Land Ahoy !

The call had come to the village. The ship had come. It was anchored in the deep seas, some distance away. Where it was sailing to, nobody knew. Even if they knew, it would have meant little; world geography wasn't their strong point All they knew was that it was going far far away. And that the white sahib was promising work for any able bodied man or woman who was willing to sail.

The terms were simple. Or at least, this is what they understood. The white sahib would feed them and house them. He wouldn't charge them for the ship journey. They were to work for about five years or so. They wouldn't be paid any wages, but they would be given food and shelter. After five years they were "free" ; could come back home (they would have to pay for the trip) or stay or whatever.  This was to be their "contract". When they landed , the white man would thrust a paper in front of them to that effect. They were to sign the contract. Of course they didn't know to read or write ; the thumb impression had to do.

Between the late 1800s and the early 1900s, this was the story of some in India. The story of indentured labour. People were in plenty. But , in the village, there wasn't much to do. Famines were common. And all over the British empire, across the world, labour was needed. Maybe for plantations. Maybe for laying the railways. Maybe for building roads.  So large numbers of people went and therein started the spread of the Indian diaspora across the world.

The main regions where Indians were taken were Africa, especially South Africa, the Caribbean, The Pacific Islands, especially Fiji, and Singapore/Malaysia. It all depended on where the ship that you went to was sailing - pure chance. If it went to Singapore/Malaysia, there was a chance of you coming back some day. But if it went to Fiji or the Caribbean, then distance ensured you never came back. South Africa was different; it was close enough to come back, but apartheid and the global sanctions ensured that they were marooned there.

Imagine their thoughts when they first landed. In a completely strange place, they hardly knew where. Completely shut off from their families back home - neither side would even know if the other was alive or dead. No chance of communication of course. Life was hard. But they survived. Married amongst themselves. Built a community.  Collectively they became true Indians - divisions of caste, languages, etc vanished. They even evolved a common lingua franca sometimes - thus came Fijian Hindi to being.

Slowly the link with the homeland became weaker and weaker. Their children and grandchildren slowly went native. They spoke English. They saw themselves as Malaysians or South Africans or Fijians. But the link remained. There was still an Indian touch to their food. They still married largely within the community. And of course, in recent times, there has been Bollywood. Even if they couldn't understand Hindi, song and dance was in their genes.

This is a small tribute to those magnificent men and women. For those times, what they did, was positively trail blazing. Today there are some 24m persons of Indian origin worldwide. Recent migrants have been the educated and the elite, to western shores, but the large majority trace their origin to the indentured labour of old. They've created magnificent communities in every country they have gone too. They were truly a pioneering generation.

PS : While reading about this topic, I came across an interesting post on the indentured coolie by Capt Ajit Vadakayil here. If this issue interests you, this will make disturbing reading.

Read More

US Defence Spending

The Unites States spends some $700 bn on defence. Its spending is more than the combined total of the next 17 countries - a list that includes China and Russia (See The Economist's chart on defence spending here) . It's none of this blogger's business to question whether it should be having so many bombs - that's for American citizens to decide for themselves, although we can have a mild interest as to whether it is sensible to fire a AGM Hellfire II from a drone above North Waziristan at a cost of some $70,000 to hit a donkey in its ass !

This blog, having some pretensions to economic bias, instead ruminates on the sheer scale of cost effectiveness that is possible on defence spending. Without reducing the number of bombs that is. You see, the traditional ingredients by which businesses attack costs are simply not present n the field of defence.

There is very little competition. The best way to reduce costs is competition. But there is little chance of that with US defense. Firstly, no foreign competition is possible. Secondly there are very few domestic competitors and anyway they don't really compete with each other - its all an elaborate dance of a little more or little less - the thought of the chiefs of Boeing and Lockheed Martin in a tango sent me into splits of laughter No chance here of a Walmart equivalent coming and slashing prices.

Then there is almost no innovation to reduce costs. All innovation, and there's plenty, is to build bigger and better bombs. Perhaps targeting a camel's ass or an elephant's ass. Nobody is going to get promoted for reducing the missile cost by half.

Thirdly, no offshoring is possible at all. Outsourcing is possible, but is usually only a measure to take personnel off your headcount (hence the mercenaries in Iraq, Afghanistan and so on).But can production be offshored to China or India, where you can cut costs by 50% ?? Not a chance. 

