Abki baar, questions to Modi sir-kar!

After having put forward my concerns to Arvind Kejriwal and Rahul Gandhi, I now want to put forward my concerns to Shri Narendra Modi of the BJP, the only officially declared prime ministerial candidate. Modi sarkar, in all probability yours will be the alliance with the highest number of seats and you may form the government after 16th May, when the President invites you to do so. But, before that if you could answer a few of my concerns, then it would be nice.

1. Why is your party against foreign direct investment in multi-brand retail?
   
   Your party's ideology (when it was formed) was to promote free-market practices, where the market forces decide who does business and who doesn't. To a certain extent, this still happens. That is why one mom-and-pop shop runs better than another, even when both are within half a kilometer's distance of each other. But then, why not extend this to multi-brand retail? Its advantages to consumers are well known and producers are well known. And why fear Walmart's entry? It may be an intimidating organisation, whose practices have partly been responsible for relocation of production sites to China, but then the same Walmart has failed in Germany. It wound up from there within ten years of first setting shop. So, there isn't too much to worry, they will succeed if we Indians allow them to succeed, else they will fail. By not supporting FDI in multi-brand retail, you are not only deviating from the stated ideology of your party, but also pandering to the small time traders, many of whom have cheated this country in millions of rupees in income taxes. Extremely few of them issue proper receipts. Most do not have a return policy in place.


2. Why do you always sound "Me, myself and Irene" (although not in a comic, but a worrying way)?
   In all your interviews, you have been saying "I have done this in Gujarat", "in my Gujarat, I won't want this or that to happen", etc. I have rarely found you giving credit to the team that you lead. Yes, as a leader you are expected to be strong, clear and decisive, but then you bring yourself out as Superman, who is capable of performing difficult and multiple tasks single-handedly and successfully. But, people should understand that all the work is, at the very least, executed by a team (if not conceived in part or whole). Of course, your attitude, perhaps, helps them in performing their tasks without fear of interference, but without them none of your ideas would be executed. So, please show us that you have been successful in building a lean-mean poverty, corruption and many other evil fighting machine. Your interviews and speeches make you appear a Hulk, rather than a Eisenhower or Roosevelt.


3. What is the obsession with the Ram Mandir programme?
   Your party couldn't resist putting the Ram Mandir programme in its manifesto. This, despite knowing that the matter is sub-judice. Of course, you did put in a rider saying that it would be through constitutional means, but then what is not revealed is most vital! Your party's plan to keep the Ram Mandir issue in the spotlight. This at a time when there are a large number of people who can barely eke a living out of their present occupations. Wouldn't it be more prudent to first work on development projects, like infrastructure, sanitation, encouraging industries boosting income, etc. before putting forth the Mandir agenda? I'm not speaking as a middle-class person who wants a job-security, but even those staying in Ayodhya (and Faizabad) are more worried about their current state of existence and end up looking at places out of their towns for employment, because of lack of opportunities there. The only ones successfully managing are the Mahants, the Hindu and Muslim organisations who solicit donations in the temple/mosque's name from tourists and pilgrims who come to visit Ayodhya and of course, the shopkeepers outside the temples. I would love to see Ayodhya developed as a centre of pilgrimage, but not when the centrepiece of all that matters is sub-judice.


4. What is your stand on vigilance organs of the administration?
   The promise to fight against corruption has been a big trump card of your election campaign. But, in your own state the post of the Lokayukta has been vacant for quite some time and your government is in constant clashes with the governor on various issues regarding appointing a new Lokayukta. If this is your enthusiasm about the vigilance organs of the state administration, then how are we supposed to believe in your dedication to fight corruption? Indira Gandhi had once talked about having a "committed bureaucracy". Are you also looking forward to the same?


5. Why don't you acknowledge the chinks in the Gujarat model?
   No model or government can be perfect. And, of course, in today's 27x7 media world governance is a game, more about perception than reality. But still, why have you not acknowledged that there are some goals still to be achieved. E.g. the water of the Narmada not yet reaching quite a few farmers. Or absence of properly functioning schools in some districts. The people of Gujarat are happy with the BJP government and hence have voted you to power twice over. But a lot still has to be achieved and you have to at the very least acknowledge that. And of course, there are unhappy people. It isn't without reason that the strength of the BJP hasn't been able to cross its tally of seats that it held in the previous assembly.

Sir, I sincerely hope that you will address some of these concerns of mine. Since your party hasn't been in power in the Centre, I can't ask you the questions that I put forward to Rahul Gandhi. But still, I hope I don't have to put those questions to you some time down the line.

India After Gandhi: Ramchandra Guha

After a pretty long time I am writing about a book. India After Gandhi, by Ramchandra Guha, takes us in the era, which history books in school end at. For most of us, India's history ends with Nehru's famous tryst with destiny speech and the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. But, in reality India's history as a nation, begins from 1947, when her existing boundaries and shape came into being.

The book talks about all the major events that have shaped the present situations in the country since 1947.

The enormous tasks and challenges presented by the independence, partition and the British mandate to the princely states of being free to join either union or declare independence from both. The country's first cabinet faced challenges from different directions at the same time. These ranged from rehabilitation of those displaced by the partition; uniting people who were divided along all imaginable lines like religion, caste, language, territory, etc.; presenting to the country a set of rules and regulations that would govern them with fairness and most important of all, food and shelter. 

The book very nicely describes the way Nehru's cabinet negotiated through the amazingly complex maze and labyrinth. Negotiations, persuasions and debates were the only ways used in resolving almost all disputes. Guha describes the challenges faced by the constitutional assembly and the bureaucracy in turning the nation into a democratic society based on universal adult franchise. With the benefit of hindsight that we now have, the book makes us realise how fortunate we were to have leaders of the calibre of Nehru, Ambedkar, S. P. Mookerjee, J. B. Kriplani and others. Nehru's staunch belief in democratic process meant that many of his favourite ideas and views were critically debated and he was constantly ready to accommodate the concerns of the opposition too. Several proposals of his were modified and watered down but each was fiercely debated in Parliament.

The country has never been without challenges. Right from independence, there have been movements aimed at seceding from India, external invasions and internal troubles. The book talks about some of the successes and failures that the nation has seen in this regard. It also talks about the way India went on to build its economy and the push and pull from within about the direction of the development. As we read the book, we realise how leaders with strong grass root connections can actually give a good shape to discussions and debates on various issues. Of course, this has its pitfalls, like Indira Gandhi responding to the masses' disappointment with her infamous garibi hatao slogan. One of the most glaring examples of not being connected to the masses and acting on suggestions of coterie is that of Rajiv Gandhi reversing the Shah Bano judgement and then opening the locks of the Ram temple/Babri masjid in Ayodhya.

Guha also talks about the statesmanship of opposition leaders like J. B. Kriplani, A. B. Vajpayee amongst various others, which sort of makes the reader a little sad when compared to the politicians of the present. He talks of the deterioration in the democratic processes since Indira Gandhi's time, which has continued till date. Increased instances of governments trying to become more populist and trying to enforce their mandates (and views) without thorough discussion in the legislative platforms provided by the constitution. A very pertinent point, which stands out till date, was made by Nehru and is quoted in Guha's book, which sums up the democracy that we are:

 The quality of men who are selected by these modern democratic methods of adult franchise gradually deteriorates because of lack of thinking and the noise of propaganda... He [the voter] reacts to sound and to the din, he reacts to repetition and produces either a dictator or a dumb politician who is insensitive. Such a politician can stand all the din in the world and still remain standing on his two feet and, therefore, he gets selected in the end because the others have collapsed because of the din.

