Sunday, October 05, 2008
கண்ணன் மனநிலையை தங்கமே தங்கம்!!
கண்ணன் மனநிலையை தங்கமே தங்கம்
கண்டு வரவேணுமடி தங்கமே தங்கம்
எண்ணம் உரைத்துவிடில் தங்கமே தங்கம்
பின்னர் எதுனிலும் செய்வமடி தங்கமே தங்கம்
கன்னிகையாய் இருந்து தங்கமே தங்கம்
நாங்கள் காலம் கழிப்பமடி தங்கமே தங்கம்
அன்னிய மன்னர் மக்கள் பூமியில் உண்டாம்
என்னும் அதனையும் சொல்லிடடி தங்கமே தங்கம்
சொன்ன மொழி தவறும் மன்னவனுக்கே எங்கும் தோழமை இல்லையடி தங்கமே தஙம்
என்ன பிழைகள் இங்கு கண்டிருக்கின்றான்
அவை யாவும் தெளிவுபெற கேட்டு விடடி
மையல் கொடுத்து விட்டு தங்கமே தங்கம்
தலைமறைந்து திரிபவர்க்கு மானமும் உண்டோ
பொய்யை உருவமென கொண்டவன் என்று
கிழப்பம் நீ உரைத்ததுண்டு தங்கமே தங்கம்
ஆற்றந்கரை அதனில் முன்னம் ஒரு நாள் என்னை அழைத்து தனி இடத்தில் பேசியதெல்லாம்
தூற்றி நகர் முரசு சாற்றுவன் என்று சொல்லி வருவையடி தங்கமே தங்கம்
This is the poem from Bharathi. Reading this, I am still amazed on the nuances that Bharathy has been able to capture in this song. The song presumes a girl in love with Krishna and in a scene where Krishna has not met the girl for sometime or where there is some "ஊடல்" as they call it - I couldnt find an equivalent english word to capture the sense of that word- anyways, with that in mind, if you read this poem, you can find first the girl's helplessness, asking the parrot to get to know Krishna's mind- saying if he speaks his mind, then may be I can decide on something- "எண்ணம் உரைத்துவிடில் தங்கமே தங்கம்
பின்னர் எதுனிலும் செய்வமடி தங்கமே தங்கம்"- and she also says, I would rather stay unmarried- I dont think Virgin would make appropriate sense here- the beauty of this phrase is that the Girl seem to be speaking for a group of girls rather than herself, when she says that they would remain Unmarried- you can sense the feeling of jealousy and "That which I didnt get would not be gotten by others too"- kinda self centered moun.
And this just in the next line morphs to one of indifference, saying we would find a king if not you. Bharathi has been able to capture this sense of disillusionment with an object of desire when that doesnt seem to be coming our way. How many time would have we thought the same way with an object of desire? Atleast I have gotten over with some of them on the same lines as abject helplessness to one of hope to one of despair to one of indifference to one of disgust. :)
Then, comes the disgust part- cursing Krishna that if he doesnt keep up with his words, then there is no friends for him anywhere and noone would look onto him. Then the cycle of emotions come back to the same starting point- this time seeing a cause of guilt -questioning self if there are any mistakes on her own- a willingness to take the blame for the sake of him. Then again, the own self image takes the upper hand and comes the next curse as to asking if someone who hadnt kept his word has any self respect- and also blaming self for trusting him, when everyone [including the parrot] had indicated about the cheat that is Krishna.
The last one is the most interesting verse of the entire poem- the direct threat to expose him to the public- this I find the most interesting part of any of the romantic escapades. The implicit understanding of the undesirability of making what is private, public- I hadnt come across anywhere, where this implied secrecy of the intimacy is used as a arguing point....
I am still relishing the poem for all the multitude of emotions that it brings out of humans and its gut in bringing Him to be just another mortal, with all its emotions and constraints...pretty interesting thought......
கண்டு வரவேணுமடி தங்கமே தங்கம்
எண்ணம் உரைத்துவிடில் தங்கமே தங்கம்
பின்னர் எதுனிலும் செய்வமடி தங்கமே தங்கம்
கன்னிகையாய் இருந்து தங்கமே தங்கம்
நாங்கள் காலம் கழிப்பமடி தங்கமே தங்கம்
அன்னிய மன்னர் மக்கள் பூமியில் உண்டாம்
என்னும் அதனையும் சொல்லிடடி தங்கமே தங்கம்
சொன்ன மொழி தவறும் மன்னவனுக்கே எங்கும் தோழமை இல்லையடி தங்கமே தஙம்
என்ன பிழைகள் இங்கு கண்டிருக்கின்றான்
அவை யாவும் தெளிவுபெற கேட்டு விடடி
மையல் கொடுத்து விட்டு தங்கமே தங்கம்
தலைமறைந்து திரிபவர்க்கு மானமும் உண்டோ
பொய்யை உருவமென கொண்டவன் என்று
கிழப்பம் நீ உரைத்ததுண்டு தங்கமே தங்கம்
ஆற்றந்கரை அதனில் முன்னம் ஒரு நாள் என்னை அழைத்து தனி இடத்தில் பேசியதெல்லாம்
தூற்றி நகர் முரசு சாற்றுவன் என்று சொல்லி வருவையடி தங்கமே தங்கம்
This is the poem from Bharathi. Reading this, I am still amazed on the nuances that Bharathy has been able to capture in this song. The song presumes a girl in love with Krishna and in a scene where Krishna has not met the girl for sometime or where there is some "ஊடல்" as they call it - I couldnt find an equivalent english word to capture the sense of that word- anyways, with that in mind, if you read this poem, you can find first the girl's helplessness, asking the parrot to get to know Krishna's mind- saying if he speaks his mind, then may be I can decide on something- "எண்ணம் உரைத்துவிடில் தங்கமே தங்கம்
பின்னர் எதுனிலும் செய்வமடி தங்கமே தங்கம்"- and she also says, I would rather stay unmarried- I dont think Virgin would make appropriate sense here- the beauty of this phrase is that the Girl seem to be speaking for a group of girls rather than herself, when she says that they would remain Unmarried- you can sense the feeling of jealousy and "That which I didnt get would not be gotten by others too"- kinda self centered moun.
And this just in the next line morphs to one of indifference, saying we would find a king if not you. Bharathi has been able to capture this sense of disillusionment with an object of desire when that doesnt seem to be coming our way. How many time would have we thought the same way with an object of desire? Atleast I have gotten over with some of them on the same lines as abject helplessness to one of hope to one of despair to one of indifference to one of disgust. :)
Then, comes the disgust part- cursing Krishna that if he doesnt keep up with his words, then there is no friends for him anywhere and noone would look onto him. Then the cycle of emotions come back to the same starting point- this time seeing a cause of guilt -questioning self if there are any mistakes on her own- a willingness to take the blame for the sake of him. Then again, the own self image takes the upper hand and comes the next curse as to asking if someone who hadnt kept his word has any self respect- and also blaming self for trusting him, when everyone [including the parrot] had indicated about the cheat that is Krishna.
The last one is the most interesting verse of the entire poem- the direct threat to expose him to the public- this I find the most interesting part of any of the romantic escapades. The implicit understanding of the undesirability of making what is private, public- I hadnt come across anywhere, where this implied secrecy of the intimacy is used as a arguing point....
I am still relishing the poem for all the multitude of emotions that it brings out of humans and its gut in bringing Him to be just another mortal, with all its emotions and constraints...pretty interesting thought......
Labels: Bharathi, Interesting, Tamil, Thoughts
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Interesting Realisation!
The other day I was listening to some old Tamil melodies, when I realized I wasn't even born when those films were released and still I loved the music and the songs and lyrics. It struck me as a surprise, that I do have a penchant for old music. I am sure these would not have gotten into my liking of my own volition- just like Roxette or Bryan Adams got into. With Roxette, I consciously decided that I liked the music, whereas with the old songs, I can't say that.
Thinking about it, I realise these might have been the result of the way I grew up. Growing up in an extended family, with aunts and uncles living together, exposes you to a variety of tastes and preferences and makes you more of a liberal is what I think. You are introduced to a multitude of thoughts apart from your own parents- for ex- I can point to my uncle from whom I got the taste for old songs- especially MGR songs. My father has a very specific taste for Gemini Ganesan songs and I like them too. Possibly I wouldn't have liked MGR songs had I not had my uncle when I grew up. My penchant for books and reading can be directly attributed to my aunts, who were in themselves quite voracious readers. When I look back and compare my sister and her tastes with myself, I see her tastes are more modeled around my parent's, which can be reasoned by the fact that, when she was born many of my aunts have already gotten married and my uncle was away working.