What about operating efficiencies. Like , what is the cheapest way to hit a donkey's ass in North Waziristan. An old 303 rifle perhaps ? No chance. War is all about "overwhelming military power" - and to hell with the costs.

Transparency in accounting ? Worker quality circles to reduce costs ?  Perish the thought. How about cutting Head Office costs. Like shifting the Pentagon from the middle of Arlington County to Supai, Arizona ? Ha Ha.

Somebody is footing the bill for the missed opportunities in cost reduction. It's the US tax payer , of course. Some of the more common business tools to reduce costs may not be possible to implement in the military. But while the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are pursued, the US would do well to start another war on costs. It may actually find it more productive than the other two wars mentioned above.

Paul Ryan - Are you listening ?

Read More

The legacy of Generation X

When you reach a certain age, you start to think of the legacy that you wish to leave behind. What would you like to be known for ? What would history judge you by ? Generation X , to which I belong, is the post baby boomer generation in the Western world. The generation of transition from Mao to modern China in the Middle Kingdom. The generation that came of age post the Indo-Pak-China wars in India. Our best years may have gone by, but we are young enough to still influence our legacy. So what would history judge us as ?

Alas, my conclusion has to be that of a wasteful generation. A generation that went on a binge and is leaving a debt to its children. Every major country in the world is saddled with mounting public debt, created because we of Generation X wanted instant gratification, but were not prepared to pay for it. Be it health, or pensions, we wanted it all, but are leaving the bills to be paid for by our children. Alas.

We were wasteful also with the environment. More than any other generation, we have done our best to ignore the consequences of our action on the environment. We wanted our comforts but are leaving the clean up to later generations.

Despite given the great opportunity by the baby boomers , who preceded us, we have not been able to abolish war. Or even limit it. Human conflicts continue as ever before - just in a different part of the world. Cambodia, Congo, Afghanistan - the list is as depressing as ever. 

We've also, I am afraid presided over a gradual degradation of values. True we have made some remarkable progress in some fields - we are much more equal at this point in time than at any previous point in history. But overall, moral turpitude is on the ascendancy in a meteoric way.  The word greed, has perhaps taken an altogether new meaning in our time.

We've also not really put our might behind advancement of human knowledge.  No great breakthroughs in science. Yes, lots of incremental improvements, but nothing that would make us stand out in history. Worse, we went backwards in some fields - notably in space science.

Not all is bad however. We do have some accomplishments to our credit. The greatest of them all  has to be the communications revolution, especially the internet, which is nothing short of magic. We've also shrunk the world - we've brought countries and peoples together. More people have visited and experienced other cultures than ever before. We perhaps can claim some credit for the onset of globalisation - maybe one day we will transform into a truly global oneness.

But overall, the report card doesn't look too good. B minus at best. We can improve; there's still time. Maybe move the needle to a B or even a B plus. Improve our legacy to our children. It would be a crying shame if, at the end, our generation would have lived in vain. And didn't leave it a much better place than when we inherited it.

Read More

Ramamritham goes to the US

Guess which country is this ? The decision on where a company should locate a new factory is made by the unions and the government. The company, which thought it could decide for itself,  is rapped on the knuckles for presuming this right. Where could this be in this day and age - North Korea ? Zimbabwe ? Libya ? Alas, none of these. It is actually the US of A.

The company in question is Boeing. For long it has had factories in the Pacific NorthWest - in the states of Washington and Oregon. It now needs additional manufacturing capacity for making the Dreamliner - the new 787  series that is being launched worldwide.  It set up an additional factory in South Carolina. The unions representing the Washington and Oregon plant workers filed a complaint with the National Labour Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB upheld the complaint - Boeing was wrong to open a factory in South Carolina !!

The case boggles the mind. Boeing did not shut down any factory or lay off any workers. On the contrary it actually increased its workers at the Northwest factories to run it to full capacity. But instead of building a new factory there, it built it in South Carolina. It could have very well built it in the Northwest. But its problem was that every three years or so the workers there were going on strike and this was severely impacting the company.  The unions complained, and the NLRB upheld this complaint, that "Boeing's actions were motivated by a desire to retailiate for past strikes and chill future strike activity" !

