The Total Perspective Vortex

Moving my blog

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:17:00 +0000

Hey, to all those of you, however few your dwindling numbers are, please note that I have moved my blog permanently to http://lonsharim.tumblr.com

I will no longer to be posting here.

Thanks

Who is India’s next Prime Minister?

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:32:00 +0000

The next general elections scheduled in India is in 2014. If Dr. Manmohan Singh survives and completes his full term (as is very likely) he would have completed 2 full 5 year terms in office. He is already India’s third longest serving Prime Minister.

It is however unlikely for Dr. Manmohan Singh to become our Prime Minister for a 3rd term; principally for 4 reasons.

The Congress and the UPA need to come back to power. There is no guarantee of that happening. The political cost of their colossal mishandling on Anna Hazare’s Jan Lok Pal bill is not yet know. In all probability they will lose heavy in Urban areas with the chief beneficiary being the NDA and BJP. They will hope and pray that in 2 years time their bungling will be forgotten and the controversies of Adarsh building, 2G, Commonwealth games, Cash for votes etc. will be forgiven and glossed over. The public will also blame them for the rising prices, interest rates and inflation over the last few years.
He will be near about 82 years old in the 2014 elections. If he does serve a 3rd time, then he will become the oldest person to be sworn in as Prime Minister in India, a feat that is unlikely.
The popularity that he enjoyed in his first term 2004-09 is missing in his second term. While majority of the public have no doubt about his integrity and honesty, his second term has been a disaster with a number of ministers embroiled in controversies and scams while he himself has been largely silent on the issue.
Finally, after 10 years crisscrossing the country and spending time in the back benches of the Parliament, it is widely believed that the time for Rahul Gandhi to lead Congress has come. He is odds on favorite to be the Congress’s Prime Ministerial candidate during the campaigning for 2014. In the unlikely event of UPA fighting anti-incumbency trends of the last decade (04-14), it will be Rahul Gandhi who will take Centre stage and not Dr. Manmohan Singh.

We are still two and a half years away and a lot can change during this time. I would still think that UPA-II has committed so many mistakes that it is highly unlikely that they will have a similar or larger strength in the 2014 Parliament. They will have smaller numbers which may or may not be enough to form the next government. Can they muster enough support or will the NDA led by BJP take advantage? What about the so called Third Front.

My best guess is that this is going to be a hung parliament. We may have political instability and/or minority governments with external supports like in the days of V. P. Singh, Chandra Shekhar, H. D. Deve Gowda and I. K. Gujral.

From the BJP/NDA stables
L.K Advani will be be 87 or 88 years old in 2014. A 5 year term means he will be in office at the age of 93 in 2019. I think it is very unlikely scenario ever since he ceded power to the likes of Shusma Sawarj and Arun Jately.

Narendra Modi has age on his side and fanatical support in some parts of the country. The problem with his candidature is that people are either in full and complete support or aghast at the idea of him becoming Prime Minister. There is sharp divide in opinion and BJP allies may desert them if Narendra Modi becomes Prime Minister. It will also not go down well with BJP politicians in Delhi who have nursed ambitions on the high seat. He can become Prime Minister in the following scenarios
1. BJP wins enough numbers by itself. If it crosses simple majority or even falls short by small numbers, then the allies will fall in line and those that don’t will not hurt the stability of their government.
2. BJP does not announce a Prime Ministerial candidate during the election campaign. Given the apathy to UPA-II people vote for UPA. BJP Parliamentarians elect Modi who will then have 6 months to get himself elected through either the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha.
3. Advani is PM candidate for the 3rd time running and fulfills a long standing ambition of becoming PM. Mid-way to his term, he retires and gives Modi a back door entry.

I will be surprised in the extreme if the BJP announce Modi has the prime ministerial candidate ahead of the general elections. That would ruffle too many feathers both within the BJP and its allies.

Nitish Kumar is an outside choice within the NDA. If BJP depend on allies to form a government and Advani rules himself out, it creates an interesting position. Are the next 2 or 3 leaders strong from BJP strong enough to emerge from the shadows or will Nitish become consensus candidate. With the NDA he has a secular image and has done well for himself and Bihar in recent years.

Other BJP candidates like Shushma Swaraj, Arun Jately etc seem to cancel each other out, sort of vetoing each other off. I don’t know if the equation will change in the coming years and balance of power will shift to one side conclusively. Based purely on the last decade that looks highly unlikely that status quo will change or if either of them will cede ground for the greater good of the party.

The Third Front otherwise known as The Others
1. Mayawati – Her only hope is that the House is so messed up that she can become Prime Minister by cobbling up a motely crew for herself. Outside support from Congress or BJP would be a requirement. Even if she doesn’t last the full term she would have achieved a naked ambition she has nursed for years. If anyone withdraws support they will of course have oppressed Dalit rights and were always against Dalits in the first place.
2. Practically anyone – This is a scenario where Congress or BJP is giving outside support. Just about any consensus candidate can emerge for a minority government surviving on outside support. This happened with Chandra Shekhar, H. D. Deve Gowda and I. K. Gujral. The government will be highly unstable and will not last more than a year or two.

Game Changer – Anna Hazare
Anna Hazare seems to suggest that he will ask the people of the country to back those parties that have zero tolerance to corrupt politicians. If there is a political party (either of the big two) ready to field candidates with no taint of scam/corruption/criminal cases against them and Team Anna backs them – then what? Will the people back Anna and respond? I don’t know the answer. Is his support widespread or is it just a TV audience.

As things stand, I see a lot of uncertainty in the coming elections. The ruling coalition has been disappointing and the main opposition parties show lack of strong leadership.

The mandate to rule India

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:40:00 +0000

There is an interesting sub theme to the Jan Lok Pal Bill agitation led by Anna Hazare and the India Against Corruption movement. Civil society activists lobbying the government for enactment of such Bills are not the people’s representatives. They have no locus standi because they do not represent us in our Parliament. They stand outside our democracy and tell our elected representatives what to do and if our elected chaps don’t agree, then they agitate, go on hunger strike, mobilize aam janta support and make the government lose heavy political capital in the bargain. When the politicians tell us that this is a subversion of parliamentary and democratic norms, they are actually right. (Never mind the fact that the aam janta that voted them also supports India Against Corruption wholeheartedly.) After all our MPs and our MLAs are duly elected by us and send as our representative to Parliament.

Politicians that are in the ruling coalition always tell you that they have the mandate to rule for a 5 year term. This is significant. It signifies that the people of India have selected their merry band of politicians to see them through another 5 years of unfulfilled promises. But do they really have the mandate to rule us? Are they really in power because of popular support?

I have been wanting to determine popular support and quantify it for a very long time. I am undertaking this exercise based on the Indian General Elections 2009 – since it was our last one. You can choose any election results (state or central) and determine popular support if you like. This is not meant to show any political party in a bad light; it is merely my attempt to quantify what the media and politicians refer to as popular support and mandate.

Here are some undisputed facts:

The population of India stands at 1.2 billion people. That’s 120 crore people.
The number of people who were eligible to vote in Indian in 2009 were 71.4 crores as per Wikipedia.
The average voter turnout was 59.7%; that means approximately 42.6 crore people voted. (That’s probably a bit too high than it actually is because the declared statistics are not of actual number but of the averages across each constituency of varying populace). For the sake of ease, lets assume that it is indeed 42.6 crore.
Indian National Congress was the single largest party and the major partner of the UPA II coalition. Their vote share in the 2009 election was 28.6%. That means out of the 42.6 crore that bothered to turn up, 28.6% of them voted for the ruling party that formed our government. That comes up t0 12.18 crore.
Lets assume the remaining allies of the UPA polled another 10% together, that’s another 4 crore.

So basically the votes of roughly 16 crore people out of 120 crore have ensured that the UPA rules for another 5 years.

That’s 13.34% of all citizens in India.

That’s popular vote and mandate to rule. That gives our government the license to formulate laws and govern us. If you look at NDA stats of 1999 general elections you will come up with a similar number. If you look at most state elections, you will come up with a similar number.

Right to recall

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:59:00 +0000

Right to recall your elected representative – wow – that' is what Anna Hazare wants next. It basically means that someone elected as my representative can be recalled from Parliament. With Anna Hazare now having a nation wide recognition, civil rights representatives will use him symbolically to set up corrective measures in our democracy making politicians and bureaucrats accountable.

First there was the Right to Information Act, passed in 2005 by the UPA and part of the Congress’s election manifesto which it delivered. It took active participation from people like Aruna Roy and Arvind Kejriwal for this to become reality. Anna Hazare played a role here too, by forcing the Maharashtra government to pass a strong Maharashtra Right to Information Act in 2003. This became the basis on which the law was enacted at the national level.

Then the entire “India Against Corruption” movement and the Jan Lok Pal Bill. Once this bill is passed it will act as a deterrent and add accountability to government officials and the members of parliament. I hope the parliamentary members don’t drag their feet for too long on this otherwise the civil movement will continue to protest.

