Two years ago, at about this time, I was in London briefly to see my daughter and went with her to a play that she wanted to see. It turned out to be a stunning piece of theatre: brilliantly constructed and tackling some of the key questions of our time: fundamentalism, ambition, materialism, cross-cultural life, inter-racial attitudes - all within the context of a British-Muslim family (the author is a Muslim woman).
The play focuses on Mr Rizvi's ambitions to be elected to a local council (that's the equivalent of a municipality), which unravel as family secrets are revealed at the same time as political developments in the wider world turn sour. The play has its bitter-sweet moments of humour but focuses on questions of understanding and misunderstanding, and the clash of values within a family.
CHAOS is the first play by Azma Dar and I am happy to see that her script has been published by the London publisher, Oberon.
Sphere: Related Content
Monday, May 28, 2007
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Is the Chinese government playing fast and loose with its own rules?
The FT this morning reports that the Shanghai government agency responsible for clearing drains and repairing lifts in apartment buildings has emerged as a leading shareholder in at least three listed companies, in spite of being barred from such investments. The Shanghai Municipal Housing Maintenance Fund Management – appears on lists of the top 10 shareholders of companies in the aerospace, electronics and energy sectors traded on the Shenzhen stock exchange. The three holdings are together worth about Rmb788m ($100m).
The revelation, says the FT, will add to concerns that different parts of the government have invested heavily in shares – often illegally – during the recent boom in the mainland market and could be exposed to losses if there were a crash.
Well, that's fine as a concern for those watching the markets with a nervous eye to a possible crash.
Most observers will be concerned about something rather different: how are these illegal investments by Communist Party-controlled entities rigging the rules to make Communist Party members even richer than they would otherwise be? Is it the case that the drive against corruption only applies to those who fall out with the Communist Party?
Most dictatorships eventually come unstuck because of this kind of practice of creating a set of rules or laws but then allowing the high and mighty to benefit from breaking exactly those rules. Sphere: Related Content
The revelation, says the FT, will add to concerns that different parts of the government have invested heavily in shares – often illegally – during the recent boom in the mainland market and could be exposed to losses if there were a crash.
Well, that's fine as a concern for those watching the markets with a nervous eye to a possible crash.
Most observers will be concerned about something rather different: how are these illegal investments by Communist Party-controlled entities rigging the rules to make Communist Party members even richer than they would otherwise be? Is it the case that the drive against corruption only applies to those who fall out with the Communist Party?
Most dictatorships eventually come unstuck because of this kind of practice of creating a set of rules or laws but then allowing the high and mighty to benefit from breaking exactly those rules. Sphere: Related Content
Advice to Lufthansa and other Airlines: How NOT to handle passengers when flights are delayed due to fog
Headed from Zurich to Bangalore, my early-morning connecting flight from Zurich to Frankfurt was delayed due to fog (tough, but it happens!).
Several of us were concerned about possibly missing the flight to Bangalore but the stewards and stewardesses were airily reassuring: "Yes of course you'll catch your flight, Sir/Madam, they know we are on our way, all the flights are delayed anyway!". It did not strike me then, but as far as I can recollect, no one rushed off to attempt to make contact with anyone anywhere as a result of these several enquiries.
Anyway, when we landed at Frankfurt, we were (just) in time to catch our flight to Bangalore even if it was to leave as scheduled.
However, Lufthansa had no quick means of transport waiting to get the Bangalore passengers to our flight.
Instead, as we got off the 'plane and boarded the bus with the others bound for different destinations, our bus was kept waiting near the airplane for some mysterious reason. It was only when two irate passengers (not including myself!) rushed out and started shouting at Lufthansa employees that the bus was waved off.
When we arrived at the normal Terminal entrance, there was no Lufthansa employee to get us quickly through the crowds of bored/ tense/ anxious/ milling/ waiting/ masses of people (who were there perhaps due to the fog?), so that we could be rushed to Gate B46 and catch our flight.
The result was that Bangalore passengers arrived at the gate just after it had closed!
Surely, Lufthansa knew that the flight from Zurich had landed, we cried to each other and to the impassive Lufthansa staff. Surely the flight could have waited two or three minutes given that all the other flights were being delayed as well?
Actually, my guess is that Lufthansa had (as is often the case nowadays) oversold the flight and so we were deliberately delayed to ensure that we missed the flight.
Of course, I could be wrong, but I have learnt to be suspicious about such things of late.
Well, that was that, we finally thought, and now we have to find the very next possible flight to Bangalore.
Meanwhile, at Gate B46, another crew had taken over and there was a fresh line of passengers waiting to get across to the next 'plane there (to Toronto, as it turned out). When I caught a staff person's eye and posed my question about what to do about getting the next possible flight to Bangalore, he said, "Bangalore? Oh that wasn't this gate at all, that was the next-door gate!"
Thoroughly confused, I went to the next Gate where there was someone (I dimly noted that he was in a different uniform) and he said, pointing "Bangalore? The flight just departed..." (I glanced to see it pulling out, but the 'plane looked somewhat strange). He asked to see my ticket. "Ah Lufthansa, he said, I can't do anything for you at all, I'm Air India. ("So it was an Air India plane!", I thought) You need to go to the Lufthansa Executive Lounge, which is that way about 50 yards, and up the escalator".
So I get to the entrance to the Executive Lounge, where the person says, "Yes, up you go!" (Well, at least she seems to have been briefed about what is going on, I think) as she waves us up the stairs to the Lounge itself. (By the way, the gateway to the Lounge is not brightly coloured or lit enough: given the clutter all around it, one can easily miss it!).
We struggle up the stairs and arrive at the Lounge, where the person at the desk says, "Yes, but you have to go to the Ticket Desk so that your ticket can be endorsed". She tells us the way to the Ticket Desk ("down the stairs, left, 100 metres....." and off we go to try and find the Ticket Desk.
Her directions are good. We arrive there. But only to find an extremely long queue. We wait and wait. The queue hardly moves.
I start timing how long it takes for the desks to attend to one person. Every transaction (this is at the Business Class counter!) seemed to take a minimum of 20 minutes and one takes over 30. The Economy Class counters seem to be working much more efficiently, though there is of course a very long queue there.
Why are the Business Class counters being so slow I wonder? Then I twig it: the staff at these counters are TRAINEES! That is why there is the person hovering around behind the two desks and spending his time with one or the other from time to time!
But what are the two others doing loafing behind the Economy Class counters, I wonder? I can't think of any explanation at all.
Then I wonder: why are there no extra desks being provided for all these people? After all, the fog started disrupting the schedules the previous evening!
And one desk is completely unoccupied!
Moreover, the folk at the desks don't seem to be working at all briskly - they seem to be working if anything slower than normal pace - chatting with each other and so on. The young man at the counter in front of me uses a credit card to rip a bit of a form off in four movements, rather than in one movement by using a ruler. He prints a ticket out for the "nth" time and scans the ticket stubs of the passenger in front of me yet again. The computer system is obviously not co-operating with him (or he with it!).
Eventually, he starts putting in manually the numbers from the ticket stubs . Still no luck. He does this again and again. And again. And again. And yet again. He certainly is determined - if clueless about what to do in this situation.
Finally, even he gives up and turns to the passenger and asks him to ensure that he shows the baggage stubs at the gate so that his luggage travels with him. The passenger says he understands and will do so. He leaves.
At last, my turn! I notice that it is just over 90 minutes since I joined the queue.
"My" young man tells me that there is only one flight to Bangalore a day. I explain that I am going for a Board meeting and I will only be in Bangalore for 2 days before I fly back, so it is imperative that I go as soon as possible - or not at all. He explains that it is possible to get to Bangalore via Bombay (and yes there are seats on the Bombay flight) but that the flight will arrive in Bombay at 1.00 a.m., with a 5-hour layover before the connecting flight to Bangalore leaves at 6.00 a.m.