Underneath it all is the big fight between organised labour and business in America. The case of the autoworkers in Detroit is well known. The undercurrent is also the competition between "union shop" states and the "right to work" states. In some states in the US, company workers are forced to join the established unions and pay membership fees by law. Washington and Oregon fall in this category. In other states, workers cannot be forced by unions to become members. South Carolina falls in this group. No prizes for why Boeing, or for that matter, any company, wants to site factories in states like South Carolina.

This being America, Boeing is going to the courts. Lawyers on both sides are rubbing their hands in glee.

A larger trend in America (and more so in Europe) is the rapid expansion of the license raj. Governments and petty bureaucrats are increasingly coming in the way of business, in a manner reminiscent of Ramamritham of India. The Economist in two recent articles has actually used the term "license raj" - you can read them here and here and they make wonderful reading if you are interested in the antics of Ramamritham's ilk.

Ramamritham's counterpart in the UK is called Sir Humphrey Appleby. I now have to invent a name for his American cousin !!

Read More

Guilty until proved innocent

She never thought it would come to this. Being dumped in a 15ft by 10ft cell in the country's most notorious jail. In a filthy place and in the close proximity of some of the most hardened criminals of the land. Her only consolation was that there were many like her, who believed they were innocent, hadn't been convicted and yet forced to already begin serving their punishment.

Her crime was that she was famous. Or rather, her family was famous. And probably notorious as well, but then if guilt by association was a crime, virtually all of us would be in jail. In a land where the rule of law is supposedly in force, you ought to be judged on your own actions and not the actions of those you are "palling" with (the awful word within quotes is courtesy of a certain lady in the US of questionable intellectual capability ).

The problem in this land is that there is a public perception (not unaffected by jealously) that the rich and famous have all got there by unfair means and are all guilty of crimes. Quite a few of them may indeed be. But many of them are certainly not. And never mind that the public that hasn't got there, would do exactly the same thing given half a chance. And so the great body called public opinion, is all too ready to believe that you only have to make an allegation and its already sealed, served and delivered that the person is guilty. Never mind the formalities of a trial, of producing hard evidence, of proving beyond reasonable doubt, and such other inconveniences.

The great body of the public believes (rightly) that the process of justice takes far too much time , often decades, and therefore believes (wrongly) that we can dispense with the formalities and assume the right to pronounce an instant guilty verdict. The judiciary, which delights in issuing homilies to the executive and passing strictures against all and sundry should hang its head in shame if it just looks at its own navel. It should set itself in order before commenting on anybody else - has it heard of the cliche that justice delayed is justice denied. When it can take a decade or two to pronounce a judgement, when sometimes the protagonists have actually died of old age before a verdict was given and when undertrials are jailed for periods of time greater than the maximum sentence if they had been found guilty .........

The great body of public also believes that all this is extremely unfair on the poor, but is extremely fair on the rich. For some reason, the rich and famous need to be made an example of to prove that all are equal in the eyes of law. That's an awful argument. We should be fair on the poor; not unfair on the rich. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The words civil society is often heard of these days in my nation. I am not sure there is much civility about it. In a civil society, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around. You can only be punished if you are proven guilty. The operating word is proven. Not presumed. 

All of this was not of much consolation to her. She was licking her woulds, both literally and figuratively. Literally because she had been jostled , pushed and pulled, on her way to the jail. The media, which vigorously defends its freedom, believes that rugby tackles, scrums, brawls and such other techniques are perfectly acceptable in trying to film an "event". Pushing and shoving  a subject is totally acceptable while pushing and shoving a reporter is a grievous assault on press freedom.

She knows that she'll have to wait and wait. And resort to some underhand political machinations to get released, which she indeed will probably resort to. There is little chance of an upright stand on  the strength of the argument or the defence. Because it won't work. Others like her , languishing in the jail, don't have any other option. Their only option is to languish.

One of the greatest sins a civil society can do is to arbitrarily withdraw the liberty of a human being . Without a due process of law, trial and conviction. Doesn't matter if she is rich or poor. Obscure or famous. Plagiarising one of the greatest ever sons of the country "Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake".

Read More

Why, on earth, a pedicure ?