Next on the agenda is the Right to Recall. Does this mean we can recall our representatives whenever we feel like? NO. It requires certain circumstances before this can happen. For example, there are allegations of corruption against your representative and the constituents feel that until a probe determines reality, it is inappropriate for the MP to continue in office.

Doesn’t that give opportunities for political opponents to stir up trouble for the duly elected parliamentarian? Not really. Political opponents will always try to lobby against elected officials. The way this should be implemented is that an MP/MLA can be stripped of his office by the people through a referendum. If enough number of people want to recall him, then he is recalled otherwise the referendum has failed.

The referendum itself cannot be held until a certain number (or percentage) of the MP/MLA’s constituents sign a petition asking for a referendum. If the election requires popular support, then so too must the recall.

The Bill to recall such representatives will have the determine/define the circumstances of recall and the size of a successful petition to hold the referendum either in actual numbers or percentage. There will be other challenges in implementation of such a law in a country of our size. Determining eligible voters for the referendum for instance or checking the validity of signatures on the petition. You can trust the political machinery in India to exploit such a law and all such loopholes must be plugged and such actions preempted. A certain amount of electoral reform is required for this act to become reality and for it to be enforced effectively.

That brings us to the next item of Anna Hazare’s wish list. Electoral reforms. I think electoral reforms is a big enough topic for a separate blog post.

Social implications of Social Media

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:04:00 +0000

Social Media is a medium for social interaction. User driven content. Wide accessibility. Interactive dialogue. All you need is an internet connection. A variety of devices are used from an ordinary PC/Mac, iPhone/Android/Blackberry type smartphone, to tablets. A variety of applications are used like internet forums, blogs (like Bloggers, Word Press), podcasting, micro-blogging (as in the Twitter variety) and social networking sites (like Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and Google Plus).

The power of social media is undeniable; impacting society in positive as well as negative ways. Social media is hard to contain or control. By virtue of this, it is virtually impossible to contain and restrict flow of information. This can be both a good and a bad thing. Importantly breaking news around the world is reported more often than not via social media even before exclusives are scooped by News corporations.

The 2009 Iran Presidential elections was an interesting case resulting in what many call Iran’s Twitter revolution. It was said that the Iran government restricted dissident information from spreading by blocking sites and text messages from within the country. While officials were busy closing down access, hackers were publishing proxy portal details for the internet savvy citizens of Iran. Some complained about the lack of coverage western news media outlets devoted to the election results. Others were disgusted that these western outlets did not question the legitimacy of the election results. All of them chose to vent their feelings micro-blogging on Twitter. One thing was clear, short of suspending internet for an entire country, information could not be withheld or blocked. This was widely commented on as good by the global community.

In the recent London rioting (6th – 10th August 2011) it generated mixed feelings. The same social media was used by a bunch of miscreants to telling effects. Newspapers reported how rioters used Blackberry messenger and incited each other to loot High Street stores. Twitter was used to lash out at everyone, the government, the police, the rich people who had it all etc. At the same time, journalists and photographers were attacked by the rioters while real time updates were being made by ordinary citizens informing a shell shocked nation of the atrocities in their vicinity. The police reportedly used some of this to track down the rioters.

Social media has been used elsewhere across the world to organize protests, to even organize civil disobedience. In June 2011, dozens of women drove cars in Saudi Arabia, a country were women can’t drive by law. An appeal was made on Facebook for women in possession of valid driving licenses from other countries to drive on the 17th of June.

In Egypt, a Facebook page was created titled “We are all Khaled Said” referring to an Egyptian business beaten to death by police after threatening to expose corruption. The page called for a day of wrath on 25th January 2011 and thousands filled the streets protesting. It was the prelude to 4 months of protests that brought down Hosni Mubarak. In days to come, the government’s response was unprecedented, to try and shutdown the country’s internet. The shutdown involved withdrawal of more than 3500 Border Gateway Protocol routes by Egyptian ISPs. It exceed the actions taken by Iran, China, Syria and Tunisia who have blocked/restricted access to social networks during times of protest. In United Kingdom, there have been discussions about suspending access to social networks during situations similar to their London riots.

These networking tools were used in India too during the Jan Lok Pal bill crusade by Anna Hazare protesting against rampant corruption among India’s bureaucracy as well as its political representation. Twitter accounts lambasted the government for infringing on the rights of an individual when the police preemptively arrested Anna. Facebook pages and websites were setup in support of the anti corruption crusade.

Events on the last 2 years will force the governments from around the world to formulate policies that will thwart social media in extreme situations requiring containment rather than spread of information. They will come up with the excuses of mobocracy and civil unrest to block such access. The less democratic the governments are the less they will be answerable for such actions.

A life with no internet and cable TV

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 09:42:00 +0000

I knew of a world without Facebook, YouTube, Google and Twitter. I even knew of a world without Internet and Cable Television. Life was so different back then. I was still in high school. Projects required a visit to the library if you wanted to do extended research. I didn’t have Wikipedia to give me all the answers. I read a lot of books in those days. I used to wake up early in the morning to catch a few minutes of newspaper before I had to surrender those rights to my father. I would then devour all the sections starting from the sports section moving to entertainment and so on. I quickly learnt to appreciate the quality of both language and content in the editorial sections.

I actually went to playgrounds and played games other than those found on my Atari. The only friend I had never met in my life was a girl from Italy who was my pen friend. We communicated 2 or 3 times a year by physically writing letters to each other and getting to learn more about our respective cultures. I would then cut out stamps from those letters and add them to my stamp book collection. I did not know any other stamp or coin collector in my neighborhood.

We watched old English and Hindi movies on VHS tapes and never thought to question its quality. If the quality was bad we would either use a VCR cleaner or simply use the tuner on the VCR and continue watching.

We had only one phone in the house and it was called landline. If you wanted another phone or did not have one in your house, you had to send an application to the telephone department and wait patiently for a few months for your allotment. There were no cell phones then. No SMS and MMS. No smartphones and awesome apps.

Satellite television had not yet invaded our homes. In India, we have one channel called Doordarshan or “DD 1” that was available to everyone. If you lived in one of the major cities of the country, you also had “DD Metro”. They broadcasted songs for 30 minutes once every Wednesday. No 24 hour music channels. We all watched the same shows and had common ground to discuss.

It seems like an era has gone by but it has been less than 20 years. Life has completely transformed. For the good and for the bad.

The Chinese Conundrum

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:36:00 +0000

China manufactures and exports
America buys and pays dollars
China loans dollars to America
America buys more Chinese exports and pays dollars
China moans about American spending.

Winds of changes in Arabia

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:00:00 +0000

Something is brewing in the Middle East and nearby Islamic countries. Country after country are under going transformation and the change is coming from the least expected quarter, the people i.e. civil resistance. Democracy in the Arab/Middle-East world is not a fully functional word. In some countries its royalty that rules the roost, in others black as night dictatorship is backed by an unaccountable military.

Some of these dictators have ruled for decades and decades. Muammar Gaddafi as the Libyan head has ruled for 42 years although it looks increasingly unlikely he will manage to stay in power for his 43rd year. Tunisia gained independence from France in 1956 and it has had only two presidents. The first one, Habib Bourguiba ruled for 30 years followed by Zine El Abidine Ben Ali who was President for 23 years until the January 2011 uprising forced him out. President Hosni Mubarak also ruled Egypt for 30 years before being forced out.

In the case of Tunisia and Egypt, it was non-violent civil uprising to led to the ouster for their respectively leaders. The resistance was bloody for the protesting people. Many lost their lives. An estimated 800+ people died at the hands of security forces in Egypt in the first half of 2011. In many ways Tunisia laid down the marker for the rest of the Arab world and will be viewed by history as the catalyst for change. The January 2011 success of Tunisia was followed by non-violent civil resistance and disobedience in countries like Egypt and Syria.

The prosecution of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has largely been an American show. They send their armies and toppled the Iraqi regime. Then they caught Saddam and handed him over to the locals. Saddam's hearing was short, swift and brutal (and well deserved) but none of it would have been possible without the Americans. Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali however became the first ruler in memory to face justice arranged and dispensed entirely by the people whom he ruled for more than two decades. He escaped to Saudia Arabia and was sentenced to 35 years 'in absentia'. Public perception has always been that such powerful men remain out of the reach of law. That the law does not apply to them in the same way it does to the common people. With Hosni Mubarak now in custody and charges laid down against him, this is expected to change. Mubarak's trial will be the next landmark for people from the Arab world. It has garnered the maximum eyeballs from across all the Arab worlds. The rest of them Dictators better watch out. The winds of changes are blowing across the Arab world. Syria and Libya are next in line for revolutions.

