studies/articles carefully "forget" to mention that poor and middle class don't have enough disposable income to invest, in the first place. Further, while the rich may have their investment knowledge transferred from their parents or bought, the poor and middle class are left in the dark.

Further, I believe the system itself is designed to aid the investors. While I cannot say for every country, I could about India and Canada. In India, the rich has the money to buy the Govt. officials and vital information to make informed decisions on their investment, though illegal. In Canada, the start-up visa program, I believe, was designed with the interest of the investors (venture-capitalists) in mind. For example, it wouldn't include crowd-sourcing opportunities to raise capital. The system provides little opportunities for immigrant researchers for entrepreneurial pursuits though, those pursuits could create more jobs for Canadians... Rich again has an opportunity to get a investor visa or buy a business...

This makes me wonder, if the Governments real intentions are to help its people or only a section of its population. I'm afraid, the Governments run by people who are either rich or supported by rich, have only the best interest of the rich in their minds. However, what I don't understand is why people don't realize this and why they are falling prey to politicians' lies...

Grexit: World may suffer with Greece

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:05:00 +0000

Currently, the world is going nuts over the Greek dilemma. The surprising move by the President of Greece, Mr. Alexis Tsipras to call for a referendum on EU bailout conditions, have stumped many of the EU's leaders that they have started to openly vilify Mr. Alexis Tsipras. While the world would know Greece's decision by the start of next week, in the mean time Mr. Tsipras has closed the banks and stock-exchange to prevent financial collapse.

Greece's bold move

In my previous post, I had argued that austerity is likely to lead a country into a vicious cycle. As austerity tends to reduce disposable income, people may tend to be frugal which could further aggravate the problem. Austerity is also likely to cause unsurmountable hardships to the citizens of the nation. Hence, I regard Mr. Tsipras move for a referendum bold and creative. Apparently, the move have stumped the EU leaders' expectation that Mr. Tsipras could be pressured to submission as is apparent by their open personal attacks on him. If anything, he might be on the right track.

Greece is not without precedent. Many countries have defaulted and have recovered from the financial crisis in the wake of such default to become strong economies. In case, on July 5th, Greece rejects EU's proposal it may its exit from EU. In such case, Greece is at liberty to issue its own currency. Though the currency might start on par with Euro, it would soon be devalued which may increase inflation sharply. However, such devaluation may also turn out to be a boon as it could boost exports there by setting Greece on its path to recovery. The period of intense economic hardships due to inflation would have severe effects on the lives of the people. However, I hardly doubt if the situation would be any different if Greece accepts EU's proposal.

However, Greece should guard itself against continuing to commit the mistakes that had led it into the crisis - corruption and tax evasion. If the tax is not friendly or is felt unjustified, it is likely to encourage corruption and tax evasion. With increasing tax evasion, the country is unlikely to increase its revenue, which is critical for its recovery from the debt-trap.

Greece Exist cost more to EU

I believe Greece's exist from EU is likely to affect the other nations in EU more than the Greece itself. Greece's exit would mean a fracture in the political union of Europe. It is likely that other countries like Ireland and Spain may follow suit plunging Europe into financial crisis, affecting markets and resulting in financial instability whose effects would be felt all over the world. Euro would lose its value plunging EU into high inflation.

A fractured EU would likely see EU's influence diminished in the World politics. Greece is already trying to woo Russia to invest. In such case, the NATO allies may not be particularly comfortable knowing the growing influence of Russia in their backyard. In addition, China is also buying off Greece's debts, which would likely increase China's influence in the region.

Greece's exit at this juncture would also be inopportune as UK is in the process of conducting a referendum to decide whether to continue with EU or not. In case of Greece's exit, the anti-EU parties' claims could find support, which may further weaken EU.

Hence, Greece's tragedy is likely a EU's tragedy and may likely to lead to many set-backs, economic and strategic. I'm sure the EU leaders are not oblivious to the reality but their dogged insistent ofn austerity makes anyone wonder the reason behind their insistence...

In any case, the world would know Greece's verdict by Sunday evening...

India cries foul in Pakistan's glee

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:59:00 +0000

"...had the people of India refused to buy Chinese products/services for one day, China would have learnt its lesson...!"

For the last couple of days, Indian media is going crazy over China blocking India's proposal against Zakhir-ur-Rehman Lakhvi the terror mastermind of 26/11 massacre. However, it is neither new nor in the interest of China's grand strategy to help India in the issue of Pakistan-sponsored-terrorism.

China's act is nothing new

In fact China is consistently blocking India's attempt to bring Pakistan's state sponsored terrorism for quite sometime. China did the same in the case of Syed Salahuddin (United Jihad Council), when China put India's proposal on a "Technical hold", effectively stalling the process. Since December 2014, it seems India had filed three separate proposals with UN, each of which has been stalled by China. The discussion on Syed Salahuddin was even stalled for long time, thanks to China. Similarly, China had blocked India's proposals against Maulana Masood Ashar, Abdur Rehman Makki and Azam Cheema in 2010.

It is not just with the proposals on terrorism. China was against US-India nuclear deal as well and has been consistently sabotaging India's bid to UN Security Council. It was also consistently blocking India's entry into the Nuclear Supplier Group and was trying to push Pakistan, in the name of 'parity' with utter disregard to Pakistan's nuclear proliferation history.

Hence, it could be safely said that China blocking India's proposal on Lakhvi is nothing new but was consistent with their unstated official policy. In other words, China is India's foe in the grab of a "friend". Though many in India would agree, those clamouring for a few bucks at the cost of the national security wouldn't and the government of India is still spineless to call spade a spade.

Pakistan's all-weather friend

In my previous post, I had argued that Pakistan plays a vital role in China's grand strategy, as spoiler state of the region and as a counter-balance for India. As long as India concerned with the Pakieconomic assistance to nuclear blue prints?

stan sponsored terrorism, it wouldn't look to challenge China in the global politics - at least thats what China expects. To add value to the expectation, India is extremely occupied with Pakistan than the source of the threat. Isn't this the reason, it is carefully harbouring Pakistan, from providing

There is also another dimensions, why China wouldn't go against Pakistan. Pakistan didn't hesitate to sabotage US operations and supply routes through Pakistan, even after accepting billions in aid, ostensibly against US' drone strikes. However, this is also viewed as the result of growing India-US relations in nuclear energy and counter-terrorism. Dwadar Port and the road through Karakoram range is vital to China's "String of pearl" strategy, aimed at encircling India. Further, Pakistan is one of the staunch supporter of China's "Silk Road" project. If China votes in favour of India, it is highly likely that it would face break-down in relation similar to US. While US had no "string of pearls", China has and it cannot afford to lose its advantage after spending billions for the purpose.

India Cries foul

Yes, history stands as a proof for India's credentials to regional and world peace. However sometimes, India should look beyond its own self-inflicted restraints. Further, with a UNSC a foe and a supporter of the nations hostile to India's interest, India's efforts are next to nothing but just "optics" to fool people. Doesn't India know that China is going to block its proposals? Had it not done before? So waste time in doing the same and waste taxpayer's money? Until this date, India has not enacted any acts to counter China or make China rethink its actions. This shows nothing but the political-strategic ineptitude of our politicians and bureaucracy. "Linear" thinking may be great for bureaucracy but wouldn't work in power-play.

I believe India's state, with respect to terrorism, is a consequence of the ill-fated and ill-advised move by Mr. I. K. Gujral to disband India's covert operational capabilities in Pakistan. Had, the tough speaking Mr. Modi's Government determined in bringing the perpetrators to books, he would have re-instituted India's covert operational capabilities. With covert capabilities, these masterminds could have been eliminated. Similarly, had India spent some time in developing technologies, India could easily pinpoint and eliminate its hostile targets within Pakistan with perfect deniability. However, I don't see any sincerity on the part of Mr. Modi or his government, in this direction. Though, Mr. Modi is trying to emulate China is other aspects, he fails to emulate it in the most important one - reversing brain drain and bring technologies and know hows from other nations...

I understand that India, as a nation may not be in position to impose sanctions against Chinese business interests due to it being a part of WTO. However, what makes the people to renounce Chinese products? In response, to China's act in the US, had the people of India refused to buy Chinese products/services for one day, China would have learnt its lesson...!

West drives Russia...

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 01:57:00 +0000

US, EU and NATO drives Russia to China and India is oblivious to the consequences

Russia has been a strategic friend and ally of India for the past few decades. However, Russia's policy maneuvers in the last 5 years seems to show an increasing trend towards China and Pakistan. While many Indian analysts term these moves a mistake, I think that these are strategic moves with multiple messages. This article views some of the policy maneuvers of Russia and the context in which they are made.

Sino-Russian Relations in the context:

Russia and China have been gradually building relations since the 1990s. However, the following policy maneuvers by Russia seems more of a consequences of geo-politics than of friendship...

2004 Complementary Agreement

Since the 1990s the Sino-Russia border situations has been steadily improving, which culminated in the transfer of land by Russia to China in 2004, with the complementary agreement. With the transfer of the islands, the border dispute between the two countries was resolved. This could enable them to pursue common strategic goals and deepen their economic ties.

Though, from the surface, it may seem like Russia capitulating to China, it is not the case when this act is viewed from a global perspective. During 2004, the West and Russia were trying to assert their influence in Ukraine. The joining of some former Soviet States in EU might have not gone well with Russia. In this context, by ceding some land that is disputed to China, Russia turned a potential foe into a friend. This is also a signal by Russia for a multi-polar world. US should have noted the signal, as such moves not only rises China's stature but also its aspirations, potentially making the Asia-pacific open to Chinese brinkmanship and adventurism.

India, should also have noted this Russian move as it has ominous warnings to India. Though China's military and economic capabilities are awesome, China is still far behind Russia in military technologies. The alliance would mean that China is now capable of acquiring more advanced weaponry for potential use against India and other nations with which it has hostilities over territories. China, being a "blood brother" of Pakistan is likely to influence Russia to end its arms embargo against Pakistan. Further, the boost in China's economy is likely to increase its defense spending. None of the mentioned situations bode well for India but I'm not sure how India chose to be blind to the developments.

30 Year Gas deal

The long meddling of West and Russia in Ukraine led to the break up of Crimea, which was successfully annexed to Russia on 18 March, 2014. Following which, the West (NATO and EU) were up in arms with a slew of economic sanctions against Russia. I believe the 30 year Gas deal with China is a consequence of these sanctions, as the deal followed the first two rounds of economic sanctions against Russia - its enterprises and individuals. In other words, the West's activities not only split Ukraine and pushed it into a civil war but also helped China to diversify its energy routes. With the supply of Russian oil, China is less dependent on its oil routes through Malacca strait, a strategic choke point. Further, the boost to China's economy is likely to affect the security and territorial interests of countries in the Asia pacific.

In this context, it should also be noted that Russia's proposal to bypass Ukraine as its main oil transit hub, which is likely to affect Ukraine's economy adversely and have far flung implications.

Personally, I think India missed an opportunity both in terms of strategy and solidarity. India could have struck a similar deal with Russia which would have provided a boost to Indian economy. However, India has been increasingly showing timidity and ineptitude in such affairs for quite some time (as in the case of Iran). I believe, the reason behind India's reluctance to make use of the opportunity is due to its intentions to purchase "not so much needed" nuclear reactors from Western nations. Please don't mistake me. India very much needs power but India, over the years, have developed capabilities to build its own nuclear reactors. At this juncture, what India needed most is to further develop its capabilities - which could be through attracting Indian diaspora as well as help from friends, as Chinese did. However, the 'turf-dom' politics, corruption, nepotism, etc., is a turn-away for most of the talents. India is also not serious in making its own facilities efficient. India also forgot that it was Russia which helped build its first capabilities. Hence, it is wonderful opportunity wasted.

End of Arms Embargo to Pakistan

As I had mentioned earlier, China's close association with Russia is likely to influence the latter to end its arms embargo against Pakistan, a country which uses terrorism as its state-policy. However, the tipping point, I believe is the MMRCA deal to France in which Russia was one of the contender. In this context, the action of Russia seems like a punitive action for India's decision to give the deal to the West with which it is in conflict. Further, it is also a demonstration that Russia is not solely dependent on Indian market for its defense products. Though MiG-35 was cheaper considerably than Rafale, it was also inferior to Rafale in range and combat radius. However MiG-35 is faster than Rafale and had a better climb rate. Rafale is also consider among the top 10 dog-fighters. In addition, Rafale is tested and found to suit army needs based on other non-combative factors too. So, though it is in Indian interest to choose Rafale, it is likely that Russia had felt betrayed.

The economic prospect in the MMRCA deal is likely to make any country, rich or poor, drool. In this context, it may be a human nature to feel betrayed. However, India was both inept and myopic here. It could have gradually tried to acquire the crafts, instead of giving the total number of acquisitions in a "winner-takes-all" fashion. If at all, the 1998 sanctions against India, should have served as a warning. Further, by gradual increase, India is at a better position to acquire the latest and best. In any case, the deal is literally dead now, after many delays and cost overruns, portraying India's indecisiveness and ineptitude in strategic acquisitions. This is much ado about nothing...