The book ends with the results of the 2004 elections, considering the fact that since 2004 till date it was a contemporary period for Ramchandra Guha, rather than a history. The book is a great reading for those who want to understand the country and its political and economic discourse since 1948. It definitely helps in reshaping our views about the decisions that were taken at that time, which of course continue to affect us till date.

It is the power of perception, silly

We are now well aware of the love that Justice Katju has for Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi. And also how this love spruced up Arun Jaitley's love for Justice Katju.

In his article, Justice Katju persuades 'idiot' Indians to not commit the mistake that the Germans made in 1933, when they elected Adolf Hitler to power. But Justice Katju does not mention why this happened. Germany was humiliated at the end of World War 1. The country was asked to bear the costs of the war and simultaneously was restrained from developing its industrial capacities and power to the fullest potential. This led to economic mismanagement, hyper inflation, joblessness and erosion of  hard-earned personal savings. Amidst all this Hitler's party provided a road map to what Germans of that time perceived as recovery to glory. And Hitler bolstered these perceptions through actions at critical points in time. This strengthened the perception that only the Nazi party can restore Germany's lost glory. The final nail in the coffin was the Great Depression, a product of the great American economic mismanagement. The result: an overwhelming number of unemployed young and old people in a stagnant economy and a political landscape that didn't inspire any hope or confidence.

See some common part? The creation of a perception and backing it up with visible actions. Today the youth of India perceive Modi as a man of action. They want an economy that is fully functional and provides them with jobs. They realise that the only way to achieve progress is through economic development. And he has backed these perceptions with actions. When every Tom, Dick and Harry is looting the country, Modi comes across as a clean person who hasn't indulged in any kind of corruption. His biggest PR coup was in getting Tata Motors' Nano plant to Gujarat in a matter of days. And almost every industrial house has lauded him for his skills in providing an investment friendly atmosphere.

What is the perception about Modi's challenger, Rahul Gandhi? He doesn't seem to have a firm stand on any issue that troubles today's youth. He doesn't appear to take a strong stand against those in his government who are  accused of corruption. His election time speeches haven't inspired the voters in UP, Bihar and Gujarat. He claims to strive for merit but is made Vice President of the Congress party even when he hasn't led the party to a single electoral victory! Majority of the 'youth' he has promoted are sons of erstwhile ministers. His plans on kick starting the economy are not known. He doesn't interact with people through media or social media and always seems to keep away from scrutiny. His own brother-in-law seems to be financially benefiting from Rahul and Sonia Gandhi's position in the centre. To top it, Robert Vadra called us 'idiot Indians' as "mango people in banana republic." In such a scenario, how cam he persuade people to vote for his party?

Oh yes, the riots of Gujarat were a reality and Narendra Modi was at the helm of affairs during those riots. You claim he hasn't been brought to justice. But so is the case with the 1984 anti-Sikh riots of Delhi. Who has been punished for those riots? In fact, the man who said that this is a reaction of very very angry people was made the Prime Minister of the country in just a few weeks of making that statement. Justice Katju, you did appeal to us 'idiot Indians' to not commit the mistake that the Germans committed in 1933. That we should not have a situation where Narendra Modi is at the helm of affairs of our country. Going by your appeal even those at the helm of the Congress should not be brought back to power. But sir, you haven't enlightened us about a possible and credible alternative to Mr. Modi. In such a scenario what are we 'idiots' supposed to do? Hope you do not take us on a ride with this opinion of yours!

The National Rifle Association's PR disaster

This has been a fortnight of PR disasters. After gruesome crimes and horrific incidents in the world's flag-bearers of democracy- the USA and India, the targets of the agitation were involved in huge PR disasters. The government of India and especially the Prime Minister, were committing one PR disaster over another, in their response to the protests and reactions over the horrific gang-rape incident in Delhi.

Across the seas and oceans, the USA was rocked by the mass killings in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. As is common (and very necessary), there were huge voices and loud calls in support of enacting laws for regulating the ownership of guns and ammunition across the country. The Americans, who fiercely defend their constitutional guarantees, were bound to be vocal across both sides. First, since the constitutional gives rights to people to own guns, that right needs to be protected. That the guns end up taking lives of others (who are not necessarily the gunman's enemies) is an other matter. The National Rifle Association (NRA), which is an association of gun owners in America, is an extremely powerful body with over four million members. Not only are they an association, they are lobbyists too and powerful ones. They spent more than US$24 million in the 2012 elections towards funding political campaigns of candidates who were favourable to them. But, if they had spent a fraction of that amount on PR management, their  CEO, Wayne LaPierre, would not have ended up in a PR disaster soup.

After the mass killings in Connecticut, where most of the victims were young children, many aged less than 12 years, there was an outcry to have stricter gun control. The NRA was expected to say something, not that many expected it to say anything in favour of gun control. But even the NRA's members would not have expected it to be such a huge PR disaster. In a press conference, LaPierre said that the only way to stop gunmen from going on a rampage is handing guns to good people. So, instead of limiting the types of guns available and the number of people those who can own those, LaPierre wants everybody to have them. In the moments of grief, this isn't a welcome statement. It is almost like saying you need to fight more wars to have more peace. This was a pure PR disaster, indicating the mindset of the NRA members. Sure, you are a rifle association, so then why should civil population have access to assault weapons and military grade guns and ammunition? That too, in Wal-Mart, as if it were a weekly purchase of eggs! Nancy Lanza, the mother of the killer (Adam Lanza) in the Connecticut shootings, owned an array of guns in her home, which were accessible to her sons. Now, why did she need so many? If she was a collector of some sort, then shouldn't it be necessary for some regulations that ensure the safety of the weapons and restrict their accessibility?

Sure, your constitution guarantees the right to possess a firearm for self-defense within the home. But, is this the age when you might be attacked by a group of bandits, that you need to possess military grade assault weapons? And if so, why can't you let the police classify your area as such. Certainly, areas that are relatively safe do not need you to possess assault and automatic weapons. But then, for a safe society, all Americans need to accept that they need to adhere to certain restrictions. Will these restrictions guarantee a certainty in safety. Absolutely not, but then adhering to the 2nd amendment's provisions also has not done the same. Wonder how many people who matter would now want to side with LaPierre, after his press conference?

Undercover Boss: TV series

I began watching this TV series Undercover Boss on Netflix just a few days ago. I get to watch the  American version of this show on Netflix. So, the story line of this reality show is that the top boss (usually CEO, but in some cases, the COO, marketing head, legal advisor, etc.) of a particular company go undercover (under a disguise) for a week and work at the lowest level in their organisation, in different locations.

The workers, with whom they 'train' for their job, are (generally) told that this person is one amongst the two who are competing in a reality show for filling one open position in the corporation. They (the employee) have to evaluate his/her (the CXO's) performance on the job. The selling point of the show is that a wealthy CXO, who lives in a mansion, has expensive club memberships and jet-sets around US (perhaps the globe), is willing to reach employees at the lowest rung and work with them to understand the company better. At the end of the show, (s)he is supposed to announce what is being done to make the company a better place to work.

Of course, the show was meant for prime-time viewing, which means there has to be lots of drama and emotions thrown in. Human beings have a somewhat irrational reaction towards emotions and reality shows take complete advantage of this. So, the boss is sent to work with people who have struggled a lot before having this job or who have a family crisis or issues, which strike an emotional chord with the boss (and more importantly the viewers). In almost every show, the boss come out realising the (s)he cannot deliver with the same efficiency that those workers have been delivering (Oh, give me a break! Even I cannot do someone else's job with the same efficiency, but same hold true the other way round). And it also dawns upon them about how those employees are the ones who have made the company successful.