* Longest serving rulers in the modern world have not come from Arab countries. Cuba comes first, with 49 years of rule by Fidel Castro. North Korean President Kim-II sung has been in power for 45 years. I am discounting royalty.
* If Tunisia is be regarded as the catalyst for change in the Arab world then Mohamed Bouazizi has a curious role to play. He was an ordinary poor street vendor supporting a family of 8 members. In December 2010 he self-immolated protesting against the humiliation and injustice meted out against him by the local police and bureaucracy. His protest and government apathy and high handedness to public outrage ultimately led to Abidine Ben Ali ouster by January 2011. Sadly he did not survive to see the day.

Constitutional rights of Anna Hazare and Government strategies.

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 08:02:00 +0000

Everyone and his dog knew that come 16th of August 2011, the anti-corruption movement would gather fresh momentum. The Anna Hazare movement and the Government of India were headed for a showdown. At 7:30 AM on the 16th, he was arrested because he would have broken prohibitory orders of the local police and staged a fast unto death.

The media coverage was a full blast as expected. Political analysts were bemoaning the infringement of rights citizens of this country have as per the constitution. Opposition parties in an extremely rare show of unity screamed foul and even contemplated boycotting the Parliament for 3 days. Elsewhere across the country people came out in support even if they didn't "Jail Bharo" as Anna wanted. The Government's position as articulated by its numerous representatives on New channels was that it had nothing to do with the whole situation.

The government expects its people to believe that
1. The Delhi police independently and without any political backseat driving set stringent rules that Anna Hazare could not/would not except.
2. That Delhi police on its own visited Anna Hazare and arrested him as - preemptive measure - because he was going to go to JP Park.
3. That the Delhi police and the judiciary sent him to a 7 day remand on his declining to provide a bond for his release.
4. That the magistrate then had a change of heart and as is his prerogative, decided to send release orders to Tihar jail.

We can talk hoarse about how the government has no right to stop its citizen from protesting and discuss constitutional rights. We can also talk about how a citizen has no right to dictate what a duly and legally elected parliament should or should not enact. I think there is fair amount of arguments for both. If the Government thinks that it is being blackmailed then there is enough evidence to support such a thought process. Equally one can question the effectiveness of what civil right activitist are adamant is a watered down version of a Lok Pal Bill that will not be effective (or as effective) in tackling corruption.

What surprises me is that the Congress and the UPA have known about Anna Hazare's intentions on 16th August for many months now. While they tried to engage with him, some of its members called into question his integrity (for allegedly spending 2 lakhs for a birthday celebration), called him a stooge of the opposition, talked about conspiracy theories. At the same time another section talked about elected parliament (i.e. people's mandate) versus civil rights activists who are not the people's representatives. Its reactions and back tracking on the 16th show a lack of proper plan to handle an emotive and explosive situation. Media seems to suggest that Mr. Sibal and the Home Minister had planned the strategy. Now both of them are well known and eminent lawyers, articulate and well educated. If it is them that came up with this solution that I am very disappointed with the thinking of the UPA.

Perhaps with the Delhi police setting up conditions (only 3 days and less than 5000 people) for the fast and Anna Hazare refusing to accept them, gives the Delhi police a leg to stand on in a court of law. The police and therefore the Government can say it is following procedure in accordance to law. So what if a bunch of people invoke the memories of Emergency. At the same time the government is in a position to quell/disburse the movement without too much political damage. I do not know if that is what the political strategists of the government thought and I cannot but feel that they miscalculated on two fronts.
A. They underestimated the mood of the common people. By calling corruption an issue that bother's urban/educated populace is a very dangerous presumption.
B. Even if they are right in their actions (which multiple lawyers claim they are not), politics is as much about perception as it is about right or wrong. Their actions have only made Anna Hazare's movement stronger.

Anna Hazare in all likelihood will walk out of Tihar Jail on his own terms, i.e. fast as long as he wants to with no restrictions on number of people. If the Government does not bow down to his terms that he will continue to fast from Tihar Jail. Either which way his goals are met.

The blotch on Dr. Manmohan Singh's legacy

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 09:19:00 +0000

I have long held the opinion that Dr. Manmohan Singh will be viewed by history as the most influential man in post Independent India. To me the three prime ministers from the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty do not even come close to matching the achievements, the impact and the influence Dr. Singh has had in shaping modern India. For me two of his biggest achievements are the liberalization of the Indian economy and the Nuclear deal. Like the liberalization, the effects of the nuclear deals will be known in the coming decades as India begins to fully meet the energy needs of its population and economy.

There is so much to Dr. Manmohan Singh's achievements that cannot be listed here without rehashing his Wikipedia entry. In a country where politics is dominated by all sorts of undesirable elements, here is a guy who is the most educated prime minister in our short history. He is more educated than all the other contemporary world leaders around. He is not a career politician, he has decades of real administrative experience spending much of his life in the Indian bureaucracy. Among the many posts he has held, he has been the Finance Secretary, Deputy Chairman of Planning Commission and Governor of RBI before becoming the country's Finance Minister and eventually Prime Minister. Above everything else he is known and perceived to be a man of impeccable integrity.

These and for many other reasons it is painful to see my favorite Prime Minister preside over a government embroiled in many controversies and allegations of scams, with ex-ministers spending time in jail. This is after all a second term for Dr. Singh, the Congress and other UPA constituents. It was the Left parties that held back the first government from disinvestments, from pursing better relations with the U.S and objecting to the nuclear deals. The people gave a resounding answer to the Left objections by wiping them out; by taking them out of the equation for UPA's second term. Finally I thought, Manmohan Singhji would be allowed to move ahead with much need reforms without political pressure.

Since then UPA-II has been busy firefighting all the time. instead of steaming ahead They had to face the CWG scam and the 2G scam costing the country astronomical sums of money if you go by the CAG reports. Add to this is their perceived reluctance to implement a strong Lok Pal bill that can potentially be a strong deterrent against scams of such scale.

I once read/listened to explanations from the Congress party and Dr. Singh about coalition compulsions. What I understood from all the beating around the bush was that the government will be a minority without its allies and therefore when an ally is found to be engaging in hanky-panky stuff, then coalition politics mandates you look the other way. It made sense to me actually. General Elections cost lakhs of crores of rupees and months of election drama with no guarantee of throwing up a stable government. So we have to deal with what we get in a multi-party election system and a population of a billion and more. For the sake of argument let us agree that the UPA had little choice in the matter when it came to Raja and co.

What I do not understand is what coalition compulsions forced the government to continue with Suresh Kalmadi as chairman of CWG Organising Committee (OC)? The stink associated with CWG rose much before the CWG got underway. It was missing deadlines, it had substandard construction in some places and material had been purchased at exorbitant rates. The government though continued with him. What was the compulsion? The only plausible answer is that by the time the government came to know what was happening, it had little choice but to bail Mr. Kalmadi and see that the CWG went through. The pride and the honour of the country was at stake.

Above all where the UPA-II government failed the people of this country is by sticking to the perception that they are not serious about tackling corruption. They have failed to convince me and millions others that they can stem the rot. That they do not have the political will to weed out the Kalmadi's from the system nor the will to stop their allies from doing what they want. My greatest regret is that presiding over this entire mess is my favorite but unfortunately very silent Prime Minister masterfully practicing the art of coalition politics.

Whistleblowers in trouble

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 10:31:00 +0000

It was the unfortunate fate of Satyendra Dubey that first highlighted the need for India to come up with a Whistleblower Act. We still don't have one and that means that people willing to come forward and tell the truth will be as a consequence tormented, persecuted and in the case of Dubey even killed.

Wikipedia defines whistle-blowing as

A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower) is a person who tells the public or someone in authority about alleged dishonest or illegal activities (misconduct) occurring in a government department, a public or private organization, or a company. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues).

Here are some simple facts
Fact One - It was the Gujarat government that appointed a commission to look into Godhra and the riots that followed. This is undisputed.
Fact Two - DIG Rahul Sharma was ordered to probe the Naroda Patia massacre case. It was his call records evidence that linked certain politicians and right wing leaders to the incident.
Face Three - According to newspaper reports, he is set to be chargesheeted for violation of the Official Secrets Act(OSA). Why? Because he passed on CDS of the call records to the panel without explicit permission of the state government.

Why would the state government want to prevent information landing in the hands of a panel that was constituted by them in the first place? The state government now says that the call records are allegedly inaccurate and even doctored casting aspirations on the integrity of the police officer. This is the same man who as District superintendent of Bhavnagar prevent any major mishap while the rest of the state was burning. Is this is the price an honest man has to pay?

Yobs and hoodies of London

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:41:00 +0000

London will always be my second home, the place I am nostalgic about, the city where I lived for 6 years. I first went to London in my early twenties, the first time I was away from home and family for any significant period of time. I returned a year later and took up a permanent job in the city. I fell in love with the place. I walked as much as I could around central London, recognizing landmarks that found mentions in the books of my childhood. I laughed loud when I walked on London Bridge; the London bridge of my childhood nursery rhyme was a plain old bridge. Close by is The Monument, a tall stone column of 200 ft. erected in the memory of the fire that consumed much of London in the 1600s.

