Disclaimer

My writings have no pretensions - neither to infallibility. nor to omniscience.

There may well be facts that I could be unaware of, that could undermine or even discredit some of my arguments.

Through my writings, I try to convey, in essence, what I understand of my land's recent past; being fully aware that the 'land' I refer to and I believe that I belong to, no longer exists; that the 'land' has now become three different States - Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.

So, what I say or write may often apply to what are today the modern and independent states of Pakistan and Bangladesh and not just the Republic of India (Bhārat Gaṇarājya).

Why has India done so badly in feeding its children?

The hunger situation in India is still “serious”, as noted in the Global Hunger Index, 2017, a report prepared by the International Food Policy Research Institute. India now ranks 100th on that list in ensuring food security for its peoples, placing it in the high end of the “serious” category.


In 1992, India was ahead of two of its neighbouring countries, Myanmar and Bangladesh in combating hunger. In the past 25 years, however, both these countries have managed to make greater strides than India. So much so that Bangladeshis and Burmese are today better fed than Indians.

If it’s any consolation, the one country even worse governed than India in that time period is – you guessed it right – Pakistan. Pakistan actually had a better score than India in 1992. But in two and a half decades, it slipped behind India to become New Delhi’s most malnourished neighbour.


India’s supposedly weaker neighbours do a much better job of feeding their citizens...in spite of the Indian state having undertaken several seminal and monumental developmental interventions in recent years, such as:

1. Launch of 'Make-in-India', 'Digital India' and 'Skill India' initiatives with focus on defense and electronics, primarily to create jobs

2. Formulation and implementation of GST - a pan India tax regime for goods and services

3. Commencement of divestment programme in public sector companies

4. Prime Minister's 100 Smart Cities Project

5. Fast-tracking of defense purchases: Rafale fighter jets deal

6. MoUs for making submarines, fighter jets and ship at home

7. Cooking gas now under direct-cash-benefit transfer scheme, with potential saving of $5 billion annually in subsidies, plus Diesel prices being de-regulated

8. Crackdown on black money through demonetisation of high denomination currency notes

9. Jan Dhan Yojana: More than 15 crore bank accounts opened, over 10 crore RuPay debit cards issued, with life cover, pension

10. Increased international standing through strategic partnerships with the likes of the US, Israel (and now Palestine) and new forged alliances along with settlement of persistent issues such as border dispute with Bangladesh

11. Swachh Bharat Mission - the cleanliness drive with unprecedented focus on kerbing open defecation

12. Implementation two large-scale national programs that address nutrition – the Integrated Child Development Services and the National Health Mission

So, why has India done still so badly in feeding its children? Does anyone has an answer?

***
Disclaimer: My writings have no pretensions neither to infallibility. not to omniscience. There may well be facts that I could be unaware of, that could undermine or discredit some of my arguments.

Isn't Justice Delayed is Justice Denied?

What we call in a sophisticated way as fraud, as per the IPC is 'cheating'.
However, not to offend the sensibilities of the educated Indian,I shall use the word 'fraud'.
Some of India's notable financial frauds include:

Satyam (Ramalinga Raju), fraud - INR 7,000 cr
Status - Conviction of 7 yeras and now free

Grow More (Harshad Mehta, now deceased), fraud - INR 250 cr
Status - Conviction of 5 years

Indian Bank (M.Gopalkrishnan), fraud - Upto INR 1000 cr.
Status: Conviction of 3 years (in jail presently)

Kingfisher Airlines (Vijay Mallya), fraud  - INR 9000 cr.
Status - Unconvicted as yet & free

Firestar Diamonds (Nirav Modi), fraud - INR 11,400 cr.
Status - Unconvicted and free

Saradha Group (Sudipta Sen), fraud - INR 25,000 cr
Status - Unconvicted s yet

Rose Valley Group (Gautam Kundu), fraud - INR 60,000 cr
Status - Unconvicted as yet

Inspite of the combined efforts of the authorities of the likes of SEBI, Enforcement Direcotrate, Serious Fraud Investigation Office and their likes, this is all that the Indian state has achieved towards mitigating justice to the 'aam aadmi' (aka the common man).

Now contrast the Global key financial frauds, how exemplary justice has been delivered, in keeping with the philosophy of  'justice delayed is justice denied':

BLMIS LLC (Barnie Madoff), fraud - USD 50 bn
Status - Conviction of 150 years!