Well, well. Where was all this knowledge hiding till now? When you are chasing quarterly results, busy trying to impress Wall Street and shareholders, employees' happiness and well-being tends to take a back seat. But, at the end of this show, the CXO is supposed to realise what is not working in the organisation. (S)he has to attempt to fix the flaws that are stagnating or contrary to overall employees' growth. But you almost never see that happen!! On an average the CXO works with 4-5 employees in different locations and doing different jobs. Each employee narrates a set of problems (s)he is facing in life. Some are personal and some are professional. Some professional problems are a result of personal issues, while some personal problems arise from professional (on the job) issues. The CXO in almost all episodes seem to address the problems of individual employees. So, as a reward the employee sees his/her problem being addressed in the form of a vacation or a one-time cash grant. But then, doesn't this leave other employees, who were not selected to work with the CXO, unhappy? They could have problems far more serious than those selected. Besides, by announcing personal reward, how does it benefit the organisation? Where are the policy changes? Of the more than ten episodes that I saw, there have hardly been 3-4 policy decisions compared to almost 60 personal rewards. Or will there be policy decisions behind the camera? If that's the case, how will the prime-time viewer know whether the company is actually doing something for its employees? And the intention of the show is to demonstrate that the top management is willing to actually look into employees' problems and not just indulge in improving the top-line and golfing!!

Indian media and the National Film Awards

Considering some of the free time I have got now-a-days, I have begun spending some of it to analyse some of the views of Justice Katju and P. Sainath. "Why so?", would be your question. That is because they both present a view that is many a time completely ignored in mainstream media, especially the electronic one. The more I view news channels, the more am I beginning to believe that the Indian media lacks the necessary depth, rigour and commitment to educate the Indian public in issues relevant to India.

While there are a lot of isses, which the media doesn't give proportional coverage, I will restrict myself to the field of cinema. The Indian National Film Awards are a tribute to the best of Indian cinema, which spans across more than eighteen languages (excluding local dialects). Awarded every year, by the President of India, these are considered a pinnacle of achievement by many in the industry, as the nominees have to compete across the entire spectrum of Indian cinema, rather than be restricted to a particular language(s).

The regional Indian cinema has been at the forefront of meaningful entertainment, frequently combined with conveying important social messages and practices. Especially, cinema in Marathi, Malayalam, Bengali (or Bangla) and also in Tamil, Telegu and Kannada, has been active in these areas. What Bollywood (or mainstream Hindi cinema) considers as 'parallel' or 'experimental' cinema is a proven track for good (and reasonably commercially successful) cinema in regional languages. The enormous variety of such cinema provides a huge opportunity for the media to build products around this cinema and improving the knowledge of the general public about this area. But the media still basks in the glory of Bollywood. New, for the media, could range right from Vidya Balan winning the National award to whether Salman and Katrina are still together.

The media, which devotes a lot of time running programmes about the Oscars and give a minute-by-minute update of the ceremony, has done nothing to bring forth the procedures of the National Awards. The task of the jury is not yet known to us. How do they judge cinema of languages which they may not know at all? What movies are nominated for the awards, how is the nomination and elimination procedure? How is the jury selected, in the first place? For the media, their task begins only after the awards have been announced. If anyone from Bollywood has won an award, then run endless programmes about that person and the movie for which (s)he received the award. But, at the same time, regional cinema winners are completely ignored after their name and award has been announced. E.g., Vidya Balan winning the award (and she deserved it) received extensive coverage in the print and visual media. But, what about Girish Kulkarni, who won the best actor award? How much mention did he get, compared to Vidya? That too, when his movie (Deool) has showcased the dark (and economic) side of religion and religious beliefs. The movie has also won the President`s golden lotus award and award for best dialogue. Similarly of other films like Byari and others. While the media gave extra wide coverage to A. R. Rahman receiving the Oscar, how much do we know of Neel Daat and Mayook Bhaumik, who won the National Award for best music direction? Or about Anand Bhate and Rupa Ganguly, the best playback singers?

I do not intend to say that news media should screen such movies. But the print and electronic media can definitely bring forward the artists who have at least been nominated for such awards. Of course, Bollywood has a marketable value, far higher than regional cinema, but then shouldn't the media help in furthering the cause of regional cinema and also, help inculcate and improve interest in good regional cinema? Similarly, the government of India to is at a fault that it hasn't been able to create an environment and viewer interest like the Oscars have done. The government should also pro-actively help develop interest and curiosity in the National awards so that the 'market' for such cinema improves.

Why the IPL is going wrong for Indian cricket?

No, this is not to blame for the disastrous tours of England and Australia. But it is got to do with wrong precedents being set and incorrect models being created. Previously too, I have blogged about the kind of culture that the IPL is ending up creating, especially on the franchisee side. But, in itself, IPL is not to be blamed for everything going wrong. It might just turn out to be the proverbial final straw that broke the camel's back, which has followed a series of rather unfortunate events. Some for which the BCCI is to be blamed and some for which we, the society, are to be blamed. The IPL is geared towards making a good business case first, and then an opportunity for players to display their T20 skills. It has been made completely commercial. And the BCCI has managed to get everyone, from ex-players to 'cricketing experts' on its side to tom-tom the benefits of the IPL. Many of these people claim that IPL has benefited fringe players like Swapnil Asnodkar, Paul Valthaty and others, who could get their 'skills' noticed because of the IPL. 

But are the franchisees actually interested in developing domestic cricket? The one which is supposed to feed the lineup for international cricket? None of those who shine at international level have honed their skills in the IPL. They have gone through the gruel of Ranji trophy, Duleep trophy and U-19 levels before being chosen for the test side. Moreover, the way the IPL is handled and organised itself is a huge contradiction, much like the Parliament and legislative assemblies in India. Those framing the rules of business, are themselves competing for the business. N. Srinivasan, the current BCCI secretary and a board member for eons, is the owner of the Chennai Super Kings franchise, through India cements. When the players of the game begin framing the rules, there is always going to be suspicions of not being fair and neutral.

Now, for season 5 of the IPL, Sahara India has begun claiming about unfair treatment. They are right, when they say that a replacement of Yuvraj Singh is needed. But, they go on to say that there is no Indian player of the same marketable value as Yuvraj, so they want a foreign player. Thus, what is more important to Sahara is their RoI, rather than creating a franchise where budding players can display their talent. A player's marketable value is important, than his talent. This is the same case with all other franchisees. How many have played a positive role in developing local cricket? How many have actually taken the pains to take cricket to areas which have good talent, but not enough facilities? Have the franchisees declared any plans to upgrade existing or build new training facilities and/or stadia for budding local cricketers, who might not currently be a part of the IPL? Has the BCCI ever thought of this issue? 

Time and again, comparison is drawn with the football clubs in Europe. These clubs have been built over time and locals have been naturally drawn towards loyalty of their clubs. They act as a talent breeding centre, which feeds into the national teams of each nation. Finally, creating and nurturing the lines that feed the national cricket side is left to the BCCI. So, Saurashtra bears everything it takes to hone Ravindra Jadeja into becoming a strong international cricketer. Only after he has been tested at that level, does he catch the attention of the franchisees who now want to pick him up at all possible costs. This is a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Many states have rightly withdrawn the status of 'sport' to the IPL and have begun collecting entertainment tax on the matches played.