West drives East

In this context, some believe that Russia has diminished its stature and strategic sheen by "bear-hugging" with China. However, I believe that Russia's actions are more of its response to International events that has direct bearing to its security and economy.

Some times it is hard for me to shake the feeling whether the West (US, EU and NATO) is more intent on erasing Russia from the map instead of achieving world peace. If such is the case, it wouldn't surprise me given the cold-war attitude of the politicians in US and NATO. This attitude is against the very democratic principles, that the West supposedly champion (Isn't tolerance a core principle of democracy?). However, with the world dynamics changing, EU is no more the sole power wielder next to US. China is rising, belligerently. Unlike the erstwhile Soviet Union, it is more calculative and vicious. The world economy is suffering and the terrorism, ISIS, is at large. In this context, I believe the entire Ukraine episode could (should) have been avoided, had the West been a bit more sensitive to Russian sentiments (US was not particularly accommodative to communist ideals in its backyard, so why should Russia?!). With the events on the contrary, I believe the West drove Russia into China's embrace, a more aggressive opponent.

India would do well to have its interests as priority and develop ability to identify its friends from foes. As the rise of China would have a immediate bearing on its security and territorial integrity. Mr. Modi, should realize that boasting and Hindutva, is not going to make India rise to a super-power status if it makes a habit of missing strategic opportunities and continues show immaturity and inefficiently in building its capabilities.

It is not late for India and the West to realign their strategic priorities with a view on the future.

Dragon's Rise: Could it be Caged?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 01:20:00 +0000

For the past few decades, China is developing rapidly both in terms of economy and military prowess. However, China's rise is studied with caution by many countries while looked-upon in fear by the others. China's attempt to allay those fear is the propaganda of "China's peaceful rise" by Mr. Hu, the president of China from 2003 to 2013. Unfortunately, I believe many of the countries in China's periphery might buy that. In my previous post, I argued that the lack of leadership is aiding China's hegemony in the region. However, what are the cards China hold? What could be the possible implications of China's rise to the region? Could it be contained? - Let us See...

China's Tactics

Benevolence or Bait

China is now a member of many important international organizations and financial institutions. In its global aspirations it has extended credit lines to many nations. However, these financial assistance seem to come at a great cost to the debtor. These financial benevolence seems to become a debt trap forcing countries to work of Chinese interests instead of their own. Usually, China and Chinese companies benefit from these relations more than the debtor itself.

As case in point is Sri Lanka. When Sri Lanka was reprimanded by entire world for its excess and war crimes during the last phase of the Elam War, China became highly benevolent to Sri Lanka. Mr. Rajapaska trying to play the China card against India when India didn't support Sri Lanka in UNHRC resolution, neglecting the warnings of his opposition. It seems part of the nation has been mortgaged to China. The new president, Mr. Sirisena, was not shy when he said "foreigners are stealing his nation" in his election manifesto. After his successful election as the president of Sri Lanka, he announced that he'd be reviewing the terms of Chinese loans to Sri Lanka. However, when he was visiting China after coming to power, it seems that he was forced by China to look away. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka didn't have much room to maneuver.

Another case in point is Africa, where China has committed billions in aid. However, what is not well publicized is that in the same period (in the last 10 years) more than a million Chinese have settled in these regions, capturing every employment opportunities.

Currently many countries are receiving financial assistance from China and are getting caught in its trap...!

"Old Rum in New Bottle"

Another diplomatic route that China pursues is the "One Road One Belt" project, which is a revival of the ancient (206 BC - 220 BC) "Silk Road". However, unlike the ancient silk road, the proposed project has security, strategic and political implications, though China is trying hard to sell its economic credentials. India for one seeing this project as a part of "String of Pearl" strategy to encircle it. China isn't helping either, by setting up suspicious listening towers in Sri Lanka. Similarly, the Gwadar Port and the Karakoram Highway development by Chinese are watched with caution in India. US and Russia who should be concerned with the project. The revived silk route also will diversify China's supply routes thereby reduce its dependence on Malacca Strait, a possible choke point.

From the military perspective, it has a tremendous potential for China to mobilize its troops. Most of China's ICBMs and nuclear stockpile are mobile. In a case of confrontation, the road increases the probability of survival of China's stockpile for retaliatory action. If China is the offender, as could be the case in South Asia, it would ensure the destruction of China's opponents. No wonder countries with history of nuclear proliferation are the most interested in the project.

Spoilers: Pakistan and North Korea

Source: IMF

Cultivating and harnessing these two spoilers of the regions is vital to the China's aspirations. While China commits a lot of financial aid to Pakistan, most of it are loans that could inevitably draw Pakistan into a debt-trap. Further, the benevolence of China is mostly in handing over its old war machinery such as submarines, missiles and nuclear technology, while Pakistan is suffering from militancy and poor economy. If I'm to guess, China wants Pakistan to be poor so that it can control and use it to counter India. Pakistan is stupid and arrogant, as is India, for failing to look into the Chinese schemes. Pakistan is more than happy to give a piece of land to China that would ensure its unending sufferings than settle it with India, which is only looked up on as a soft-power.

Similarly in the Pacific, China is cultivating North Korea by arming it with nuclear and missile technologies (through Pakistan). It also has a similarity. Like Pakistan, North Korea is cultivated against Japan and US forces in the region. Having obtained reputation for being unpredictable and for having the least concern to the well being of its citizens, North Korea is full open to China to be prodded to attack on any US or Japanese installations, which would give China an edge in the region.

Interestingly, these two nations are reeling in poverty and both need not be actually asked to attack any of the countries in the region. For example, if Pakistan feels necessary or think it has an edge, it would attack India on its own volition and with the Chinese nuclear submarines the risk of nuclear clash has just gone up. Similarly, North Korea, would have no apprehensions to attack South Korea. That is the reason, I called these countries as "Spoilers" of the region. Further, US is more happy to engage with Pakistan, a spoiler state that survives with US aids but consider itself closer to China, than to help India or other countries for that matter, which have had no aggression or proliferation history. As a matter of fact, the only two choices US may have in the region are India and Japan...neither of them are capable of taking on China by themselves.

Fear

I have argued in my previous post that China wants to keep the border issue unsettled with India so as to extract financial gains that would inevitably finds its way to China's strategy for world dominance. But such pressure points has some strategic elements too. For example, any attempt of India to help Tibetan refugees could be chastised by China and India scarred by its humiliation in 1962 would try to "consider" China's sensitivities.

Another incident that comes to mind is China's coercion of Vietnam against internationalizing the South China sea issue. In fact, though many countries are not happy with China constructing artificial islands in the South China Sea, most remains mute spectators even when their own domain is encroached fearing China's military and economic clout.

Philippines is no stranger to China's coercion either.

Even the Asian quadrilateral to be formed between US, India, Japan and Australia fizzled away as the countries didn't want to be seen as block against China - yielding to Chinese sentiments.

US: From China's perspective

Source: IMF

US is undoubtedly the most powerful country in the world in both economy and military terms. However, since 2008 US's economy and the economy of many of the Western countries have slowed down considerably. On the other hand, China's economy didn't suffer much due to recession and is strong even after that. Many of the US industries are dependent on China's exports of raw materials. US companies like Wal-Mart are also great importer of China's cheaper goods. This scenario could be seen as two economies entangled, though the countries themselves have diverging visions.

US' commitments in the Middle East, had emboldened China's regional and global brinkmanship and coercion. Much of the woes of US in the Middle East are its own doing. By destroying Libya and destabilizing Syria US has only succeeded in creating ISIS, much worse than Al-Qaeda itself. Hence, China is confident that US would give a free reign to its ambitions in South Asia. In fact, the US policy was ambiguous for a very long time. Even after the announcement of Asia pivot, there many lobbies that try to pull US back from Asia.

Chinese thinking do hold some credence as a confrontation with China is likely to send US economy in a nose drive, and currently US may not be in a position to absorb the economic fall-outs, having spent a lot in the Middle East. The best US could do is "optics", pretend it is serious in stopping China and provide some reassurance but nothing more than that. That's exactly, what the much hyped US' Asia re-balancing strategy is all about.

The Chinese are aware of this... the US is aware of this... but, for those this matters, is nothing but oblivious!

Possible impacts of China's uncontrolled rise

China's rise has serious socio, economic and strategic ramifications. Some of the possible impacts that could happen are:

Most likely it would start with the withering away of US influence in the region, if not the entire world.
Japan which has a serious history with China would likely suffer the most - loss of territories, destruction of economy, etc.
Given Japan-China history and China's apathy to human right abuses, I wouldn't be surprised if the resulting poverty and mafia lead to increase in human trafficking and slave trade. The same result with other countries such as Vietnam, Philippines, etc as it is now happening...
Could likely spell a doom for South Korea as well. Given the close relationship between N. Korea and China, especially if China considers S. Korea a challenge to its communist ideologies and a competitor in economy.
India will lose its entire North Eastern region to China and secessionist forces and J&K to Pakistan.
India would also economically suffer, given China's penchant to dictate terms in any negotiations.
Other countries may lose their economic well-beings and Communists ideologies will find a renewal.

Of course, the impact of the China's rise would not be felt immediately. As the proverbial frog, the countries would only realize when it is already too late. Think about the state of Tibetans in China now, that is pretty much the state the countries in the region would be after China's ascent. This may seem like a pretty pessimistic attitude towards China, but I don't have proof that convince me otherwise...!

Containing China

The Asia Pivot strategy of US is to deploy forward forces in the region to contain China. This is based on the assumption, that lack of US entrenchment in the region is what causing China's brinkmanship in the region and China is dependent on US for its growth. However, it is not entirely true. So, if China is to be contained:

US, Japan, and other trading partners of China need to untangle their economies from China. Though this may not completely stop China, it would at least make China to rethink its conduct in the region and the world
India is behind China by decades. Given the amount of nepotism, and corruption (I know some would disagree but many from South and East in the Hindi belt would agree...!) in India combined with red-tape, myopic attitude and racism, it is extremely difficult for India to increase its capabilities in any near future. The best India could do at the moment is to reinstate its covert operational capabilities.
India should try and break the Chinese "String of Pearl" strategy while US should concentrate on the "One Road One Belt" strategy.
International trade laws and understanding may prevent the nations from making anti-dumping duties. However, since the Govts. are vested in the interest and well-being of its citizens, they could try and ensure that the interest of their citizens are met. A simple rule India that all products imported should be biodegradable, and free of PBA or lead would greatly reduce the import of China goods. Further, India could make the importer pay for those tests and hold the importer accountable for any violations. This is would greatly increase the cost of import and could encourage the local industries to prime up their supplies.
Formation of "SATO" or sort of: None of the countries in the region could counter China by itself. US, given its commitments in middle East may not be able to completely devote his muscles or money in the region. Hence, the need to form a block such as NATO or EU for the region, in the region and without China (and of course its proxies) is a need of the hour. Such a block would have benefits beyond the region.
Most importantly, the countries together should find a way to counter Chinese espionage.

In simple words, some one should take the brave step or everyone is sure to perish...!

India on path to another humiliation?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:02:00 +0000

For the past few days, the Indian Govt. is embarking on jingoistic propaganda about the success of operation in Myanmar. As had mentioned in my previous post, whenever there is a big news in the media we have to look into things that the news what to distract us from. This may not be far from the truth.

China's Encroachments

Deccan Herald reported a face-off between China's People Liberation Army (PLA) and Indian troops in the Burtese and Depsang regions of north Ladakh on March 20 and March 28, 2015. This is the latest of the incursions that happened only a few days before the visit of Mr. Modi to China. A similar incursion occurred in the Chumar region last year when Mr. Xi Jinping was visiting Mr. Modi. However, this is nothing new. Medias, citing department of defense response to parliament, claims over a 1278 transgressions/incursions of PLA into the Indian Line of Actual Control (LAC). However, Mr. Parrikar (Defense Minister of India), maintains that Chinese troops entering Indian soil are transgressions not incursions. Similar denials were also aired during the last UPA regimes. However, analysts and experts note at least 15 major incursions of PLA into India. They believe that China is slowly eating into Indian territory through "salami slicing", for which India has not yet developed an effective strategy. For how long the Indian Govt., would try to sweep these incursions under the carpet, is anyone's guess...

Two-Front War

China calls Pakistan its "Iron Friend" and Pakistan views China as its all-weather friend. Since 1962, China hasn't gone to war with any country. However, it often flexes its military muscles to subdue smaller countries. China may not enter into war for its allies as was demonstrated during the Kargil war of 1999. However, the same cannot be said about Pakistan. Pakistan, is conventionally unmatched in its military prowess against India. Hence, it is unlikely that it would pass an opportunity should it show up.