These days as the extended family is mostly out of "trend", nuclear family and two earning member families on the raise- with the time spent by the parents with the children coming down, I am afraid, children would probably end up with a rather narrower taste and outlook. Not to say it is impossible to develop a wide variety of likes, exposure and tastes- but what came to us naturally, would have to be imbibed to the next generation.
Am I the only one feeling this way?
Thinking about it, I realise these might have been the result of the way I grew up. Growing up in an extended family, with aunts and uncles living together, exposes you to a variety of tastes and preferences and makes you more of a liberal is what I think. You are introduced to a multitude of thoughts apart from your own parents- for ex- I can point to my uncle from whom I got the taste for old songs- especially MGR songs. My father has a very specific taste for Gemini Ganesan songs and I like them too. Possibly I wouldn't have liked MGR songs had I not had my uncle when I grew up. My penchant for books and reading can be directly attributed to my aunts, who were in themselves quite voracious readers. When I look back and compare my sister and her tastes with myself, I see her tastes are more modeled around my parent's, which can be reasoned by the fact that, when she was born many of my aunts have already gotten married and my uncle was away working.
These days as the extended family is mostly out of "trend", nuclear family and two earning member families on the raise- with the time spent by the parents with the children coming down, I am afraid, children would probably end up with a rather narrower taste and outlook. Not to say it is impossible to develop a wide variety of likes, exposure and tastes- but what came to us naturally, would have to be imbibed to the next generation.
Am I the only one feeling this way?
Labels: Interesting, Thoughts
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
State of the Union!
Just a quick status update on the state of the Union- especially the state of the society and its spurious ways of dealing with wrong doing.
A recent BBC investigation, finds that there is enough evidence that the UN Peace Keepers in DR Congo were involved in a Arms-for-Gold scandal with a rebel group. While the Head of UN Mission to DR Congo says, "We have lost lives in fighting these militias", BBC's investigation revealed that militia were receiving arms from the same UN agency they were fighting against, through some unscrupulous elements. When confronted with the question that the militia leaders have confirmed they received answers, he says, Militia is Militia and they have their own interests", as if UN doesn't have any self interest in the whole issue- but that is a mute point to what I am to discuss here. Though the article doesn't directly implicate any Indian involvement in the episode, the Indian news agencies were quick to pick this story up- and they were referring to this article, which says,
Is this now a part of our national life, accepting corruption as a "trying to make money"? When are we going to stop this- will we ever grow up as a civilized nation?. The other appalling part of the comment is trying to make it a nationalistic cause, saying "Indian army is being chased"- I can say only one thing on this- Crap!
Pragmatic has a good article on the reasons why the Indian Government keeps sending troops for UN Peace Keeping missions and the reasons why it should not continue with it, and there is an even more radical reason for scrapping the UN Mission itself. The reasons given for it are flimsy and the assertion that the UN interferes with the affairs of countries, though correct, misses out the important point, that it does so, at the behest of the same country that Ann Shibler is trying to defend! It also misses out the other point that US has been meddling in the affairs of other countries and pressing UN to do its bidding in the post-mess scenarios!
A recent BBC investigation, finds that there is enough evidence that the UN Peace Keepers in DR Congo were involved in a Arms-for-Gold scandal with a rebel group. While the Head of UN Mission to DR Congo says, "We have lost lives in fighting these militias", BBC's investigation revealed that militia were receiving arms from the same UN agency they were fighting against, through some unscrupulous elements. When confronted with the question that the militia leaders have confirmed they received answers, he says, Militia is Militia and they have their own interests", as if UN doesn't have any self interest in the whole issue- but that is a mute point to what I am to discuss here. Though the article doesn't directly implicate any Indian involvement in the episode, the Indian news agencies were quick to pick this story up- and they were referring to this article, which says,
As for the allegations against Indian peacekeepers, the OIOS found many of them were not substantiated, says the UN.
But there was enough evidence to substantiate an allegation that some troops purchased counterfeit gold and illegally detained a local resident.
That report was sent to the Indian government in March 2008.
While the allegations and refusals might linger on for ever, and it does pains me that Indian Army is being alleged to have a part in this scandal, what pains me more is the comments that appeared in the article. I am producing them full below, just in case they are removed, deleted or otherwise not available for future reference:
Raghav: This docu on BBC was about many other troops and not Indian Army along. The alligations against other troups were more severe. Thought programs like this are quite common in here to keep public moral high after what ever the UK troup is involved in around the globe.( Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 03:17 )Reading them, I am appalled at the insensitivity and a blatant disregard for morality and probity in the conduct of duty. "....who is simply trying to make some money without hurting..."- gosh, have we become such a bunch of insensitive, arrogant people, who snugs off grave mistakes? Is this what 60 years of "Independent Corruption" has made us?
Devesh:If British army can get involved in child abuse, sex with minors and rape why are they trying to chase Indian army who is simply trying to make some money without hurting any one emotionally and physically. ( Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 03:02 )
Is this now a part of our national life, accepting corruption as a "trying to make money"? When are we going to stop this- will we ever grow up as a civilized nation?. The other appalling part of the comment is trying to make it a nationalistic cause, saying "Indian army is being chased"- I can say only one thing on this- Crap!
Pragmatic has a good article on the reasons why the Indian Government keeps sending troops for UN Peace Keeping missions and the reasons why it should not continue with it, and there is an even more radical reason for scrapping the UN Mission itself. The reasons given for it are flimsy and the assertion that the UN interferes with the affairs of countries, though correct, misses out the important point, that it does so, at the behest of the same country that Ann Shibler is trying to defend! It also misses out the other point that US has been meddling in the affairs of other countries and pressing UN to do its bidding in the post-mess scenarios!
Labels: India, Nationalism, Thoughts, United Nations, USA
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Change!
Have you ever been to a temple and offered Puja to the deity? I mean the usual puja or archana as we call, where all your family members are spelt out and the God is invoked to bless you- or even the one where there is Sankalpa performed?
Last Prathosham I had been to the Bridgewater Balaji Temple and something that happened there, intrigued me. As part of Prathosha pujas, Rudram, Namakam etc are recited. Before they start reciting rudram, it is customary that the Sankalpam is performed, which goes something like the below:
Last Prathosham I had been to the Bridgewater Balaji Temple and something that happened there, intrigued me. As part of Prathosha pujas, Rudram, Namakam etc are recited. Before they start reciting rudram, it is customary that the Sankalpam is performed, which goes something like the below:
dweethiya parardhe, shweta varaha kalpe, , Vaivaswatha manvanthare, ashta vimshathi thame, kali yuge, prathame padhe, Jamboo dweepe, Bharatha varshe , Bharatha Kande, Meroh dakshine parshwe, Shakabde Asmin vartamane , vyaavaharike prabhavaadheenam xxxxx samvatsaranaam madhye , xxxxx nama samvatstare, xxxx-yane, xxxx rithou, xxxx mase, xxxx pakshe, xxxx shubha tithou, xxxx vasara yukthayam, xxxxx nakshatra yukthayam, shubhayoga, shubha karana evam guna, viseshana visishtaayam, asyam vartamanayam xxxx shubha thithou.......
Here, in the above sankalp, all those parts marked would vary according to the year, month, day and time of the occasion- but what doesn't vary in all parts of India is the remaining part.
In the first part, I am not sure, if we really follow the Nakshatram and thithi the same way we follow it in India. But I know for sure, if you are performing the Sankalp in US, you cannot say "Bharatha Varshe", "Jamboo dweepe", "bharatha kande", "Meroh dakshine parshwe". US is definitely not in "Bharatha Varsha" or in "Jamboo dweepa" or in "Bharatha kanda" and most certainly not to the south of "Meru"!
The Sankalp is one of the most scientific and mathematically accurate component of the Hindu rituals. Shoud it not remain so- should we not accommodate our knowledge of what it means and rather than merely repeating the slokas as a machine, should we not improvise them to suit the realities? I mean if the days and month and year can be changed, sure the geographical coordinates too can be changed accordingly. If we say we can't change because it is against tradition, are we not doing a disservice? Sankalp is supposed to say where you are and what you are doing...if we continue to "be" in India while actually in a different place, are we not cheating God?
Just thinking loud- can't we create new coordinates- say south of Mt.Rushmore or north of Rushmore? Would that be asking for too much?