4 years after leaving London and those wonderful memories; I was stunned to see burning pictures of it on my TV. It does not surprise me in the least to see pictures of young men and women, in their hooded attires, sweatshirts and track pants. I have seen enough of them during my time in London. I have seen their aggressive nature, their crude banter, their loud music, their drinking ways, their drug dealings at street corners, their fights; fists and knifes. I have even walked past a crime scene cordoned off by the police, soiled in blood that involved gang shootouts.

Call it bias if you will but I always crossed the road if I saw a bunch of hooded young kids. It always felt better to be safe than sorry. You never know what thrills them the most. Happy slapping after all was an English fad. I have been offered items on sale either fenced or cheap imitations as well as smuggled European cigarettes by them. In India people are more likely to ask you for a match if they see you smoking. My experience with these guys is that they ask for the cigarettes. I have always politely declined and on some of those occasions received choice expletives in return. I have seen them taunt policemen from a distance, hollering PIGS and making a dash for it.

Peckham was one of the first places I visited in London and quite possibly one of the worst. I had been in the country for a week and knew not a single soul. Someone suggested the Loot to find cheap accommodation and one of my inquiries led me there. The streets were littered and the walls were full of graffiti. Perhaps I was there at the wrong time, but I did not see a single person that I could judge respectable based on clothing or outward behavior. That remains to this day my only visit to Peckham.
I visited Bethnal Green a number of times, once to visit the famous Petticoat lane Sunday market, on other occasions on my way to Brick Lane to visit the local Bangadeshi mosque on Fridays. I have been to White Hart Lane visiting friends and thinking how enthralled I should be if I was a visiting football fan.

I have visited homes of people living in council estates and heard first hand accounts of how much young unruly gangs disturb peace in the neighborhood. I understood finally why majority of the people at my workplace lived outside London and preferred to commute.

I do not know what makes them so angry. I do not know why they don't like to work and make a better life for themselves. I do know that nothing justifies burning down buildings, looting, intimidating the general public and causing injury to others. Lastly, why is it not surprising that most popular looting is for alcohol, gadgets and shoes.

Collateral Damage – US economy and the AAA rating

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 09:20:00 +0000

The markets have reacted predictability. They have swung downward ever since the “Tea Party” Republicans and the Democrats played brinksmanship politics with their collective national debt. The S & P downgrading signaled more acute response from everyone. People seem to be running to the safety of gold and silver. Markets as they are usually prone to do; reacted nervously. None of the reaction was unexpected.

However the collateral damage of the American economy I am referring to is China. For so many years they have controlled their own currency so that they remain competitive in their exports. Economies and governments around the world complained but China paid no head. While the rest of the currency rates were determined by market factors, China’s governing bodies controlled theirs. One of the steps China took to keep the value of Yuan appreciating was to buy billions upon billions of dollars. Who better to buy from then a debtor with long standing credit worthiness?

As China’s economy continued to grow year after year, they kept buying Treasury Bills to a point where near about 50% of their reserves are now in the form of US Treasury Bills. They are the biggest creditors for the government of United States by a long distance. Second place Japan stands at $900 billion while China themselves are owed $1.7 trillion. This places them in such an uncomfortable position. It means that if the dollar erodes then it affects them proportionately. It means that being such a large creditor there is no one else who can take up the Treasury Bills from them. They can’t dump some of it on the market without causing more panic, spiraling the dollar downwards and eroding hundreds of billions of China’s reserves. They can’t dump it all without catastrophic results for themselves and the U.S. For better or for worse their fate is intricately tied with the fate of the U.S; at least in the short term. So much so that in order to protect the dollar from misadventures, they will in all probability continue to buy more debt from the Americans. This in turn will continue to allow the American lifestyle of borrowings and low interest rates in an attempt to inject life in a slumbering economy.

This leads to a delicious irony. China and the United States are two of the most powerful countries in the world. U.S has long been the sole super power ever since the demise of USSR. In normal circumstances, you would expect China to be quietly satisfied with the American problems. Now however the world’s largest capitalist and the world’s largest communist are bedfellows.

My first post from a smartphone

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 05:36:00 +0000

This is the first time I am writing a blog entry using a smartphone instead of my regular laptop. I want to check if I can actually use my phone to blog occasionally.
There are some limitations to using the phone; at least according too me. I have used qwerty phones as well as touch screens to type messages. I have been told how ancient it is that I feel no comfort with the new qwerty nor with the touch screen. I rarely use sms on my phone because typing the message is cumbersome. Or so I felt.
The other point to understand is that I feel a bit out of place in this twitter generation. How does one express his thoughts in 140 characters. in our generation writing an essay fetched you good grades at schools. You were told to be expressive and articulate, explained how a skilled writer leads his viewer through a trail before putting forward his arguments. Writing transformed through the internet. You could express yourselves no matter how rubbish you really are and you could still attract an audience; even better this audience is anonymous. It doesn't know you and it wouldn't judge you.
All things however change. The attention span of the average internet surfer compares to that of a Toddler. If you are not going to make your point within a few lines then you have probably lost your audience.
Imagine having to type this on a phone. Certainly a new experience for me. What changes my view on using the phone to type is the beta version of swype. This entire post had been written using swype and if it wasn't for swyping I would not be using my phone for chatting or messaging much less to write a blog entry. You should give it try if you have an android based touch screen.

Corruption in India

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:50:00 +0000

Corruption has seeped so far into our bureaucracy, our politics and apparently even our judiciary that people are no longer outraged by its mere presence. We in India have passively tolerated corruption for decades now. We are as guilty of corruption as the government we elect, its officials and its machinery. Slip in a note to the officer who randomly stops you on the road to check for a non-existent license, grease the palm of the official at the housing development in charge of approving the blueprints for your dream house, pay hafta to the local constables to allow you to run your shop unmolested. Corruption is a way of life here. I am sure there are many Indians who refuse to be part of the murky dealings, who refuse to pay the corrupt babus and who value and uphold noble principles above expediency but I don’t think I personally know any of them. For the majority of us, there will be at least one instance of our life where we have bribed someone to achieve our ends.
We are not outraged that we had to bribe the cop 200 rupees to let us go scot free for driving without a helmet yet we are mortified to note the irregularities of the telecom department are in the tune of 1.76 lakh crore (Has anyone counted the number of zeros in that amount? I didn’t even try ). The principle remains the same, no matter if it is your local policeman who benefited or someone from the “dirty” world of politics. So what offended us? The corruption? But we are already a contributing party to it. Or is it the obscenity of the amount that the exchequer reportedly lost as a result of said irregularities? Did we honestly expect our politicians to be not corrupt and be upright citizens? Don’t you think there is honestly something wrong with our perceptions? It’s a bit two-faced and smacks of hypocrisy if you ask me. Corruption is OK it is 200 rupees but not OK if it is 200 crore. Surely one is as wrong as the other. Why should the degree of wrongness make one more wrong than the other.
Maybe we should set a bar of acceptable bribes. Peg down a number that shalt not be exceeded. X rupees is OK but if it is more than X than our moral compass kicks and you shall be held accountable. The rate of inflation should also be taken into account. (We need to think of the poor babus, if the bribes don’t move along with the inflation then the bribe will continue to mean less every year)
What’s amazing is that corruption is universally acknowledged as a malaise but happily practiced by all and sundry. So what’s the solution? I never thought I would see a solution during my lifetime but there is always hope.
The drafting of the Lok Pal bill would have escaped the notice of nobody in India. If you manage to spend a few minutes with your local newspaper or your favorite news channel, then it is not possible that you would not have heard about the Lok Pal bill, Anna Hazare, the civil society movement, the attempted heist of attention by Baba Ramdev, an increasingly defensive central government and a gleeful opposition. It can be highly entertaining, much more than the usual run of the mill predicable TV shows that adorn our living rooms.
As laudable as the civil society movement is it raises as interesting question. Can a non-elected group of people arm twist an elected government into toeing their line? As absurd as it sounds it essentially boils down to a government elected for the people and by the people being forced to bend its will by a civil movement that ironically has the same public’s sympathies if somewhat indifferent collective support. Strip all the hoopla out and at its heart you will find a government that has been elected on issues that corruption did not dominate. It says much of the government’s public image if corruption has overshadowed all the other issues on which it was voted back to power consecutively. It says so much of the public’s priority of the issue over the UPA’s blanket of Common Minimum program which excludes all issues that various members of the UPA might find objectionable and only includes that which is unanimous among all parties; which is a great way of saying we promised you so many things but we have consensus over nothing and therefore lets brand it the common minimum program, bare essentials and nothing else. But then I digress from the original topic.
I personally find blackmailing an elected government with a fast onto dead highly disturbing. Is this the only recourse left to us to improve the system. Do we resort to such means every time we need to achieve fundamental and essential things? I also find the movement somewhat aggressive. I do not know if the times require such aggression from Anna Hazare and his team; I don’t know if the goals can be achieved in more amicable ways. I know that all participants in this saga are mudslinging and the real issue is making no progress. I find it fascinating that the main opposition to the UPA has criticized the government for the handling of the situation, slamming it for the Ram Leela incident and generally taking every opportunity for pot shots. They have said so much to gain political mileage but I am yet to know where the opposition stands regarding the bill itself. What do they think about the PM, the ministers, the MPs, the MLAs, the judges, the entire bureaucracy being held accountable? There has been not a single word from them. The closest I heard is that they will react when the draft comes out. Why not take and stand and express their view? I am sure the nation will be interested to know. The fact of the matter is that if the UPA keeps the MPs and the MLAs out of the purview of the Lok Pal then you can bet the farm that the opposition will support the bill, either directly, or indirectly, by being absent. The best and rosy scenario for the opposition is the walk out of the assembly knowing fully well that the government has enough numbers to pass the bill (and secretly glad for it) while at the same time show to the nation how much they are not like the parties that sum up the government and their alleged corrupt ways. Wink, wink, we are actually on your side.
What political compulsions forces the government to oppose including the PM and other high ranking members of the political strata under the purview of the Lok Pal? Think about it for a minute. Our honorable Prime Minister has nothing to hide. By all accounts he is an honest man. Even his worst critics will concede that much. He would not be threatened if his office came under the purview of LP? Then why oppose? Media reports say the opposition is because it creates a super-authority over and above a structure that’s already in place. Imagine when the most powerful man in the country has to be answerable to an independent body. What if such accountability is misused for political gains? While that might be true enough surely further checks can be placed in the draft for cabinet consideration?
I personally think the problem is different; the political opposition to such a bill is more blatant and obvious. We are asking the men and women who plunder our country with impunity to impose laws that will greatly restrict their ability to plunder us. It will be such a shame if the parliament passes a diluted version of the Lok Pal bill which will result in a toothless organization. The next few months will go a long way in determining if we as a nation can really become intolerant of corruption and if those found corrupt can be held accountable.
I am hopeful. I watch the news in the next few months with expectations. While I don’t want a draconian organization, I am sure I would like a toothless one much lesser.