The great Indian media too has had its role in making the IPL larger than life. In an era of breaking news, a flash of 30 runs scored in 16 balls makes more headlines than 150 scored over a day or bowling 30 overs in  a day for getting 5 wickets. When Valthaty became the highest scorer in the IPL, the news anchors were clamouring for his inclusion in the India ODI side. This goes on day-in and day-out, leading the public and layman fans to believe that IPL performances are the benchmark for selection to the international side. Moreover, Valthaty features on the front-page of every newspaper, even if he has scored 45 runs off 20 balls. But a player's photograph rarely appears (even on the sports page) for his heroics in the Ranji trophy. Newspapers allocate a major portion of the sports page for each of the IPL matches, but Ranji trophy games are reported in one column, with the heroics of the players going completely unnoticed. Take up any leading daily in your area and you can see that Ranji scores are presented in brief, whereas IPL score cards are presented in complete detail, with analysis from their regular cricketing experts. Twnty overs per side of cricket is analysed in great detail, but these experts do not sit and analyse the Ranji trophy games.

Not currently, but gradually, this would create a belief and mindset that cricket should be played in a manner so as to come onto the radar of the IPL franchisees. People will subconsciously begin believing that since the media gives prominence to the IPL, compared to the Ranji and Duleep trophies, it is far more important than the latter. All that needs to be done is bang a few balls into the boundaries or limit the score by bowling a few tight overs and you could be netting in far more money that you would have made over your entire career (if you didn't play international cricket).

As a society, we too are to blame for this. We haven't rejected the commercialisation. We have favoured batsmen hitting the balls into the boundaries and have never liked to see the stumps being castled too often. Perhaps because we are more of arm-chair analysts and very few have played the game seriously at any level. So, it isn't much difficult to cheer a ball crashing into the boundary, but requires more knowledge to realise how a few kmph difference in pace can deceive the batsman. Talk to parents of young cricket aspirants, majority would want their ward to become Sachin Tendulkar. Very very few would want him to emulate Anil Kumble or Zaheer Khan or Kapil Dev.

So, finally, whose game is it any way?

What is better: FDI or FII?

For now, the debate on foreign direct investment (FDI) in retail has been put on the back-burner. But, there is a raging debate on whether to allow FDI in the airline industry. As of now, foreign institutional investment (FII) in airlines is allowed. So, what is the difference between FDI and FII? And which is more beneficial?

In FII, there are investment banks or financial institutions based on foreign soil, which invest their money in shares of various companies in India. While there are complex rules and regulations that govern in what and how much they can invest, they are basically like stock brokers. They invest in stocks, which they feel will fetch them good returns. They are betting on the good financial performance of the company. And since they can invest anywhere in the world, they will always invest money, when they feel there is an environment for good growth in the particular business. And, once they feel that the environment is going bad and not conducive for growth, they will begin pulling out. Remember, this money after being pulled out of the stocks, gets repatriated out of the country. Domestic institutions, even if they withdraw from the stock market, keep the money within the country. In short, on a phone call or at the click of a mouse, billions of rupees can either flow into the country or flow out of the country.

On the other hand, FDI implies that the foreign entity comes to India, either on its own or in partnership with a local company, and invests in the permitted sector by putting in manufacturing, logistics, marketing facilities and helping set up a host of ancillary units. This leads to creation of assets in the country, using foreign currency. Of course, the investment is going to be recovered over time, and some portion of the profits are going to move to the parent company's country, but then a large portion of the revenue gets spent within the country itself. Moreover, it is not difficult to dispose of these created assets overnight. The procedure is tedious. Thus, only those companies who can stay invested through the thick and thin times, will think of investing. Moreover, if the foreign partner wants to exit, they have to sell off the assets to some person. Again, while the profits might go out of the country, the principal amount invested, does stay back. Thus, FDI always allows for a substantial portion of the capital to remain invested within the country. Of course, businesses might not be amenable to FDI. The foreign partner may obviously want some control over business decisions and directions. They might also decide what technology to bring in and what not to. Moreover, if the foreign company opens a wholly owned subsidiary here, then with their deep pockets, they can resort to predatory pricing and give the domestic ones a tough time. But, in the bigger picture, it is FDI which brings in technology, assets and some of the best global practices in business.

In India, we wouldn't have been driving cars manufactured by Honda, Toyota, etc. without FDI. Nor, could we have seen the impressive returns on stock investments, without some contribution from FII. On the flip side, cold-drinks like Gold Spot vanished from the Indian market, once Parle sold their soft-drink companies to Coca-Cola. And the swings that one witnesses in stock markets or the price of the dollar, is partly induced by FIIs moving their money in and out of the country. An increase of both, though, signifies confidence in the government's policies, the ability of various government bodies to execute these policies and the capability of the local market to, at least partly, absorb their products. So, to sum it up, FDI is essential for bringing in foreign companies and allowing them to create assets, which will stay in the country forever. FIIs are essential to provide the money required for investment, without having to rope in a partner in the assets. Which one is better? Up to you to make a decision!

To FDI or not to FDI (in retail)?

With its decision on allowing 51% FDI in multi-brand retail, the cabinet has set loose the cat amongst the pigeons. Everyone, from those for it and those against it have been running helter-skelter to justify their stand. Now, I do not know if FDI in retail is a good option or not, because opinions of both sides have left me confused. But here are a few things that I would like to throw open to the readers of this blog. Readers are free to make their own decision on FDI in retail.

1. The Prime Minister said that FDI in retail would bring in modern technology and investment in back-end storage and logistics. This would help prevent damage to produce and thereby give a better price to farmers. But such technology isn't exactly any rocket science, that cannot be developed locally. More so, with Indian retail firms being there for long, why haven't they been able to invest in such technologies? Was it reluctance on their part or did government policies prevent them from  making such large-scale investments? Moreover, storage and transportation of fresh produce requires massive investments in infrastructure and streamlining of procedures. E.g., good roads that can endure heavy traffic, transparency in functioning of various toll nakas and R.T.O. check points, a reliable supply of electricity in small towns and villages, where farms are located. Why wasn't such investment made before? If India can develop technologies to send a spacecraft to the moon, such things should definitely be simpler.
2. Better prices of farmers and producers is also touted as another benefit. But then, if retailers were giving good prices to farmers, why is the US and EU continuously subsidising agricultural products? In effect, the taxpayers of the US and EU are collectively paying for the produce indirectly, when such money can be used for the benefit of the society at large.
3. Before bringing in FDI in retail, what has been done by the government to reduce wastage of food produce due to poor logistics and/or storage facilities? Everybody (at least the government) knows that farmers have to compulsorily sell their produce at the mandis or nearest APMC. All the wholesalers in these mandis are generally affiliated to some political party or the other. Even the workers at these mandis have unions which are affiliated to a particular political party. The elections to the office of these mandis is hard fought by political parties and used to show case their control over the local politics. This makes it quite clear as to why have these mandis not modernised. They never feared competition, because they patronised all those who were in power. They use their muscle in the legislature to see to it that nothing forces them to make investments and reduce cash flow. The wholesalers in these mandis have been responsible for loss of produce as well as its inefficient handling, leading to unnaturally high prices. Even if the government changes this law and allows the farmers to sell the produce to someone who offers them the best price, it would help the farmers, without the need for FDI. I have a suspicion here. With most mandis being dominated by regional parties, is the Congress trying to strike at their base by weakening their clout through the mandis?
4. While FDI in retail will generate jobs for many, how many would be lost? We need to consider the worst case scenarios in both cases, i.e. the minimum number of jobs that can be generated and the maximum that could be lost. Once we have that picture in front of us, then we can make an informed decision about whether there would be a positive employment or negative one.
5. The Amul model of co-operative involvement has been extremely successful in Gujarat and areas where Amul is operational. This means that Amul definitely has a lot of expertise in the areas of logistics and food processing, storage, transportation, etc. Why wasn't Amul called upon to provide their expertise to other agricultural areas as well? And can't others learn from Amul about the intricacies of logistics, storage, etc.? What prevents such learning, apart from no fear of competition? (Thanks, Dwaipayan Dasgupta for pointing this out)
6. Back in the early nineties, when the Indian economy was being liberalised, there was a group of people, basically owners of various companies, which was called the "Bombay Club". They lobbied with the government against liberalisation, stating that it would spell doom for Indian companies. But, the government went ahead and many of those belonging to the Bombay Club now have companies which are successfully competing with foreign giants and giving them a run for their money. Why? Because these companies were left with no choice, but to adapt the global standards. Will the similar analogy hold for the current retailers and wholesalers?
7. Despite the presence of many Indian retail giants such as Reliance Fresh, Big Bazaar, More, etc. my mother still prefers buying wheat and rice from her trusted aadatiya. At home, we still get our flour ground from the neighbourhood flour mill. And our family still buys fruits and vegetables from the vendor on the street or in the mandi. How difficult would it be for the big retailers to change this mind-set of the Indian consumer? Remember, Reliance Fresh, with perhaps the deepest pockets amongst the Indian retail giants, hasn't been able to shave off too much business from the small retailers.
8. Can we afford to become a country, where people drive 10-15 km (one way), just to get their weekly/fortnightly supplies? This, at a time when petrol prices are going through the roof with every passing day! The small retailer saves us a lot of fuel when we walk down to his shop and buy stuff from there. So, will the saving on food prices be enough to compensate for this long drive?
9. They say, a picture is worth a thousand words. I saw this picture at the Rumtek monastery near Gangtok. We need to learn a lot from this picture. It perhaps sums up the fact that we need to take a holistic approach on the issue of FDI in retail and not just look at it being able to provide more money to farmers and cost less to end consumers!!