Though China is adopting "salami slicing" to encroach on Indian territories it is only a matter of time before the Indian public notices, when the Govt. would be forced by public pressure to defend its territories. In such conditions, Pakistan would likely capitalize on the situation as majority of the Indian troops would be deployed against China leaving India's Western regions vulnerable. The objective of the "Two-front war" doctrine to develop and deploy armed forces to simultaneously counter attacks on multiple fronts (East and West).

Systematic weakening of India's war capabilities

Weakening the Mountain Corps

The Mountain corps officially christened as 17 Corps was raised particularly to counter China-threat. However, recently, the Govt. has decided to reduce the strength of 17 Corps just before Mr. Modi's visit to China making one to think if this step was some sort of gift to China. If it is so, then this could only be construed as ceding Indian regions over to China.

Clipping off the Air Force

The sanctioned size of Indian Air Force is 39.5 squadrons with a healthy strength of about 44 squadrons. However, this strength was achieved only in the mid 1980s. This led to the MMRCA competition to buy 126 aircrafts from the winner of the competition (Rafale). However, this program is cut short, in the name of fund crunch.

Soldiers to fight with Stones and Sticks

In May 2015, the press release by the CAG slammed the Army Head Quarters for acquiring ammunitions based on 'Minimum Acceptable Risk Level' (MARL), which corresponds to 20 days of intense period. This is in total disregard to authorized 'War Wastage Reserve' i.e. 40 days of intense period. It adds that MARL guidelines were also disregarded and 50% of the 175 types of ammunitions are "critical" i.e., could last only for 10 days of intense fighting or less. Apparently, this was already stated by Gen. V. K. Singh, 3 years ago. However, as usual, Mr. Rajnath Singh has denied that India's war preparedness is at stake. Similar sentiments were expressed by the recent article in 'The Hindu' on Army's failure to acquire the required small arms.

However, what is more interesting is that neither the previous UPA nor the jingoistic NDA is in any hurry to meet the dismal shortages in war reserves!

Infrastructure neglected

In 2014, it was reported that the infrastructure along the border was in a dismal state reflecting high disparity between the preparedness on either side of Line of Actual Control (LAC). The only good news with the new NDA is the apparent emphasis of Mr. Modi to the border infrastructure projects. However, its anyone's guess on how much is accomplished on reality rather than on the paper, given Mr. Modi's penchant for publicity.

Trade deficit

In my earlier post, I argued that China wants to keep the border issue hot in an attempt to benefit from the gaping trade-deficit which largely favours China's military modernization drive. However, in stead of taking proactive steps to reduce the deficits, in the name of Confidence Building measures, Mr. Modi's Govt. is only setting up goals that is likely to increase this deficit even more. It is either Mr. Modi is naive or is just favouring China. I know that many would disagree with me for including economy, particularly trade, in the discussion on War capabilities. However, as Sun Tzu says, economy is vital for the machine and since trade is vital for economy, I have included my trade deficit as one for the factors contributing

On path to another humiliation?

None of these deficiencies, by itself, would warrant an outcry among the Indian public who are inured by the bureaucracy and corruption in India. However, when these deficiencies are taken together, should warrant a public mobilization as it directly affects the security of nation.

It seems Mr. Modi is not much different from UPA, in its neglect towards India's war preparedness. This is in spit of the fact that he was the most vociferous opponent of UPA for its soft-approach towards China. At that time UPA was blamed for lacking in strategic culture and many analyzts were hoping NDA would be any different. However, the problem lies not just with the Govt. and politicians. It seems even the army top brass is negligent and corrupt, as indicated by the article in 'The Hindu'. Such continued and systematic neglect and weakening of the India's war capabilities makes one suspect if India is preparing the grounds to handover its territories to China and Pakistan.

Boasting may not help repeating success!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 12 Jun 2015 03:54:00 +0000

There is a great euphoria in Indian media on the well-planned and successful surgical strike against terrorists targets in the Indo-Myanmar border. India lost 20 [1] of its service men in an ambush on June 4, 2015. This was followed by another attack on June 7, 2015 in which no causalities reported [2]. The well-planned and successful strike is commendable. However, this is not the first time Indian Armed Forces have crossed the border in pursuit of terrorist targets [3]. According, to Brig. Rumel Dahiya the operation Golden bird could have been more successful but for the untimely announcement of Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding for Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi [4]. Though Indian armed forces have been having the capability for quite some time, it is the change in the attitude of political bosses that is new. It is widely believed that order for the operation was given to raise the morals of the service men.

While the Defence Minister of India is correct in saying that the action reflected the change of attitude of Indian Government, his insinuation that India is capable of such operations in the other regions of its hostile neighbourhood is an exaggeration at the best. His insinuation isn’t lost on Pakistan, either. Mr. Parrikar’s dig prompted a response from Pakistan reminding him that Pakistan is not Myanmar [5]. The principal opposition has also reacted in response to his comments [6]. Interestingly, there are contradictions from Myanmar, as well [7]. In any case, I believe that it is not currently possible for India to repeat its Myanmar success in Pakistan or China.

Myanmar’s military has a good relation with India and in many cases they cooperated but for the foot soldiers who seem to side with the militants. Though there is gaping void between the capabilities of respective countries, Myanmar is more occupied with its counter-insurgence activities. Hence, a combination of good-will and the definite military superiority could have given the edge to India.

May not be possible to replicate

In the case of Pakistan, India has a hostile relation particularly with respect to the former’s use of terrorists in its soil. Further, though Pakistan’s military prowess fare low in comparison to India it is among the top 20 military powers in the world [8]. It is also the country with the fastest growing nuclear arsenal [9]. With no no-first-use moratorium, Pakistan is not shy in using its nuclear card either [10]. India is well aware of Pakistan’s tendency to escalate any limited interventions to a full-fledged war that could easily escalate to a nuclear war, as was feared during Kargil war [11]. This is reason the reason behind India’s Cold Start War doctrine [12]. However, this doctrine is criticized by many analysts as could lead to war expansion [13-14], the very scenario the doctorine is supposed to prevent. In addition, Pakistan’s relation with US and China is likely to put pressure on India. This is the reason why India has desisted in the past to cross border against terrorist’s camps in Pakistan, though it had known its operations for a long time.

In this context, if indeed India intents to talk the walk, it could do so if it acquires the following capabilities:

Ability to rapidly mobilize troops to prevent Pakistan from escalating any such interventions into a full-fledged war.
Ability to plan, execute and extract troops in a very short time – in a matter of hours, so that India would have the element of surprise and Pakistan would be incapable of responding and internationalizing the issue.
Ability to stealth intrusion and extraction – abilities that India currently doesn’t have. India may have those capabilities when the Fifth Generation Fighter it develops with Russia enters production. However, the fighter wouldn’t be of much use if China is to supply capabilities to counter it.
Superior technologies - most of the military technologies currently India has had been acquired from friendly nations, which means Pakistan could do so too. Unlike China, which used its foreign educated nationals to bring back know-hows to build its technology, to my knowledge, India is not that keen.

The stakes totally tilt against India, in the case of China. In any case, China is not harboring terrorists against India in its soils, though on occasion it had aided groups that were against India.

In this case, the best India could do to neutralize terrorist targets within Pakistan’s territory are:

Re-activating its covert abilities which were disbanded by Mr. I. K. Gujjral as an act of good-faith [15].
Continue to acquire weapon systems encouraging an arms-race with Pakistan, which would force Pakistan’s already perilous economy into further doom. However, this would likely put Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.

India could do better, if it tries to remove its red-tape and control its corruption and nepotism to bring talents drained to other countries. However, it remains to be seen if India is indeed intent on developing this capability.

References

[1]http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/20-soldiers-killed-in-manipur-ambush/article7283373.ece

[2] http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/militants-attack-assam-rifles-camp/article7292644.ece

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Golden_Bird

[4] http://idsa.in/policybrief/EnsuringPeaceinNortheast_rdahiya_110615.html

[5] http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/those-who-fear-indias-new-posture-have-started-reacting-defence-minister-manhohar-parrikar-on-myanma-770650

[6] http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/congress-bjp-on-war-of-words-over-armys-myanmar-operation/article7306073.ece?homepage=true

[7] http://www.ibnlive.com/news/india/govt-rubbishes-myanmars-claim-as-diplomatic-parrikar-says-operation-changed-mindset-towards-india-1004632.html

[8] http://www.businessinsider.com/35-most-powerful-militaries-in-the-world-2014-7

[9] http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/4/91.full

[10] http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/pervez-musharraf-accuses-india-of-destabilising-pakistan/article7305793.ece?homepage=true

[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War#WMDs_and_the_nuclear_factor

[12] http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/IndiasColdStartDoctrineandStrategicStability_gkanwal_010610

[13] http://www.idsa.in/~idsa/strategicanalysis/35_3/ProactiveMilitaryStrategy_aahmed.html

[14] http://www.ibnlive.com/news/india/wikileaks-indias-cold-start-mix-of-myth-reality-353499.html

[15] http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1182

Lack of Regional leadership helps China's hegemony in South Asia

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:13:00 +0000

Xi Jinping, declared that "China will never pursue its development at the cost of sacrificing interests of other countries... We will never give up our legitimate rights and will never sacrifice our national core interests. No country should presume that we will engage in trade involving our core interests or that we will swallow the bitter fruit of harming of sovereignty, security or development interests", at a Party Politburo Study session on 28 Jan 2013 [1].

The statement is clear that it won't compromise on its territorial claims even though its claims, on historical grounds is dubious at the best[2]. However, I believe that the lack of regional leadership is what helping China push its way through coercion.

China aspires a bipolar world (at least for now) with US and itself as twin poles. China's booming economy is largely fuelling its aspiration. Its military expenditure grows accordingly. However, what is troubling to the countries in the region is its territorial claims. China claims almost the entire South China Sea and Arunachal Pradesh in India.

Source: Wikipedia

The claims of China on the South China sea intensified following its publication of huge potential oil reserves in the region[3]. This area overlaps the Exclusive Economic Zones of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan and Vietnam. However, none of these countries could stand up to the military brinkmanship of China whose military expenditure ($131 billions) is more than thrice the total military expenditure of these countries put together. However, China also has disputes with Japan and claims the Senkaku islands of Japan as its own[4]. US also comes into fray due to close association with Japan and interests in the region.

Source: The Economist

Similar situation prevails in India's North East. After its occupation of Tibet, it claims Arunachal Pradesh as Southern Tibet. It claims the Twang region of the Arunachal Pradesh on the grounds that the Fourth Dalai Lama was born there. However, being a religious leader, Dalai Lama can be born anywhere[5]. The claims are in contrast to its earlier agreement in 2005 that no populated regions would be exchanged. Further, to complicate the issue China avoids providing clarifications on Line of Actual Control (LAC)[6]. To complicate the situation Chinese army routinely enter into regions claimed by India as under its LAC[7]. Though the CBMs and the established procedures had helped diffuse the situations from escalating into a full-fledged war, so far, it seems China is least interested to settle the dispute. It complicates the situation by implicitly accepting Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) as Pakistani territory by issuing visa while contending J&K and Arunachal Pradesh as disputed territories. Historically, it doesn't share a border with Pakistan but thanks to PoK and Askai Chin, it now does and by enforcing PoK as Pakistani territory it tries to pre-empt India from reclaiming its regions, in future.

Whenever any of the countries, with which it has conflict with, tries to internationalize the situation or tries to build relations with a superior force, it adopts to coercive diplomacy, like in the case of Vietnam [8] and India [9]. At the same time, it pushes economic ties that are in its favour, which by fuelling its economy is helping in building its military might[10] leading to more coercion from China.

The China's strategy in the region seems to be centred on:

Make India pre-occupied with South East Asia
Pre-empt any attempt by countries in the regions from forming a front.
Resist US deployments

China is helping Pakistan to build its missile[11] and nuclear capabilities[12], though it is against International norms. Pakistan has good network of terrorists in India and is a volatile country constantly engaging in exchange of fire and has already been in war with India multiple times. By making Pakistan Nuclear, China is has placed India's focus on countering Pakistan which is more likely to engage in war than China whose last war with India was in 1962. Further, in the name economic cooperation it is pushing a "string of pearls" strategy to engage and contain India within the region. As a part of the strategy, China is developing Gwadar port in Pakistan and Hambantota port in Sri Lanka. Both these countries are also caught in the debt trap set by China and could not refuse to China's intentions without heavy cost to the economies[13]. In South China Sea region, China coerces countries that tries to internationalize the border dispute while pre-empting any attempts by the countries to form an alliance. It is forming artificial islands in the region to bolster its claims and to use them as backup airstrips to its carriers to pre-empt US from the region. China also feels that US is incapable of helping the region given its engagements in the Middle-East and its sagging economy. Nevertheless, it accepts US as a force to reckon with.

China's tactic in the region is not just its military might. It uses economy as its second weapon. Pakistan, Sri Lanka and a host of other countries carry huge Chinese debt and have to follow Chinese suit in the matter. It now pushes its ambitious Silk Road policy, which India views with suspicion as the same infrastructure could be used to mobilize armed forces during conflict. As a matter of fact, I believe that China is slowly building infrastructure surrounding India in the name of co-operation with India's neighbours until an opportune moment. Similar situation prevails for the maritime route connecting countries in the South China sea as well.