I have a little experience of Bombay's airports, so I first request him to check that the connecting flight will leave from the same Terminal. He checks. Yes, he says, the flight from Frankfurt arrives at Terminal 2 and the flight to Bangalore leaves from Terminal 2.
Fine, I say, and will you give me a bed for the night? The young man mumbles something about sending a fax to his colleague in Bombay but he is not sure that it will reach him in time - and that the layover is only for 5 hours so they usually give only some coupons - a hotel bed is only guaranteed if there is a 6-hour layover.
I say "Hey, I'm travelling Business Class! If Lufthansa's incompetence has made me miss my connection surely you can provide a bed for the night! And you want me to land in Bombay and start hunting for a hotel bed at one in the morning? I'm going for a Board Meeting, for goodness' sake, there's no point in my arriving for it completely shattered!". The young man is sympathetic but firm, "Sorry, Sir, I can't guarantee a bed, all I can do is send a message to my colleague".
So I tell him to cancel my journey. No point going if I won't arrive at Bangalore in time for the meeting (flights in India can be notoriously delayed), and there's no point going if I get there incapable of making sense of what is going on because I haven't had any sleep!
I have wasted a day and Lufthansa has lost a passenger (though they are possibly not bothered about that, as I've indicated, because they oversold the flight?).
I take the next flight back to Zurich and am back in Zurich by 3.30 p.m.
Only to find that my luggage has not made it back to Zurich with me!
So I fill in the Lost Baggage form. The young lady draws my attention to the 'phone number I can ring, and the website at which I can track what's happening to my baggage - it sounds all clear and wonderfully technologically efficient.
She also assures me that I will be telephoned as soon as my luggage arrives.
I get home and expect a call later that afternoon or night.
No information.
I wait several hours.
Then I call the number which is on the sheet of paper I've been given. This gets me to one of these automated things that tells me there is no information available at present and they'll call me as soon as there is.
I get up the next morning and potter about with other things that need to be done, at the back of my mind wondering what is happening to my luggage.
Eventually, I can't stand it any longer and try the website.
It asks me for my name and the "File Referenznummer AHL". That does not match anything on the form I have been given. I enter the "Your file reference number" on my sheet, but the system informs me that this is wrong. I then try what is down on my piece of paper as "Your file reference" (as against "your file reference number"!) . However, now the system is very quick and efficient. But it tells me that there is no news - and that I will be rung up as soon as my luggage is found.... !!!
Well, it is now two days and three hours (i.e. 51 hours) later. No news so far. That is what the telephone number tells me when I call in. That is what the website tells me when I log in. And of course no one has called me so far. Not even to say, "Sorry, Sir, we are trying our best to find your luggage but we have no idea where it is".
And of course I can't speak to any human being about the matter.... Sphere: Related Content
Several of us were concerned about possibly missing the flight to Bangalore but the stewards and stewardesses were airily reassuring: "Yes of course you'll catch your flight, Sir/Madam, they know we are on our way, all the flights are delayed anyway!". It did not strike me then, but as far as I can recollect, no one rushed off to attempt to make contact with anyone anywhere as a result of these several enquiries.
Anyway, when we landed at Frankfurt, we were (just) in time to catch our flight to Bangalore even if it was to leave as scheduled.
However, Lufthansa had no quick means of transport waiting to get the Bangalore passengers to our flight.
Instead, as we got off the 'plane and boarded the bus with the others bound for different destinations, our bus was kept waiting near the airplane for some mysterious reason. It was only when two irate passengers (not including myself!) rushed out and started shouting at Lufthansa employees that the bus was waved off.
When we arrived at the normal Terminal entrance, there was no Lufthansa employee to get us quickly through the crowds of bored/ tense/ anxious/ milling/ waiting/ masses of people (who were there perhaps due to the fog?), so that we could be rushed to Gate B46 and catch our flight.
The result was that Bangalore passengers arrived at the gate just after it had closed!
Surely, Lufthansa knew that the flight from Zurich had landed, we cried to each other and to the impassive Lufthansa staff. Surely the flight could have waited two or three minutes given that all the other flights were being delayed as well?
Actually, my guess is that Lufthansa had (as is often the case nowadays) oversold the flight and so we were deliberately delayed to ensure that we missed the flight.
Of course, I could be wrong, but I have learnt to be suspicious about such things of late.
Well, that was that, we finally thought, and now we have to find the very next possible flight to Bangalore.
Meanwhile, at Gate B46, another crew had taken over and there was a fresh line of passengers waiting to get across to the next 'plane there (to Toronto, as it turned out). When I caught a staff person's eye and posed my question about what to do about getting the next possible flight to Bangalore, he said, "Bangalore? Oh that wasn't this gate at all, that was the next-door gate!"
Thoroughly confused, I went to the next Gate where there was someone (I dimly noted that he was in a different uniform) and he said, pointing "Bangalore? The flight just departed..." (I glanced to see it pulling out, but the 'plane looked somewhat strange). He asked to see my ticket. "Ah Lufthansa, he said, I can't do anything for you at all, I'm Air India. ("So it was an Air India plane!", I thought) You need to go to the Lufthansa Executive Lounge, which is that way about 50 yards, and up the escalator".
So I get to the entrance to the Executive Lounge, where the person says, "Yes, up you go!" (Well, at least she seems to have been briefed about what is going on, I think) as she waves us up the stairs to the Lounge itself. (By the way, the gateway to the Lounge is not brightly coloured or lit enough: given the clutter all around it, one can easily miss it!).
We struggle up the stairs and arrive at the Lounge, where the person at the desk says, "Yes, but you have to go to the Ticket Desk so that your ticket can be endorsed". She tells us the way to the Ticket Desk ("down the stairs, left, 100 metres....." and off we go to try and find the Ticket Desk.
Her directions are good. We arrive there. But only to find an extremely long queue. We wait and wait. The queue hardly moves.
I start timing how long it takes for the desks to attend to one person. Every transaction (this is at the Business Class counter!) seemed to take a minimum of 20 minutes and one takes over 30. The Economy Class counters seem to be working much more efficiently, though there is of course a very long queue there.
Why are the Business Class counters being so slow I wonder? Then I twig it: the staff at these counters are TRAINEES! That is why there is the person hovering around behind the two desks and spending his time with one or the other from time to time!
But what are the two others doing loafing behind the Economy Class counters, I wonder? I can't think of any explanation at all.
Then I wonder: why are there no extra desks being provided for all these people? After all, the fog started disrupting the schedules the previous evening!
And one desk is completely unoccupied!
Moreover, the folk at the desks don't seem to be working at all briskly - they seem to be working if anything slower than normal pace - chatting with each other and so on. The young man at the counter in front of me uses a credit card to rip a bit of a form off in four movements, rather than in one movement by using a ruler. He prints a ticket out for the "nth" time and scans the ticket stubs of the passenger in front of me yet again. The computer system is obviously not co-operating with him (or he with it!).
Eventually, he starts putting in manually the numbers from the ticket stubs . Still no luck. He does this again and again. And again. And again. And yet again. He certainly is determined - if clueless about what to do in this situation.
Finally, even he gives up and turns to the passenger and asks him to ensure that he shows the baggage stubs at the gate so that his luggage travels with him. The passenger says he understands and will do so. He leaves.
At last, my turn! I notice that it is just over 90 minutes since I joined the queue.
"My" young man tells me that there is only one flight to Bangalore a day. I explain that I am going for a Board meeting and I will only be in Bangalore for 2 days before I fly back, so it is imperative that I go as soon as possible - or not at all. He explains that it is possible to get to Bangalore via Bombay (and yes there are seats on the Bombay flight) but that the flight will arrive in Bombay at 1.00 a.m., with a 5-hour layover before the connecting flight to Bangalore leaves at 6.00 a.m.