Lost – The show comes to an end

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Wed, 26 May 2010 21:13:00 +0000

I have been a big fan of Lost every since the first season. 6 years back one of my friends told me not to miss the pilot episode of a new show. Reason? According to her, it was the most expensive pilot ever made. Lost was a J.J Abrams brainchild. He was responsible for the pilot episodes and that was good enough for us. I watched the pilot episode and I was hooked like so many others. My initial impression after the pilot was that Lost would be similar to the reality shows like the Survivor series. A bunch of people left on the island to fend for themselves, with no rescue in sight. Then the questions started. Each episode seemed to throw up a new question.
Over the course of 6 years the questions just piled on and on endlessly with no answer in sight. At the end of each season I couldn't wait for the next one to start. I would imagine the final season unraveling all the mysteries and leaving me spellbound. I had such a long list of questions. I don't think I remember most of them anymore. What's a polar bear doing on that island? What's so special about Walter? What is the significance of those numbers? How do they drive a person crazy, make you win lotteries? How does a man with permanent disabilities walk on the island? What makes it so special? It even cures you of cancer and in the case of Korean women it makes you pregnant when you are not capable of it. However it is just not possible for everyone to conceive a child on it. Both mother and child are doomed. And then there is the Smoke. We don't know what it is. It looked like it was the island's protector. It was delivering judgment on the unworthy. Or was it? It came out of nowhere and then disappeared into oblivion. You could time travel on the island, you could make the island disappear, and you could even get yourself magically transported out of wilderness by turning a cartwheel. What about the statue with four toes? Anyone? What is it with the island? Why is it so special? How does the Smoke threaten mankind if it is ever escape the island? All it ever wanted was to leave the damn place. The consequences of it leaving the island were conspicuous of their absence. What about Desmond? What made him so special? He could at one time foresee people's death and tried to prevent Charlie from dying. That aspect of his ability was completely ignored in the later stages. Instead his immunity to the electro-magnetism came to the fore.
And then there were The Others. Possibly the most disappointing answer to the torment of The Others was that they were doing it so that they could force the hand of a spinal surgeon to operate on their leader. It never occurred to them that they could simply ask the guy and then send the surgeon and his people back home in the submarine. They had to kidnap and they had to kill.
And then there were The Other Others. The people we were introduced in the final season. They had been living in the temple all long. We just didn't spot them in 5 years. The Japanese guy could keep the Smoke out of the temple. How? Why? Well you are not allowed to ask that question. The people of the temple can also cure you of fatal wounds. Linus and Sayid know a thing or two about it. The rest of us are clueless.
Mid way through the 6^th season I was convinced that there would be no meaningful ending to this show. There would be no awesome revelations to marvel at. There would be no significant answers. For starters there were too many questions to be answered. The MO of the show was always to answer questions by raising more questions. It kept the show's faithful viewers on tender hooks. It made sure its fan base stayed loyal till the very end. It didn't make any sense to change that style. Plus now that the show had ended, the questions it posed will remain forever unanswered and forever debated. It's virtually guaranteed that the show will go down in living memory as one of the most talked about.
As an armchair critic who watched the show and had the usual clutch of questions I reserve the right to my own judgment, which perversely enough is what the creators expect from the show's audience. They had it planned all along – I don't buy that. The writers were clueless about the direction the show will take. Its mythical ending was not what they had in mind when they started the show. They did their best to tie up together so it looks like it. Jack closing his eyes surrounded by bamboos, to end like it began. And to remind us about the two skeletons we found in season one. The direction of the show eventually took did not form until the 3^rd and the 4^th season. I don't really have a problem with it. The problem is with the claim that the writers knew what they were doing all along. That's insulting the audience that's watched the show over the years.
Now that we don't have an intellectually stimulating ending, no wonderfully explained answers, I am so glad the show has finally ended. Ever since the pilot episode, I have waited impatiently for the new episode to be telecast. When the season ended, I kept on eye on TV.com, visiting it once in a while to determine the date when the new season will begin. Once I knew the date, I would have it etched in memory so I don't forget to miss the start of the new season. No need for calendar reminders for this one folks, it was so intriguing that I didn't need a reminder. I just needed to know the date when the new season would start and I would faithfully be waiting for it on the given day. Now I can finally let go. I can move on. I can promise myself not to get so invested in any other show. And I don't have to wait impatiently anymore for a new dose of Lost. In a way I identify with the characters who realize they are dead and they congregate together so that they can leave – as Jack's father so aptly put it – move on. Finally!!!
Credit should of course go where it is due. I enjoyed the show even if I was not completely satisfied with the final season. It kept me interested since its inception. And many others like me. A question for the Lost fans out there. Knowing how the show pans out, would you still have watched it when it first started out. I would. Because the narrative, the parallel stories, the intrigue, the mystery, the character centric episodes were all unique TV viewing experiences. Even discounting the background story, some of the individual episodes were brilliant. Like the Long con, or the Science Vs Faith, or the background on Richard Alpert, or when they introduce Jacob and MIB, with Jacob mysteriously stating 'But it only ends once, anything that happens before that, is just progress'. Remember the surprise when they introduced the tail-end survivors and the impressive Eko. I was so disappointed when Smoke killed Eko and I will never find out why the Smoke killed him and so many others and yet spared many that lived outside the security of the fences erected by the Dharma chaps. BTW – How did the Dharma people know that those electric fences would keep the Smoke out? I think reminiscing about old episodes will just raise more questions, it would be best to say no more. Like all shows, this one must also come to an end. Like most popular shows, this one will also have a dissatisfied ending. Perhaps a tribute to the show, because it lefts its viewers wanting more.

Marriage by barter

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 11:25:00 +0000

I was reading the Times of India, when I came across a rather curious report. Apparently the Haryana Police stopped the wedding of a 15 year old minor. In a country that contributes to over 40% of the child marriages across the world, that in itself is not newsworthy. Minors do get married in rural towns and where police is informed they step in and make sure the rituals do not take place. Parents are suitably warned by the police, educated and counselled by social activists and life goes on.

The story of this minor was more complex. She was getting married on the same day as her maternal uncle. Her uncle was getting married to her prospective groom's sister. Now that the police had stopped her marriage, they had affectively stopped both weddings. A suitable bride (i.e. not someone below the age of 18) had to be found as her replacement for both the marriages to take place. The problem arose because of acute shortage of women. The uncle could only get married if he could in turn ensure the marriage of his future brother-in-law. Easy enough to solve if you have a niece, so what if she is only 15 years old?

As per the TOI,
"Haryana is reduced to this because of its deeply skewed sex ratio. A state government report admits there are just 822 females for every 1000 men in the 0 to 6 years category. The ratio falls even further in the literate population: 618 females to 1000 males. In some villages in the state, notably Malerna and Duleypur, the sex ratio at birth is 370 and 400 females per 1,000 males respectively".

There are families in this part of rural India that end up using the ancient barter system to ensure that their children don't remain unmarried. A girl and a boy from each side solves this problem nicely. The problem is when they don't have girls of marriageable age, then they make do with the minors in their family.