Further, by encouraging rogue states such as Pakistan and N. Korea to develop nuclear weapons, it adds a level of uncertainty in the region. In the likelihood of war with China, Pakistan will jump in to make the most of the situation. India, having focused for a very long time on Pakistan is incapable to fight war at two fronts. Similarly, it can use unpredictable N. Korea against Japan and US installations in the region.

If all the countries in the region including Japan and Australia forms a economic-military block, then it would be possible to contain China's hegemonist attitude and brinkmanship in the region. Such an attempt requires commendable leadership and the ability to outmaneuver Chinese designs in the region. However, it seems, the South Asian region is devoid of such leadership which is what is letting China unchecked in the region to pursue its hegemonist attitude. Though US could not spread its resources thin across the globe, it could let countries like India, Japan and Australia and help them from behind. However, US is also highly dependent on China for its imports and China holds ~7% of US treasury bonds, which makes one doubt if US would be full committed to contain China in the region. Unlikely, as is evident from the very many one step forward two-step backward acts of US in the region. This is the South-Asian Conundrum Waiting for a solution.

Reference

http://southasiaanalysis.org/node/1671
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/historical-fiction-china%E2%80%99s-south-china-sea-claims
http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/bitstream/handle/10635/15352/MASHAOHUATHESIS.pdf?sequence=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1745
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1778
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1758
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1761
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-gripes-about-us-india-relations-2015-1
http://theanalyzt.blogspot.ca/2015/05/the-challenge-for-india-and-mr.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheAnalyzt+(The+Analyzt)
http://cns.miis.edu/archive/country_india/china/mpakchr.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/12/AR2009111211060.html
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1753

Spot the "Mocking bird"

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 11:14:00 +0000

What Everyone Should know about the Media

The title is derived from the infamous CIA campaign of the 1950s called the "Operation Mockingbird". It was(?) the propaganda arm of CIA to spread dissent, influence public opinion, etc. During 1950s, in its peak, around 3000 employees were working on propaganda efforts. In 1976, the then Director of CIA George H. W. Bush declared that CIA wouldn't enter into any paid contract with journalists. However, if it is the actually the case is anyone's guess...

In any case, a close observer could find the footprints of "Mockingbird" all over the media. Let us see some of the cases, which may make one suspect if the "Mockingbird" is still alive.

Iraq War I & II

Source: Wikipedia.org

Perhaps the most well known example in the recent history is the testimony of Nayirah al-Sabah. Until her testimony to the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq went widely unnoticed by the Western Media. The emotional testimony of Nayirah, supposedly as a part of the campaign, "Citizens for a Free Kuwait" helped stir public opinion in US to support Kuwait in the War (Operation Desert Storm). It is also alleged that she was paid by CIA to take acting lessons.

Similarly, in the lead up to the Iraq War of 2003, Western media was whipping up mass hysteria and paranoia about the WMD in Iraq. Only after the war, at the cost many US lives and its allies', it was found that Iraq had none. While over 4000 US life were lost, some were extremely benefitted. I followed up the news to ExxonMobils website and apparently it is having a couple of affiliates in Iraq but I'm not sure if these oil companies shared their profit with the deceased, after all its the death of the service men which led to their profits, isn't it?

Interestingly, during the 1990s and in 2002, US was experiencing recession and unemployment was high. Can the occurrence of such incidents twice be coincidence?

Zunzeo

Source: www.mun2.tv

In 2014, AP exposed the secret US program aimed at encouraging Cuban Youth to revolt against the countries communist government. In 2010, US Agency for International Development (USAID) created a text only social networking and microblogging service called "Zunzeo" (in cuban slang referring to a hummingbird's call) through a complex network of shell companies in Cayman Islands. The US Govt. obtained the phone numbers of some 40000 Cuban youths, who would form the seed subscribers for the program. Though no details is available on how the phone numbers were obtained, it is suspected to be through covert means. While the programs objective was to slowly grow the network until it reaches a critical mass to foment "Cuban Spring", it was retired without notice in 2012, ostensibly due to the expiration of funds.

While the reception of "Zunzeo" among Cuban Youths and the "actual" reasons for its retirement is anyone's guess, it demonstrates US mastery over social networking. However, US is not alone in this. The UK's top secret STRAP COMINT unit of the GCHQ is similarly manipulating posts to go "viral". Thanks to Mr. Snowden the UK's capabilities of social network manipulation came to fore. The documents along with the exposure of Zunzeo reveals how aggressively the Western Govt. are exploiting Internet as a means to manipulate public sentiments both within and abroad to suit their interests.

Indian Elections

Source: post.jagran.com

While manipulating social networks for propaganda is organized by secret Govt. programs in the West, it seems Indian politicians are masters in that as well. The recent victories of Mr. Modi and Mr. Kejriwal is largely attributed to their adept manipulation of public sentiments through social networks. Mr. Modi has been cultivating NRI and upper middle class' networks for quite some time since his time as the Chief Minister of Gujarat. This network aided him to project himself as a leader of change though other states such as TamilNadu and Andhra Pradesh had better GDP, and was rated high in Human Development index than Gujarat. Wikileaks leak that he is incorruptible helped to secure public sentiments in his favour. However, the series of tweets later by Wikileaks that it never described Mr. Modi as incorruptible, never reached Indian ears. Thanks to Mr. Modi's vast network and effective propaganda. Another personality who rose to power by piggy-backing on the anti-corruption sentiment and Mr. Hazare's anti-corruption movement is Mr. Kejriwal. His party too have used social network extensively for its propaganda. The use of social networks for political propaganda are also effective in circumventing the restrictions imposed by the Election Commission of India (ECI) on Electoral spending since these restrictions only come to existence after the declaration of elections and since ECI currently don't have a means to estimate expenses in such propaganda.

Source: Cover image of The Bane of Ethical Journalism

It should also be noted that, unlike Western Media, Indian media is already for sale. Between 2009 - 2013, ECI registered 1400 cases of paid-news where politicians paid print and television media to run favourable stories on them. Some media, is also embarking on extortion of industries/celebrities by threatening to run stories against them. Thankfully, Indian public were usually adept and they hardly believed the media. But apparently, the situation is currently changing with the rise of urban youth who thinks less but are more busy forwarding funny pics. These youths with large social networks but with least capabilities to separate "grain from husks" are likely to be the target of present and future social manipulation by foreign countries/companies. With its huge population, India is at the risk of attaining "critical mass" in a very short period of time.

Canadian Politics

Source: www.shoebat.com

Recently, I published post on Mr. Harper using Islamophobia and Xenophobia to divert public attention from the failure of his economic policies. Mr. Harper's intention to spend over 200 million Canadian dollars in a fight against ISIS also closely resembles the US' actions against Iraq in 2003. Prior to attack, as mentioned before, US used its media to whip up mass hysteria. Similarly, Mr. Harper used the two lone attacks in Canada to whip-up Islamophobia, which in addition to encouraging racism provided him a basis to intervene in Iraq. The attempt was so successful that there was no public sentiment against him for the intervention which costed Canadian public over 200 Million CAD, which could have been used to generate more Canadian jobs. Just think about it, assuming that an average person makes 1 million during his effective lifetime, the amount means a close of 200 jobs. However, when these dollars are invested to encourage industries, more than just 200 jobs would be created. When looked from the perspective of beneficiaries of Canada's action in Iraq, it seems some oil companies do have interests in the region. In addition, the prolonged crisis in Iraq is likely to boost the profits of Canada's domestic oil sector. In other words, Canadian public (federal and provincial) lost their jobs so that certain parties could make billions. However, there was no public response, thanks to the effective propaganda machinery of Mr. Harper.

Source: http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/

In Canadian politics, Mr. Harper, is not alone in using media to push is agenda. Ms. Wynne, the premier of Ontario is also similarly using media to push her agenda on Sex Education. In my recent post, I described how Mr. Wynne is using the ignorance of teens to her advantage while diverting the public from asking pertinent questions. Her only defence is that parents could opt their children out of those subjects. What didn't she tell and what the public failed to ask is the efficacy of that measure, given that the children are now highly social-media savvy. Just imagine, how difficult it is for a student to keep her mobile open transferring the content of his/her sex-education to those students whose parents had opted out of those course. In that situation, the students who are not in the course are likely to err more given their natural curiosity and prurience at that age, which would eventually justify her curriculum. In effect, using media she had not only diverted public opinion but she is effectively manipulating the thought process itself.

"Mocking Bird" everywhere

This phenomenon of manipulating or controlling media to manipulate public opinion is not limited to US and its allies alone. China from the time of Mao is effective in using its propaganda to shape its public opinion. It even controls religion so that no other opinion creeps into public minds but its own. Censorship of foreign media criticizing it human rights abuses in Tibet or Xinjiang are also part of its strategy to prevent foreign media from sowing dissent in Chinese minds. In other words, China seeks to control what its people sees, hears or thinks. However, its propaganda machinery is not limited to its territory alone. Its media, particularly Global Times, has been quite aggressive in posts in response to any Indian activities in Arunachal Pradesh, which China claims as its own as it claims the entire South China Sea. By terming 'Global Times' as a Tabloid it is able to maintain certain level of deniability. However, any one with some insights in how China operates would hardly believe it. However, recently there has been news of China's propaganda officials heading Chinese journalism schools. Taking a cue from China, Mr. Modi's Govt. too seems to be interested in training journalists in propaganda. If this phenomena continues unabated, the public could hardly believe what they hear, whatever they hear...!

Spot the "Mocking bird"

The previous sections gives a glimpse of how the Govts./politicians all over the world is using media (conventional and social) to shape/manipulate public sentiments in its favour. This is not limited to them alone. Even industries are in the game (Ex. Vogue). However, could we spot these attempts?

It is possible, but extremely difficult... From my perspective, asking rationally right questions is the start. However, as the "right questions" itself are subjective and changes with the news, spotting the public manipulation attempts become difficult. In my perspective, the following questions could help:

Who are the beneficiaries?
Why now?
How could the claim be justified?
What is not addressed? Why only certain things are addressed?
How could the news/information be proved?
What are the counter arguments against the said news?
How the counter-arguments weigh against the advertised arguments?
What is unstated expectation of the news?
Why this particular news is given so much attention compared to others?
How would I be benefitted?

These are just the some of the questions, in no specific order, that everyone should use to understand the real intention of the media coverage. The questions and analyzis become challenging and complex depending upon how the "news" is delivered. The very intention of this blog is to help people analyze situation and bring to fore those questions that were usually missed but, nevertheless, important to ask. The greatest of success of this blog would be how effective it is encouraging people to ask such questions.

Physics Ends the "Free Will" debate

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 04 Jun 2015 02:28:00 +0000

"A man is a sum total of his experiences"...

Recently I came across a video in YouTube, which was shared through my LinkedIn connections. According to Newtonian mechanics, the destiny of a particle is already determined. Einstein, being a deterministic agrees when he said that, " God doesn't play dice". However, Heisenberg comes and introduces the concept of uncertainty. That is there is always an uncertainty associated with the position of the particles. Thus, the video concludes that the destiny of the particles is not predetermined and since it involves certain uncertainty, leads to "Free will".

There are some holes in that argument. First Heisenberg uncertainty principles more specifically says that it is not possible to determine the position and velocity of the particle simultaneously, in which case, he quantifies the error. If we assume that position and velocity together describe the state of a particle, then the argument in the video may seem plausible.

However, now quantum nanostructures exists that restrict the movement of the particles. In such case, although it is not possible to determine the exact state of the particle, there is a definite probability for the particle to exist in within the structure i.e in a boundary. Consider the case of tunneling effect (Tunnel Diode), the electron in the box cannot get over the energy barrier if doesn't have enough energy. However, once it acquires sufficient energy, even though this energy is less than what is required to jump over the energy barrier, it could tunnel through the barrier due to its wave nature. In either case, whether it remains trapped within the box or it exits the box by jumping over the energy barrier or by tunnelling, there exits a definite probability depending upon the energy input and the barrier. In other words, the state i.e. inside or outside the box is determined by its energy. By extension, the one who controls this energy determines the particles destiny. The probability of the particle existing within a nanostructure follows a well defined Gaussian distribution, under some conditions.

So, I argue that though the particle state at any instant of time cannot determined with sufficient accuracy, on an average the state of the particle could be estimated as it is based inputs and the system in which it resides. Similarly, in the case of "Free Will", while it may not be possible to predict a particular thought of an individual at any given instant, the average behaviour (thought process) of the individual or group would converge based on what his inputs were at the time and the system he has been a part of. In other word, the "Free will" is bounded and its average behaviour is predictable and can be influenced (i.e. basically no "Free will") by genetic, economic and environmental factors.