I have a little experience of Bombay's airports, so I first request him to check that the connecting flight will leave from the same Terminal. He checks. Yes, he says, the flight from Frankfurt arrives at Terminal 2 and the flight to Bangalore leaves from Terminal 2.
Fine, I say, and will you give me a bed for the night? The young man mumbles something about sending a fax to his colleague in Bombay but he is not sure that it will reach him in time - and that the layover is only for 5 hours so they usually give only some coupons - a hotel bed is only guaranteed if there is a 6-hour layover.
I say "Hey, I'm travelling Business Class! If Lufthansa's incompetence has made me miss my connection surely you can provide a bed for the night! And you want me to land in Bombay and start hunting for a hotel bed at one in the morning? I'm going for a Board Meeting, for goodness' sake, there's no point in my arriving for it completely shattered!". The young man is sympathetic but firm, "Sorry, Sir, I can't guarantee a bed, all I can do is send a message to my colleague".
So I tell him to cancel my journey. No point going if I won't arrive at Bangalore in time for the meeting (flights in India can be notoriously delayed), and there's no point going if I get there incapable of making sense of what is going on because I haven't had any sleep!
I have wasted a day and Lufthansa has lost a passenger (though they are possibly not bothered about that, as I've indicated, because they oversold the flight?).
I take the next flight back to Zurich and am back in Zurich by 3.30 p.m.
Only to find that my luggage has not made it back to Zurich with me!
So I fill in the Lost Baggage form. The young lady draws my attention to the 'phone number I can ring, and the website at which I can track what's happening to my baggage - it sounds all clear and wonderfully technologically efficient.
She also assures me that I will be telephoned as soon as my luggage arrives.
I get home and expect a call later that afternoon or night.
No information.
I wait several hours.
Then I call the number which is on the sheet of paper I've been given. This gets me to one of these automated things that tells me there is no information available at present and they'll call me as soon as there is.
I get up the next morning and potter about with other things that need to be done, at the back of my mind wondering what is happening to my luggage.
Eventually, I can't stand it any longer and try the website.
It asks me for my name and the "File Referenznummer AHL". That does not match anything on the form I have been given. I enter the "Your file reference number" on my sheet, but the system informs me that this is wrong. I then try what is down on my piece of paper as "Your file reference" (as against "your file reference number"!) . However, now the system is very quick and efficient. But it tells me that there is no news - and that I will be rung up as soon as my luggage is found.... !!!
Well, it is now two days and three hours (i.e. 51 hours) later. No news so far. That is what the telephone number tells me when I call in. That is what the website tells me when I log in. And of course no one has called me so far. Not even to say, "Sorry, Sir, we are trying our best to find your luggage but we have no idea where it is".
And of course I can't speak to any human being about the matter.... Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, May 19, 2007
The reservation system, and the politics of government controls and corruption
A friend responds to another of my Blogs as follows:
"Did you know that India today spends roughly US $ 4.00 bn (yes, billion) on education abroad of all those kids who are denied education in India because of this wretched reservation for the so called OBCs (Other Backward Castes) that were found by the Brits in the census of 1931. The Brits just wanted to divide Hindu society further because it was giving so much support to the Mahatma.And now the likes of Arjun Singh have grabbed that data like Mandal before him to say that there are others like Harijans. There is no new data, no new figures since 1931 . So, what men like Arjun Singh and others like him are trying to do is to force that data of 1931 in creating reservations for groups for which the Constitution had no space. The Founding Fathers knew what the OBS data of 1931 was all about. The reservations as per the Constitution were meant only for the "harijans" (the untouchables) and these did well and no body grudged them.As for the violent groups, I have no sympathy for these feudal groupings that are rising by the day in India of today--in a chain of action/reaction.The tragedy not just for India , but for the whole planet under a globalised world is that its economy does rest on consumerism--like it or not. Thus you have a situation where some people, some groups, do very well and the economics of a so-called "trickle down effect" does not seem to work in the end. As for the value system--the tried and tested Indian values which have held the country together, allowed democracy to flourish despite vast disparities, are now steadily disappearing in the same manner as have Christian values in the West. Some times I feel that perhaps that is the price that civilisations pay for the new industrial global culture. Look at China for that matter. Gone is the old Chinese civilisation."
My response:
The figures that you quote, illustrate exactly the national problems created by the stranglehold of our elites: With $4billion one could finance not only one but many illustrious universities in India! What is the total expenditure on all our Central Universities in India???
However, no one is allowed to found a university in our country without the approval of a thoroughly corrupt bureaucracy and political system. In fact, you can't even establish a single college or even a primary school without the say-so of the bureaucracy! One of our family friends, who runs an excellent school in Bangalore (one of the best) chose to *stop* her middle school when it turned out that continued recognition now required bribery! So the children of Bangalore are the losers simply because some idiots in the educational bureaucracy now want a bribe, not realising that their own children and grandchildren suffer (and will suffer) as a result, from increased competition for the few good schools that are available.
Or take hotel rooms. We need about 100,000 hotel rooms in the country, I am told. However, according to the last figures I have (from December 2006) the Ministry of Tourism has "sanctioned" the construction of about 10,000 (!). Why do we need a Ministry of Tourism to tell entrepreneurs how many or what quality or which location to build hotels? If entrepreneurs make foolish decisions, let them suffer. If entrepreneurs make wise decisions, let them profit! What does the government or the ministry know about such things?
So the real problem of our country is not the reservation system, it is government control of still too many areas of our lives. Wherever government control goes, the entire reservation system will disappear. As long as government controls are there, the reservation system will be there and people will fight for the crumbs that the national economy will produce, because of course government control means slow growth of the economy. There is no point in blaming what the British did or did not do in 1931... They had their political purposes (which we can debate), but what cannot be debated is the fact that the British did leave a clean administrative system behind. By the time I was a teenager, it had become sometimes "necessary" to give a bribe – but you only had to give ONE bribe to get anything done. Now the perception is that you "have" to bribe everyone from the Chaprasi to the Head Babu to the Minister and even higher - and even then you may not succeed in accomplishing a totally legitimate goal!. Corruption has spread and spread in our land since Independence – by contrast with the West, where it is being increasingly exposed and eliminated.....Only recently have important new legislative means come into being to fight corruption, such as Right to Information Act.
But if the government can be got out of the way, the country would prosper much more than it does. Market forces would weed out the stupid or immoral or unprofessional while the good would flourish, from whatever caste or region or belief-system they come. Not so in a government-controlled system.
The clash between values and a market system is more apparent than real - 40% of Americans still go to Church (EVERY SUNDAY!), 70% believe in God, and so on....I know from academic research that the figures were hardly different 10 years ago, 30 years ago, 50 years ago and a hundred years ago....the difference is that the misdeeds of the minority are very much highlighted by the mass media, which gives a distorted picture of the country (in the same way as people even in America have a distortedly greater sense of how unsafe their streets are than they really are).
Naturally, the advantage of the mass media highlighting such things is that in their much more genuine democracy and relatively freer markets (however imperfect) at least their problems get attention as a result of media coverage (unlike what happens in our country).