Enron (Kenneth Lay), fraud - USD 62 bn
Status - Conviction of 45 years

Enron (Jeffrey Skilling), fraud - USD 62 bn
Status - Conviction of 24  years

ZZZZ Best (barry Minkow), fraud - USD 500 mn
Status - Conviction of 24  years

TYCO (Dennis Kozlowski), fraud - USD 100 mn
Status - Conviction of 25  years

Barrings Bank (Nick Leeson), fraud - USD 882 mn
Status - Conviction of 7  years

Societe Generale (Jerome Kerviel), fraud - USD 7 bn
Status - Conviction of 3  years

As per section 167 of the criminal procedure code, if an accused is arrested for financial fraud, in India, and the charge sheet is not filed within 99 days, then he or she is entitled to statutory bail!!! It is no secret that the high and mighty can hire influential lawyers who can ensure that bit of 'necessary' delay (in filing of the charge sheet) so that the statutory bail can be got.


***
Disclaimer: My writings have no pretensions - neither to infallibility. nor to omniscience.
There may well be facts that I could be unaware of, that could undermine or even discredit some of my arguments.

You and I live in a democracy - a republic, which is 'by us', 'for us' and 'of us'

You and I live in a democracy - a republic, which is 'by us', 'for us' and 'of us'.

You and I are therefore free to have our 'point of views'; point of view is how one looks at an issue and that way of looking at is supposed to be unique as every one of us are unique. That's how nature designed us - unique.

So, when you put forward your 'point of view', it is your unique of way of looking at things and it is got to be different from mine. The beauty of democracy is that I can say that I don't like your point of view and I can even find flaw in your argument based on which your point of view is based. But, then I cannot be asking you to change your point of view or ask you to have a different view or worse still, I cannot ask you to have a point of view that is acceptable to me.

Talking of point of view, my point of view is India is actually an oligarchy, since India's top 1% (in 2017) owned 73% of the country's wealth! In 2016 India's richest 1% held 58% of the country's total wealth, and just one year by 2107, the wealth of this elite group increased by over Rs 20.9 lakh crore! Now the top 1% of the population holds 73% of India's wealth while 67 crore citizens, comprising the country's poorest half, saw their wealth rise by just 1%!!!

Beyond the more conventional understanding of democracy, the real difference between democracy and oligarchy is between poverty and wealth. Wherever the rulers, whether they be a minority or a majority, and owe their power to wealth, that is an oligarchy. Wherever the poor rule, that is a democracy. This is of course is 'my' point of view; 'point of view' of a 'pseudo-intellectual.


***
Disclaimer: My writings have no pretensions neither to infallibility. not to omniscience. There may well be facts that I could be unaware of, that could undermine or discredit some of my arguments.

Elementary Questions

Has the modern Indian state, called India, been limited in meeting the "cause" for which it was created? Or has it actually served the "real" cause?

What then is the "cause" ?

Political Map of the Indian Empire, 1893" from Constable's Hand Atlas of India, London: Archibald Constable and Sons, 1893.

I therefore seek answers, and if any one can answer (not with opinion but with facts), I would be extremely thankful.

Have all communities benefited equally in modern and post-colonial Indian?

(A community is a small or large social unit (a group of people) who have something in common, such as norms, religion, values, or identity. Communities often share a sense of place that is situated in a given geographical area (e.g. a country, village, town, or neighborhood) or in virtual space through communication platforms.)

Which human communities have benefited the most and which the least -socio-economically in modern India?

Has any community's development and progress been actually limited due to the creation of the modern Indian State?

Has any community in modern India actually benefited at the cost of backwardness of any other Indian community?

Are there any communities in modern India that have suffered for the sake of prosperity and development of other communities? If yes, then which are those communities?

Which communities in modern India are the poorest and least developed?

Are such deprived and backward communities scattered randomly across modern India or are these domcile to specific regions or states?

Has there been policies that have led to unequal development within modern India? If yes, then why were such policies adopted?

Are there policies that have benefitted only select human communities within India? If yes, then which are these policies and which are the beneficiary communities?

Which are the most poor, underdeveloped and backward regions in modern India? Why are these regions so poor, underdeveloped and backward? Further..are the underdeveloped and backward regions lacking in terms of natural resources?