No Entry Load on Indian Mutual Funds

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:03:00 +0000

There is some good news for the small time investors in India. SEBI has abolished entry loads in Mutual Funds. Previously, any investment made through a distributor attracted an entry load of 2.25% which was paid as commission to the distributor. If the investment was made directly to the Mutual Fund, it attracted no entry load. By abolishing entry loads, SEBI has acted in favour of small time investors like us because it means we will now be able make our investments at reduced cost.

My understanding is also that distributors and investors can negotiate the amount of commission to be paid for an investment. This commission can be paid separately and directly and does not have to come out the original investment. This will allow the client to evaluate the service provided by the broker. While some of these brokers provide enough information which allows the investors to make informed decisions, others simply collect cheques, fill up forms. Why should both types of brokers make the same kind of commission? The obvious concern from the distributors and brokers is that it is a loss of income for them. The investors will now in many cases not pay any commission or pay a small negotiated amount. As a small time investor it is not really a concern that I share. From my perspective, it's a great move because I get to benefit from it. If I approach a broker from a piece of advice or a recommendation, then it must not be a particular product just because it will give the broker maximum benefits. The recommended product must be good for my investment needs and not the profits the broker makes out of it.

Brokers have also been guilty of 'portfolio churning'. I once met a guy who under advisement of his broker invested in over 40 different mutual funds over a period of 3 years. Every time there was a new fund offer, his broker would call him and convince him to make an investment in the latest schemes. 3 years later this guy had a heavily fragmented and over diversified portfolio while the broker continued to make merry. If he didn't have money to invest, then the broker would advise him to get rid of an underperforming fund (with 40 to choose from, there were plenty of them). Then this guy would sell off an underperforming fund and invest into another new fund. To say that this guy made a loss on his investments because of the greed of his broker is an understatement. It would be interesting to see how much this guy would have actually stood to gain had he invested in the same money under proper advice. This change of policy by SEBI should put to rest such unscrupulous acts by brokers. It ensures that the best chance for the broker to continue to make money is if his clients stay invested in the fund. This way the broker will continue to get a trailing commission from the fund.

I have another concern. Now that mutual funds will not get as much commission for the broker, what will he resort to? There are other investment products in the market that are not regulated by SEBI and which fetch much better commission rates, sometimes ridiculously high. These products are insurance related investments which the financial industry recognizes as ULIPS. ULIPS are essentially investment vehicles that provide insurance as well and equity investments, all bundled into one product. In India, they are extremely expensive and also fetch good money to the broker who convinces his clients to invest in them. ULIPs being part of the insurance industry are regulated by IRDA. SEBI has historically been more investment friendly than IRDA and that doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon. While SEBI's move may well be a boon for the informed and educated retail investors, it may also drive gullible investors into the arms of gleeful insurance companies, who are more than happy to extract high commission rates and pay some of it to the brokers.

The Investment Paradox

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:22:00 +0000

Ever wondered what is the most effective way to make investments in equity markets or mutual funds? When I decided that I wanted to create an investment portfolio, I spent a decent amount of time researching on the internet, speaking to people and reading popular investment magazines and books. It would have been foolish to put money on something without actually understanding what it entails, the pitfalls and the rewards, the dos and the don'ts. I had seen markets surge forward and knew of people who made a bundle of money. I had seen the markets tumble to new depths and the same people lost money and it was more than a bundle. What is the best way to invest money in the markets and at the same time protect yourself from the volatility that comes with the territory?

One of the strategies that appealed the most to me was to have a systematic investment plan. The basic premise behind systematic investment plan (SIP) is to allocate a fixed amount of money every month and invest it. Stock markets are cyclical in nature. There will be months when the stocks are trading high and there will months when they are trading low. By investing systematically every month you are effectively averaging out the cost of your investments, reducing your risks in a volatile market and increasing your gains. There are other advantages to consider, you will avoid having to make lump sum investments. When the money is going out of your pocket (or bank) in small amounts, it doesn't hurt. The bottom line is that to think big in investments, start by thinking small.

Now it's time to discuss the paradox. Systematic investments are nothing new. They have been around for many years now and many people have benefitted from it. The odd thing about these investments is that whenever the market falls, people stop their monthly debits. The flow of monies into the funds reduces alarmingly. At the same time people try to liquidate their investments putting redemption pressures on the fund itself. The point that perplexes me so much is that when equities crash, it's precisely the time to continue with the monthly investments because you are buying stocks are much lower valuations.

Take the example of ELSS equity funds in India. March 2008, saw an inflow of 1317 crores in ELSS funds (approx. 263 million dollars @ 50 rupees a dollar). Subsequently the markets crashed like never before. April 2009, saw an inflow of 93 crores (approx. 18 million dollars). What that means is that while the markets crashed more and more people stopped investing in the market. Monthly inflows were not even 10% of when the market was at its highest.

That sounds logical doesn't it? Why invest in equity markets when the value of your investments is going to fall and not grow? Flawed thinking in my opinion.

If you have invested in equities in 2007 and the early part of 2008, then you have purchased them at a higher value (compared to what transpired later on). If you stopped your investments at that time then you have deprived yourself of buying the same equities at a much lower price. Think of it another way, would you buy your favourite brand of jeans if it was on sale for 70% off? So why wouldn't you apply similar thinking to your favourite equity which over a period of time will go back to its original price if not more. Not investing when the markets are down actually makes it very difficult for you to recover investments made when the valuations are high.

The problem I see with most investors is that they think of today or think about the next 6 months which is short sighted when you want to create wealth in an asset class such as equity. In order to be truly profitable when buying equities, I think requires a waiting period of at least 5 years or more. If your investment horizon is much shorter then you should look for alternate asset classes that can give you guaranteed but lower returns.

The last two months have seen an incredible growth in the Indian equity markets. The Sensex jumped from below 8,000 points to over 15,000 since the beginning of March 2009. Guess what, now that the markets are going back up, everyone is investing again. People tend to invest on higher valuations than lower. Strange, don't you think?

Identities – Part VI – The Politics of Identity

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:31:00 +0000

Identity Politics is an attempt to empower a group of people that have a basic differentiation from the rest based on their race, colour, religion, caste, ethnicity, culture, region, sex, sexual orientation and a multitude of such other identifiers. Many of its practitioners are well intentioned highlighting the plight suffered by their group. For example, there have been multiple feminist movements across the world. These movements often run campaigns on issues like female infanticide, dowry harassment, sexual harassment, domestic violence, equal rights, honour killing etc. Another example is Gay Rights Activists, running campaigns on equal rights for Gays. Highlighting these Identity based issues plays in important role in a civil society that promises to give equal rights to all its members. It is an attempt to address a problem area that confines a particular group to the backwaters of a society.

The problem I have is that Identity based politics can get a lot uglier when the same practitioners look for political representation. I am not talking about feminism, gay rights, environmentalists and various such other groups. I am talking about Identity groups that seek to enter mainstream politics. Groups that cater exclusively to black or white, Christian, Muslim or Hindus, Yadavs or Dalits etc

Let's take a classic example. The British National Party is an exclusive whites-only political party in the United Kingdom. Party membership is limited to "Indigenous Caucasians". One of the objectives of the BNP is to see an all white nation. It wants to send all immigrants back to their home country. What about non-Caucasian people who are now naturalised British citizens or non-Caucasian people who were born in United Kingdom? Well, tough luck if you are one of them. They want to send you back "home" as well, never mind that you don't know of a home outside mother England. The BNP however does not have a problem with white immigrants. Those folks are fine and dandy. Thankfully the British public has so far denied the BNP any representation in the Parliament. They do however manage to win a handful of local council elections. Interestingly, the wards in which they do win are some of the most economically backward wards in the whole of Britain.

Alas, United Kingdom is not the only country that has to deal with far-right winged politics. Germany has National Democratic Party of Germany to contend with. This political setup is very similar to the BNP in its ideology. News about them reached even India when Obama was elected President of the United States. They apparently felt his presidency was the result of "the American alliance of Jews and Negroes". Like UK and Germany, almost every democratic country in the world has to tolerate such divisive and hate based politics.

You would want to elect a candidate based on a development platform, based on election promises that focus on improving our day to day lives. But instead we have to deal with candidates who don't have any focus of development. Their basic premise is to induce mass paranoia among the general public. It's almost like they are thinking – 'Let's scare them so much that development is no longer the most important issue. Let's make them insecure, unsure, hesitant and suspicious. They will have no choice but to vote for us'.

I cannot discuss Identity politics and not discuss India. It is like talking about flying reindeers and not talking about Santa Claus. India is a country with amazing diversity, diversity in its languages, regions, religions and caste permutations. It's the Promised Land for all Identity Politician wannabes. Unlike other countries, Identity politics can actually get you political mileage and the elusive seat of power. Interestingly many of the identity politicians in India are not far-right in their ideology. They are so self-serving that often their ideology is obscured and relatively unimportant in the larger scheme of things.