The disadvantages of Big Brand retail shops

No, I do not intend to make a socialist case here, which is best left to political parties and activists. Here, I intend to spell the disadvantages that big brand retail shops have for me as a consumer. This is in the back-drop of the Indian government approving 51% foreign direct investment in multi-brand retail or hypermarts, as they are known in the west. This will bring in the big guys like Wal-Mart, Carrefour, etc. The benefits are being touted as big for consumers. They will bring in money, their expertise with supply chain management, etc. to sell goods to consumers at the lowest prices.

But for this, they need infrastructure, which the government would have to provide. Large warehouses would necessitate a smooth supply of electricity, well connected roadways to connect the warehouses to manufacturing centres and the stores, etc. This is woefully missing in India, where outside big cities, a minimum 6-8 hours of load-shedding is considered normal. The success of such retail firms relies big time on the availability of such first class infrastructure. But, whether they succeed or not, they have many disadvantages for consumers.

We may not realise this, but in the quest for selling things at cheaper rates to us, these retail outlets rely more on volumes of business, compared to per unit margins. So, the brand that sells most is the one they will stock. Of course, there are a number of subtle tricks they use to entice us into buying certain brands or products, but then, that is a completely different topic. So, if you like a particular brand and fragrance of incense sticks, you might not find it in the supermarket, because they do not get good volumes on it. And you are stuck to buying from the ones available in the store. So, you tend to lose your favourite brands, if they do not fit in the strategy of the supermarket. The small shopkeeper, though, will keep a fairly diverse number of products. Smaller quantities of the less popular ones may be stocked, but nevertheless, you have a fairly high chance of finding your choice there, than the supermarket.

If a certain product is out-of-stock in the supermarket, you have no way of knowing when it will arrive. The mom-and-pop shopkeeper around the corner, will not only give you an idea of when the product will arrive but also keep it aside for you, once it is in. This personalisation of service is out of question for supermarkets! Their business model just does not have this feature.

Thirdly, the supermarkets stock only big sized products. E.g. shampoos in large bottles, toothpastes are available only in 400 gm. size or detergents in min. 1 kg stocks or buy-3-get-4th-free soaps and many more such things. A very huge number of India's people live on frugal income. For them, to spend Rs. 100 (for a shampoo) in one go is extremely difficult. That is why most of India's FMCG manufacturers have come up with small sized packs (sachets for shampoos, detergents, 50 gm. toothpastes, etc.) which cost very less and are affordable to that population. Such small sizes are not stocked by the supermarkets, as the margin is too low and their rate of sale unpredictable to justify the efforts required to stock them. So, (even if you have a high salaried job but) if you live alone, you won't be able to purchase these things. If staying alone, I wouldn't want to buy a pack of 4 soaps and be stuck with them for 6 odd months. I would rather buy a single cake of soap, which would last for well over a month and be free to choose a different soap every time. Plus, I would be left with liquid cash, free to spend it as I like, instead of being tied up in three soap cakes, which would be useful only after a month.

Such mass stocking of products also hampers the variety available and this is especially visible in the clothing sections. They will not stock premium products. E.g., here in Edmonton, people advise to get winter jackets from special shops, not from Walmart, as it doesn't stock those. These supermarkets won't stock out-of-season stuff too. E.g. no chappals or floaters are available in the supermarkets during winter. For that, you have to look out in the footwear shops only. 

This is a very simplistic analysis of what would happen to us as consumers, if big supermarkets are allowed to dominate the retail business scene. Most of it is my personal experience. In India, there is a certain social aspect associated with shopping, which will not be available in supermarkets. The shopkeeper and the shop is where the local news is exchanged. Moreover, the personal relation developed with the shopkeeper help us in many other ways. His/her network helps us access various other services. E.g., some of his relative or acquaintance might be running a travel agency, from where we would be able to rent a car. Or contract a plumber's services at discounted rates. These informal channels will not be available with supermarkets. Economic and social analyses tend to indicate contrary views, but as a consumer, will we get all that we want? I have my doubts. We might end up getting what the supermarket wants to sell to us and when they want to sell it. As consumers, if we would like to have wider choices, I think supermarkets should not have a free run in the Indian economy.

What is wrong with IIT students?

In a country where something or the other is constantly happening to keep the breaking news ticker of the news channels running, there is a new storm in the tea cup. The co-founder of Infosys, Narayana Murthy, made a statement that the quality of students entering the IITs has deteriorated over the years, courtesy coaching classes. And then, some how channels caught hold of Chetan Bhagat, the 'youth icon' who bid good-bye to an engineering career, took up a investment banking job and  left that one too, to write famous books and be called a literary sensation, countered(?) saying that those who run body shops shouldn't comment on quality of engineers. Bhagat further states that the system should be fixed, no use blaming the students.

So, who is right or wrong? Well, Mr. Murthy's comments need to be looked in their context. And nobody is ready to do that. Yes, coaching classes have spawned all over the country where students are imparted training on how to approach the JEE. Most of the students end  up practising hundreds of problems, of which some similar ones are bound to appear in the exam, thereby increasing the chances of them answering these questions correctly. Nothing wrong in this, as long as the students have some passion to pursue a technical career. Many a times, aspirants are told by their parents- beta/beti, 2 saal man laga kar padho, ek bar IIT mein admission mil gayi, to zindagi ban jayegi. Admissions to the IIT are made to appear like the Holy Grail, on which only the blessed ones may be able to lay their hands on. Now, when bombarded with such advice, students generally slog hard to get to the holy grail. But, no one prepares them for the life in IITs. The coaching classes hardly advise the students on life at IIT, their jobs end once the students clear JEE.

Of course, IITs too haven't been very active in keeping up the students' enthusiasm. Professors and Ph.D. students at IIT should be involved in motivating the students to take interest in a technical career. No one seems to tell them that though you might end up using a certain percentage of the technical knowledge gained, it is necessary to understand the whole picture. This would also help when you rise in your career and would be involved more in managerial decisions rather than technical details. Any problem given to them is to be analysed using the mathematical skills learnt over the past years. But, provide them with challenges. Make them realise that all problems do not have pre-set answers. Let them use their engineering knowledge to build solutions to realistic problems. This will definitely improve their understanding about the problem and how to approach its solutions.