These regions that are poor, underdeveloped and backward, is it in any way because of the creation of the modern Indian state? Would these (poor, underdeveloped and backward) regions and their domicile communities been better off had they not been a part of the modern Indian state? Conversely, would the the modern Indian state been better off without these (poor, underdeveloped and backward) regions and their domicile communities?

How does the income and wealth distribution pyramid look like in modern India? Is a such a pyramidal distribution of wealth and income uniform in dimension across India, or does it vary from region to region/state to state? If it vaires, then why does it vary?

What are the factors that led to the formation of the modern Indian State - in its present form & shape?

Why post 15 August 1947, the modern Indian state continues to remain based on the colonial administrative structure - the very structure from which freedom was being sought?

Why wasn't the Indian sub-continent, post 15 August 1947 restored to a similar provincial and local administrative structure that was under the Mughals, the one that existed prior to British colonization of India?

Why did the princely states (non-British portion of the Indian sub-continent) integrate with the former British controlled territories to form the modern Indian State?

Have the people of the sub-continent truly benefitted from the creation of the modern Indian state - in its current colonial inspired form and structure?

Between Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh and Bhutan people from which region(s) are better off in terms of their human development index?

Have many communities within the border of India, since the formation of the modern state of India, for the development of India become second class clitizens in their own native-lands and socio-cultural settings?

Wasn't it the British East India Company that took away fertile and multi-cultural agricultural lands under organic farming in the Indian subcontinent and put it produce mmono-cultural cash crops like opium and indigo? Weren't the famine a result of such trade practices?

Wasn't it the British East India company that eventually put together the colonial governance structure (on which would be based the future modern Indian State) so that it was even more convenient for the company to exploit the rich resources of this vast sub-continent? Wasn't it the British who who set up the controversial "British Land Acquisition Act of 1894", which then made it legally & legitimately possible for the Colonial British Indian Government not be bound to provide any compensation to the displaced people except cash compensation?

Nearly nine decades later in 1984, hasn't the modern Indian State (which had inherited and as well as adopted the British Land Acquisition Act of 1894 as its own) modified it suitably with more provisions to displace internal people and their habitat?

Why is there still no federal policy or legal framework to deal with internally displaced people in the modern State of India. In fact, India doesn’t know how many internally displaced people are in the country. The 'Norwegian Refugee Council' puts the figure for 2015 at more than 560,000, while the 'Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre' placed it at least 853,900 people being displaced by violence in India.

Without a law to deal with internally displaced people, don't these unfortunate people end up being the "nowhere" people with no state wanting to accommodate them because they eat into development funds meant for a state's local residents, and thus leaving them vulnerable to exploitation?

Hasn't the structure of the modern Indian State been inspired by the preceding colonial governance structure that was purely to support the mercantile needs of the British East India Company? If that is so then why was such a governance structure not discontinued? And conversely, why wasn't a governance structure not designed that would focus on equal development of all human communities within the Indian State and not on furthering mercantile needs of a chosen few.

So, I come back to where I began - Has the modern south-Asian state, called 'Bhārat Gaṇarājya', failed to serve the "cause" for which it was created? Or has it actually served the "real" cause for which it was created in its present form?

What then is the "cause" ?

***

Disclaimer: My writings have no pretensions neither to infallibility. not to omniscience. There may well be facts that I could be unaware of, that could undermine or discredit some of my arguments.

Honesty...Thy Name is Kumar?

Hours after resigning from the post of the chief minister of Bihar, Nitish Kumar has once agian been sworn in as the chief minister of the state. Senior BJP leader Sushil Kumar Modi took oath as the deputy chief minister of the state. Soon after resigning from the post of chief minister of the Bihar government led by the Grand Alliance (which included Janata Dal (United) or JD(U), Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and the Congress), Kumar joined hands with the BJP to regain the position of chief minister. 

West Bengal Governor Keshri Nath Tripathi who took has oath as Bihar Governor as additional charge in Patna as recently as June 2017, has invited Kumar to form his government ahead of the RJD, which is the single largest party in the state assembly. Kumar has however been asked by the governor to prove his majority in the assembly within two days of taking oath.

This emerges as a very important development, from the Constitutional stand point. Here is an exceptional situation where a governor of a state is able to exercise his discretion in asking an individual to form the state government ahead of another party which figuratively is the single largest party. How does a Governor decide in this case? ...based on his own judgement or discretion or is he required constitutionally to seek advise. If yes, then whom does a Governor seek advise from under such extra ordinary situations?