I list below just three such interesting identity political parties.
Shiv Sena – Can claim to be one of India's first right wing political parties. This politic party was born out of perceived marginalization of Marathi people living in Maharashtra and a strong advocate of a pan-Indian Hindu identity. It was also vehemently anti-Muslim in the 1990s but these days its ire is concentrated on the immigration of North Indians to Bombay (Mumbai)

Bahujan Samaj Party – Stands for the rights of Dalits. The political setup is controlled in an authoritarian manner by Mayawati, U.P's current Chief Minister. Her net worth today runs into hundreds of millions of rupees. She has no ideological leaning worth talking about, having opportunistically aligned with BJP, Congress, SP and the Left during various elections in the last 15 years. It is her ambition to be the next Prime Minister of India. God have mercy on us.

DMK and AIADMK – Both political parties represent the Dravidian movement and have a strong presence in Tamil Nadu. So strong that since 1967 Tamil Nadu seen 16 Chief Ministers - all of whom are either from DMK or AIADMK. The Dravidian movement started out as an anti- Brahmanism, opposition to Hindi and even cessation from India much of which subsided in the 1960s.

The most encouraging factor of the 2009 Indian General Election has been the defeat of many of the identity based political parties. Caste and race permutations failed in this election. For instance, Shiv Sena lost in its stronghold of Bombay, BSP lost seats even in constituencies where the scheduled castes were in a majority. Is our electorate getting wiser? Only time will tell.

Part I - Groups and Affiliation
Part II - Stereotypes
Part III - Ghettos
Part IV - Zeitgeist
Part V - The Fear of Small Numbers

Identities – Part V – The Fear of Small Numbers

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:01:00 +0000

Part I - Groups and Affiliation
Part II - Stereotypes
Part III - Ghettos
Part IV - Zeitgeist

The title to this blog entry is inspired by a newspaper article I read a few months back on a book written by Arjun Appadurai called Fear of Small Numbers: An Essay on the Geography of Anger. For those of you who want a copy, it can found on any of the regular online book stores, like Amazon. I have never actually read the book, only the review in the newspaper. Still, I found the title of the book in itself is very fascinating. I have found no other book title so compelling in recent times. It made me pause, take a deep breath and contemplate on the meaning and its significance. When you spend time thinking about it, so much unravels. This blog entry is an attempt to pen down those thoughts. Mr. Appadurai apparently explains about globalization and co-relates the global unrest and terrorism to it. While his thoughts are those of a seasoned anthropologist and intellect, mine are from a layman's perspective and they have absolutely nothing to do with globalization.

'The fear of small numbers' makes me wonder why we fear small numbers in the first place. Why is it that minorities are viewed with so much indifference, suspicion and sometimes hate? In certain societies, minorities feel they don't have equal rights to the majority even if in the modern free democratic world we are all supposedly equal in the eyes of the law and we have the same rights granted to us by the constitution. While some minorities feel like second class citizens others feel oppressed and discriminated against, not to mention those hordes of people who lost their lives imply because they were not in the majority. Indo-Fijians constitute over 35% of the population of Fiji, yet their political representation has been scuttled over a series of coups since the 1980s. They represent a classic case of a community that feels at times as if they don't have the same rights as the rest of the country. The African American population and the civil rights movements to restore equal rights are well documented throughout American history. It's hardly surprising that over 90% of African Americans voted this time in Obama's historic election to the White House. This is the very same building where people of Obama's race were not allowed to enter in the early parts of the 19^th century unless they were part of the housekeeping staff. The African Americans are examples of a race that faced discrimination in the form of brutal slavery and blatant unequal rights.

We can go as far back in history as we want to look at how a dominant group over powers a minority. The indigenous Australians, Aboriginals today constitute less that 3% of the population on the land mass that once completely belonged to them. A majority of their culture, customs and languages are today considered endangered. Under the Australian law, children of mixed heritage were forcibly removed from their parents so that they could assimilate into the Australian culture. Their neighbors, the Maoris, suffered a similar fate of cultural and numerical decimation. In many ways, the natives of Australia and New Zealand fared much better than those of Latin and Central America – the Mayans, the Incas and the Aztecs. We can go back to biblical times, the times when the Hebrews were enslaved to the Egyptian Pharaohs and oppressed to such a degree that God sent to them a Prophet who liberated and took them to the Promised Land.

In modern times, there is no such thing as the Promised Land. There is no land free of occupation. The independence of countries like Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania lead to a mass exodus of people of Asian (read Indian) origin from these countries to places like England. Zimbabwean land reforms in the last decade lead to the redistribution of land to the majority population as the government contended that the whites while numbering only a percent of the population held a majority of the land. This redistribution in turn has led the large scale displacement of the population and the collapse of the economy. Many of the displaced white minorities have now migrated to all parts of the world. The average life expectancy of a Zimbabwean is 36 years.

Slavery, cultural annihilation, displacement and racial/religious discrimination aren't the lowest levels we can stoop to. Our humanity is capable of falling off a cliff. We are a species that's capable of Ethnic Cleansing. The slaughter of 6 million Jews in World War II is not the only example in our history. As recently as 1994, saw the genocide of Tutsis by the Hutus majority in Rwanda that saw the death of over a million people. Around the same time, the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II was perpetuated in Bosnia by Bosnian Serb forces against Bosnian Muslims. This happened despite the area being declared a safe zone by the UN and despite UN peacekeeping forces deployed there. Further crimes against humanity were committed across Bosnia, Kosovo and Croatia. In each and every case of genocide in our bloody history, victims were selected, separated, segregated, stripped, raped and brutally killed in unimaginable ways because of one and only one reason – their identity.

Letter to the Prime Minister

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:03:00 +0000

Dear Dr. Manmohan Singh,

Firstly, many congratulations on securing a historic second 5 year term at the helm. It pleases me greatly as an Indian to see an acclaimed and renowned economist and intellect par excellence as my Prime Minister.

As the stock markets indicted on Monday, 18^th May, it is also an occasion of great optimism that you can now run a government without the Left pulling strings, hampering your every progressive reform. There can be no better opportunity than this to make up for your previous term on economic reforms where frankly you were allowed to do very little. The mandate you have got during this General Election is loud and clear. India has voted for stability during a time when there is global chaos. India has voted for a sitting Prime Minister whose integrity and honesty is beyond doubt. India now needs to see that confidence in you translated into the kind of performance that made you a household name during the early 1990s, i.e. the era of economic liberalization.

There have already been some pleasing reports in the newspapers on government formation and the Cabinet's new members. If they are to be believed, this time round the new government will have a higher representation of young ministers. It is also being mentioned that non-performing ministers from your previous term may not find a berth. It was also pleasing to hear that this time MPs with criminal proceedings against them will not be invited as the bargaining capacity of your allies has reduced significantly. How much of this will materialize will be known soon enough when the Cabinet is announced and all the ministers are sworn in. Nevertheless, the Indian voters can still celebrate the fact that this time you do not even need the support of RJD, LJP, SP and JMM. These parties like the proverbial Shylock and they would have extracted their pound of flesh from you.

As an Indian I have two primary concerns which I hope will get top consideration from your administration.

Fiscal Deficit
India's fiscal deficit is in excess of a mind boggling 45 billion dollars; one of the highest in the world. With revenues falling short of expectations and borrowing higher than expected, it seems this deficit is only getting bigger. It is hoped that your administration addresses this issue and bring down the deficit within the next 2 years. Now the Left parties do not have the same level of influence in Delhi, it is hoped that you can pursue PSU disinvestment aggressively and bring in much needed cash into the government coffers. Also of concern is the liquidity in the market (or the lack it). There are market expectations of the interest rates coming down and I hope these expectations are not without basis.

Security
We live in an increasingly volatile neighborhood. The safety and the well being of ourselves, our families, our local neighborhoods, our cities and of our all our countrymen is of paramount importance. We live during times where our rich diversity is being used against us by vested external and internal forces to drive a wedge between us. The very social fabric of our society is being torn apart. There is an urgent need to implement inclusive and progressive policies, introduce education to the hundreds of millions of our countrymen and to bring the prosperity of a growing economy to the rural population.

I was very disappointed with the Mumbai 26/11 attacks. While I was alarmed and concerned over the attacks, they did not represent my biggest disappointment. I understand that in a country as large and as populated as ours, security checks, intelligence reports and the ability of thwart terrorism is an extremely difficult job. The British Prime Minister once said after the July attacks in London, that if the government raised an alert on every threat perception and gave out information on every threat stopped then the country will come to a complete stand still and pandemonium would ensue. I accept that argument on face value.

What baffled me during the Mumbai 26/11 attack was our response time and our ability to stop an ongoing terror. We watched in amazement for 48 hours as our country was held at random by less than a dozen terrorists. It felt incredible that so much time was taken to mobilize our commandos. Crisis Management, co-ordination and response time was woefully lacking that day. I hope during your tenure, steps will be taken to address these anomalies in our security.