And at some stage, we need to stop glorifying people like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and many more such persons. We always keep on saying Jobs and Gates were college drop-outs, yet they achieved so much in life. They might have not seen the face of IIT, but have the potential of employing so many IITians. Well, both Jobs and Gates spent hundreds and thousands of hours working on and sharpening their skills of design and coding. Moreover, a very few have the talent of becoming a Jobs or a Gates. In the tech. industry too, how many have risen to the stature of Gates or Jobs? The rest have to live with the fact that there are limits in their talent. It is, therefore up to the existing students to increase focus on giving an exposure to the students on the benefits of a technical career. At IITB, I have seen students calling many alumni to talk about their lives. Most of these people are non-tech people. Those who are entrepreneurs or in the finance sector or have taken a management degree are invited to talk. But the likes of Kota Harinarayana, who led the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) project, do not get invited. Same with people from the Chandrayan project or any of the DRDO projects.

Faculty should use their network with the industry and other research laboratories and organise sessions on the benefits of a technical career. There have been many technical successes in India. These need to be marketed to the students, similar to the way Jobs used to market his products. Faculty should see this as a part of their work, so that students realise what they are gaining from the technical knowledge they gain at IIT.

And finally, the industry in India should be able to absorb this technical talent. When Mr. Murthy talks about quality deficit in IITians, people are definitely going to ask, what has Infosys done for this country? Apart from providing jobs to millions of people (directly and indirectly), there is nothing noteworthy to be said of them. Providing localisation of content, or IT services for solving problems faced in India or innovative IT products, where are the companies that would be doing this? Going beyond IT, how are the engineering companies doing? How much are they spending on R&D? And where is this R&D being directed towards? To solve big ticket problems that worry the West or to innovate for the benefit of the Indian society? If we are able to find answers to these questions, then we would definitely be able to bring out more from IIT students and Mr. Murthy wouldn't have to make his comment any more. That would also keep Chetan Bhagat in check.

The dangers of the face value

For almost twenty four years (discount the first five years) of my life, I have been used to conducting transactions with only the Rupee as a currency. And over these years, I have seen how things have become expensive (or the value of the Rupee has diminished). Moreover, I have been able to develop benchmarks for how much to spend on what item. And also rough benchmarks for monthly expenses and savings required.

Cut to September 2011. I am in Canada and suddenly, I have to spend in Canadian Dollars. Now, the game has completely changed. Suddenly, I have to adjust to the new currency and what can one unit of this currency buy and is buying of that amount, actually worth that value? But, the problem is that I haven't yet developed any benchmarks. One Canadian cent still has a lot of value, compared to one Indian paisa. But, then for many days, it is only the face value of the currency that registers in my mind. And with the mental framework wired to deciding the worth based on the Rupee, many a times doesn't register the gravity of the expenses incurred. E.g., a CAD 1.24 worth of coffee is far expensive than if I would have my own coffee maker. But this gravity doesn't register quickly, as for me the value 1.24 registers as a small number, because I am used to transacting in the Rupee. But, it is significant value for many Canadians. And hence, some of them might skip the coffee for a day and have it only on certain number of days.

This is the danger that the face value of the currency poses. For me to realise the gravity of the transaction, I have resorted to converting the amounts into Indian rupees. This helps me in also keeping a tab on the expenses involved. Moreover, it has led to looking for cheaper alternatives. But, the flip side is that I might not end buying something really needed or beneficial, just because its price in Rupees feels too much!

From where else can money come for AI?

Whenever I travelled Air India on international flights, I thought that they were doing a good job with the facilities provided on board. When compared with other airlines, they didn't seem too extravagant. Of course, they did offer a wider choice of meals, except that the special requests had to be informed earlier. And the portions served too are comparable to what is served on other airlines. So, what else could be done to improve the revenue of the airlines?

I saw this on the Lufthansa, Air Canada and Dragon Air flights. The cabin crew literally hawk duty-free stuff. After you have been served a nice(?) meal and drink, the cabin crew come out with a trolley of duty-free goods. And they literally keep on calling 'Interested in buying duty-free?' Of course, coming from a beautiful air-hostess, it sounds seductive, and many a times I feel sorry about not being in a position to buy something from her. But then it is same to the 'chaaayee aaa' call of a tea-vendor on railway platforms. Except that the chai wala is viewed as a nuisance, while the air-hostess isn't. However, this is additional revenue for the airlines. On every flight, I have seen passengers buy a thing or two from the airlines' duty free catalogue. And mind you, these aren't stuff that are cheap. Things like a Calvin-Klein perfume or a Jack Daniel cannot be readily bought by anybody. Moreover, I have seen Air Canada entice passengers by showing them some 'good reasons' to purchase duty-free items on the personal entertainment system in their aircraft.

And the entertainment system brings another source of revenue. Why not show advertisements on the personal entertainment screens? Air Canada does that. Before you start a show or movie, a 15 sec advertisement is played. This can range from sports equipment to credit cards. So, basically Air Canada is selling advertising space. Mind you, these can be easily customised. E.g., the kids' section like cartoons, et al. can have advertisements targeted towards kids, the movie or TV show section can have different advertisements. And yes, advertisements in business and first class can still be different from those in economy class. It is similar to public transport authorities selling space on the exterior of the buses for advertisements. All this brings in additional revenue for the airline.

I never see such things happening on Air India flights. The crew just serve the meals and go to their resting stations after they have cleared the tables. Air India does have a catalogue, which mentions the duty free items available, but then you have to contact the crew for that and they will have it delivered to your address. How many passengers will be willing to do that, compared to when the duty free trolley is wheeled past your seat? Moreover, its entertainment screens do not advertise anything. These revenues may seem too trifle, but then, there isn't much effort involved in generating them. A Boeing 777 carries more than 300 passengers. Imagine, being able to advertise for such a captive crowd. People plug into their entertainment system by default, and even at 70% load, it is a big crowd to be targeted. Moreover, the flights last for more than six hours and if it is a hopping flight, you get a total of many more passengers to be advertised to. And margins from selling duty-free stuff should be pretty high. The Air-India management needs to have some strategy on this. It might involve a lot of work with the RBI, with regards to the payments made, but in the long run, it is worth these efforts.

Of course, none of this substitutes to running the airline in an efficient manner. These earnings are like icing on the cake, which just makes the cake more attractive and bring in better margins. But, for that, the cake itself should be perfectly baked. Hope someone in Air India is listening to this!

वो सात साल

Don't worry, I'm not typing a post in Hindi. But, Romanised Hindi is something that I hate, and hence have put the title in Hindi. It's been almost seven years, since I entered the lush green campus of IIT Bombay. Coming from a college(?) where no one cared about its teachers and lectures and were only governed by University regulations, I was in for a cultural shock. Suddenly, professors were very important. Attending lectures and classes was necessary, since the syllabus didn't remain standard but on what and how much the professor desired to teach. Moreover, most of the professors were caring enough and took their jobs of teaching very seriously. They enjoyed the activity of teaching, which made me respond back equally(?) well.

I came here for a Masters' degree. The plan, initially, was to get the IIT brand name on my resume, which will help me jump start my career, which would have been a non-starter considering the college that I studied in, during for my undergraduate degree. One thing led to another, and I don't know when it happened, but I decided to enroll myself for a Ph.D. Of course, many ask me why didn't I go abroad for doing one? The truth is that it is extremely difficult for a non-IITian (meaning, someone without a B.Tech. from IIT) to get into those top universities, where the best researchers are. Moreover, I didn't want to grind myself through the GRE and that Barron's word list, from where 90% of the words are never used post-GRE.