We have a sham democracy if one wants to be severe about it or, if one wants to be gentle (and probably more accurate) we are still learning what it means to be a democracy and a free market, and are still being massively hampered by government controls. Sphere: Related Content
"Did you know that India today spends roughly US $ 4.00 bn (yes, billion) on education abroad of all those kids who are denied education in India because of this wretched reservation for the so called OBCs (Other Backward Castes) that were found by the Brits in the census of 1931. The Brits just wanted to divide Hindu society further because it was giving so much support to the Mahatma.And now the likes of Arjun Singh have grabbed that data like Mandal before him to say that there are others like Harijans. There is no new data, no new figures since 1931 . So, what men like Arjun Singh and others like him are trying to do is to force that data of 1931 in creating reservations for groups for which the Constitution had no space. The Founding Fathers knew what the OBS data of 1931 was all about. The reservations as per the Constitution were meant only for the "harijans" (the untouchables) and these did well and no body grudged them.As for the violent groups, I have no sympathy for these feudal groupings that are rising by the day in India of today--in a chain of action/reaction.The tragedy not just for India , but for the whole planet under a globalised world is that its economy does rest on consumerism--like it or not. Thus you have a situation where some people, some groups, do very well and the economics of a so-called "trickle down effect" does not seem to work in the end. As for the value system--the tried and tested Indian values which have held the country together, allowed democracy to flourish despite vast disparities, are now steadily disappearing in the same manner as have Christian values in the West. Some times I feel that perhaps that is the price that civilisations pay for the new industrial global culture. Look at China for that matter. Gone is the old Chinese civilisation."
My response:
The figures that you quote, illustrate exactly the national problems created by the stranglehold of our elites: With $4billion one could finance not only one but many illustrious universities in India! What is the total expenditure on all our Central Universities in India???
However, no one is allowed to found a university in our country without the approval of a thoroughly corrupt bureaucracy and political system. In fact, you can't even establish a single college or even a primary school without the say-so of the bureaucracy! One of our family friends, who runs an excellent school in Bangalore (one of the best) chose to *stop* her middle school when it turned out that continued recognition now required bribery! So the children of Bangalore are the losers simply because some idiots in the educational bureaucracy now want a bribe, not realising that their own children and grandchildren suffer (and will suffer) as a result, from increased competition for the few good schools that are available.
Or take hotel rooms. We need about 100,000 hotel rooms in the country, I am told. However, according to the last figures I have (from December 2006) the Ministry of Tourism has "sanctioned" the construction of about 10,000 (!). Why do we need a Ministry of Tourism to tell entrepreneurs how many or what quality or which location to build hotels? If entrepreneurs make foolish decisions, let them suffer. If entrepreneurs make wise decisions, let them profit! What does the government or the ministry know about such things?
So the real problem of our country is not the reservation system, it is government control of still too many areas of our lives. Wherever government control goes, the entire reservation system will disappear. As long as government controls are there, the reservation system will be there and people will fight for the crumbs that the national economy will produce, because of course government control means slow growth of the economy. There is no point in blaming what the British did or did not do in 1931... They had their political purposes (which we can debate), but what cannot be debated is the fact that the British did leave a clean administrative system behind. By the time I was a teenager, it had become sometimes "necessary" to give a bribe – but you only had to give ONE bribe to get anything done. Now the perception is that you "have" to bribe everyone from the Chaprasi to the Head Babu to the Minister and even higher - and even then you may not succeed in accomplishing a totally legitimate goal!. Corruption has spread and spread in our land since Independence – by contrast with the West, where it is being increasingly exposed and eliminated.....Only recently have important new legislative means come into being to fight corruption, such as Right to Information Act.
But if the government can be got out of the way, the country would prosper much more than it does. Market forces would weed out the stupid or immoral or unprofessional while the good would flourish, from whatever caste or region or belief-system they come. Not so in a government-controlled system.
The clash between values and a market system is more apparent than real - 40% of Americans still go to Church (EVERY SUNDAY!), 70% believe in God, and so on....I know from academic research that the figures were hardly different 10 years ago, 30 years ago, 50 years ago and a hundred years ago....the difference is that the misdeeds of the minority are very much highlighted by the mass media, which gives a distorted picture of the country (in the same way as people even in America have a distortedly greater sense of how unsafe their streets are than they really are).
Naturally, the advantage of the mass media highlighting such things is that in their much more genuine democracy and relatively freer markets (however imperfect) at least their problems get attention as a result of media coverage (unlike what happens in our country).
We have a sham democracy if one wants to be severe about it or, if one wants to be gentle (and probably more accurate) we are still learning what it means to be a democracy and a free market, and are still being massively hampered by government controls. Sphere: Related Content
Casteism in Today's India
A friend writes, in response to my recent Blog on caste:
"I must dispute that Brahmins and the like are holding the country to ransom. It is the other way around now. Look what we Punjabis have to suffer in Delhi from caste ridden states like U.P., Bihar, Orissa, TamilNadu, etc. In Punjab, being either Sikhs or Arya Samaji Hindus we had all forgotten as to what caste was. Now with the high castes like Thakurs etc using caste to garner votes---Arjun Singh and his reservations in the Universities is playing havoc with our young people in Delhi and Punjab. The so called reservations of seats for OBCs has denied Punjabis their rightful place in the Universities even if they do well, because the quotas are filled by all these guys from U.P., Bihar and so on. Look at the flood of students going for pre grad studies to U.K., USA, and Australia from families that can afford this, only because their kids can't get into the decent colleges at home even if they get grades as high at 93 to 95%. It is high time India adopted policy of all Indians being Indians first and equal as happens in Turkey. That is the only way to ensure and protect Secularism and nationalism. Or else India is headed for further tensions and caste divides".
I have replied to my friend as follows: "I agree with you completely. What we need is not caste-consciousness but love of the country first without regard to caste, point of origin, beliefs, religion, ideology and so on. Only those who believe in and practice violence (whether Sangh Parivar or Muslim extremists or Naxalites) should be brought before the bar of justice when and if they indulge in violence.
Unfortunately, the country is caught in the mix between:
(1) the reverse-discrimination against the upper castes in government and education to which you so eloquently draw attention,
(2) old-fashioned caste-consciousness in places such as in the Bimaru states, where our 3 top castes still lord it over the rest of our people and physically prevent even education from reaching them – that's the majority of our country, population-wise, and
(3) the new caste- and language-based politics of India, specially afer Nehruji unfortunately sanctioned language-based states. There was, after all, a lot to be said for simply drawing straight lines through the country as Europeans did in Africa (making due allowances for towns and villages of course) – though that would not really have solved the problem, as it has not solved it in Africa. What we need is a value system, such as that which Gandhiji tried to teach us, in which service was recognised before self. Unfortunately, Gandhiji's teaching, which sat well with mission-school educated youngsters and other de-traditionalised Indians could not stand against the new western-style greed which has been in the ascendant in the West for the last 20 years or so, and has revived traditional greed in India (at least greed was the traditional dharma of the vaishya caste, which is my own - but the disease of greed has now spread to the whole country)." Sphere: Related Content
"I must dispute that Brahmins and the like are holding the country to ransom. It is the other way around now. Look what we Punjabis have to suffer in Delhi from caste ridden states like U.P., Bihar, Orissa, TamilNadu, etc. In Punjab, being either Sikhs or Arya Samaji Hindus we had all forgotten as to what caste was. Now with the high castes like Thakurs etc using caste to garner votes---Arjun Singh and his reservations in the Universities is playing havoc with our young people in Delhi and Punjab. The so called reservations of seats for OBCs has denied Punjabis their rightful place in the Universities even if they do well, because the quotas are filled by all these guys from U.P., Bihar and so on. Look at the flood of students going for pre grad studies to U.K., USA, and Australia from families that can afford this, only because their kids can't get into the decent colleges at home even if they get grades as high at 93 to 95%. It is high time India adopted policy of all Indians being Indians first and equal as happens in Turkey. That is the only way to ensure and protect Secularism and nationalism. Or else India is headed for further tensions and caste divides".
I have replied to my friend as follows: "I agree with you completely. What we need is not caste-consciousness but love of the country first without regard to caste, point of origin, beliefs, religion, ideology and so on. Only those who believe in and practice violence (whether Sangh Parivar or Muslim extremists or Naxalites) should be brought before the bar of justice when and if they indulge in violence.