In the first part, I am not sure, if we really follow the Nakshatram and thithi the same way we follow it in India. But I know for sure, if you are performing the Sankalp in US, you cannot say "Bharatha Varshe", "Jamboo dweepe", "bharatha kande", "Meroh dakshine parshwe". US is definitely not in "Bharatha Varsha" or in "Jamboo dweepa" or in "Bharatha kanda" and most certainly not to the south of "Meru"!
The Sankalp is one of the most scientific and mathematically accurate component of the Hindu rituals. Shoud it not remain so- should we not accommodate our knowledge of what it means and rather than merely repeating the slokas as a machine, should we not improvise them to suit the realities? I mean if the days and month and year can be changed, sure the geographical coordinates too can be changed accordingly. If we say we can't change because it is against tradition, are we not doing a disservice? Sankalp is supposed to say where you are and what you are doing...if we continue to "be" in India while actually in a different place, are we not cheating God?
Just thinking loud- can't we create new coordinates- say south of Mt.Rushmore or north of Rushmore? Would that be asking for too much?
Labels: Hinduism, Interesting, Rituals, Thoughts
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
A marvel that is N Ram!
I don't think it is any more necessary to have the name of the paper as "The Hindu"- it can be "The Chindu". Just read this piece of absolutely stunning opinion from N.Ram- the moral torch bearer of world 's proletariat's Indian wing.
He argues his case of economic development being a measure of human rights, in the land that increasingly uses the same logic for its continued human rights violations. I am given to understand from his logic that if there are enough bread and butter, then that in itself is a great human right bestowed upon the people of the land, which sadly would only apply to those lands ruled(!!) by communists.
I guess with the same measuring index, N Ram would also acknowledge that Gujarat would be India's model state for Human Rights Compliance and West Bengal and Kerala are worser abusers- Gujarat's PCI is Rs. 26979 whereas the bastion of Communist exemplary states of Kerala and West Bengal, it is Rs. 24053 and Rs. 20896 respectively[As per GOI Statistics]. Keralites and Bengalis live in a state of relative Human Rights denial as compared to Gujarat- Isn't it Ram?
Its high time you wrote about the Human Rights abuses to these two communist ruled states Ram!
He argues his case of economic development being a measure of human rights, in the land that increasingly uses the same logic for its continued human rights violations. I am given to understand from his logic that if there are enough bread and butter, then that in itself is a great human right bestowed upon the people of the land, which sadly would only apply to those lands ruled(!!) by communists.
People’s welfare and quality of life are indices to measure human rights too, he said in a lecture at the Beijing Forum on Human Rights.Isn't the welfare and quality of life now being measured in terms of that "oh-so-evil" capitalist's indice of per capita income? From when did the unit of measurement of "welfare" changed to PCI? Why is the Socialist being impressed by the rich farmers there in China, while in India, the same rich farmer would have been thrashed as being feudalistic and blood sucking lot?
He observed that the railway line may have had some negative impact on the region’s environment and wildlife, but that some accounts on this aspect were exaggerated.Isn't that amazing piece of batting that Ram is doing for his across the boundary mentors?- While the environmental impact is just a "may have had", some accounts "were" exaggerated. He seems to know that the accounts are exaggerated, even without being sure if there is any environmental impact- but his ability to even give some doubt on the environmental impact is a great show of strength to stand up to his masters- Kudos for that N.Ram- you do a yo-men service to the world's proletariat standing up to the wicked capitalist in the communist's Disney land.
I guess with the same measuring index, N Ram would also acknowledge that Gujarat would be India's model state for Human Rights Compliance and West Bengal and Kerala are worser abusers- Gujarat's PCI is Rs. 26979 whereas the bastion of Communist exemplary states of Kerala and West Bengal, it is Rs. 24053 and Rs. 20896 respectively[As per GOI Statistics]. Keralites and Bengalis live in a state of relative Human Rights denial as compared to Gujarat- Isn't it Ram?
Its high time you wrote about the Human Rights abuses to these two communist ruled states Ram!
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Elections and Emotions
An excellent piece of editorial in NY Times, on the Mitt Romney's recent speech on his Mormonist faith. When I first read about the US election issues (may be in May 2007), in Times, the caption read "Is America ready for a Mormon President?" or something similar. That caption did more to debunk my myths about the US society, than more than a couple of You Tube videos by Richard Dawkins and his "The God Delusion".
Though, Europe was the place Secularism in its current form that we know of originated, US had been a clear adherent, with the ideal enshrined in its constitution, as the First Amendment. While, there is no denying that the undercurrent of religion is there in all Societies, it is really unfortunate that a presidential candidate would find it necessary to give a speech like this to an audience of mostly Conservative Christians.
Where this gets even more interesting is, his Republican party has a known conservative bias- what with the current incumbent's ability to speak with and hear God's voice, there is no denying that the influence is ever present. But to make a speech that doesn't clearly distance oneself from the Church and goes one step further to say,
As such, there are enough issues that need urgent attention- like the Subprime mortgage woes, the Iraq War, the Iran issue, Climate Change and Global Warming- these are those things that would affect every day life of most people in the world- not just US. It is indeed disappointing to see that there are hardly much of intellectual debate or fresh thinking in any of these issues- the most debate and haggling happens on issues, which are of secondary- but highly emotional issues.
I hazard a guess, that this is the way a Democracy work- I can see similar strains in India too- in Gujarat elections- look at the issues that are being discussed- not economy, not irrigation or power or infrastructure- but "Mauth ka saudagar", "Mercy of God", "Mercy of Sonia", "Hindu Terrorists"- where does that leave us?
I am left with a feeling that elections are more an emotional issue than the cold rational thought process that are associated with choice and freedom!!
Though, Europe was the place Secularism in its current form that we know of originated, US had been a clear adherent, with the ideal enshrined in its constitution, as the First Amendment. While, there is no denying that the undercurrent of religion is there in all Societies, it is really unfortunate that a presidential candidate would find it necessary to give a speech like this to an audience of mostly Conservative Christians.
Where this gets even more interesting is, his Republican party has a known conservative bias- what with the current incumbent's ability to speak with and hear God's voice, there is no denying that the influence is ever present. But to make a speech that doesn't clearly distance oneself from the Church and goes one step further to say,
......religion does have a place in the public domain, and that those establishing the religion of secularism are "wrong."is definitely not something that I would expect from a Presidential hopeful from US. When the world is much less a safe place to live, nations divided on religious lines are the last thing that we would want. What we need are not assertions of religious identities- but more of Humanitarianism.
As such, there are enough issues that need urgent attention- like the Subprime mortgage woes, the Iraq War, the Iran issue, Climate Change and Global Warming- these are those things that would affect every day life of most people in the world- not just US. It is indeed disappointing to see that there are hardly much of intellectual debate or fresh thinking in any of these issues- the most debate and haggling happens on issues, which are of secondary- but highly emotional issues.
I hazard a guess, that this is the way a Democracy work- I can see similar strains in India too- in Gujarat elections- look at the issues that are being discussed- not economy, not irrigation or power or infrastructure- but "Mauth ka saudagar", "Mercy of God", "Mercy of Sonia", "Hindu Terrorists"- where does that leave us?
I am left with a feeling that elections are more an emotional issue than the cold rational thought process that are associated with choice and freedom!!
Labels: Disappoinment, Nationalism, Observation, Thoughts
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
The Hindu's pathetic logic!
Sure, I was expecting an editorial from The Hindu on the Taslima Nasreen episode for long- it had been brewing for sometime in the Commy State, that The Hindu chose to ignore, till it can find some illogical logic to justify or rather gloss over the state of affairs there- Here comes an editorial true to the colours of Hindu- The RED- written all over it.
Let us go through the points raised by Hindu.
However, the same editorial has these words-
There is no word yet on Biman Bose's statement that Taslima should leave Bengal if her words would disturb peace or to the statements that there are many other books of Taslima that are offending[I am unable to get the link where I read this piece of news].
Such is the state of The Hindu!
But The Hindu does get one thing right-
May be Democracy is all about factions and group interests!
Let us go through the points raised by Hindu.
For all but the most fanatical, Bangladesh writer Taslima Nasreen’s announcement that she would remove from her book Dwikhandita the portions critical of Islam that were regarded as objectionable should bring to a close the controversy that sparked violent protests in Kolkata and earlier in Hyderabad. [ The Hindu, Dt. 12/05/2007]There is no word on how appeasing to a mob demanding extradition would be a "Pragmatic Concession" as it claims in the next sentence. I fail to see any point in removing those lines-In the first place, I hadn't read the book- so, I really can't say if there are any offending remarks about Islam in that or not. The Hindu goes out of the way to say, that removal was a concession for fundamentalists, who "seem" to be beyond reason- look at the choice of words- Hindu says, the fundamentalists "seem" to be beyond reason- it is not simply beyond reason- if you were suitably powered and inclined, it might be beyond reason- but Hindu doesn't know if it is beyond reason.