The answer perhaps lies in the fact that the Constitution of India allows certain discretionary powers, which the governor can use when no party gets a clear majority, and the governor can use his discretion in the selection of chief ministerial candidate to prove the majority as soon as possible. However, these powers need to also viewed in conjunction with the fact that while the President of India is "elected", the governor is "selected" by an incumbent Union (central/federal) government. That is why there have been many instances in past when governors appointed by a previous government were removed by an incoming government. The reasons for such appointments being more political, the Supreme Court has ruled that governors should be given security of term but this is generally not adhered to.

In this context, we may refer to the observation of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the Chairman of Constituent Assembly on the discretionary powers granted to the Governors. Dr.Ambedkar had expressed that, “Because the Provincial (state) Governments are required to work in subordination to the Central Government and therefore, the Governor will reserve certain things in order to give the President the opportunity to see that the rules under which the Provincial Governments are supposed to act according to the Constitution or in subordination to the Central Government are observed.” The Governor of a state in this sense is an agent of President directly (and indirectly of the central government). P.S : Indian federal system is tilted towards the union i.e central (or union) government is more powerful compared to states and to exercise this power effectively, central government sends its agent in every state in the form of the Governor.

Hunt for ‘Creative’ Jobs that cannot be done by machines

Wipro Ltd, post launching its artificial intelligence platform few months back, is now making its biggest push to embrace automation by allowing more of its managers to identify work which will not require engineers in each of the over 20,000 projects currently underway.This new capability implies that Wipro doesn’t just get to save on costs, but it fundamentally alters the traditional model of deploying armies of engineers to undertake software maintenance work.

These intelligent software programs are capable of handling a variety of workflows, and are advanced enough to even have a phone conversation with a client or a customer to help that person troubleshoot cable TV or cellphone service. In many cases, the person at the other end of the conversation does not even realize that he or she is talking to a machine! Additionally, these intelligent programs are also used in maintaining, updating and troubleshooting computing infrastructure, testing software programs and so on.

Surely, the trend of lower employee additions and shifting of workload away from human beings on to ‘intelligent computers’ cannot be expected to remain confined only to Wipro; and is likely to happen sooner than we may even imagine. But do we even know what's the cherry on top? It is not just IT jobs that will be done by machines; according to World Bank president Jim Kim, 69% of all jobs currently done by humans — including in agriculture and factories — in India will be done by machines in the future.

What does such inevitable developments imply for campus placements at India's engineering colleges? Would this prompt our engineering colleges to consider reducing seats? What about the investments they have made? Have they broken even? Did they bank too much on IT?

With the possibility of fewer technology companies coming to campuses getting real, should the placement cells at India's engineering colleges start actively inviting non-IT companies - the ones that have been ignored for decades?

The onus is now once again on humans to figure more ‘creative’ jobs that cannot yet be done by machines.

A study by Fortune finds that while machines will change jobs, but they are unlikely to fully take over from humans. The study further finds that the technical feasibility of automation is best analyzed by looking not at occupations as a whole, but at the amount of time spent on individual activities, and the degree to which these could be automated by using technology that currently exists and adapting it to individual work activities. Overall, the Fortune study found that only about 5% of occupations could be fully automated by adapting current technology. However, today’s technologies could automate 45% of the activities people are paid to perform across all occupations. What’s more, about 60% of all occupations could see 30% or more of their work activities automated.

So, while automation is making its mark on a number of different industries, it is being argued that there are still some jobs that require a human presence. So even as larger companies may be automating jobs, there are some jobs and tasks that cannot be turned over to machines. Listed underneath are 20 different jobs at the small businesses or that one could start a small business around that in most cases cannot yet be fully automated:

1. Designer
2. Artisan Chef
3. Garbage Collector
4. Gardener
5. Security Guard
6. Construction Worker
7. Architect
8. Writer
9. Researcher
10. Musician
11. Instructor
12. Retail Salesperson
13. Consultants
14. HR professionals
15. Skilled Trade Worker
16. Engineer
17. Photographer
18. Therapist
19. Manager
20. High end programmer

Disclaimer / Caveat: Whatever has been stated is based on publicly available information, and  the post does not represent the view of the organization the author works for. The article reflects the views of the writer alone and does not seek to offend any community within or outside India. Its purpose is to purely encourage discussion.

(This post is not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely with appropriate attribution of source)