Unfortunately, the country is caught in the mix between:
(1) the reverse-discrimination against the upper castes in government and education to which you so eloquently draw attention,
(2) old-fashioned caste-consciousness in places such as in the Bimaru states, where our 3 top castes still lord it over the rest of our people and physically prevent even education from reaching them – that's the majority of our country, population-wise, and
(3) the new caste- and language-based politics of India, specially afer Nehruji unfortunately sanctioned language-based states. There was, after all, a lot to be said for simply drawing straight lines through the country as Europeans did in Africa (making due allowances for towns and villages of course) – though that would not really have solved the problem, as it has not solved it in Africa. What we need is a value system, such as that which Gandhiji tried to teach us, in which service was recognised before self. Unfortunately, Gandhiji's teaching, which sat well with mission-school educated youngsters and other de-traditionalised Indians could not stand against the new western-style greed which has been in the ascendant in the West for the last 20 years or so, and has revived traditional greed in India (at least greed was the traditional dharma of the vaishya caste, which is my own - but the disease of greed has now spread to the whole country)." Sphere: Related Content
People's Tribunal on Nandigram
All fair-minded citizens will be astonished that the Government of India and the Government of Bengal have not yet set up an indpendent commission to investigate the circumstances surrounding the shooting down of peasants by the police in Nandigram, following all the tensions regarding the possible formation of a SEZ there.
I therefore welcome (and I am sure that all fair-minded citizens will welcome) the formation of the People's Tribunal consisting of: Justice Bhargava, Ex-Chief Justice Sikkim High Court; Prabash Joshi, Editor, Jansatta; Minakshi Sen Bandopadhyay, Ex-Member, Womens Commission, Tripura; Lalita Ramdas, Social Activist; John Dayal, Journalist and Human Rights Activist; Jyotirmay Samajder, Doctor; and others. Sphere: Related Content
I therefore welcome (and I am sure that all fair-minded citizens will welcome) the formation of the People's Tribunal consisting of: Justice Bhargava, Ex-Chief Justice Sikkim High Court; Prabash Joshi, Editor, Jansatta; Minakshi Sen Bandopadhyay, Ex-Member, Womens Commission, Tripura; Lalita Ramdas, Social Activist; John Dayal, Journalist and Human Rights Activist; Jyotirmay Samajder, Doctor; and others. Sphere: Related Content
Tiny minority of India's traditional elite continues to hold the country to ransom
It is a sad fact that a tiny minority (probably numbering no more than a few thousand) continues to create a terrible situation for all of the country, resulting in bad publicity for the country - with a resulting impact on foreign tourists coming to the country, investing in the country, and so on.
This minority from India's traditional elite is totally unconcerned about the economic impact of its unsavoury activities on the country.
The traditional elite, consisting of the three top castes (Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas) held the country entirely to ransom earlier in our history. Rich people from other backgrounds naturally became part of the traditional elite particularly from the 7th century onwards.
Fortunately, most of the traditional elite started modernising, secularising and liberalising following the introduction of modern ideas beginning with the work of William Carey in the 1790s.
Though there were outbursts of opposition from certain elements in the traditional elite (including the 1857 "Mutiny" - which is known by various other names as well), fortunately only a tiny minority in the traditional elite (represented by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and its allies in what has come to be called the "Sangh Parivar" or simply the "Parivar") still continues in its traditional preoccupation with trying to keep the nation in its control.
The Parivar has continued and even increased its verbal and physical attacks on the majority of the India's population (Dalits and OBS who were, in the times dominated by VHP types, known as the "outcastes" and "lower castes"), but also against Christians and Muslims.
And of course against Sikhs. On the 30th of June 2006, Shri Kupahalli Sudarshan (boss of the RSS, a part of the Sangh Parivar) again asserted that Sikhism was merely a Hindu cult - to the great anger of all the Sikh organisations and political parties in the country. Sikhs have moved the Justice Venkattachaliah National commission, which is reviewing the Constitution of India, to ensure that the Sikh identity as a separate religion is reaffirmed in the Statutes, and no attempt is made to rob the community of its distinctive identity by branding it as a sect or cult within the larger Hindu fold.
The Indian National Minorities Commission's Vice Chairman, TarlochanSingh, has put it on the record that the RSS's attempt to amalgamate the Hindu and Sikhreligions could pose a`serious threat'' to peace in the Sikh-majority state, Punjab.
Mr Tarlochan Singh told then-Prime Minster Mr Vajpayee that "The hardliners amongst the Sikhs were lying low after peace prevailed in Punjab. Now these groups have got an agenda and are organising meetings and protests in the state....Such pronouncements are interpreted by the Sikhs as being hostile to the Sikh religion and identity. Everyone is aware of what happened in Punjab in the eighties and nobody should try and create bad blood again. Sudarshan should withdraw the statement he made earlier and recognise that Sikhism is a separate religion and Sikhs have a separate identity." It remains to be seen if the RSS will respond to a commission summon to be available for a discussion next week. As far as I know, Sudarshan still has not withdrawn his inflammatory statements.
Another member of the Minorities Commission, Mr J. Dayal, writes: "The Sangh Parivar has never really hidden its agenda against the Sikh Community. The Congress may have been the main guilty party in the chaos and trauma of Punjab, and its terrible repercussions during the 1984 anti Sikh riots, but the Sangh hand has also been clearly visible in the troubles, up to and including the massacre of the Sikhs in Delhi, Kanpur and several other cities.
"People have not forgotten the anti Sikh rhetoric of grassroots Sangh workers and their leaders in Punjab and Delhi at the height of the xtremist movement in the border state. If the spotlight after the massacres focused only on the Congress, it had much to do with the desire to indict the goons of the then ruling party's Delhi unit. Later it was too late to enlarge the scope of the enquiries and the public debate to also indict the Sangh Parivar. Many guilty have goneaway scot free because of this lapse. So what is the lesson in this `sporadic unconnected incidents' - as the prime minister may perhaps style them? What is the common threadthat connects the physical and psychological wounds of the Christian in Udaipur, Phulbani and Gorakhpur, the anxiety of the Muslims as they await the Dharma Sansad's decision in the Kumbh at Allahabad on the date for the launch of the construction of the Ram Temple on therubble of the Babri masjid, and the Sikh fear that it is being robbed at political gun point of its very identity?
"Kupahalli Sudarshan keeps no one in any doubt about what his Sangh wants in the country: There can be no place for minorities unless it is as domesticated pets, living at the whims and fancy of the Sangh's definitions of nationhood and patriotism, of its narrow concept of culture and its perversion of an Indian ethos. The Sangh does not hate just one minority. It hates them all." Touchè.
If the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and its allies "only" hated the majority (Dalits and OBCs) and the religious minorities, that would be bad enough.
Unfortunately, the Sangh Parivar hates everyone in the country opposed to its agenda, whether they be secular, Hindu or whatever.
The Sangh loves only itself - and if the country is not going to accept the values and rule of the Sangh, then the Sangh seems determined to hate and to do everything in its power to damage the country as a whole. Sphere: Related Content
This minority from India's traditional elite is totally unconcerned about the economic impact of its unsavoury activities on the country.
The traditional elite, consisting of the three top castes (Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas) held the country entirely to ransom earlier in our history. Rich people from other backgrounds naturally became part of the traditional elite particularly from the 7th century onwards.
Fortunately, most of the traditional elite started modernising, secularising and liberalising following the introduction of modern ideas beginning with the work of William Carey in the 1790s.
Though there were outbursts of opposition from certain elements in the traditional elite (including the 1857 "Mutiny" - which is known by various other names as well), fortunately only a tiny minority in the traditional elite (represented by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and its allies in what has come to be called the "Sangh Parivar" or simply the "Parivar") still continues in its traditional preoccupation with trying to keep the nation in its control.