However, the same editorial has these words-
Similar protests followed Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi’s disputing the existence of an ancient bridge between India and Sri Lanka across the Palk Straits as described in the Ramayana......Note, here too the twisting of facts- the groups were not protesting doubts on the existence of the Bridge- they were protesting MK's venous doubts on the existence of Ram and his famous remarks about Rama being a "Drunkard". Such fun comes reading the editorials of The Hindu.
There is no word yet on Biman Bose's statement that Taslima should leave Bengal if her words would disturb peace or to the statements that there are many other books of Taslima that are offending[I am unable to get the link where I read this piece of news].
Such is the state of The Hindu!
But The Hindu does get one thing right-
The increasing use of Section 295A in the recent period has underlined the dangers of competitive intolerance curtailing the space available for freedom of expression. The section is clearly not in consonance with democratic and constitutional values and it is time it was removed from the statute book.It might also help us ask how we ended up with this competitive intolerance- when we started appeasing one group over other- this is not restricted to religion alone- right from language, region, caste- the list goes on....
May be Democracy is all about factions and group interests!
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Dollar, Oil and Fed
I know this comes a little late in the day, a full week after the Fed cut the interest rate by 0.25 basis points. But, that doesn't diminish the effect that would have on most things that concern many of us. Fed had already cut the interest rate by 0.5 basis points earlier. That cut was ostensibly to ease the pressure on the banking industry, inter alia the credit situation.
Now, what exactly is this Interest rate cut? This is interest rate at which the Fed lends to other banks. When this interest rate is cut, banks can avail more as loan from Fed, as the cost of the money reduces- which in simple terms enable them to repay their debts (in terms of deposits and other liabilities)- this is basically borrowing to pay off other borrowing- but since borrowing from Fed has a lesser interest rate, banks borrow from Fed and meet their obligations.
There is a case being made that, due to this interest rate cut, consumers get cheap loans. I doubt whether this interest rate cut would be eventually passed on to the consumers- I mean the retail consumer. Let us see why.
When the Fed cuts the interest rate, banks take more loan from the Fed and channel that extra cash into the retail market in terms of more loans. This is made possible because, once the banks get the loan from Fed, though the amount is a liability for the bank, it would simultaneously be classified as an asset, since this is cash in hand. Now, with this asset in hand, banks make more loans with this backing- it is like making a loan with debt- but not just a portion of the loan that it had got from Fed- but usually a multiple of that amount. With such a scenario, banks have more incentives to keep the retail lending rate at the same rates rather than cutting it. With the retail lending rates anyways tied to the individuals credit rating, the rates can be justified with arbitrary reasons. This is all the more interesting, because the Fed lending rate is a constant for all banks irrespective of the banks own credit rating- it would be the same for a splurging bank as well as a more prudent bank- so eventually, prudent banks would be loosing out to a splurging bank.
With so much money flooding the system, inflation increases. It is a basic principle of economics- when the money supply increases, it increases the purchasing power of people and so prices increase in response to the increased purchasing power. When the prices increase, this would more or less wipe out the perceived richness we get with increased money supply. What we bought for 1$ earlier, when we had 2$, would cost 2$, when we have 4$ in hand, due to the increase in money supply as a result of the rate cut. But to be true, this is not always the case. Government has many avenues to control this rise in price. As China recently did with the price control of Oil, to tame the inflation menace, Sovereign governments have multitude of controls to make it seem good- but someone somewhere had to necessarily take a hit- in the price control scenario, it would be the Government- the Government has measures to take care of this too- by way of increased tax revenues due to the increase in money supply- with increasing wages, tax revenues too increase- the ordinary consumers end up paying twice- once in the form of increasing cost of living and the other in the form of increased tax payments.
With this in mind, look at the oil prices! Dollar is primarily backed by oil. Which means, whenever there is a turbulence in the dollar rates, it makes more sense the Oil market too undergoes the same turbulence. There should be no surprise that Oil rate increases at this time. With the dollar supply increased, it is obvious that anything that is marked in terms of dollars will definitely get costlier. I wouldn't be surprised, if there is a further increase in the Oil markets.
With dollar running in its long time low with increasing pressure from Euro and other currencies- Dollar wouldn't be a safe bet in the long run.
Now, what exactly is this Interest rate cut? This is interest rate at which the Fed lends to other banks. When this interest rate is cut, banks can avail more as loan from Fed, as the cost of the money reduces- which in simple terms enable them to repay their debts (in terms of deposits and other liabilities)- this is basically borrowing to pay off other borrowing- but since borrowing from Fed has a lesser interest rate, banks borrow from Fed and meet their obligations.
There is a case being made that, due to this interest rate cut, consumers get cheap loans. I doubt whether this interest rate cut would be eventually passed on to the consumers- I mean the retail consumer. Let us see why.
When the Fed cuts the interest rate, banks take more loan from the Fed and channel that extra cash into the retail market in terms of more loans. This is made possible because, once the banks get the loan from Fed, though the amount is a liability for the bank, it would simultaneously be classified as an asset, since this is cash in hand. Now, with this asset in hand, banks make more loans with this backing- it is like making a loan with debt- but not just a portion of the loan that it had got from Fed- but usually a multiple of that amount. With such a scenario, banks have more incentives to keep the retail lending rate at the same rates rather than cutting it. With the retail lending rates anyways tied to the individuals credit rating, the rates can be justified with arbitrary reasons. This is all the more interesting, because the Fed lending rate is a constant for all banks irrespective of the banks own credit rating- it would be the same for a splurging bank as well as a more prudent bank- so eventually, prudent banks would be loosing out to a splurging bank.
With so much money flooding the system, inflation increases. It is a basic principle of economics- when the money supply increases, it increases the purchasing power of people and so prices increase in response to the increased purchasing power. When the prices increase, this would more or less wipe out the perceived richness we get with increased money supply. What we bought for 1$ earlier, when we had 2$, would cost 2$, when we have 4$ in hand, due to the increase in money supply as a result of the rate cut. But to be true, this is not always the case. Government has many avenues to control this rise in price. As China recently did with the price control of Oil, to tame the inflation menace, Sovereign governments have multitude of controls to make it seem good- but someone somewhere had to necessarily take a hit- in the price control scenario, it would be the Government- the Government has measures to take care of this too- by way of increased tax revenues due to the increase in money supply- with increasing wages, tax revenues too increase- the ordinary consumers end up paying twice- once in the form of increasing cost of living and the other in the form of increased tax payments.
With this in mind, look at the oil prices! Dollar is primarily backed by oil. Which means, whenever there is a turbulence in the dollar rates, it makes more sense the Oil market too undergoes the same turbulence. There should be no surprise that Oil rate increases at this time. With the dollar supply increased, it is obvious that anything that is marked in terms of dollars will definitely get costlier. I wouldn't be surprised, if there is a further increase in the Oil markets.
With dollar running in its long time low with increasing pressure from Euro and other currencies- Dollar wouldn't be a safe bet in the long run.
Labels: Economy, Federal Reserve, Thoughts
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
The Hindu and Editorial Balance
There seem to be a fair amount of heat generated by the observation of Justice B.N.Agarwal while hearing the petition by AIADMK on the recent Bandh-against-Ram Sedhu by DMK and its allies. While it does appear that the Judge had indeed stepped off the line by his remarks, the editorial by "The Hindu" is even more off the line.
Out of no where does this paragraph appears:
All said and done, we need to ask ourselves a question, if a Judge makes such remarks, and we feel that Judiciary is overstepping its reach, why are they doing so? How had the executive and the legislature been delivering their duties for the past 60 years- what is the confidence we have over the other two arms of the constitution? Can we, in any earnest thought, think highly on the Legislature or the Executive?- What is our experience with them- are judges any different from the common man living in this country?- they too have to face the same executive and the legislature day in and day out- may be in a bad light than the worser light that millions get to face them daily.
Had they been delivering their duties properly, may be we wouldn't be going to the judiciary for everything -from stopping disruption of normal life, because the executive that is supposed to guarantee the normal life is the only trampling on it, deciding on the affirmative action that the executive is supposed to deliver without harming everyone else in the process, clearing of garbage and restricting pollution in big cities- we need not just Judicial overview- but Judicial direction for our own duties! The executive sights Judicial direction to deliver on the rightful work that it is supposed to be made for. In these conditions, it would be impractical not to expect anything unpleasant about us to be told by the Judiciary.