Factors that may determine an individuals destiny

Genetics

Like energy which determines the particle state, genetics is one of the factors that could influence the development and maturity of a person. There are studies that find correlation between school performance and genetic predisposition. This is the case of physical performance also. For example most of the Marathon title were held by the Ethiopians. One of my friends in my Masters class was from Ethiopia and he said that it is not all Ethiopians who have the ability but only people coming from a particular tribe. This tribe happen to be a hunter-gatherer group for a very long time and have evolved to have the endurance required to survive in their environment. So, isn't that destiny of the individual determined, in a broad sense? Of course, he is still free to choose what he does, but his genetics only permits certain things...!

Economy

It is another factor, that influence the development and thought process of an individual. The development of the "free will" itself seem to be interlinked with economy or the families income. A study in UK, apparently showed that the children from poorer families tend to have some parts of their brain smaller than other kids, which affect their performance in their school. So, being born in poor family, already determines the level of academic achievement the child could achieve. Irrespective of whether he wants to or not. In other words, his destiny in a broad sense is determined. The only "free will" he/she then has is how to act in such a way to reduce disadvantage... even for that he is at a disadvantage... because it is the brain that makes this reasoning.

Environment

In the first two factors, I discussed the natural elements that affect the development. The third is environment. A child born to a poor family in a locality is more likely to involve in criminal activity (deduced based on bayesian inference), if the last two factors are true. Even if the child has reasonable intelligence and school performance, he or she could never realize his true potential if the environment is not right. As a personal case, during my 9th grade, I developed a fully herbal mosquito repeller. It was tested in the Vector Control Research Centre (VCRC) in our home town, thanks to one of my teachers who trusted me. However, everyone my parents, my school and even the scientist at the VCRC only discouraged me from further developing the product (Once I get a job one of my first work would be to fully develop that). This is an exact example of how environment could prevent one from realizing his/her full potential. The only "Free will" I had/have is to determine if I want to continue my fight or kill myself.

What if there is complete "Free Will"

Complete free will would be akin to having zero mean white noise. In such a case, there would be no behaviour patterns that companies could use to sell their products, predicting election outcomes won't work, banking will become cumbersome, economy will crash, etc.

Anyone who have visited Amazon would know that Amazon suggests items based on the items that you are checking. The system that does that is called a recommender system, a piece of machine learning software. Consider that there is no pattern, then the systems results would make no sense... every item would have equal probability.

Similarly, based on public sentiments, there are many studies in the world that try predict election outcomes. Isn't it how the Tories utilized the public opinion to come to power in Canada or Mr. Modi in India. If the public opinion is totally random, then it is highly likely that the results would be inconclusive.

Banking and Economy (stock prices) would also suffer. Bloomberg has a team of experts in analyzing sentiments from different source to predict stock prices. What if the opinions are random?
Similarly, if the Banks could not predict the user behaviour they could not invest and the banking will collapse.

And no boutiques for girls would stack up only pink...:)

There would be no racism, stereotypes, xenophobia, etc.

To conclude, "Free will" is bounded by the system in which it exists... Breaking the system is not always possible, as was found by Galileo, Edward Snowden and the like...!

Top 5 reasons why Graduate Studies are (actually) encouraged

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 02:22:00 +0000

In my last post, I was discussing why a bachelor-degree drop-out may have a better chance at earning more money than a graduate with doctorate. Now, I share my top 5 reasons on why, irrespective of the grim picture for the graduates, is graduate studies encouraged:

1. To compete with other countries

Countries are constantly competing with one another. China, a once developing third world country is now aspiring to excel US in economic and military might. It would have never been possible without the strides in science and technology. Even in India, which was once dependent on farm produce is increasingly dependent on IT services for its GDP. The significance of science and technology and consequently graduate education could not have been well said than Mr. Bill Gates himself. So, in short, higher studies fuel economy and country's might, without which the status and prominence of the country itself would be lost. This one of the reasons, why every country is trying to promote education, particularly higher education. And a very noble one. However, what is there for an individual? While some may argue that while the country grows individual grows it cannot be the case for everyone. As when the country grows, increase in inflation would offset the increase in income. Second, corruption and nepotism grows, making it difficult for people without money or influence.

2. To generate cheap labor for research

Don't get me wrong, but research is costly. Getting qualified individuals for the job is much more. The funding usually provided for research in the universities are highly insufficient to hire contract or consulting scientists. So, most of the Universities and laboratories tries to get things done by exploiting young graduates who have energy and are ready to work without any benefits, in the hope of landing a good position someday. From my experience, I cannot blame the scientists. They are very helpful. Sometime, might go out of their way to get you a position. However, they can only do so much when the funding cuts limits the number of academic and research recruitment (think about superdocs and junior scientists). But what is disturbing is that none would ever say that by pursuing PhD you are going to put your economic future at risk! I definitely don't know if those scientists hope things would get better, or colluding with their political bosses, or forced not to sensitize the next graduate or outright selfish... In any case, the final sufferer is the graduate.

3. To exploit workforce

Mr. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet were trying to promote STEM education. However, it seems his own company is not inclined to even give a chance to STEM graduates (postdocs) other than from Ivy league universities. Personally, when I doing my undergraduate degree in engineering Microsoft wouldn't even set their foot on our university irrespective of the fact that Tata, Cognizant and a whole lot holds our university in good esteem. Trying to prove myself, was one of my motivations to pursue higher studies. Anyway, that is a different story. However, their constant promotion is only likely increase the workforce supply, which would naturally lead to the exploitation of workforce. For example, many IT companies in India force their employees to work over 16 hrs without weekends and holidays. I was once penalized, as not being time inflexible, for completing my work before 18h00. The employees have no say because, they are easily replaceable with someone with a need. In the case of recession, some companies laid off their employees but they had no reason to, most of their projects are long-term and most of them saw hike in their profits, generated by these lay-offs. They could do so due to the huge supply of workforce...

In my perspective, Mr. Gates, is either trying to generate cheap labor for his industry or is completely misinformed of the reality.

4. To attain social status

This is a very common reason for parents motivating their children to become graduates and is more common when they are from socially/economically backward community. I believe, this is their subconscious drive to prove that they are equal. While education does bring some social status, the ultimate status is determined only by one's paycheck... Even if the person is a noble laureate, he gets his insurance coverage only based on his premium and net worth, not on his contribution...!

5. To attain economic status

Many believe that higher education would lead to better income. There is some truth in that but also a lot of lies. As have indicated in my previous post, an undergraduate is likely to derive more benefits. This could be justified by the plethora of job opportunities available to them and low debt accumulated during those undergraduate studies. Further, since they start early, they are likely to accumulate more over the years. However, the situation would change immediately once you venture beyond your undergraduate degree. With Masters, the opportunity reduces, reduces further with PhD and proceeds towards zeros as the number of years in one's postdoc increases. Take my case for example, I left a nice job to do graduate studies in robotics. Yes, it is a very good subject with lot of civilian and military applications. The consequence, I'm now desperately hunting for a job after a PhD in remote sensing and 2 years of experience as a postdoc as my funding would run out in another 6 months.

Conclusion

Now comes the interesting question, irrespective of the risks involved, how and why is that many of the articles continue to sing paeans encouraging graduate education? First, these studies project amazing life-time earnings based on past earners, who now have comfortable in jobs and have a decade or more years to retire. Those studies didn't take into account the present job market and its evolution over time to predict its future state. They conveniently left out the truth about the risks involved and were also "unethical" in failing to highlight the limits of their analyzes. Regarding why they do this, it may probably be to reduce competition. For example, if every one knows the truth about graduate education, they would try to emulate people in power i.e., businessmen and politicians, which would increasingly make the market competitive. Since, it is impossible to derive economic benefits from a perfectly competitive market, the best alternative for those in power is to make the people believe in a system of long-duration education. This would reduce the competition immediately and would also shift the unemployment crisis to a later date.

Limitations:

This analysis is based on an average perspective. Ivy leaguers and "close-enough"s get preferential treatments, so they may not agree with this. And obviously certain subjects would be better preferred than other. These aspects are not discussed in this study.

Do you have any personal experience that buttress or counter the arguments in this post?
I would more than happy to hear from people with different views...!

Should I study more?!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 02 Jun 2015 02:24:00 +0000

a bachelor degree drop-out is likely to make more money

I was a brat, who wanted to become a scientist . Period! I want to become a scientist! However, my parents had a different plan for me - finish engineering, join IT!

After 3 years of toil in IT, I finally accumulated enough money to take TOEFL and GRE and finally landed on a prestigious European scholarship to pursue Masters in Computer Vision and Robotics. But all the time, my father was insisting, "the money you might earn through higher studies could be obtained through experience"... Blinded by my love for science, ambition and to prove my self, I resigned my job and joined my Masters. Four years after my Masters, I finally got my PhD.... Yahoo!!! It was from a prestigious lab, under a great remote sensing scientist... I was all but proud. All my lonely and boring days doesn't matter anymore. Like most other doctorates, in my quest to become a scientist, I became a Postdoc. The current project is amazing and my supervisor, is really great! I'm learning a lot... In the mean time, I became a father... Then the reality struck me hard in the face... POSTDOC CRISIS! My funding is running out, my PhD is not for 3 years as initially envisaged but only 2... My visa is running out! And I don't have a job... yet!

What the hell did I do? Am I blame myself for not seeing this coming? Then I read articles in the internet, where Mr. Bill Gates was promoting STEM education. Not only Gates but many other blogs were also showing that graduate education is worth the investment. Ok, then why is the crisis... Then why is it difficult for Postdocs (Curiously NSERC fellows were treated as immigrant workers and not postdocs while immigrants in Universities were considered as postdocs, in Canada...?!)? So, I have been wondering... Finally I thought, OK, since the cost of education is usually considered an investment, may be there is an ideal numbers of years of study that could return well on the investment, at the least the investment itself. So, I set to discover this optimal point i.e the number of years that breaks-even on the investment.

1-http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
2-http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/average-published-undergraduate-charges-sector-2014-15, http://www.bestmastersdegrees.com/how-much-does-a-masters-degree-cost, http://study.com/articles/How_Much_Does_a_Doctorate_Degree_Cost.html
3-https://www.bankofamerica.com/deposits/bank-cds/standard-term-certificate-of-deposit.go

The figure, above shows how the income, the total cost of education, and the opportunity cost of education of a student increases with the number of years of study. From the figure, it could be seen that at little over 2 years of study after High school (year 0), the opportunity cost breaks-even with the income. And, around 3 years of study after Higher school, the actual cost breaks-even with the income to be earned. So, in other words, in the current labor market a bachelor degree drop-out is likely to make more money than a guy who was working his ass-off towards his PhD. Worse, the PhDs have limited opportunities than an undergraduate.

A case in point, is a lesson I learnt too late. I had a classmate during my high school days, whose grade used to be so bad, that he had to leave the school after his 10th Grade to some other schools to continue his education. Of course, our school used to eliminate students with poor standing every year. However, when I was doing my bachelors degree in Engineering, I saw him doing some bachelors degree in the University, which was not one of the STEM subjects, everyone longs for. In 2013, when I came across him after a PhD with no property or riches, he was already a multi-millionaire having grown his family business to great extent. Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, etc., where all university dropout and yet they are all billionaires. Others...?!

For wondering about the earlier studies that champion longer study periods, it should be noted that those studies don't usually include long-term risk factors. Further, those studies on life-term earnings are based on past observations which may not hold good for present or future. For example, 20 years back a PhD could easily get a job and his earning would accrue with benefits. Could we say that now?

In short, I'm not advocating against education but it might probably be best if someone don't pursue higher studies, particularly if they are not from some Ivy League Universities...! It might even be better, if one pursues his studies for growing his/her venture, as my friend did on his family business.

Personal point: The studies, paint a grim picture. I some time feel remorseful for leaving a good job, the company I enjoyed and for not listening to my father. However, had I not pursued my graduate studies, probably I would have never acquired these skills of analyzes and reasoning. So, they are worth it...and more!

How did I do it?

For those curious to know, how arrived at the results:

For this study, completion of High School is fixed as reference i.e., year 0. After which, the student may either pursue a 2-year Associate degree or a 4-year bachelors degree. 2 more years are required for a masters degree and an average of 5 more years is assumed for obtaining PhD.
The actual cost, is the actual amount that is spent to attain a specific degree. For example, for obtaining a Masters degree, is the sum of the cost of obtaining a bachelors degree and the cost during Masters.
The opportunity cost, is the cost of a missed opportunity to invest. I took the example of investing in a certificate of deposit account in US, with an annual percentage yield of about 0.1%. One of the reasons to choose this investment is the low risk of investment.
Similarly, information on median income was obtained from the Bureau of Labor statistics
These cumulated values were plotted to identify the break-even point.