The Parivar has continued and even increased its verbal and physical attacks on the majority of the India's population (Dalits and OBS who were, in the times dominated by VHP types, known as the "outcastes" and "lower castes"), but also against Christians and Muslims.
And of course against Sikhs. On the 30th of June 2006, Shri Kupahalli Sudarshan (boss of the RSS, a part of the Sangh Parivar) again asserted that Sikhism was merely a Hindu cult - to the great anger of all the Sikh organisations and political parties in the country. Sikhs have moved the Justice Venkattachaliah National commission, which is reviewing the Constitution of India, to ensure that the Sikh identity as a separate religion is reaffirmed in the Statutes, and no attempt is made to rob the community of its distinctive identity by branding it as a sect or cult within the larger Hindu fold.
The Indian National Minorities Commission's Vice Chairman, TarlochanSingh, has put it on the record that the RSS's attempt to amalgamate the Hindu and Sikhreligions could pose a`serious threat'' to peace in the Sikh-majority state, Punjab.
Mr Tarlochan Singh told then-Prime Minster Mr Vajpayee that "The hardliners amongst the Sikhs were lying low after peace prevailed in Punjab. Now these groups have got an agenda and are organising meetings and protests in the state....Such pronouncements are interpreted by the Sikhs as being hostile to the Sikh religion and identity. Everyone is aware of what happened in Punjab in the eighties and nobody should try and create bad blood again. Sudarshan should withdraw the statement he made earlier and recognise that Sikhism is a separate religion and Sikhs have a separate identity." It remains to be seen if the RSS will respond to a commission summon to be available for a discussion next week. As far as I know, Sudarshan still has not withdrawn his inflammatory statements.
Another member of the Minorities Commission, Mr J. Dayal, writes: "The Sangh Parivar has never really hidden its agenda against the Sikh Community. The Congress may have been the main guilty party in the chaos and trauma of Punjab, and its terrible repercussions during the 1984 anti Sikh riots, but the Sangh hand has also been clearly visible in the troubles, up to and including the massacre of the Sikhs in Delhi, Kanpur and several other cities.
"People have not forgotten the anti Sikh rhetoric of grassroots Sangh workers and their leaders in Punjab and Delhi at the height of the xtremist movement in the border state. If the spotlight after the massacres focused only on the Congress, it had much to do with the desire to indict the goons of the then ruling party's Delhi unit. Later it was too late to enlarge the scope of the enquiries and the public debate to also indict the Sangh Parivar. Many guilty have goneaway scot free because of this lapse. So what is the lesson in this `sporadic unconnected incidents' - as the prime minister may perhaps style them? What is the common threadthat connects the physical and psychological wounds of the Christian in Udaipur, Phulbani and Gorakhpur, the anxiety of the Muslims as they await the Dharma Sansad's decision in the Kumbh at Allahabad on the date for the launch of the construction of the Ram Temple on therubble of the Babri masjid, and the Sikh fear that it is being robbed at political gun point of its very identity?
"Kupahalli Sudarshan keeps no one in any doubt about what his Sangh wants in the country: There can be no place for minorities unless it is as domesticated pets, living at the whims and fancy of the Sangh's definitions of nationhood and patriotism, of its narrow concept of culture and its perversion of an Indian ethos. The Sangh does not hate just one minority. It hates them all." Touchè.
If the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and its allies "only" hated the majority (Dalits and OBCs) and the religious minorities, that would be bad enough.
Unfortunately, the Sangh Parivar hates everyone in the country opposed to its agenda, whether they be secular, Hindu or whatever.
The Sangh loves only itself - and if the country is not going to accept the values and rule of the Sangh, then the Sangh seems determined to hate and to do everything in its power to damage the country as a whole. Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Lessons from the Enron disaster
Sherron Watkins, widely regarded as the key whistle-blower in the Enron disaster, published a book on the subject a few years ago, POWER FAILURE: THE INSIDE STORY OF THE COLLAPSE OF ENRON (Doubleday, New York).
Those who can't get hold of the book for any reason will find very worthwhile to go to the following long interview with her in Ethix magazine, the Bulletin of the Center for Integrity in Business:
http://www.ethix.org/article.php3?id=368 Sphere: Related Content
Those who can't get hold of the book for any reason will find very worthwhile to go to the following long interview with her in Ethix magazine, the Bulletin of the Center for Integrity in Business:
http://www.ethix.org/article.php3?id=368 Sphere: Related Content
On "99 year old article on India - The Atlantic Monthly"
I see that a certain artilce from 99 years ago is now doing the rounds, with the cover note: "You will be moved/shocked when you read this (entire) article from the Atlantic Monthly, October 1908! Please take the time to read it; Indian history books glossed over these kinds of details"
I have no idea what those who are circulating this article mean by "Indian textbooks glossed over these kinds of details": all this was fully known to Indians of my generation, born soon after Independence
There were numerous similar articles not only in the US press, but in the Indian press as well as in the Irish press (not to mention the press of other countries)
Whether or not such information is now known would, in my estimation, not be a matter of textbooks, but of whether attention is paid to such things
In any case, sixty years after Independence, it is silly to continue to blame the British, when it is clear that other colonies or dependencies such as Malaysia and Singapore have done brilliantly well – even China has done brilliantly well – compared to us (and that is true not only over the last 60 years, but also in the last 20 years, and 10 years, and 5 years, and last year, and even the last quarter....)
We are very good at continuing to blame the British when we should be blaming ourselves!
The fact is that the causes of India's failures today lie wholly and entirely – as Gandhiji said in his own time – with Indians and with Indian culture: every time Indian kingdoms lost to "foreigners" they lost ONLY because they were betrayed by their own people – whether it was against the forces of Alexander the Great or against the Persian and other Muslim invaders of the 11th century, or against the European invaders from the 17th century on
That is why Gandhiji sought (however imperfectly) to change Indians and Indian culture – and that is why he was killed by Nathuram Godse who stated publicly when he was finally released, having served his term in jail, that he had no remorse for killing Gandhiji and would gladly kill Gandhiji again because "Gandhi destroyed Hinduism"
Gandhiji certainly dealt a mortal blow to the kind of "Hinduisms" that existed at that time, even though those are not quite "destroyed" yet (they survive in the backwaters, though they are losing ground to mainstream "Hinduisms" or to the Hindutvists)
Mostly, what we have now is "post-Gandhi Hinduisms" in the mainstream (i.e. "Hinduisms" that are secularist and concerned with improving things in this world)
We also have a "post-Gandhi reaction" in Hindutva, which continues to be anti-secularist, though it is "this worldly" as mainstream "post-Gandhi Hinduisms"
Mainstream "post-Gandhi Hinduisms" will certainly survive (they flourish as a consequence of modernisation)
Hindutva, on the other hand, is a reaction against modernisation. It may well succeed in gaining power in India (just as anti-modernist mullahs succeeded in gaining power in Iran). But, as in Iran, if the Hindutvists do gain power, they will condemn India to greater backwardness for as long as they are in power
If those who are circulating this article are interested in improving things in India, they should commit themselves to supporting the modernisers and progressivists, instead of continuing to hark back to what happened 99 years ago - though it is important to understand history, that is a different matter from considering ourselves (and so making ourselves) victims of history. Sphere: Related Content
I have no idea what those who are circulating this article mean by "Indian textbooks glossed over these kinds of details": all this was fully known to Indians of my generation, born soon after Independence
There were numerous similar articles not only in the US press, but in the Indian press as well as in the Irish press (not to mention the press of other countries)
Whether or not such information is now known would, in my estimation, not be a matter of textbooks, but of whether attention is paid to such things
In any case, sixty years after Independence, it is silly to continue to blame the British, when it is clear that other colonies or dependencies such as Malaysia and Singapore have done brilliantly well – even China has done brilliantly well – compared to us (and that is true not only over the last 60 years, but also in the last 20 years, and 10 years, and 5 years, and last year, and even the last quarter....)