I look forward to a safer and brighter India, to a better tomorrow. This General Election holds great promise for us and in turn it has given me great hope.

Yours sincerely,
M Shariff

Identity Complex

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:13:00 +0000

What better place to rant than your own blog. I was just reading an article in the Times on the Indian Peace Keeping Force. It was an interesting article and it details the problems India faced in Sri Lanka during the time the forces were deployed there [1987-1990] with the objective of ending the ensuing civil war. The relevance of the article was that just a couple of days the Sri Lankan army informed the media about the death of LTTE leader Prabhakaran. Now I don't particularly have a problem with the analysis. It was nice and succinct. What ticked me off was the title "India's Vietnam".

Why is it that we cannot see ourselves and introspect without comparing ourselves to other? In the past few months I have seen similar headlines and somehow I feel resentful when I see such headlines.

India's 9/11 – In reference to the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center. Both were acts of terrorism but forgive me if I think of it as India's 26/11 and not as India's 9/11.

India's Josef Fritzl - In reference to a father being questioned by the police for raping his daughter. Now Josef Fritzl is surely not the first father to commit such unspeakable crimes, neither is the Indian the first such low life scum in India. The headline is a pitiful attempt to draw out the viewer or the reader's attention.

There are far too many issues with the Indian media these days. The satellite era has seen the emergence of many news channels each one competing for the viewer's attention. As a result, they have resorted to sensationalizing issues to hold on the view's attention. The quality of the print media has also gone down steadily. Some of our most circulated newspapers are no better than tabloids.

BJP’s strategy post 2009 elections.

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Sun, 17 May 2009 16:21:00 +0000

The 2009 General Elections have concluded and the results are out. The Congress along with its allies has 262 seats, marginally short of a simple majority. In a country that has followed coalition politics for two decades that's as close to a mandate as you are going to get. Dr. Manmohan Singh became the first Prime Minister after Panditji to be reelected after completing a 5 year term. This is an extraordinary achievement for a man who in his own words is a politician by accident. The country has voted for stability and for continuity during a time when everyone feared a fractured verdict and post election horse trading. BJP in the meanwhile are despondent. They fared even worse than they did in the 2004 election when they lost power. In what was supposed to be a photo-finish the Congress led UPA ended with over a 100 seats more than the BJP lead NDA. The BJP's seat count was reduced by nearly 20 MPs.

This almost certainly means the end of the career of L.K Advani. By the time the next General Elections are held in 2014 he will be 85 years old. It would be unreasonable for anyone to expect him to be the party's Prime Ministerial candidate 5 years from now. It will be unreasonable to expect an increasingly young electorate to identity with him. After all, should he win in 2014 and last the full term, he will be in his 90s. Indications are that he wants to step down as the Leader of the Opposition. That should affectively bring curtains to the Vajpayee-Advani era in BJP's history. Where does the BJP go from here? Who among their next generation will be the face of the BJP? More crucially will the BJP further dilute their ideology in an attempt to appeal to a larger vote base or will they harden their stance, their core Hindutva beliefs and strengthen their current vote base?

The answers to these questions will start emerging in the months to come. To start with, if L.K Advani does not reconsider his decision to stand down as Leader of Opposition, then the BJP will need to fill that position with someone else. The current favorites will be Shushma Swaraj, Murli Manohar Joshi or even Rajnath Singh. Will Narendra Modi take centre stage? More importantly, will he be allowed to? Narendra Modi was one of the main campaigners of the BJP in this General Election. It's clear that his shrill rhetoric and personal attacks on his opponents does not resonate with the public outside Gujarat. It is also apparent that outside of Gujarat, he has not been able to translate his popularity into votes for the BJP. It is the state of Karnataka and not Gujarat that has sent most number of the BJP MPs to the Lok Sabha. The bottom line for Mr. Modi is that his state does not send substantially large number of MPs to the Lok Sabha and the myth of his nationwide appeal seems busted, at least for now. Given those permutations, it would be fascinating to see if the central leadership in the BJP gives Modi any elbow space and if Modi himself will risk relocating to Delhi.

Within the minority community, a suspicion lingers on that communal tension simmer when the BJP remains in opposition for long. Now that they are forced to wait another 5 years, the biggest fear of the minorities is that BJP might look to replicate its Gujarat model elsewhere across India. The consolation is that last time a saffron Delhi watched as mute spectators while Gujarat burnt. This time the hope remains that Delhi will react faster if such a situation arises.

It will be fascinating if the internal findings of political parties become public information. Public posturing of all political parties rarely reflects their internal assessments. What would the BJP attribute to its failure? Is their core constituency shrinking? Do more and more urban and rural voters disagree with the politics of divide and hate? Should the BJP adopt an inclusive model or should continue to concentrate on their core Hindu voters? M.J Akbar in the Times of India made a very interesting observation. He said India is not a secular country because that's how the Indian Muslims want it. It's a secular country because that's how the Indian Hindus want it. A large majority of the Hindus in this country do not believe in an exclusive model of politics. This election has also given resounding thumbs down to identity politics. The Hindus and the Muslims of this country, the Brahmins and the Dalits, the North and the South Indians, all of them want the politics want to be based on development and not on identity.

The BJP should be able to recognize this model themselves. Nitish Kumar, their ally in Bihar has had a spectacular victory. His governance since 2005 has been both progressive and inclusive. So successful was he that he has singlehandedly decimated Lalu's RJD and Paswan's LJP. For the first time in Bihar, the politics of development trumped over the politics of identity. The Yadavs, the Jats, the Muslims and the backward classes all voted for Nitish Kumar. That's a big lesson for all political parties to learn from. There are now state governments that are coming back to power on the basis of pro-incumbency. That includes BJP states like Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. That includes Congress states like Delhi and Andhra Pradesh.

The million dollar question is which way will the BJP go? Will they practice a more inclusive brand of politics? Will they succumb to the pressures of an ideology that sees the primacy of one community and culture in what is essentially a multi-cultural society?

Identities – Part IV – Zeitgeist

noreply@blogger.com (Mujahid Shariff) — Sat, 16 May 2009 07:42:00 +0000

Part I - Groups and Affiliation
Part II - Stereotypes
Part III - Ghettos

My history teacher in high school had a very unique way to teach. It's probably on the reasons I enjoy history as a subject and why I am intrigued so much by socio-political issues. She once wrote down ZEITGEIST on the board and asked us to spend some time finding out what it meant. There were brownie points up for grabs. The only hint she was prepared to give was that it was not an English word. Now this was a pre-internet era where personal computers were just coming in. Only one of my classmates had a computer at home and he was the envy of the whole class. Google was almost a decade away. Our history book for the term, our curriculum and indeed those of our seniors contained no reference to Zeitgeist. What the heck did it mean anyway? And what was its relevance to our subject.

Zeitgeist as I was taught that year is a German word and refers to the way a group of people think, believe and behave during a specific time period. During the preceding or subsequent era people would have felt differently. Wikipedia defines Zeitgeist as - the intellectual, cultural, ethical and political climate, ambience and morals of an era and also notes that Zeitgeist can only be observed for past events. In the previous week while studying World War II, the general consensus in our class was OK Hitler was this total nutcase; a gifted orator and all that but a nutcase nonetheless. He was responsible for the death of millions of people. The only fault of this people was that they had a different identity, they were Jewish, an identity that Hitler hated and he wanted to establish this pure Aryan race. OK Point accepted. But what about the rest of the Germany? Why did they go along? Can you bend an entire nation to do your bidding? Was there no one who felt they were doing any wrong? Yes, we had heard of the Gestapo and yes we knew how humiliated the Germans would have felt during the Treaty of Versailles. We learnt all of it but we could not reconcile to the idea of an entire nation being unable to stop the lunacies of one man. A society contains a variety of people; it contains its intellectual class, its artists, a judiciary, military and policing arm, a representation of people from all sections of society. That variety acts like a fail-safe mechanism. It protects a society and keeps it in line. In the Nazi era however, the fail-safe mechanism did not trigger. How else can one man manage alter the ideological beliefs of an entire nation? Zeitgeist was our teacher's way at offering an explanation. She said Hitler was able to influence the "spirit" of the "times". Zeit is time and Geist is spirit. He was able to channel the resent of the Germans into what he was convinced would become world dominance.

You just have to look behind in the past to see the number of ironies life throws back at us. Somehow we never learn from history. The Jewish community was persecuted for centuries in Europe culminating with the horrific events of World War II. They carved out a nation in the heart of the Middle East and today scores of Palestinians have become victims of a Ghettoized society, forced to live in refugee camps by the very group of people who were themselves victims and survivors of Ghettoism. How can the Jews, a group of people persecuted in the past, have no empathy towards another group? How can they disfranchise and displace the Palestinians and consign them to decades of misery. The irony is that if there is any community that should have understood the plight of the Palestinians, it should have been the Jews. No Arab can even come close to understanding it but a persecuted Jew should be able to understand, because his forefathers have faced much worse, because he has walked down that road before, and he knows the miseries that lie ahead.