In a recent "Reader's Editor" section, the same points were raised by the readers, who have been pained by the blatant partisanship of "The Hindu" editorials, news reporting and coverage in general. The Editor's response is as usual the wishy washy stuff, which gives you a yawn as you read it and say, shut up!
Out of no where does this paragraph appears:
For example, in recent years the Bharatiya Janata Party and the saffron brigade have called for, conducted, and got away with several attempted bandhs. A case in point is the August 27, 2007 Hyderabad bandh protesting against the terror strike at Lumbini Park and Gokul Chat. And what about other forms of protest actions? Will the Supreme Court rule on what kind of constitutional animal is a ‘rail roko,’ of the kind the BJP State unit staged in Hyderabad in September 2007 against the Sethusamudram project? Does it fall under the definition of a general strike or a hartal or a bandh? Is it constitutional? As political leaders have observed, the logical consequence of the Supreme Court’s unevenly implemented ban on bandhs will be a ban on all protest actions and the right to strike. If that happens, the highest court in the land will itself be responsible for the trampling on fundamental rights that its 1998 judgment warns against.I mean what is the need for the editorial to name any one party, when the entire political spectrum- including the Commies indulge in these activities. This is very typically childish attempt at scoring brownie points with the ruling establishment in TN.
All said and done, we need to ask ourselves a question, if a Judge makes such remarks, and we feel that Judiciary is overstepping its reach, why are they doing so? How had the executive and the legislature been delivering their duties for the past 60 years- what is the confidence we have over the other two arms of the constitution? Can we, in any earnest thought, think highly on the Legislature or the Executive?- What is our experience with them- are judges any different from the common man living in this country?- they too have to face the same executive and the legislature day in and day out- may be in a bad light than the worser light that millions get to face them daily.
Had they been delivering their duties properly, may be we wouldn't be going to the judiciary for everything -from stopping disruption of normal life, because the executive that is supposed to guarantee the normal life is the only trampling on it, deciding on the affirmative action that the executive is supposed to deliver without harming everyone else in the process, clearing of garbage and restricting pollution in big cities- we need not just Judicial overview- but Judicial direction for our own duties! The executive sights Judicial direction to deliver on the rightful work that it is supposed to be made for. In these conditions, it would be impractical not to expect anything unpleasant about us to be told by the Judiciary.
In a recent "Reader's Editor" section, the same points were raised by the readers, who have been pained by the blatant partisanship of "The Hindu" editorials, news reporting and coverage in general. The Editor's response is as usual the wishy washy stuff, which gives you a yawn as you read it and say, shut up!
It is not our practice to reproduce “indecent remarks” (as one reader described it) by anyone. Often it is best to allude to them. We don’t reproduce all the remarks made by Narendra Modi or Uma Bharati against Muslims or Christians or the unrestrained attacks on individual political leaders by Subramanian Swamy.While not publishing the wounding remarks made my anyone against Christians or Muslims and thus being the ever decent newspaper, The Hindu would definitely have published an editorial the first thing next morning condemning in the strongest possible terms the trampling on- "Oh-So-Sacred-Secularism" by the Saffron Brigade- but not so surprisingly, this time there was not even a mention of the remarks made by the Chief Minister in very specific and pointed terms to the religious beliefs of the Hindus. Oh- trampling on Hindu sensibilities is secularism- as it had always been practiced by the Secularists! This was succintly pointed out in the same page, with these words by the Reader's Editor!
The policy of not publishing abusive or wounding comments is laudable. But it needs to be followed uniformly, whether it is a Chief Minister or an unknown BJP ex-MP (whose remarks were published with the Hindi words and English translation). The clarification makes it clear that some of Mr. Karunanidhi’s remarks on the Ramayana were highly sensitive. The editorial was an opportunity to make this point. Readers noted that there was no disapprobation. On the other hand, the editorial said the remarks were “wildly misrepresented.” Mr. Karunanidhi had not said so but had made further comments.After a long time, I did feel good about reading The Hindu- and this time, none of it came from the people who matter in there!
Labels: BJP, Journalism, Left, The Hindu, Thoughts
Sunday, August 26, 2007
IBN's Foot in Mouth!!!!
I dont know what is with IBN-Live Website these days, I am finding it highly unimaginative and stale to read the stories posted in there. May be they suffer from Foot-in-Mouth disease too. Take for example a recent article they had posted on the TATA-Land Rover Deal. The story opens like this:
In other related observation, is CNN-IBN partly owned, or in debt to TATA industries? I agree TATA is a big name and all that- but what is the reason behind CNN-IBN covering only TATA related news in its business section?
Look at the news items in the business section right now. There are a total of 7 topics listed in that section and the headlines read thus:
New Delhi: Ratan Tata, owner of the largest Indian conglomerate is planning a smooth drive with American car giants Land Rover and Jaguar.Thankfully, this story had been written by a Human- Karan Thapar. While I dont deny the fact that, these brands are American owned, Land Rover and Jaguar are hardly "American" Giants. They are owned by Ford- but they are basically European- British to be precise Giants. Their official websites place their registered offices in Britain- not Detroit. Though it is perfectly true to call these American Cars, it is not fair to call them American Brands. Hopefully, Karan Thapar will get over the Foot and Mouth Disease soon. May be I need to send him a Get-well card. But I should thank CNN-IBN for this wonderful discovery. If not for them, I wouldn't have been interested in searching for Foot in Mouth in Wiki and got this wonderful piece!
In other related observation, is CNN-IBN partly owned, or in debt to TATA industries? I agree TATA is a big name and all that- but what is the reason behind CNN-IBN covering only TATA related news in its business section?
Look at the news items in the business section right now. There are a total of 7 topics listed in that section and the headlines read thus:
- India's BPO export accounts 47 per cent growth
- TCS to hire 2,000 science and maths graduates
- Satyam joins hands with Malaysian government
- Infosys BPO unaffected by US stock mkt trouble
- 'Nuclear deal is best thing to have happened to India'
- Tata welcomes: Jaguar, Land Rover & Rs 1-lakh car
- Despite protests, Tata small car project on track
An astonishing 5 out of 7 stories there had a mention of TATA group in it. I wonder if there aren't any other businesses in India than TATA's or is it that ways for CNN-IBN?
Labels: CNN IBN, Interesting, Media, Thoughts
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Rafting and Fun!
Had been to white water rafting near here- in the Lehigh River. It was a Class III rafting- enjoyed every bit of it. While I am waiting for the film rolls to be developed [Yeah- its better to use a water proof cheap film camera than the digital ones ;)], I can't but wonder at the complete corporatization of everything that I can see here. While I was surfing through some information about the White Water Rafting, I came upon this blog. I am linking to the page that I found most interesting...The Water Level Control- In India, I have come across controlling water level only for purposes like Irrigation and Flood Control- there are no apparent industries that use the water flow in the rivers to make money and create employment. There might be reasons to it- there might be no great demand for a service- but as such, the demand in many cases is to be created, rather than expected to develop.
The rafting industry seems to be huge and very well organized here in US. The near consistent water levels in the rivers, as opposed to mostly seasonal flow in Indian rivers might be a reason. Last heard there was a rafting service available near Mangalore- Hadn't been there though. There is one Class IV rafting course near NY in Hudson- thinking of planning for it sometime.
One more interesting thing that struck me was, the style of managing the raft through the obstacles and the team spirit. When we boarded the raft, we were told that we are to arrange ourselves in such a way, that the heavier people of the group are to be at the back- since it is easier to maneuver from the back and that there is a leader for the raft. The underlying assumption being that the leader would be in a better position to instruct the team and thus stay clear of the obstacles. This also would mean that the team should trust the Leader and follow his words. What emerged out of the rafting exercise is something more interesting. We were able to find, that the less control is with the leader, the easier it was to maneuver the raft, than when it was just the leader who was taking the decision. The more individuals took decision based on the information they had, the lesser rocks we had to face.
Thinking about it, this is more like the Self Organization- where the decisions are localized, whereas the purpose is a global one. The individuals take decisions based on the information that they have and they are the best decision makers with that information. Most of the management principles that we use today, have been assembled from the WW-II. I just wonder, if it is time to change all those principles on their head and think about something more reflective of the times we live in. May be the "General-Soldier", "Leader-Follower" model had seen its day.