And so began my tryst with IIT-Bombay. I enrolled for the Ph.D. programme in July 2006. It has been a long and painful journey. As it happens with almost every Ph.D. student, my work too began as a treasure-hunt. And it has taken five long years to gather the treasure, properly document it and lay adequate claims on it (submit papers for publication). The duration seemed so long, for myself as well as others, that even the security personnel, mess workers, staff, etc. started asking me, "अरे, तुम्ही अजून इथेच?" (translation: Oh, are you still a student?) or "अजून किती दिवस?" (translation: how much time more?)

But equally interesting has been the life apart from research. From the experiences of my seniors, I had realised that an active extra-curricular life is necessary to stay sane in IIT. No, I didn't actively participate in extra-curricular, but  did make an attempt. It is here, that I started taking exercising seriously. I trained myself and ran the Mumbai half-marathon twice, enrolled myself in swimming classes and trained to clear the intermediate level camp conducted at IIT. The Sameer hill became my favourite destination, to give some stress tests to the heart and muscles. I have encircled IIT so many times, that my jogging shoes never lasted beyond one year. Hostel activities, Research Scholars' activities, etc. took up a good chunk of my time at IIT. I was introduced to many facets of life here. Students' struggles at research, apathy towards common courtesies and sensibilities, politics being played to the extent that it hampers research work and also, some faculty genuinely fighting it out for students. It is here, that I got to listen to extraordinary talk from Nobel laureates to Fields' Medallists and realised what makes them special. I also got to listen to eminent personalities who have made a difference in India. Through the Institute Colloquiums (which also had awesome refreshments), I got to listen to great talks from researchers around the world.

 It is here, where I learnt more about friendship, about give-and-take. About bonding with an extended family. About the importance of building relationships, with your family, your neighbours and those in your workplace. Building of relations has helped a lot in times of need and times of crisis. These are important when you are at the nadir of your confidence or at the peak of your success. Good relations help you reduce anguish and increase the joy. IIT gave me a few important lessons in life. Not only about academics, but also about non-academics and these are equally important when I shape up my career.

Experiencing the jetlag

Almost everybody who has travelled across the Atlantic or the Pacific have a jetlag story of their own. Some brag about how they didn't feel the jetlag at all, while some sheepishly admit that they suffered for days together before they overcame their jetlag. Why does someone have to feel sorry of suffering from jetlag? It is a natural phenomenon and can affect someone more than the other. Just like common cold. Some get better overnight, while some struggle for days.

But, once you've experience it, you begin to realise that each one has his or her own unique scenarios. E.g., now that I travelled across the Atlantic, I experienced jet lag for the first time. Not that I couldn't sleep in the night, but there were other signs that indicated that I am experiencing a jetlag. The first and foremost thing I did was to sleep whenever possible on flight. So, while I missed a meal on one leg of the flight, I wasn't groggy and tired when I reached my destination. But then, the internal body clock hadn't yet adjusted. So, I didn't feel like having dinner during regular dinner time and ended up feeling hungry at odd times in the night. Moreover, my bowel movements went for a toss. I was using the wash room at odd times and had a clean movement only by the next evening!! My host must be wondering about my frequent visits to the washroom. Fortunately, I didn't have too much trouble with sleeping. When I landed here, it was in the evening and went off to sleep at night. But I ended getting up early in the morning and hence, the following afternoon, I slept for almost three hours.

So, like everyone else, my story of jetlag too turns out to be unique to a great extent.

How tennis has changed over the years

Just have a look at these two videos.

1. Bjorne Borg vs. John McEnroe, 1980 Wimbledon final

2. Federer vs. Nadal, 2008 Wimbledon Final

See the difference? Forget the big fibre-based racquets of Nadal and Federer, forget their improved athletics. Notice the grass on the Centre Court in both the videos. In the first video, you will see that the grass is considerably worn out even near the net, indicating the dominance of serve-and-volley type of play. Watch how frequently McEnroe and Borg rush towards the net in order to play their volleys and remove the sting out of the opponent's returns.

In the second video, you will still notice green grass near the nets. But at the base line, the grass is completely worn out. This is the change I am talking about. From the serve-and-volley type of game to booming from the baseline itself. Notice how rarely do Federer and Nadal come close to the net. Both try to hit towards the base line and from there itself.

Tennis has changed over time and as usual, Wimbledon is there to remind us about it and help in etching these changes in our memories.

IITs propose to hike fees by five-fold

In a recent news by rediff.com, there is a story that IITs have proposed to increase the fees for the UG degree course by five times. The proposal says that this will allow IITs to become independent of government funding and hence more autonomous. The committee headed by Dr. Kakodkar made this proposal to the government. The committee based its recommendations on the way IIMs charge fees in which, course-oriented degree programmes are financed completely by the students and research-oriented programmes are funded through various sources, like MHRD, DST, other government organisations and private industries.

But, how much justified is this? In another report, that appeared in the Times of India, the logic used was that one-third expenses should come from students, one-third from government and one-third generated through research projects. And there is a provision for extending low-interest loans to economically backward students. However, unlike foreign universities, where scholarships and tuition waiver are given to certain students, the committee doesn't make any mention of the same to students coming to IIT. Scholarships  in foreign universities are based on various criteria, ranging from academic excellence, sports excellence to ethnic origin. IITs already extend tuition waiver, free accommodation and free basic messing to students from the SC and ST category, irrespective of their economic status. Why don't they apply the economic backwardness criteria to these students?  If their parents are economically well to do, why should they be extended such privileges.  And there is nothing in store for meritorious students. Additionally, in foreign universities, the students have the opportunity to work on campus and earn some money to substitute their living expenses. The way IIT curriculum is designed today, it leaves the students with very less time to work and earn some money. Also, there exist no opportunities on IIT campuses, where students can be employed as part-timers. IITs, ironically, pride on the fact that their course structure is so intense that students have to over-work and under-sleep to stay on track.

Another point, the committee's report doesn't mention is the plan to increase revenues through research projects and technology licensing. Research projects, currently, are mainly available through government agencies like DST, DRDO, BRNS, etc. So, indirectly it is the government and tax-payer who are funding the research work. Contribution for research and consultancy projects through private industries is very low, when compared to the government sources. How do the IITs plan to change this scenario? Will there be an increase in contribution towards research from private firms and endowments? And, what about earning through technology licensing? How much do IITs currently earn through technology licensing? Will the committee set any reasonable revenue targets from technology licensing that IITs should aim to achieve?

And finally, IITs should reduce the stuff they dole out for free. Through its Centre for Distance Engineering Education Programme (CDEEP), IIT Bombay transmits its courses for free to institutes that are interested in beaming those to their students. Similarly, other IITs too have such distance education programmes. The question is, when IIT students pay fees to attend these courses, why should others view it for free? Why doesn't IIT charge them too for it? If financial autonomy is desired in running degree courses, then such free doling should be completely brought to a halt

To sum it up, costs of education have increased. But,the government has to play its role in keeping the cost incurred by students at a reasonable level. Schemes to bring in meritorious students should be there in place, in form on scholarships and not only low-interest loans. IITs can augment its earnings through other sources too, but there needs to be concrete planning to enhance those earnings. And finally, esteemed individuals and trusts in the Indian society should try and create endowments or chairs in IITs, rather than donating money to foreign universities. This would definitely attract some talent to the IITs.

Awful terminologies used in IPL

IPL-4 is back with a bang. With the new rounds of "auctions" over, there is a need to ponder over the terms used to describe the transactions between the franchisees and players. In a previous post too, I have expressed concern over wrong or harsh terms being used to describe such transactions. In today's politically correct world, if I were to call an African-American a Negro I am bound to face the boos of the people. Coming closer to home, if I were to abuse a Dalit, I can be prosecuted. You cannot call people "disabled" but have to call them "differently abled". There would be a huge hue and cry in newspapers if the older terms are used.