We are very good at continuing to blame the British when we should be blaming ourselves!
The fact is that the causes of India's failures today lie wholly and entirely – as Gandhiji said in his own time – with Indians and with Indian culture: every time Indian kingdoms lost to "foreigners" they lost ONLY because they were betrayed by their own people – whether it was against the forces of Alexander the Great or against the Persian and other Muslim invaders of the 11th century, or against the European invaders from the 17th century on
That is why Gandhiji sought (however imperfectly) to change Indians and Indian culture – and that is why he was killed by Nathuram Godse who stated publicly when he was finally released, having served his term in jail, that he had no remorse for killing Gandhiji and would gladly kill Gandhiji again because "Gandhi destroyed Hinduism"
Gandhiji certainly dealt a mortal blow to the kind of "Hinduisms" that existed at that time, even though those are not quite "destroyed" yet (they survive in the backwaters, though they are losing ground to mainstream "Hinduisms" or to the Hindutvists)
Mostly, what we have now is "post-Gandhi Hinduisms" in the mainstream (i.e. "Hinduisms" that are secularist and concerned with improving things in this world)
We also have a "post-Gandhi reaction" in Hindutva, which continues to be anti-secularist, though it is "this worldly" as mainstream "post-Gandhi Hinduisms"
Mainstream "post-Gandhi Hinduisms" will certainly survive (they flourish as a consequence of modernisation)
Hindutva, on the other hand, is a reaction against modernisation. It may well succeed in gaining power in India (just as anti-modernist mullahs succeeded in gaining power in Iran). But, as in Iran, if the Hindutvists do gain power, they will condemn India to greater backwardness for as long as they are in power
If those who are circulating this article are interested in improving things in India, they should commit themselves to supporting the modernisers and progressivists, instead of continuing to hark back to what happened 99 years ago - though it is important to understand history, that is a different matter from considering ourselves (and so making ourselves) victims of history. Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, April 28, 2007
To fight corruption in India
One of the ways of looking at Indian history is as a struggle between the forces of corruption and the forces of cleanliness. The cleanliness of original religion in India was overtaken by the corruption of the priesthood, against which various people tried to rebel, but the Buddha and Mahavira eventually led a successful revolt. However, Buddhism and Jainism themselves developed not only priesthoods (completely against the spirit of the original teachings of the Buddha and of Mahavira) but even corrupt priesthoods, against which people rebelled, turning to the good news of Jesus the Lord in the first century AD. However, our elites responded to the combined challenge posed by the followers of the Buddha, Mahavir and Jesus, by turning against them all, abandoning the original and even the late religion described in the Vedas, and inventing idolatry, caste and all the other institutions included in the so-called "way of life" that went by the name of Hindu practices till, initially Islam, and later but much more significantly Protestant influence began to reform them from the eighteenth century. That is what has resulted in what is called by the Western label of "Hinduism" today - a label, by the way, that was accepted by us Indians only in the nineteenth century.
The resultant fate of India is that we have had religious systems that are themselves corrupt - much as, in the West, the church became corrupt , till it began to be cleaned up by the Protesters, resulting in the split between those who refused to be reformed (Roman Catholics), those who accepted a partial reformation (the mainstream reformation, such as the Lutherans and Presbyterians), and those who wanted to go for a thorough-going cleaning up (such as the Waldensians, Hussites, Amish, Quakers, Mennonites, Baptists, Charismatists or Pentecostals, and so on).
When religion is itself clean, it can be a force to help clean up society, however marginal religion may be in that society. But when religion itself is corrupt, a society has precious few resources with which to combat corruption. In India, we are reliant mainly on modernism and market forces to help clean up the corruption in the country.
The forces of modernism have followed Protestantism in trying to create new institutions, such as Public Interest Litigation and the Right to Information Act to help citizens challenge corruption. These are being used, with varying degrees of effectiveness.
Now the Anti-Corruption Bureau has added one more means of fighting corruption. Citizens are requested to inform the ACB if they know of any Government Officer (however senior or high-ranking) who has spent a large amount on foreign holidays, expensive education, jewellery, vehicles, or properties. It does not matter if the expense was incurred in their own name or in that of their family members. The information can be sent anonymously. This is the simplest and easiest way to curb corruption. The information needed is very brief as explained in http://www.acbmaharashtra.org/complaints_assests.asp
We can be religious or Sphere: Related Content
The resultant fate of India is that we have had religious systems that are themselves corrupt - much as, in the West, the church became corrupt , till it began to be cleaned up by the Protesters, resulting in the split between those who refused to be reformed (Roman Catholics), those who accepted a partial reformation (the mainstream reformation, such as the Lutherans and Presbyterians), and those who wanted to go for a thorough-going cleaning up (such as the Waldensians, Hussites, Amish, Quakers, Mennonites, Baptists, Charismatists or Pentecostals, and so on).
When religion is itself clean, it can be a force to help clean up society, however marginal religion may be in that society. But when religion itself is corrupt, a society has precious few resources with which to combat corruption. In India, we are reliant mainly on modernism and market forces to help clean up the corruption in the country.
The forces of modernism have followed Protestantism in trying to create new institutions, such as Public Interest Litigation and the Right to Information Act to help citizens challenge corruption. These are being used, with varying degrees of effectiveness.
Now the Anti-Corruption Bureau has added one more means of fighting corruption. Citizens are requested to inform the ACB if they know of any Government Officer (however senior or high-ranking) who has spent a large amount on foreign holidays, expensive education, jewellery, vehicles, or properties. It does not matter if the expense was incurred in their own name or in that of their family members. The information can be sent anonymously. This is the simplest and easiest way to curb corruption. The information needed is very brief as explained in http://www.acbmaharashtra.org/complaints_assests.asp
We can be religious or Sphere: Related Content
Nanomaterials are unhealthy for humans, healthy for bacteria!
It is interesting to see that some of the latest research shows the interesting and contradictory fact that nano-materials are wonderful for bacteria but unhealthy for humans: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/03/26/tech-nanotubes.html
Why should nanomaterials be healthy for one life form but unhealthy for us? At present, this is unknown.
Evolutionists will be pleased to hear that bacteria will eventually evolve sufficiently to find out, and will then spread nanomaterials around so as to eliminate humans and take over the planet :) Sphere: Related Content
Why should nanomaterials be healthy for one life form but unhealthy for us? At present, this is unknown.
Evolutionists will be pleased to hear that bacteria will eventually evolve sufficiently to find out, and will then spread nanomaterials around so as to eliminate humans and take over the planet :) Sphere: Related Content
Monday, April 09, 2007
Jeff Sachs, poverty, philanthropy and culture change
For any of my readers who don't recollect this, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs is special adviser to the United Nations secretary-general.
He made an interesting series of statements to Financial Times (see the article titled "Philanthropy ‘can eclipse G8’ on poverty" by Leyla Boulton and James Lamont, published on April 8 2007, which you can reach by clicking on http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f498bf48-e5f2-11db-9fcf-000b5df10621.html).
Among other things, Sachs believes that wealthy philanthropists have the potential to do more than the Group of Eight leading nations (G8) to lift Africa out of poverty!
It is of course true that Dr Sachs was attempting to keep his chin up in view of flagging governmental initiatives in relation to the Millennium Development Goals: the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported last week that aid from rich countries to Africa remained static last year even though G8 leaders promised in 2005 to spend $50bn more each year to 2010 on aid, with half the rise going to sub-Saharan Africa.