The rafting industry seems to be huge and very well organized here in US. The near consistent water levels in the rivers, as opposed to mostly seasonal flow in Indian rivers might be a reason. Last heard there was a rafting service available near Mangalore- Hadn't been there though. There is one Class IV rafting course near NY in Hudson- thinking of planning for it sometime.
One more interesting thing that struck me was, the style of managing the raft through the obstacles and the team spirit. When we boarded the raft, we were told that we are to arrange ourselves in such a way, that the heavier people of the group are to be at the back- since it is easier to maneuver from the back and that there is a leader for the raft. The underlying assumption being that the leader would be in a better position to instruct the team and thus stay clear of the obstacles. This also would mean that the team should trust the Leader and follow his words. What emerged out of the rafting exercise is something more interesting. We were able to find, that the less control is with the leader, the easier it was to maneuver the raft, than when it was just the leader who was taking the decision. The more individuals took decision based on the information they had, the lesser rocks we had to face.
Thinking about it, this is more like the Self Organization- where the decisions are localized, whereas the purpose is a global one. The individuals take decisions based on the information that they have and they are the best decision makers with that information. Most of the management principles that we use today, have been assembled from the WW-II. I just wonder, if it is time to change all those principles on their head and think about something more reflective of the times we live in. May be the "General-Soldier", "Leader-Follower" model had seen its day.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Message in a Bottle!
The recent article that I read in Fast Company had outlined the quest and thirst we seem to have with bottled water- While in India, I think it can atleast by justifiable with a notion that not all tap water is safe to drink [provided there is water available in the tap in the first place], I find it really surprising when people gobble up bottles of packaged water when they do get safe drinking water in tap.
It is indeed surprising why people wouldn't trust their tap water- is it some sort of a psychological barrier, that the tap water brings in? Is it some collective intelligence that runs against the tap water? I don't know for sure, but this mentality seem to exist everywhere. May be it is because, we tend to value anything that is free (not to mean that the tap water is free- I assume it is being taxed- not sure about how it works in US, but for sure it is taxed in India) or atleast cheap, lesser than we value that is costly? Is the mere monetary value the end of all value?
With that in the backdrop, just check out what the New York State had been up with. They are trying to promote tap water- bottled water's cost is much more than the price that you pay at the store to get it. There are other environmental costs- not to mention the plastic waste that it generates after use.
Seems like atlast we are waking up to the reality of environmental screwup that is being termed as Life Style and Development!
It is indeed surprising why people wouldn't trust their tap water- is it some sort of a psychological barrier, that the tap water brings in? Is it some collective intelligence that runs against the tap water? I don't know for sure, but this mentality seem to exist everywhere. May be it is because, we tend to value anything that is free (not to mean that the tap water is free- I assume it is being taxed- not sure about how it works in US, but for sure it is taxed in India) or atleast cheap, lesser than we value that is costly? Is the mere monetary value the end of all value?
With that in the backdrop, just check out what the New York State had been up with. They are trying to promote tap water- bottled water's cost is much more than the price that you pay at the store to get it. There are other environmental costs- not to mention the plastic waste that it generates after use.
Seems like atlast we are waking up to the reality of environmental screwup that is being termed as Life Style and Development!
Labels: Environment, Government, Policy, Thoughts
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Why we do What we do?
Couple of days back, I was reading through something, when I hit upon this piece of post by Emanuel Derman. I follow his posts regularly and I find this post of his, informative and pretty interesting. I am just reproducing his words:
This justification is something that I have already discussed so many times. There can hardly be no reason (cause) for something that I feel or do, but why should I justify it and to whom? The do/like something intrinsically and there is no need to justify it. With Justification comes guilt- in my opinion, you don't justify unless you feel guilty about doing something- you don't justify the breath you take, the food you eat - but you tend to justify some exorbitant money you just lost gambling or the wrong way you took when you didn't know which way to go!
To me, Justifying something is an upfront acceptance of the guilt that I harbor and the moral smallness that I feel because of that, towards the person that I am justifying my actions. I don't think I need to justify my actions/feelings etc to anyone unless I really want apologies and/or acceptance. Expecting acceptance in itself is something that seems to me as repugnant. But then I realize we do it all time- every time. Seems unsurmountable to me. May be thats why we do what we do!
Doug Hofstadter's book about Godel's theorem, "I am a Strange Loop", points out that mathematicians before after Hilbert and Russell and Whitehead thought that in axiomatic systems, (a) if you could prove it, it must be true, and (b) everything true could be proved. Godel threw a monkey wrench into (b). There's a similar set of assumptions people often make about human beings: (a) If you can persuade someone of the logic of something, they should experience the same feeling as you about it; and (b) if people experience some feeling, there must be a logical cause. But this too breaks down in various ways. In my case, take global warming as an example of the falseness of (a): it's logical that I should be anxious to do something about it, but the logic doesn't really move me enough. I could try to explain why, but, in the end, that's how I feel. It's a version of Schopenhauer's "You can do what you want but you can't want what you want." I might want to be a person that wants to do something about global warming, but I can't be that person. That said, a long time ago I was friendly with a philosopher/physicist who told me in all serious that he wanted to be a person that liked classical music, and he could really make himself into that kind of person. I never knew whether to believe him. (b) is more difficult. There probably is a cause for most feelings or reactions, depending on what kind of cause you like -- Freud, Darwin or some neuroscientist stuff. But on the other hand, who cares: I like licorice: why? God knows and no-one cares. And why justify it? I thought of this when some telemarketer called to get me to donate money to some charity. I told her not to bother me at home. She tried to explain to me the virtue of the charity. I said I didn't want her to call me. She kept asking me WHY I wouldn't give money for something good? She wanted an explanation and I was tempted to give her one. But when I asked her why she had to call me, she said I was on her "list" and that was that. She didn't need any justification, though she wanted me to justify not giving. There's an old Lou Reed song called "Doin the things that we want to," and she knew how to do it.There are more than a couple of inferences for me from those words. I particularly agree with these words : There probably is a cause for most feelings or reactions, depending on what kind of cause you like -- Freud, Darwin or some neuroscientist stuff. But on the other hand, who cares: I like licorice: why? God knows and no-one cares. And why justify it?
This justification is something that I have already discussed so many times. There can hardly be no reason (cause) for something that I feel or do, but why should I justify it and to whom? The do/like something intrinsically and there is no need to justify it. With Justification comes guilt- in my opinion, you don't justify unless you feel guilty about doing something- you don't justify the breath you take, the food you eat - but you tend to justify some exorbitant money you just lost gambling or the wrong way you took when you didn't know which way to go!
To me, Justifying something is an upfront acceptance of the guilt that I harbor and the moral smallness that I feel because of that, towards the person that I am justifying my actions. I don't think I need to justify my actions/feelings etc to anyone unless I really want apologies and/or acceptance. Expecting acceptance in itself is something that seems to me as repugnant. But then I realize we do it all time- every time. Seems unsurmountable to me. May be thats why we do what we do!
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Interesting!
This news item that appeared in BBC today, caught my attention. The news is about Google deciding to ban essay writing ads from appearing. This is a classic case of clash between ethics/morality and business. The legitimate businesses that provide essay writing services- the business line here is legitimate. They are in outsourcing industry- its that simple. However, how many of us are comfortable with an University student buying an essay from one of these companies and submitting it, as his own?
Personally, I find no wrong in essay writing companies doing what they are doing. It is a legitimate business avenue for them. They get their work outsourced from their clients. Students in this case are outsourcing their job of learning/preparing a document about their learning to these third parties. Is it something wrong? My business logic says it isn't. I would try to get my job done as easily and best quality as possible. That is what all outsourcing is about. I get my job done at the cheapest and efficient place possible. It is also about the "Core Competency". May be essay writing is not my core competency. May be studying is not my core competency. So, I outsource that to someone who does it best. But where I go wrong in this case is, when I claim such a work as mine. If I dont claim that work as mine, then there is no point in me wanting that work done..right? The essay writing companies claim that they warn the users that, the work cannot be claimed as user's own is at best, sort of a disclaimer that no one really cares about. I really don't believe the claim that their essays are not being used for submission. As I said, there is absolutely no use in me paying for a work whose only purpose is submission as my own and not submit it!
It's a good case study for ethics class is all that I can say. Having done some ethics case studies, I think this case will have not differing opinions. Everyone will try to be in the "right" side of the divide. How can I justify the stance that the material is not used for plagiarism purposes? It is completely a personal ethical stance that every individual takes. As such, morality and ethics are seldom practiced as a group - though they get framed by a group- its always an individual that needs to follow it!- Weird World- Weird People!