And that is why I am surprised, about the continuing usage of inappropriate terms in the IPL. First of all, the formation of teams, is termed an "auction" and team owners have to "bid" for each player. The dictionary meaning of auction is "a public sale in which properties or items of merchandise are sold to the highest bidder". Now, are our revered players property or items of merchandise? In the olden days, when European colonialism was spreading its wings, they used to buy and sell slaves, especially native Africans in an auction, which used to be held in a public square. The winner of the auction used to then own these slaves who then had to behave as per their master's wishes. Do we want to project our players in this manner? That they are owned by the likes of Shilpa Shetty, Preity Zinta, Shah Rukh Khan, Juhi Chawla, etc.!!

Now, look at the news that describes the outcomes of the "auction". Times of India reports:

Shah Rukh Khan was not present in person but his Kolkata Knight Riders, which had been reduced to an also-ran in the last two seasons, proved to be the big spender of the day by also buying hard-hitting all-rounders Yusuf Pathan (Rs 9.66 crore) and Jacques Kallis (Rs 5.06 crore) for the fourth edition of event to be held from April 8 to May 20.

Note those words in bold. Players were "bought" like pieces of artwork or antiques, to be displayed on the field and used to earn more money!! And, there were a few players "unsold" because none were interested in "buying" them.

But there were some surprise names in the unsold list with former India and KKR captain Sourav Ganguly, West Indies batting star Chris Gayle and the legendary Brian Lara failing to find a buyer.

rediff.com reports

Gautam Gambhir was sold for the highest price with Kolkata Knight Riders signing him for a massive $2.4 million.

And many more reports from the media might have reported the IPL "auctions" in a very similar manner. We continue to devour the IPL news without giving a second's thought to the terminology used. We, who worship Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, V. V. S. Lakshman and many other cricketers, do not feel uncomfortable about them being "bought" or remaining "unsold". 

Softer terms can be used to describe the above transactions. Even the football leagues in Europe use such terminologies. E.g., a player is not bought but is signed on by a team. Similarly, a team doesn't sell a player, but he is transferred. And a player needn't be unsold but he can remain unsigned by any of the franchisees. This helps maintain the dignity of the profession and also stresses the fact that the players are anyone's slaves but have made available their talent to a particular franchisee at their own will. The auction itself needs to be redefined. Currently, I cannot find an appropriate word to replace it, but readers would be of great help, if they can help me find one.

These are finer nuances of the language, which if implemented convey a completely different meaning of the entire process. Remember Michaelangelo said, "Trifles make perfection, but perfection is no trifle". That is how it is any language. But is there anybody listening? Are we concerned only about the sixers that will be rained in the IPL or also about whether the dignity of the cricket profession and the game is maintained?

Tendulkar vs. Bradman: Unfair to compare

With the Master Blaster having completed a half century of test centuries, the media has predictably begun doling opinions (less of experts, more of amateurs) comparing Don Bradman and Sachin Tendulkar. Let us try and see how both of them compare:

1. Pitch Conditions:
   Bradman: During Bradman's times, playing pitches used to be left open overnight and were hence prone to be affected by the overnight weather conditions.
   Tendulkar: Pitches are well covered with water-proof material and are, hence, less affected due to changes in the weather conditions overnight.
2. Bowling Conditions:
   Bradman: In Bradman's era, bowlers could, legally, bowl six bouncers to the batsman. Moreover, with uncovered pitches, the conditions could tilt in favour of the bowler on every morning of the test. There were no restrictions on field placements. Fielders could be placed anywhere the bowler wanted.
   Tendulkar: In test matches, two bouncers per over are allowed. In one-day internationals, one bouncer per over. So, no more rattling the batsmen by hurtling down an over full of bouncers. No more than five fielders can be placed on the leg side of the batsmen, thereby limiting the nature of attack.
3. Sports Gear:
   Bradman: No protection over the chest and no helmets. Imagine facing Larwood when your head is exposed and your heart, ribs and lungs have no protection against the thud of the ball which could hit you at around 140 km/h. And then, you would realise Bradman's situation.
   Tendulkar: All sort of safety equipment are now available. Helmets, elbow guard, chest guard, etc. Not that cricket has become easy, but batsmen can think of risking being hit, without having to worry too much about how grievous the injury will be.
4. Fielding:
   Bradman: Watch those grainy videos of the test matches involving Bradman, and you will realise that the fielders in that era didn't dive around or run their heart out, to save a few runs or to get the crucial wickets. Hence, runs were a little easy to come by.
   Tendulkar: In the modern era, cricket has become heavily competitive. It not only matters how many runs you score, but it also matters how many can you save. You can see fielders diving around to save singles, latch on to catches that would have the opposition down by one more wicket. Hence, Tendulkar has had more hard work, while compiling those runs.
5. Oppositions and conditions:
   Bradman: Bradman has played most of his cricket against England and in two countries: England and Australia. He hasn't played on the turning tracks of the subcontinent or on the ferocious pitches of South Africa.
   Tendulkar: He has played test cricket all over the world, against nine countries. This means his runs have come against different types of opposition and many more different conditions than Bradman. From the placid pitches of India, to the bouncy pitches of SA and Australia, to the seaming pitches of England, he has conquered them all. From Abdul Kadir to Warne, Ambrose to McGrath, he has tamed almost all of them.
6. Statistics: In cricket, statistics are always biased. They comment on the results, but ignore the efforts that went into them. A century on Motera, Ahemdabad is far less difficult than a one on WACA, Perth. But statistics places equal value on both. Hence, these should be seen only as a formality.
   Bradman: Tests: 52, Runs: 6996, 100s: 29 (includes 12 double hundreds and 2 triple), Average: 99.96.
   This means, almost every time he went out to bat, he scored a hundred runs.
   Tendulkar: Tests: 175, Runs: 14513, 100s: 50 (includes 6 double hundreds, but no triple), Average: 56.91.
   Sachin's stats are as of 26th December 2010, before the start of the 2nd test match between SA and India, at Durban.

Now, these were individual parameters on which the two greats were compared. But, in no match, does it happen that only one of the parameter dominates and the rest don't. Hence, if we were to analyse a combined effect of all these factors (multivariate statistical analysis) coming into play together, it would be much more difficult to come up with a conclusion. So, it is better we stop demeaning either of the two by saying one is a greater batsman than the other. Bradman, is as great as Tendulkar is. Both batsmen have taken cricket to new frontiers in their respective era. Both have set new benchmarks to achieve for their successors. Hence, I would say, it is unfair to try and compare the two greats. Fair, would be to savour all those exciting cricket that Tendulkar continues to generate.

Nothing Indian about Airtel's new tune

 

What has happened to A. R. Rahman?His 2010 CWG theme song was trashed by everyone, right from officials to the general public. Even in Robot, they say Rahman was not at his best. And now, it is this Airtel tune. The company earns most of its revenue from India. And yet, it is hard to find anything Indian in this tune!! The lyrics appear from a foreign language.  Now, it is not clear to me, whether they are lyrics or only blabber used to fill up the space. They say India has hundreds of languages (only 17 are scheduled, rest aren't) and each language has thousands of dialects. It would be great to know, what language/dialect do these lyrics belong to. The older Airtel theme song too was shot abroad, but was completely instrumental. An Indian customer would find it hard to connect to this tune. Come on, we have so many instruments and lyricists within India, that can create a tune that would sound more Indian. Then, why rely on such techno stuff? This is beyond my understanding!!