Limitations:

In many ways, the study is an approximation:

This study didn't use the long-term rate of return calculations because such calculation would have to include the risk due socio-politico-economic factors. I would love to include that analyses but if I'm to try and include those factors of benefit and risk then this post would be about 30 pages long, which would enervate even the most energetic person.
This study also didn't include, social-factors - like the status accorded to a person due to his education, which could be kept for another study.
Many of these values are approximate and obtained from internet sources. Obviously, the results would be different with other data, nevertheless, the approach could be defended.
Also, it should be understood that learning some subjects is worth than other. For example, becoming a graduate in Computer Science or Law may be worth more than a graduation in Earth Sciences or Education.
These data were obtained from internet sources (mostly google searches)

However, did you ever wonder why, irrespective of the grim picture about higher studies, why people are encouraging it? Wait for my next post...!
And share your thoughts...!

"India builds China's capability against US"

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 29 May 2015 02:20:00 +0000

the real challenge is not the appeasement of China but building capacities to deal with China on equal footing by taming nepotism, racism and corruption.

Source: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g7653j.ct001059

The recently concluded visit of Mr. Modi to China raised many expectations and was not missed by any media. Wall Street Journal tries to summarize Indo-China relationship as 5 gaps based on the economic difference and border disputes that mar the relationship of these Asian Giants. In this context, it is interesting to analyze if closing these gaps is in the interest of China and if any of Indian "concessions" are of significance in closing this gaps to ensure peace and prosperity.

India and China seems to have coexisted in peace for quite a long time until the People Republic of China came to power in 1949 (PRC) overthrowing Republic of China (ROC). India was one of the first countries to recognize PRC and even passed the UN Security Council seat offered to it by US and USSR to China in 1955. Irrespective of these earlier rapprochements, India and China have had 3 major military conflicts in 1962, 1967 and 1987. India suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of China in 1962, after which both India and China with drew to their respective prewar positions. While, Nehru's 'forward policy' is blamed by many of the Western analysts, Indian analysts points out that the inept policy of Nehru was itself a response to Chinese preparation for war since 1959. However, in the later Chola Incident, it seems India was able to inflict over three times as much casualties as it had suffered on China. The later incident in 1987 was bloodless, thanks to some good diplomacy. Irrespective of that fact, and after having moved into the 21st century, the ghost of 1962 looms at large in the Indian mindset.

Concluded visit and un-reciprocated Concessions

Mr. Modi was as usual more than life itself and the much hyped visit to China was more favorable to China than India. While Mr. Modi was direct in broaching up the subject of border dispute and the growing trade imbalance, nothing concrete was obtained from China. Instead, Mr. Modi ended up announcing e-visas to Chinese, which is not reciprocated as in the case of any previous concessions. Further, until now, China is issuing stapled visas to Indian citizens from Arunachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir. The e-visa is also a problem from a security perspective, given the Chinese penchant for spying. In addition to this it is understood that Chinese companies struck deals worth $22 billions, which would only widen the trade-deficit with China.

However, the most important concession China got was before Mr. Modi reached China, which unfortunately didn't receive much media attention it should have. During the UPA regime, after the many cries of strategic analysts, the then Prime Minister of India approved the setting up of Indian Mountain Strike Force (IMSF). This IMSF was particularly raised to counter the Chinese Rapid Action Force (RAFs) stationed at the other side of the border. There is no announcement on China reducing its RAF or moving it away from its stations near the border. Shortly, before Mr. Modi's visit Mr. Parrikar announced the reduction the size of IMSF, ostensibly under the guise of finance crunch.

In contrast to many expectations for Mr. Modi before he came to power and irrespective of his overwhelming majority, NDA Govt. is yet to re-initiate India's covert capabilities.

Source: UN COMTRADE

India feeds China's Might

Mr. Modi may have been direct seeking clarification on Line of Actual Control (LAC) and Mr. Ajit Doval would may have been direct in saying that all bilateral relations are centered around the border issue, but India has been seeking the clarification for over 10 years now. And, China is definitely not inclined to provide that lest it would cool of the border issue. Many Indian analysts are of the view that China is particularly uncomfortable with the clause in 2005 agreement that explicitly states that no populated regions would be exchanged. Further, they are of the opinion that China is keeping up the ante over the border issue to pressure India to isolate Dalai Lama.

However, I tend to disagree. For one reason, Chinese are pragmatists. They have no problem over Human Right excesses whether in their own land or in a foreign country. If all they wanted was to eliminate Dalai Lama, they could have resorted to a number of ways to that without upping the ante over the border issue. Their "all-weather friend" has sufficient influence and penetration and influence to see to that. China itself has sufficient level of penetration in India. Hence, I couldn't believe that Dalai Lama is the primary issue over which China is least inclined to solve the border dispute.

In my perspective, the border issue is more to do with the China's global ambition to equal US in power terms. Dalai Lama and Tibet is a just an add-on.

In my perspective, the major reason for China to keep up the border issue is its to equal US in economic and power terms. For that China, which is largely dependent on its exports require markets. India, with its huge population and potential is a great market for its products, irrespective of the fact those products are defective or of the least quality. The bilateral relationships were ignited after 1987 and it is the hope of India that an increased economic relationship with China is likely to make China more sympathetic to its cause, irrespective of many actions to the contrary by the latter. As long as the border issue is hot and as long as the 1962 ghost looms at large in the Indian mindset, China expects India to bend backwards to suits its interest. India, aptly does so. With India being the largest trading partner of China, it is not in the interest of China to settle the dispute now or in near future. If the border dispute is settled, there would be no incentive to India to keep up the yawning trade deficit and would be free to chose partners more amenable to its interest, which China cannot afford. Hence, China wants the border issue to burn hot as much as possible. The only time, when it may settle is when China equals US in power parity and have "settled" its disputes over South China Sea. India unwittingly aids in the rise of China's might through economic largess (trade deals that greatly benefit China). Such trade surplus on the Chinese part have enabled it to modernize its defence forces with a double digit raise in defence expenditure. This only draws India into a vicious cycle of appeasement and fear, yet no action is seen from the side of India.

Challenge of India

It is difficult not to draw parallels between India 1962 and India in 2015. While it is true that India has developed military and economic capabilities, it is also true that China is ahead of India in all these sphere by at least a decade. Like then, infrastructure development is largely neglected at the best tardy. Like then, China is building infrastructure that could be used strategically but India stand as a mute spectator. India is even running short of ammunitions. Like then, if not more, nepotism, racism, casteism, and corruption is rampant in India. It is believed that the 1962 debacle was at least partially because of nepotism. In addition to all these, like then, India still believes in appeasement politics vis-a-vis China.

Currently, India is not China's target at least for now. Any war with India would mean a setback to China by at least decade, irrespective of the fact that India may lose. In a way, India's border dispute is a red-herring to keep people attention on one thing when the real fight is somewhere else. The West hardly misses it but try to use the situation to its advantage by proposing to sell its antiquated equipments to India. India is forced to consider those deals mainly because of its lack of capacity to produce those equipments indigenously.

Hence, the continued appeasement by India to win China's sympathy could hardly be expected to work. If the border dispute is to be settled India has to deal with China at the same level. However, it is highly unlikely that the China would be least interested to settle the dispute before it becomes equal to US and have settled its territorial disputes in the South China Sea. In this context, it could said that India is building China's might against US, through its huge trade deficits vis-a-vis China (in the same vein, other trading partners who maintain a large trade deficit vis-a-vis China).

Though Mr. Modi is a fan of China, he had hardly understood China. China came to this position most through its covert activities (Ex. US arrests of Chinese for economic espionage) and by reversing brain drain. On the other hand, India neither has covert abilities nor is keen on reversing brain drain. This is irrespective of the fact that many in the Indian diaspora is increasingly showing interest to come back for economic opportunities and resume family ties. The current economic crises and subsequent policies, many Indian students and researches were stranded abroad who would gladly return given an opportunity. Hence, if Mr. Modi sincerely longs to settle the border dispute, the real challenge is not the appeasement of China but building capacities to deal with China on equal footing by taming nepotism, racism and corruption.

Why are people poor?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 24 May 2015 04:43:00 +0000

Poverty is a problem all over the world. Since recession the rich-poor gap has only widened. In this article, I share some of my observations and thoughts on why some stay poor.

They are lazy: Some may take offence on this but if the truth be told, it is the poor who spend more time with their TV's (or any entertainment) than the rich (who delve more on self-improvement, management, etc.). For example, the grumpy cat pic (the owner became a millionaire what about those who got entertained?). How many times have you come across someone sharing items that makes or motivates someone to think/think differently? Further, if you give an idea to make money to a middle class or poor, he/she would immediately produce a deluge of ideas off-his-hat of why your idea won't work and why he/she would never do it (I'm sure many have many pics like Grumpy Cat pic but none even tried to think of something to use them). On the other hand, if you give that idea to a rich he/she would immediately try to analyze the potential of the idea and try to think of how he could make it work. While some may attribute this attitude of the poor to their disinclination to risk taking, I would only attribute it to their laziness to put even the smallest of effort to think it through.
They tend to blame everyone else but themselves: The first step to improvement is to acknowledge one's mistake. For example, many wouldn't know that Walt Disney was twice bankrupt before his current successful venture. Hollywood actor Will Smith went nearly broke in 1990 but now is considered among the money-wise. History is replete with people who have outgrown their initial failures. If you ask them why they failed the first time they'd tell you what they did wrong, how they should have done it and possibly why they were successful now. On the other hand, go to a poor and ask the reason for his plight, he/she would immediately blame everyone else (parents, teachers, politicians, economy, poverty, etc.) except themselves. Personally, my parents never wanted me to do my Masters or PhD. I wanted to pursue higher studies, and I hid all my efforts through my elaborate schemes saving every penny that I could. They were taken off-guard when I went to them with my admission to my Masters. Hence, in my perspective, self-improvement could only begin with self-realization! So, not acknowledging one's own mistake or giving excuses for their lack of action is never going to help anyone.
They believe in everyone: The poor trusts everyone, astrologers, politicians, priests, etc, with no questions asked. On the other hand, rich tries to make use of these elements to their advantage. For example, royalties are portrayed by various religious entities throughout history as descendants of Gods or adorned by them to rule common men. Many people believe that and tend to live their life in poverty. While the rich(royalty), would use those religious elements to make the common men endorse their dominion and strengthen their power. Nazis were very adept at spreading rumours to win people's mind, the theory is now widely known as the "Goebbel's law". Now, this is one of the pillars of Psy-warfare (Chinese have a large number of people working on this). Even now, Mr. Modi's Govt. is trying to crack-down NGOs that are trying to protect environment. GoI's (Govt. of India) contention is that these NGOs are funded by foreign elements to prevent development in India. However, if those Nuclear plants come to existence, aren't these the foreign countries which are benefitting from it? Why none asked Mr. Modi's Govt., this question? However, Mr. Modi has no problem in NGOs working to destroy Indian culture or spread Western propaganda (Ex. The Hindu*). In either case, people believed the GoI and didn't even care to question the logic. In this context, I'm only remembered of the great sayings of Thiruvalluvar (sage poet who lived more than 2000 years ago), when I think about their state!
They follow the crowd: One of the most deplorable things among the poor is their tendency to follow the crowd. Aren't there any better options, no poor or middle class care to look or hardly do. On the other hand, rich tend to constantly look out for new opportunities. Steve Jobs, learnt calligraphy, which eventually motivated him invent the first Apple Computers. Hardly, a middle class or poor, tend to make the connection between calligraphy and computers. Basically, they do things because everyone does them. When we had our baby, some of our acquaintances/friends (Canada and its Govt. as such is promoting breast-feeding in a great way...) were "advising" us to use baby-formula instead mother's milk. I was both astounded and disappointed. Their reason, every other person they knew of used that brand of formula-milk. None, cared to look or analyze the benefits of one over the other.
Under or Over educated: Most of the poor either are less educated or overeducated. American Bureau of Labor statistics makes a direct connection between the level of education and the amount of money earned. Though this is an average, less education could be considered a cause for low income. However, what is not very apparent is, too much education also tends to make one poor. Statistics paint a grim picture of the student debt of graduates, every year. Consider also the plight of postdocs who have great ideas but not much opportunities. In Australia, one postdoc seemed to have worked as a forklift, before getting into some position. On the other hand, rich start to earn early. While education is in their interest, they would rather spend more time in learning their business and developing it.
They are cowards: The poor are less inclined to take risk or to stand out from the crowd. Even when their property is acquired by their Govt., or forcefully abducted by some "mafia" the poor hardly put a brave fight, even when they might have an advantage of winning the fight. For example, take the case of Target which recently failed in Canada. The CEO went home with more money than the severance package of all the other Target employees' put together. Even though the leadership is responsible for the failure, it is employees who ended up paying the price. Yet, there has been no noticeable protest or anger about it. This is irrespective of the fact that Canada is in election mode now and no politician would risk antagonizing their electorate.
They are not born rich: Being born to rich couple has its advantage. A recent study found the richer twin to have better mental faculties than the poorer twin. Further, even when a poor has some idea, it is the rich who have the money to implement that and they usually hire the poor for their ideas. However, the good news is that around 50% of the new-billionaires are self-made (Ex. Sergey Brin).
Lack of sacrifice: Every achievement requires sacrifice (No pain, no gain). Many rich, would have almost sacrificed their entire youth to get to the point they are now. They would have traded their "popularity" in their schools for their current position even be ridiculed and bullied. Many wouldn't even have had an opportunity to have date, while working like a nerd (many are). While, I wonder how many of the poor had ever sacrificed their want for an ice-cream or the dinner to save that one buck for investing?!
Selflessness: One of the interesting things about rich, is that they are mean and tend to stretch every bit of their dollar. Warren Buffett, though is one among the top 10 billionaires consistently, who is well-known for his frugality. However, he is not the only one. Think about the poor, they are usually over spending and more generous than these billionaires.