Personally, I find no wrong in essay writing companies doing what they are doing. It is a legitimate business avenue for them. They get their work outsourced from their clients. Students in this case are outsourcing their job of learning/preparing a document about their learning to these third parties. Is it something wrong? My business logic says it isn't. I would try to get my job done as easily and best quality as possible. That is what all outsourcing is about. I get my job done at the cheapest and efficient place possible. It is also about the "Core Competency". May be essay writing is not my core competency. May be studying is not my core competency. So, I outsource that to someone who does it best. But where I go wrong in this case is, when I claim such a work as mine. If I dont claim that work as mine, then there is no point in me wanting that work done..right? The essay writing companies claim that they warn the users that, the work cannot be claimed as user's own is at best, sort of a disclaimer that no one really cares about. I really don't believe the claim that their essays are not being used for submission. As I said, there is absolutely no use in me paying for a work whose only purpose is submission as my own and not submit it!
It's a good case study for ethics class is all that I can say. Having done some ethics case studies, I think this case will have not differing opinions. Everyone will try to be in the "right" side of the divide. How can I justify the stance that the material is not used for plagiarism purposes? It is completely a personal ethical stance that every individual takes. As such, morality and ethics are seldom practiced as a group - though they get framed by a group- its always an individual that needs to follow it!- Weird World- Weird People!
Labels: Blabber, Google, Interesting, Thoughts
Friday, March 16, 2007
Hardened Thoughts
It's been two years that I wrote this piece.
There is so much of imitation of American way of life in Indian Global companies- it hardly matters if you are in US or in Indian offices of these companies. The companies, though Global, are basically, very much American. It is a fallacy that we call them Global companies. The American hegemony (if I can call it that ways) is all too visible in the way business is conducted across Indian companies. Is there any distinct Indian-ness in any of the companies? Or for that matter is there any distinctiveness in any of the companies that dot the Globe now, except Americanism?
While writing this, I have a parallel thought- is there any distinct Americanism anywhere?- Or is it simply the most efficient way of doing things as we know now? Is it simply because of the American efficiency- which I thoroughly appreciate and marvel at, that we tend to have clones everywhere trying to do things that Uncle Sam had done and done it successfully?
Questions to Ponder- I don't think I would be pondering them while on flight back home!
[...Geopolitics of Globalisation by Baldev Raj Nayar. A nice collection of facts, interpretations, history and Politics of Globalisation. The author seem to have a bent towards anti-americanism...american hegemony....Hegemon of Hegemons as he calls it....though the hegemonism be true, still it doesn't prevent the author from taking stance.....would we - meaning the Indians be any different, given the chance and the ability to lord over the world...Simple facts like the amount US spent on its defence in the year 2001 (US$351 Bn) is way..infact miles ahead of the next five countires put together...the US's power isn't manifest only in Military...it is there in Hollywood, McDonald's , Walt Disney, Microsoft, Google...everything....one probable reason why US is able to lord over the world is this hidden influence on the way people everywhere think....by creating clones everywhere, US is able to sustain interest in it....there are many grey areas in the development stories of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan...the author provides a nice account of what transpired between the powers that be....how many conditions of America was accommodated..It's surprising that in the two years, my thoughts had changed little. But I wrote those words, without seeing/verifying things on my own. But now, having seen a bit of US, I know I hadn't been wrong. Yesterday, as we had gone to Costco for some shopping to carry back to India, I noticed something and made a note to my room mates and they too seem to agree.
There is so much of imitation of American way of life in Indian Global companies- it hardly matters if you are in US or in Indian offices of these companies. The companies, though Global, are basically, very much American. It is a fallacy that we call them Global companies. The American hegemony (if I can call it that ways) is all too visible in the way business is conducted across Indian companies. Is there any distinct Indian-ness in any of the companies? Or for that matter is there any distinctiveness in any of the companies that dot the Globe now, except Americanism?
While writing this, I have a parallel thought- is there any distinct Americanism anywhere?- Or is it simply the most efficient way of doing things as we know now? Is it simply because of the American efficiency- which I thoroughly appreciate and marvel at, that we tend to have clones everywhere trying to do things that Uncle Sam had done and done it successfully?
Questions to Ponder- I don't think I would be pondering them while on flight back home!
Labels: America, Interesting, Observation, Thoughts
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Tale of Two Worlds!
We're going to run into a constraint pretty soon, though. It turns out corn is needed for more than just ethanol. You got to feed your cows and feed your hogs.
- GWB, Caterpillar, Inc. East Peoria, Illinois
"When there isn't enough money to buy meat, you do without," one woman in Mexico City, Bonifacia Ysidro, told the Associated press. "Tortillas you can't do without."
Labels: Blabber, Interesting, Thoughts
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Indian Outsourcing Industry!
While skimming through the headlines, I got upon this particular article from Infoworld. Makes an interesting read and one that echoes what had been running in my mind ever since I joined one of those (All said and done, my employer is still perceived as an outsourcer only- though many might not agree). I have been seeing many business managers (both from my Senior batch and my batch) joining IT companies- the lure of money, the opportunities, the general "Oh, you are an IT Guy" might have been reasons for the same.
I can very well testify that there had been movements other way too, but they pale in comparison with the movement towards IT. As the later portion of the article points out,
I understand there are issues here like Margins, Credit, Pricing etc. I would assume the same issues with any client. After all, any client would be tight on his wallet. I know we can't expect the same margin as with our European and American clients- after all, we would have to negotiate in terms of Rupees and not in Dollars :)- but that's the part of the business. I am afraid, because, if we loose out on this now, it might just be too late, later.
There might be other concerns. What would be the result of such an approach on the Psyche of the employees. Take it or not, the option of an On-site is a big factor "for" an IT job. Would it still matter if I know for sure, I wouldn't have that option as an employee with a company concentrating on domestic market and still find it luring enough? Would that lead to an increase in wages- what would happen in such a scenario, where there is already pressure on the margins and also on the expenditure? Would that be a good enough scenario for Indian companies to work in and survive? Can their overseas market subsidise domestic market for long?
These questions, I assume are being asked at the relevant offices and I hope, we see atleast a spark of an activity in this area.
I can very well testify that there had been movements other way too, but they pale in comparison with the movement towards IT. As the later portion of the article points out,
Indian IT spending is growing at a five-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.8 percent, the highest in the Asia-Pacific region, to over $36 billion by 2009, Gartner said. This increase comes from rising expectations from businesses for IT to play a larger role in growth, efficiency and competitive advantage, it added.When we have such a big IT spender in our midst, seems like we are blissfully unaware of the market or we are blatantly ignoring them, for want of quick bucks. I am sure Indian IT companies can subsidise their Indian operations for a couple of years, so that they can gain a foothold in a fast emerging market. Consider the spate of industrial growth that has been triggered in India- take for example the retail industry alone. There are other auxiliary industries like Logistics, Packaging and Supply Chain Management etc that would grow as retail grows. If we are able to concentrate on those for the time being- I am not saying that we leave the lucrative operations in NA and Europe for India...If we can just put in some effort and are willing to wait for results in a couple of years time,we might just crack the potential here.
I understand there are issues here like Margins, Credit, Pricing etc. I would assume the same issues with any client. After all, any client would be tight on his wallet. I know we can't expect the same margin as with our European and American clients- after all, we would have to negotiate in terms of Rupees and not in Dollars :)- but that's the part of the business. I am afraid, because, if we loose out on this now, it might just be too late, later.
There might be other concerns. What would be the result of such an approach on the Psyche of the employees. Take it or not, the option of an On-site is a big factor "for" an IT job. Would it still matter if I know for sure, I wouldn't have that option as an employee with a company concentrating on domestic market and still find it luring enough? Would that lead to an increase in wages- what would happen in such a scenario, where there is already pressure on the margins and also on the expenditure? Would that be a good enough scenario for Indian companies to work in and survive? Can their overseas market subsidise domestic market for long?
These questions, I assume are being asked at the relevant offices and I hope, we see atleast a spark of an activity in this area.
Labels: Interesting, Thoughts, Work
Friday, December 08, 2006
The tale of 2 sides!
Exactly as we are moving towards(or at least holding in high regard) Western Ideas, here comes a western leader, [The two links seems to provide two different versions- Not sure, why is BBC updating such off the same URL] saying thing or two (apparently, which one I am yet to ascertain).