This post is a vain rant against the female invasion , nay takeover, of the street barber. Evidence of the extreme intellectual rigour of this blog. Needling fair ladies, who throng this space :) is an occasional pastime of this blogger. Considering that its been a while since the opposite sex was needled here, and considering his rather impish mood today, its time to risk life and limb again.

There was a time, not so long ago, when the barber down the street was exclusively a male preserve. Indian women of that vintage, let their hair down (literally, but never, figuratively) and had no use for that specimen, who had the artistry of a butcher.  Men could go there in peace and submit themselves to the shears, while engaging in discussions exclusively masculine in nature. Alas , no longer.

The blasted guy has metamorphed into a 'unisex salon". Or a "spa", Or a "beauty therapist". I understand none of these words and had to look them up. These places are now well on their way to being a 99% female preserve, with the poor male consigned to a single seat near the loo. While the men queue up for 2 hours to gain the attention of the solitary guy who condescends to cater to men (did that yesterday; hence this post !), various Rajalakshmis breeze in and out, for all sorts of "beauty treatments". I had the urge to quip that their beauty would be better served by a few hours in the gym rather than here, but then wisely refrained given the substantial body mass disadvantage that I have.

And what all do they do in this place. I shall desist from graphic description of what  goes on - suffice to say that seeing a Rajalakshmi in that state is enough to drive men off the female species forever. But what completely boggles me is the pedicure.

Why on earth would any woman want to tend to her toenails ? I once asked this question to a lady , while offering the brilliant insight that a male would never bring his eyes down to look at her feet, he being preoccupied at a rather higher level. She looked at me pityingly and gave me an even more brilliant insight. She disabused me entirely of the notion that women are in the least interested in looking pretty to a man. Apparently they are strictly in the business of catching the eye of other women (perhaps with a hint of jealousy). Ah; I never realised that before (male ego completely deflated).

So the pedicure rules supreme. Cut your nails. Soak your feet in water, Apply some goo. Get your feet tickled. And dump a whole wad of cash for that privilege. Eeks.

Yes, I know. Women are from Venus. 

PS : Comments to the effect that "metrosexuals" also indulge in this abomination are entirely unacceptable on the grounds that they are not members of homo sapiens masculinitis.

Read More

Succession at the IMF

Unless you have a visceral hatred of the IMF, you could not have missed all the media coverage of Dominique Strauss Kahn, its boss. The affair has exploded like a nuclear bomb on a number of fronts. Firstly there is the IMF itself, currently deeply involved in the European bailout situation. Secondly it has blown open the French Presidential race - he was the front runner and it was quite possible that Sarkozy would have lost to him in the elections next year. It has called into question Continental European tolerance for sexual profligacy of its leaders - surely the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is at least a bit worried.

But this blog must remain a strictly non political one. This post is about the appointment of the new IMF chief - DSK has just resigned today and even if he is acquitted, is unlikely to get his job back.

It has been an utterly shameful arrangement that a cosy understanding exists that the World Bank chief is an American and that the IMF chief is an European.  This is a throwback to the post World War II days when only America and Europe mattered. Its a different world today and yet the old boys club still remains. Its a multi polar world these days, in case you have not noticed. But then old foggies in gentleman's clubs are rarely wont to look outside the window until its too late.

That the head of a major international body is chosen for reasons of nationality rather than merit is simply an unacceptable position. But then, alas, head of major international bodies, are indeed chosen that way. Witness the position of the Secretary General of the United Nations  a succession of colourless personalities have graced this chair. Witness the boss of the EU - can anybody even remember his name. Such are the contortions of world politics. So its futile to expect that merit alone will decide the next head of the IMF.  But there is no harm in at least stating the obvious, however unlikely the chance of it happening.

This is a time to change. The new head of the IMF must simply be the best man for the job. In a time of unprecedented financial and economic challenges, it cannot be anybody but that. Irrespective of whether he is from Timor Leste or from Tuvalu. He must be a world renowned economist and also somebody who has worked in the IMF before - after all its a huge and complex organisation.  He must have a track record of major economic policy achievements on the international stage. He must be a heavyweight - not a puppet who can be strung along.

Step forward Montek Singh Ahluwalia.

Read More