Please don't forget to share with us your thoughts on why you think poor are poor...

* It is my observation that 'The Hindu' publish mostly Western propaganda, when it comes to socio-economic issues and hardly prints a rational comment opposing that view. Please refer to my earlier post, for example.

Are Parents stupid?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 22 May 2015 05:38:00 +0000

At least thats what Tess and Lia along with Ms. Wynne think so, when Ms. Wynne accepted the mandate of 13-year olds from an online campaign.

Only 33% of population in India is affected by Herpex Simplex but 89% of Ontarians are!

Chalmydia infection among women from conservative region in India is only 0.1%

...these kids were indeed influenced...

Tessa and Lia’s school project garnered 40,000 signatures that eventually led to an audience with the premier of Ontario and inclusion of “consent” in the new sex-ed curriculum¹. While the effort is worthy of appreciation, using their ignorance to push a personally motivated agenda is not.

“parents should not use their children as political pawns”

“All the opposition is coming from uninformed perspective”

“We knew we wanted to do the project on something surrounding feminism because that’s something we’re both really passionate about and we wanted to do something that really affects us as young people and as women”

establishing a consent culture is the best way to stop rape culture

“…People don't like to admit that sex is about pleasure and desire, not just reproductive stuff, and that teenagers are having sex as young as middle school,”

These are some of the responses of the kids during the interview. Their responses were replete with innocence and ignorance while scarce on critical thinking and immaturity.

Coming from a family with good exposure of the to the internals of politics, I wouldn’t be surprised if these kids were indeed influenced by some proxies of Ms. Wynne. Unfortunately, it seems the girls have played right into the hands of politicians who couldn’t care less for their future. My suspicions are further strengthened by their claims that the opposition is ill-informed, which only could mean someone (teachers and parents, most likely) “well-informed” them. Further, they also seem to be seriously mis-informed of the socio-economic factors that drives the culture of rapes in that they believe this culture could be abolished by consent culture. The girls while further disparaging parents exposed the typical teenage prurience and immaturity in saying the sex is about pleasure and desire. While it is no doubt pleasurable, unintended teenage pregnancy, STIs, etc., are not. And sex due to love is more pleasurable than the raw gratification of animalistic instincts.

Though Ms. Wynne is a woman, a mother, has a master’s in education, and has served as a school council chair and minister of education⁶, she is apparently no specialist in Children’s psychology. The entire debate would have been healthier if the effects of the curriculum on the mental faculties of children are extensively/exhaustively studied by both Govt. and independent psychologist, which never happened.

Like Ms. Wynne I’m not a psychologist. Hence, I cannot comment on how this curriculum would affect the children in long term. However, I do have a PhD (in another field), and do research different information to identify patterns and anomalies. With that ability when I compare a conservative region in India, where sex education is mostly limited to knowing the names of reproductive system in biology (for high school students), with the West the following are conspicuous:

HSV prevalence in India is only 33% while it is over 99% in the West (89% in Ontario)².
Chlamydia infection is rare with increase in the conservativeness of the society. In a rural community only 0.1% of the women were found positive for Chlamydia infection. However, that’s not the case in the West³.
While teenage pregnancy is intended (due to early marriage*) in India, it is mostly unintended in the West affecting the development of the children as well as the parents ^4-5.

I have intentionally stayed away from whether the contents are age-appropriate or not as it is subjective and usually changes with the region and demography. I believe parents are usually the better judge of what is better for their children. I would have admired the premier, had she shown the same determination in educating the parents instead of using children as her political game.

The only fault of the parents here is their failure to educate their children to try and understand the ulterior motives behind suggestions.

*I would like to reserve the discussions on early/child marriage for another post due to their irrelevance in this context.

References

¹http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/05/19/ontario-sex-ed-consent_n_7277456.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-parents

²https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_herpes_simplex

³http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0034794

⁴http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Teenage_birth_rate_per_1000_women_15%E2%80%9319,_2000-09.svg

⁵http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy

⁶http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/sex-ed-in-ontario-kathleen-wynne-fires-back-at-pc-critic-1.2970133

Harper’s Red-Herrings

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 20 May 2015 10:20:00 +0000

Stephen Harper is now widely acclaimed as the master of “Fear Politics”. The twin pillars of his political strategy are the Islamophobia and Xenophobia, which I consider are red-herrings for the inadequacies of his economic policies.

Islamophobia:

Bill C-51

The two terror attacks in Canada gave Mr. Harper sufficient political leverage to enact his controversial Bill C-51. However, what Mr. Harper failed to explain and what the public and opposition failed to ask is: How is the bill expected to bring down 'lone-wolf' attacks? Both of these attacks seemed to have been enacted by individuals whose emotional/mental state is questionable. One is a drug addict while the other dreamed of becoming a martyr when his attempt to start a business in Quebec failed. So, does Mr.Harper have methods to predict the acts of mentally/emotionally unstable individuals? With the provisions of the bill, even if the agencies manages to imprison each and everyone who has even accidentally come across ISIS propaganda, it is likely that these type of attackers would likely to take another cause. I believe, psychologically, they want to prove/feel important. If so, wouldn't it require a different approach?

Further, I really suspect, if the intention of the bill is solely to protect the Canadians against terror attacks. It can easily be misused to oppress opposition. I mean what would prevent Mr. Harper to classify Mr. Trudeau, for example, as a "sympathizer" when Mr. Harper comes to power again?

Niqiab issue

Thankfully, the Federal Court of Canada struck down the ban on Niqiab during the public citizenship oath. This may look like an isolated incident. However, when taken together with the Quebec judge refusing to hear the case of a women wearing hijab, it seems likely a coordinated strategy to harass the Muslim community in Canada. The judge cited the regulation on wearing head coverings and shades in the courtroom. Would the judge apply the same rules to Nuns, who cover their heads? If not, aren't these discriminatory practices aimed at alienating and harassing a community? I also wonder, how are these Niqiab/Hijab bans likely to bring down terrorist incidents? Is this issue more important than the economy that is tanking?

What is more appalling is why no one asked these questions? These issues made the highlights in dailies but everyone seems to forget to ask these questions? And isn't denial of justice in the name of religion against Canadian Values?

Refugee prioritization

Another controversial issue, that should have awakened the conscience of Canadians is the Federal Governments move to prioritize refugee settlements based on religion. This goes against the accepted International norms in the issue. By such acts, the Federal Govt. is acting similar to ISIS and "Boko Haram", whom it claims to act against. Apart from setting a bad precedent in the International politics, these acts are likely to diminish the stature of Canadian values and Canada's role in International politics. I wonder, if the Canadians are aware and OK with this?

Further, what is the reasoning behind this? I wonder, what are the movies Mr. Harper and his MPs are watching before making up policies :)

Xenophobia:

Harper keep on harping how immigrants are drawn towards Canada for business prospects because of the stable economy while his MPs' were busy making racist comments, "Brownies stealing Canadian jobs". I'm not sure how far is this true or who is being compared to make these statements. But I do know that, from IMF's economic outlook, Western GDP is slowing down consistently for the past few years while the Asian economy is on the rise. In this case, if people are immigrating for economic reasons, they are most likely to immigrate to the Asian countries as many Indians and Chinese had done during recent times. Further, I wonder if the MP was insinuating that their immigration systems are broken. If so, whose responsibility is that?

I have not read any news where Harper or his minions trumping Canada's education prowess. In any case, many Asian countries fair much better than Canada in primary education (when accessible) and US fairs much better than Canada in higher-education and research (when accessible) . So, if there is exodus for education, it should be towards these countries. Having said this, I believe the immigrants were mostly drawn towards Canada for her values (free thought, free speech, etc.), which Mr. Harper seem intent on destroying.

Another of Harper's policies, could downright be construed as "cheating". According to his Express-Entry pool for Canadian residentship, applicants are required to have at least 5 years of stay in Canada to realize the category's full points. However, according to his Four-in-Four-Out policy, immigrants should leave Canada after 4 years, and is unlikely to get the full points required to get them an invitation for Canadian Resident status. It also fails to differentiate between the researchers who are exempt from LMO from the general general immigrant workers. Wouldn't this policy create brain drain? Wouldn't that likely to affect economy?

Red-herrings of Economic inadequacies:

Harper didn't stop/reprimand his MP for his racial comment. He, however, is trying to alienate and harass communities by progressively enacting policies. Since, there were not consistent opposition, I wonder if the Canadians have finally abandoned their values they stood for over the years and were onboard with Mr. Harper.

I would have at least been happy had some one asked, "Mr. Harper, Could you prove that your policies have worked rationally using data?" I also, believe these pillars of Mr. Harper's political strategy are designed to divert attention of the Canadian public from real issues - inadequacies of his economic policies

Frugal Living may cost your job!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 18 May 2015 17:58:00 +0000

In the last few years, there have been many pages cropping up with tips on frugal living. I have also shared my views and practices in my previous post, on frugal living. However, since every micro-economic decisions has its implications to macro-economy and vice versa, I’m trying to offer here a different perspective.

Frugal living is based on the concept of reducing expenditures while maximizing one’s health and economic benefits. It is based on identifying the necessary expenditures from unnecessary expenditures and to act smartly. However, such acts, is also likely to reduce demand for products, which are likely to result in increase in unemployment as the owners and CEOs try to max-out their profits at the cost of employees, curb innovation, etc. These consequences would likely reduce Governmental income, which would increase the debt-to-GDP ratio (as GDP would reduce due reduction in demand) leading the country into the vicious cycle of austerity. This is depicted in the following graphic.

A Simple Case Study - eschewing smartphones:

In my perspective, avoiding smartphones (cell phones, if possible) is one of the easiest ways of saving money and probably have enough to invest. However, when the demand for smartphones reduce, first the low cost manufacturers followed by the premium phone manufacturers would see a reduction in demand. This will force them to optimize their investments in a such a way so as to maximize their profits. One of the easiest ways to do that is laying-off employees. They would save money from the salaries of the laid-off employees as well as the exploitation of current employees. When there is a fear for lay-off the current employees tend to cling to their jobs by putting on more hours and working during weekends/holidays. This increase in unemployment is likely to affect the country’s economy adversely (though not that of the CEOs’ or the boards’). Further, in their effort to prioritize investments, they would also cut funding to many research programs, resulting in unemployment and loss of innovation. Further, app manufacturers, game developers, etc. would lose their market, leading to further unemployment. This would have adverse effect on economy as unemployment and debt-to-GDP would rise. Thus saving some bucks by avoiding a product is likely to throw-up people in streets without jobs.

Finally, for people wondering where do I stand, I stand with frugal living. Why? I’m in search of a job and I simply cannot afford otherwise. On the other hand, I strongly believe that the rich should spend more (preferably proportional to their asset) but in general, it is the poor who is spending more all over the world!

Perversion as Parody?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 17 May 2015 02:09:00 +0000

The "A Bad Girl Poster" girl may be a fact!!!

Today I read this article in 'The Hindu'[1], which extolled a poster created by some student(!) from Bangalore. The article motivated me to create the following graphic with my response:

These are my responses. What are yours?!

References

http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/mag-columns/parodying-gender-cliches/article7209411.ece?homepage=true

Frugal living: Tips to live on a budget

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 15 May 2015 21:39:00 +0000

Frugal living is not being mean and tightfisted but it is a principle/discipline aimed at understanding the difference between wants and needs and arriving at an optimal solution to maximize benefits!

Now-a-days, there are many articles in the internet on frugal living. While, I take some hints from them, I do have my reservations. For one, these articles seems to propound tight-fisted approach bent on saving money, with no concern to health or other aspects. As a person, who has been successfully practicing frugal living since 1999, I share my thoughts in this article:

1. Differentiate between a ‘need’ and a ‘want’:

This is the primary key for frugal living. A cup of coffee, for many, is a need to get your horses kicking. However, a coffee from Tim Horton’s or Starbucks is more of a want than a need. The amount of caffeine that gets you started is also available in store bought instant coffees. I used to buy a pound of Nescafe from Walmart for ~10CAD; with 4 teaspoons per day the coffee lasted for over 5 months. In other words, the cost of my coffee/cup was ~7cents. While a cup of coffee from Tim Horton’s is ~ 3CAD!!!

Similarly, smokes and drinks are wants, not needs. Some wants can and will be deleterious to your health like smoking and drinking. There is a study that links ageing to alcohol consumption¹.