The "Notepaded" Version of the two pages read thus:
This, seems to me as a step by a confused, identity less and "I-Want-To-Be-Good-To-All" syndrome and an irony in itself. Tolerance in itself is not the least a Britian Value(just ought to read some of Winston Churchill's quotes about India and Gandhi- We would know the kind of Tolerance that Blair claims to be so "British"). Hardly is Britian a multiculturalist country. I wonder what would have made them think they are multiculturalist- there is nothing wrong in thinking so- guess the over stuffed Chicken Tikka Masala made them so...but then, to claim history which doesn't exist would only lead to further alienation.
The same western countries were afraid of Nationalism in other parts of the world and now, they want to have their citizens to be British and Black, British and White, British and Asian...essentially whipping up Nationalist feeling, when what you would expect them to promote Genuine non-intervention in the affairs of the individuals as a Western State.
The speech also has an implicit assumption that only immigrants are racist, hate mongers- because it is only those who shouldn't "come into Britian"- so it is indeed okay if you are a British hate monger- after all it's the Tolerance that Britian is known for, from the time Humans were conceived in the evolutionist embryo of the Monkeys!- Also note that the religious communities need to prove that they aim to promote Community Integration- the word whether this also means the Catholic Church is yet to be out..but let us assume it too, would be part of this proposal. I think and believe Catholic Church in Britian is a religious entity and not a secular one-as often the case in India!
Cross posted at: Third Eye
The "Notepaded" Version of the two pages read thus:
Conform to our society, says PMThe Other page read:
People entering the UK must be prepared to be tolerant or not become part of British society, Tony Blair has said. (Emphasis Added)
In a speech at Downing Street, Mr Blair said that tolerance was "what makes Britain, Britain" and warned "we must be ready to defend this attitude". The prime minister said: "So conform to it; or don't come here. We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed." He also defended multiculturalism, saying it should be celebrated. The lecture comes a year after Mr Blair said he never quite knew what people meant by multiculturalism.
Mr Blair said: "It is not that we need to dispense with multicultural Britain.
"On the contrary, we should continue celebrating it."
Duty to integrate
In the speech, Mr Blair also announced a crackdown on funding for religious and racial groups, saying in the future they would have to prove they aimed to promote community integration. Commenting on the speech Liberal Democrat communities spokesman Andrew Stunell said: "We must ensure that the voices of moderation have their say, but support for organisations must not be distorted by government driven targets or Tony Blair's personal agenda." It was important to demonstrate what integration meant, Mr Blair said.
"The right to be in a multi-cultural society was always implicitly balanced by a duty to integrate, to be part of Britain, to be British and Asian, British and black, British and white." Mr Blair emphasised this was not about rejecting values, nor diluting identity or religion. However, he called for Britain "to re-assert the duty to integrate, to stress what we hold in common and to say: these are the shared boundaries within which we all are obliged to live, precisely in order to preserve our right to our own different faiths, races and creeds". The suicide bombings in London on July 7 last year had thrown the whole concept of a multicultural Britain "into sharp relief", the prime minister said.
'Distinctive culture'
He insisted it was an idea that should still be celebrated but said it went hand in hand with a "duty" to share "essential values". "When it comes to our essential values - belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage - then that is where we come together, it is what we hold in common." The prime minister said Britain was "better placed than most" to have a sensible debate on the issue.But it had to be prepared to stand up and fight for the tolerance which was its hallmark, he added. "If you come here lawfully, we welcome you. If you are permitted to stay here permanently, you become an equal member of our community and become one of us.
"The right to be different. The duty to integrate. That is what being British means.
"And neither racists nor extremists should be allowed to destroy it." Mr Blair praised Tory leader David Cameron, saying it was "not conceivable in my view" that he would seek to exploit immigration to win votes. "That is both a tribute to him and to the common culture of tolerance we have established in this country today."
'Duty to integrate,' says BlairNow, if you can see the language of the two editions, they are very different- while the first sermons the people, the second one urges. But, if you are to go by the URL, you would probably find only one page(Which one, I don't know and would that be at least any one of these too is some thing that I am unable to guess).
Tony Blair wants Britain to celebrate multiculturalism Britain can celebrate its multicultural society while reasserting the "duty" to integrate, Tony Blair has said. In a speech at Downing Street, the prime minister said differences could be preserved in an integrated society. He warned that "we must be ready to defend this attitude" and tolerance was "what makes Britain, Britain". He said: "So conform to it; or don't come here. We don't want the hate-mongers, whatever their race, religion or creed." The lecture comes a year after Mr Blair said he never quite knew what people meant by multiculturalism.
'Demonstrate integration'
Last year, Commission for Racial Equality chairman Trevor Phillips caused controversy by suggesting that multiculturalism may now be outdated. He also warned that Britain could be "sleep-walking" towards US-style ethnic segregation because of a failure to address differences and create common values. Mr Blair said: "It is not that we need to dispense with multicultural Britain."On the contrary, we should continue celebrating it." In the speech, Mr Blair also announced a crackdown on funding for religious and racial groups, saying in the future they would have to prove they aimed to promote community integration.
Identity
It was important to "demonstrate and underline what is meant by integration in modern Britain," he said. "The right to be in a multi-cultural society was always implicitly balanced by a duty to integrate, to be part of Britain, to be British and Asian, British and black, British and white." Mr Blair emphasised this was not about rejecting values within a multicultural Britain, nor diluting identity or religion. However, he called for Britain "to re-assert the duty to integrate, to stress what we hold in common and to say: these are the shared boundaries within which we all are obliged to live, precisely in order to preserve our right to our own different faiths, races and creeds". The suicide bombings in London on July 7 last year had thrown the whole concept of a multicultural Britain "into sharp relief", the prime minister said.
'Distinctive culture'
He insisted it was an idea that should still be celebrated but said it went hand in hand with a "duty" to share "essential values". "When it comes to our essential values - belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and its shared heritage - then that is where we come together, it is what we hold in common.
The prime minister said Britain was "better placed than most" to have a sensible debate on the issue. But it had to be prepared to stand up and fight for the tolerance which was its hallmark, he added. "We are a nation comfortable with the open world of today," he said. "If you come here lawfully, we welcome you. If you are permitted to stay here permanently, you become an equal member of our community and become one of us.
"Then you, and all of us, who want to, can worship God in our own way, take pride in our different cultures after our own fashion, respect our distinctive histories according to our own traditions; but do so within a shared space of shared values in which we take no less pride and show no less respect. "The right to be different. The duty to integrate. That is what being British means. "And neither racists nor extremists should be allowed to destroy it." Mr Blair praised Tory leader David Cameron, saying it was "not conceivable in my view" that he would seek to exploit immigration to win votes. "That is both a tribute to him and to the common culture of tolerance we have established in this country today."
This, seems to me as a step by a confused, identity less and "I-Want-To-Be-Good-To-All" syndrome and an irony in itself. Tolerance in itself is not the least a Britian Value(just ought to read some of Winston Churchill's quotes about India and Gandhi- We would know the kind of Tolerance that Blair claims to be so "British"). Hardly is Britian a multiculturalist country. I wonder what would have made them think they are multiculturalist- there is nothing wrong in thinking so- guess the over stuffed Chicken Tikka Masala made them so...but then, to claim history which doesn't exist would only lead to further alienation.
The same western countries were afraid of Nationalism in other parts of the world and now, they want to have their citizens to be British and Black, British and White, British and Asian...essentially whipping up Nationalist feeling, when what you would expect them to promote Genuine non-intervention in the affairs of the individuals as a Western State.
The speech also has an implicit assumption that only immigrants are racist, hate mongers- because it is only those who shouldn't "come into Britian"- so it is indeed okay if you are a British hate monger- after all it's the Tolerance that Britian is known for, from the time Humans were conceived in the evolutionist embryo of the Monkeys!- Also note that the religious communities need to prove that they aim to promote Community Integration- the word whether this also means the Catholic Church is yet to be out..but let us assume it too, would be part of this proposal. I think and believe Catholic Church in Britian is a religious entity and not a secular one-as often the case in India!
Cross posted at: Third Eye
Jus been
Free Counter
Get awesome blog templates like this one from BlogSkins.com
© All that is written here are the Genuine Products of the Intellect of the author and are protected by the relevant copyright acts...If you wish to quote the highness you can do so at your own risk and at risk to the integrity of the author's cerebrum.
Disclaimer:
All that is written in this blog are the personal opinions of the author and are in no way representative of the organisation that the author has worked for or is working for or would be working for in the future.