My strategy to identify want and need:

Need: “Could I survive without this?” if your reply is ‘no’, it is a need!
Want: “Could I survive without this?” if your reply is ‘yes’, it is a want!
Needs need to be fulfilled, but wants can wait!

2. Health is your greatest asset:

While I buy coffee from Walmart, I never buy vegetables or fruits from Walmart. For one reason, they tend to go bad soon. Another reason, it is hard to find organic or non-GMO products there. While some may argue that an anti-GMO stance is Paleolithic, as a scientist, I’m personally not satisfied with assurances of the companies based on statistically insignificant study samples. Further, there seems to be direct correlation between the number of allergy and cancer cases and the amount of GMO products used by countries. The causality or mechanism has not yet been established behind the correlation, it also happens to be their defense.

I don’t consume alcohol or smoke for the same reason! - Health

While life is not that valuable, health is! Why take risk? (Ask a life insurance personal the value of your life…J)

3. Babies:

Having babies is among the most difficult both emotionally and financially. It is a dilemma. Every parent is emotionally guided to buy beautiful clothes and toys for them, though we know that they’d out grow them quite fast. It is smart to use hand-me-downs for clothing. Similarly, it is smart to buy toys from second-hand stores (But don’t forget to sanitize before use!). Sometimes, we buy toys that we think the babies would like but we would only find them showing least interest in them. My baby is a great teacher for me in this regard. For babies, the most lovable toys are its parents, don’t ever forget that…!

4. Set weekly budget targets:

We live on a 100CAD/week budget (for 3) on groceries with a 10% margin. While my wife is the implementation chief on that, I set the targets based on our consumption characteristics. Living with 100CAD is pretty tough, but not impossible. Such targets have also helped us to stay away from temptations, such as cookies or other snacks doused with cornstarch and corn-syrup, produced from GMO crops. Good for our health. In the last 2 years, we haven’t been to any restaurant but we buy only organic produce. If there was some amounts left due to some promotions are stuff, we would indulge ourselves with a cup of ice-cream shared between us. We share ice-creams more because of the health concerns than because of financial concerns.

5. Source your supplies:

This is quite tricky and requires some knowledge of your locations. Some products are always cheaper in certain stores than in other. Before each week grocery shopping we try to compare prices of produce from different stores and then plan our trip so as to minimize our walking and cost of shopping. Networking is also a great idea to identify sources. My wife’s networking enabled us to find new sources, which we expect to reduce our costs further.

If interested in gardening, small vegetables grown at home are another good source of food practically free!!!

6. Exploit coupons:

This is a key idea, if you’d like to save some money and most web sites would advise the same. However, sourcing the coupons and timing is the extremely important. For example, when we go for shopping at Bulk barn, we usually buy a pound of Almonds and if it costs less than 10 CAD, we would buy some other things until our bill amount is exactly or slightly over 10 CAD to take advantage of their coupons. We use 6 almonds per day (more almonds mean more fats), which would last until the next coupon is issued. Buying the same amount of almonds from any other shops in our locality is extremely expensive.

7. Clothing- Trim your wardrobe:

Women would take particular exception at this. Anyway, I have exactly one boots, 1 pair of sneaker and 1 flip-flop. I have exactly 14 pairs of underwear. I don’t mind wearing the same clothes (but not underwearJ). It saves money not only in accessories but also in laundry. Technically, since we don’t have a washing machine in our apartment, my budget target for yearly laundry is 100CAD max. So far so good and I don’t smell like a fish.

8. Take Transport, only if you have to:

We go by walk to all places within 5 Km radius. Advantage is that we walk at least an hour and it is the best exercise one could have with a baby, who is more than content to enjoy the view outside. Running may not be option to everyone. I damaged my ligaments by trying to run. So, if you have not been practicing sports, it is better you don’t take damaging sports but take mild ones. To save money, try to integrate them with your daily chores like shopping, etc. For me, I really don’t have the patience to wait for the bus, which works in my favor. By walking, you may end up saving over 9000$, an average annual cost to own a car².

9. You are not cheap:

We don’t take bus, if we could. However, we don’t walk 5Km to an organic store if their sales for the weak doesn’t break-even our cost of time to walk to their store. Time is more valuable than money.

10. Dump your gadgets:

This includes TV, Xbox, iPhone, etc. Having TV makes you pay more taxes in France. Xbox and iPhone are more likely to waste your most valuable asset – Time. Further, TV is not really good for babies/toddlers. It is better avoided altogether. Think about the amount of subscription charges you may save²!

I hardly have had any cell phone. In my perspective, the phone itself is cheaper in comparison to the amount we have to shell out every month for the data plans and services. I would happily invest that money in something, like I did it on my education and would do it on my children’s education.

Remember, by throwing off your smartphone you might save around 1700$ per year³!

11. Small is sweet:

When it comes to living, smaller apartments or homes are sweeter. For one, they keep the family closer. On the other hand, reduce you electricity and maintenance costs. Smaller living space also means kids have to go out to play, where there is no TV, which would greatly benefit their fitness and reduce your headache in cleaning their mess...!

The amount of savings that you could realize is directly proportional to your place of residence. However, these principles had never let me down since 1997, when I started to save money to buy books for engineering entrance exams! Hope, they help you too…J

References

¹http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_alcohol_on_aging

²https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/pr_120410/

³http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/16/aaa-car-ownership-costs/2070397/

Consent, not age is the problem in early and child marriage - Really?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 14 May 2015 04:26:00 +0000

Recently, I came across an article in ‘The Hindu’¹. The article is based on a report by Nirantar Trust, on child marriage. While child marriage is deplorable and is being increasingly shunned by communities, the study focuses on only 8 states (out of 36, incl. union territories).

The highlight of the article is, “Based on research in eight States where early marriage is widespread, the report shows how in a system that wishes to control female sexuality, acknowledging that girls can have sexual agency and desires is a threat.” The article states that adolescents are actively discouraged from even conversations on contraception and safe sex to avoid giving them bad idea. Then, it talks of a newspaper baron, who was married at 14 but still pursued her interests.

Finally in the article, the director of Nirantar Trust, says that there exist a lot of funding for work on early and child marriage in India. Apparently, this study is funded by the American Jewish World Service.

Before getting into detail, my question is whether this study is peer-reviewed? If so, who are the reviewers? If not, how can it be trusted, even if any error/misrepresentation is not intentional. Given, the level of corruption in India, and the need of NGOs to competitively air Western ideologies, any error could well be intentional.

The article created enough interest in me that I started to peruse the report. The report in its executive summary says that data are collected from 7 states: Rajasthan, Jharkand, Bihar, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and New Delhi. In its executive summary, the report gives the following as root causes of child/early marriage:

Economics of marriage: Even though the study is skewed, as the data is only from 7 states of India, it argues that women in India are considered as “someone else’s wealth“. This type of inference couldn’t even pass the principles of induction. Had the report argued that, poverty is the main cause of child/early marriage, I would have agreed. But ascertaining intent, trying to tie it with a skewed sampling, makes one think of conspiracy or lobbyist mentality.
Sexuality:

Based on the response of an adolescent girl, the article argues that the primary role of marriage in India is to sanctify sex. This is nothing but a defamation of the institution of marriage. It speaks low of a country that had queens ruling the nation when women in many Western countries thought to be incapable to do men’s job.
The report also argues, “In a system that wishes to control female sexuality, acknowledging that girls can have sexual agency and desires is a threat. The anxiety caused by this is so strong that even conversations around contraception and safe sex are shameful and actively discouraged, lest they give adolescents the “wrong ideas.”” In India, it is not just the girls’ but also boys’ sexuality is controlled. I have known students expelled from schools (boys) for errors as silly as trying to talk to a girl. I also like to draw attention to the numerous “rape” cases where boys are charged with “rape” charges for trying to marry the girl of their choice. While, I’m not particularly happy about the situation, now as a postdoctoral researcher, I believe that I wouldn’t have come this far had those conditions were not in place. Such conditions are mostly designed to provide the opportunity for youths to mature and achieve their goals. While some have succeeded after marriage, for many it is not possible. Regarding the “wrong idea”, a conversation with an adolescent “to have safe sex” would only translate to “have sex”. So, please don’t give a wrong idea to the audience.
The report quotes a female interview respondent, “A girl may wear 10 burkhas, but she will be violated and what happens in the bedroom one will never know until you put a camera there” – This statement is deplorable as it is intentionally designed to make the audience assume and make an impression that women are constantly being violated in their bedrooms. While, I may appreciate the craftiness of the statement, I deplore the intent. When no information is available from the bedroom, insinuating one on other is highly deplorable.

Gender norms and masculinity:
The report states that “the perceived masculinity of a girl’s father lies in his ability to control her sexuality”. This is totally misrepresented; the perceived masculinity of a girl’s father lies in his ability to teach his daughter to control her sexuality and to protect her when required. The same goes in the case of boys too. If the parents fail to raise their sons to control their sexuality, or be “responsible”, the parents are equally shamed. So, the intended perception is misleading.
Educational and Institutional gaps:
In this context, the report highlights that “the trade-off of being “allowed” higher education is a greater conformity to the norms of a “good-girl” who can be trusted to “do the right thing” and stay on the “right path”, which usually implies staying away from romantic relationships and ceding control over other parts of their lives”. By this does the report, and by extension the trust, encourages promiscuity and adultery?

What is wrong being expected to do the right thing? Every parents fear for the well-being of their children. So, what is problem? It is not always true that romantic relationships are discouraged. But in a country were caste and class exhibit extreme control, and where men can run away after impregnating a girl, these are precautionary measures. I believe the audience get an idea what the report is trying to imply!
Centrality of marriage:
This is true as well as false at the same time. Same sex-relationships are legally still a grey-area. Are the authors of the report inciting potential-illegality?!
Risk, vulnerability and uncertainty:
Here the report highlights, “Within a rapidly globalizing society risk and uncertainty create anxiety, reinforcing the perception that marriage is one of the only sources of security within a family and larger community”. The interesting thing is, the report say that early marriages are more likely in regions highly prone to disasters such as floods and riots. I’m not sure, how this observation match with the information conveyed from the highlight. From my perspective, this could well be an evolutionary approach to ensure the survival of species. What are the counter arguments?
Age as axis of power:
While I agree with the authors, that not giving power of decisions to youths are making them vulnerable to societal norms and rules enforced by parents and other, I would like to ask if the author is ok, if the girl ended up as a prostitute or the boy ends up as a terrorist but flouting the societal norms and rules? Further, what scientific study could prove that children in their youths are capable of protecting themselves and taking right decisions without guidance? If so, why do we need juvenile law? Do the authors intend to undermine the activities of those against the recent modification to the juvenile law?

The rest of the report goes on to discuss the impact, strategies and their approaches, which are usual mumbo-jumbo. The central flaw in the study is that it fails to understand why child marriage is prevalent in certain states and not others? In fact, most of these states studied don’t have good social development index or prosperous (except for Maharashtra, even though its ranking is less other states). At the best, the conditions and causes, could be applied only to these regions and I believe that the report should not imply a nation-wide trend/cause.

References:

¹ http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/consent-not-age-is-real-issue-in-early-marriage-says-report/article7182448.ece

Austerity begets austerity?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 11 May 2015 00:35:00 +0000

Currently most of the western countries are embarking upon some form of austerity measures (reduction of debt-to-GDP ratio), to various extents. In some cases, these measures are forced by its neighbours and allies (Ex: Greece). There are many info available on austerity measures. However, I tried to put my hypothesis in simple terms. My hypothesis is that austerity only leads to further austerity measures, until the country goes broke or some innovative steps are taken to break this vicious cycle, depicted in the figure below:

While being one amongst the many suffering because of these measures, what confounds me is that why none is asking the right questions:

Explain how these measures would help us in the short and long term? (in layman terms but quantitatively not equivocally!)
Countries have been deploying austerity measures since 2008. Prove that it has worked!
If some are being benefitted by these measures, who are they and why? Why not others? When would other be benefitted?
Irrespective of many economic theories and empirical studies that would support anti-austerity, why are you deploying those measures? Why are the banks forcing such measures? How they reason it will benefit our economy?
It is a simple business/economic knowledge that spends cuts are good only if they become investment. This principle is well known to almost all CEOs and CFOs. If so, show how the spending cuts have generated more income, in an attempt to reduce to the debt-to-GDP ratio.
Who is responsible for the mess, in the first place?

I'm no economist but a "student" interested in the socio-economic-strategic affairs. I have tried to put, in simple terms, how austerity would only breeds further austerity until either the cycle or the country is broken. I would very much like to hear the counter arguments to this hypothesis! (Please leave your thoughts in the comments below...)

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity#cite_note-Blyth-18

Blyth, Mark (2013). Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019982830X.

http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2012/04/27/the-impact-of-fiscal-austerity-in-the-eurozone/

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/confusion-about-the-deficit/?_r=0

http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/TheLightningfromGreeceStrikesGermany_kpfabian_300115.html