So Dr Sachs hopes that the financial clout of the likes of Microsoft’s Bill Gates and international investor Warren Buffett, who have pledged billions of dollars to global health and education, could help matters.
Well, how does one respond to Mr Sachs proposal that even people who are less wealthy should contribute to a new private sector foundation that could help speed the elimination of diseases and tackle specific challenges? “There are 950 billionaires whose wealth is estimated at $3.5 trillion [$3,500bn]. An annual 5 per cent ‘foundation’ payout would be $175bn per year – that would do it. Then we don’t need the G8 but 950 people on the Forbes list,” said Mr Sachs. “Maybe private philanthropists will champion solutions to individual problems rather than the G8,” he said.
This is a wonderful hope, but we know from experience and from history that the rich, with a few exceptions such as Buffett and Gates, generally contribute far less than ordinary people as a proportion of their income (at least in the West, regarding which we have as usual plenty of facts and figures available). Most of these billionnaires are in the West, though an increasing number live in countries that are doing well at present, such as China and India.
So, if Sachs is serious about a 5% contribution from billionaires, the easiest will be for the UN to charge a 5% "Billionnaire's tax". That will not only get the money in pretty quickly and efficiently, but also make Sachs and Ban top favourites with billionnaires! I am being ironic, of course.
No, contrary to what Dr Sachs claims, the fact is that even if all the billionnaires gave away 100% of their money, that still would not solve the problem. The total wealth of this group, $3.5 trillion, is less than what is flashed around the world in one day by the world's financial trading systems, so each day the world's financial system increases the divide between the rich and the poor because of the was it functions.
A change in the global system is therefore the first essential to reducing global poverty. Such changes include reforms in the stock exchange system, the creation of a dual-share system for corporations, moving to complementary currencies, and so on.
In Africa itself, the problem is not one of lack of money or resources. The problem with Africa is African culture which is built on tribalism, and which in practice has few moral constraints in relation to matters of sex, violence or money.
The result is widespread corruption and abuse of power. So, no matter how much money flows into the continent, most of it ends up in the private pockets of the elite and the powerful.
Rather than more aid, whether from philanthropists or from government, what is needed is efforts to change African culture, at least at the points of attitudes to and arrangements in relation to sex, violence and money.
Money and violence, yes, I hear you say; but why sex?
Because one of Africa's biggest economic issues is the impact of AIDS - which has spread in Africa principally though not exclusively because of the sexual mores of Africa.
If Africans would only reform themselves in relation to tribalism, violence and corruption, then this resource-rich continent could show other parts of the world the way to live, rather than being one of the poorest parts of the world, from times immemorial to the present.
That is the sad truth of the matter. Sphere: Related Content
He made an interesting series of statements to Financial Times (see the article titled "Philanthropy ‘can eclipse G8’ on poverty" by Leyla Boulton and James Lamont, published on April 8 2007, which you can reach by clicking on http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f498bf48-e5f2-11db-9fcf-000b5df10621.html).
Among other things, Sachs believes that wealthy philanthropists have the potential to do more than the Group of Eight leading nations (G8) to lift Africa out of poverty!
It is of course true that Dr Sachs was attempting to keep his chin up in view of flagging governmental initiatives in relation to the Millennium Development Goals: the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reported last week that aid from rich countries to Africa remained static last year even though G8 leaders promised in 2005 to spend $50bn more each year to 2010 on aid, with half the rise going to sub-Saharan Africa.
So Dr Sachs hopes that the financial clout of the likes of Microsoft’s Bill Gates and international investor Warren Buffett, who have pledged billions of dollars to global health and education, could help matters.
Well, how does one respond to Mr Sachs proposal that even people who are less wealthy should contribute to a new private sector foundation that could help speed the elimination of diseases and tackle specific challenges? “There are 950 billionaires whose wealth is estimated at $3.5 trillion [$3,500bn]. An annual 5 per cent ‘foundation’ payout would be $175bn per year – that would do it. Then we don’t need the G8 but 950 people on the Forbes list,” said Mr Sachs. “Maybe private philanthropists will champion solutions to individual problems rather than the G8,” he said.
This is a wonderful hope, but we know from experience and from history that the rich, with a few exceptions such as Buffett and Gates, generally contribute far less than ordinary people as a proportion of their income (at least in the West, regarding which we have as usual plenty of facts and figures available). Most of these billionnaires are in the West, though an increasing number live in countries that are doing well at present, such as China and India.
So, if Sachs is serious about a 5% contribution from billionaires, the easiest will be for the UN to charge a 5% "Billionnaire's tax". That will not only get the money in pretty quickly and efficiently, but also make Sachs and Ban top favourites with billionnaires! I am being ironic, of course.
No, contrary to what Dr Sachs claims, the fact is that even if all the billionnaires gave away 100% of their money, that still would not solve the problem. The total wealth of this group, $3.5 trillion, is less than what is flashed around the world in one day by the world's financial trading systems, so each day the world's financial system increases the divide between the rich and the poor because of the was it functions.
A change in the global system is therefore the first essential to reducing global poverty. Such changes include reforms in the stock exchange system, the creation of a dual-share system for corporations, moving to complementary currencies, and so on.
In Africa itself, the problem is not one of lack of money or resources. The problem with Africa is African culture which is built on tribalism, and which in practice has few moral constraints in relation to matters of sex, violence or money.
The result is widespread corruption and abuse of power. So, no matter how much money flows into the continent, most of it ends up in the private pockets of the elite and the powerful.
Rather than more aid, whether from philanthropists or from government, what is needed is efforts to change African culture, at least at the points of attitudes to and arrangements in relation to sex, violence and money.
Money and violence, yes, I hear you say; but why sex?
Because one of Africa's biggest economic issues is the impact of AIDS - which has spread in Africa principally though not exclusively because of the sexual mores of Africa.
If Africans would only reform themselves in relation to tribalism, violence and corruption, then this resource-rich continent could show other parts of the world the way to live, rather than being one of the poorest parts of the world, from times immemorial to the present.
That is the sad truth of the matter. Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Errors, human and technical
According to a top executive speaking at an event in the last few days, 90% of the problems encountered in relation to IT systems are due to human error - not system error or external attacks.
In other words, humans may be able to produce near-perfect machines and technological systems, but it all still comes down to the quality of the human interaction with these miraculous machines.
Reminds me of the days when, during the 1965 war between India and Pakistan, Indians on WWII planes outperformed Pakistanis on the latest aircraft supplied by the USA - mainly F-86 Sabre jets if I recollect aright.
Thankfully, belligerence between India and Pakistan has now gone, and that war was apparently due to "strategic miscalculations" by both sides.
"Strategic miscalculation" is of course itself a human error. Unfortunately, "strategic miscalculation" is not confined to military matters. Sphere: Related Content
In other words, humans may be able to produce near-perfect machines and technological systems, but it all still comes down to the quality of the human interaction with these miraculous machines.
Reminds me of the days when, during the 1965 war between India and Pakistan, Indians on WWII planes outperformed Pakistanis on the latest aircraft supplied by the USA - mainly F-86 Sabre jets if I recollect aright.
Thankfully, belligerence between India and Pakistan has now gone, and that war was apparently due to "strategic miscalculations" by both sides.
"Strategic miscalculation" is of course itself a human error. Unfortunately, "strategic miscalculation" is not confined to military matters. Sphere: Related Content
Monday, March 12, 2007
Should the "burden" of Sarbanes-Oxley be eased for non-U.S. companies?
The blog I posted just a few minutes ago, responding to the report by Jeremy Grant in today's FT, according to which the US Chamber of Commerce (USCC) will today call for an end to quarterly earnings guidance from companies, makes one other proposal that is worth at least brief reflection.
This second proposal is that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) be allowed to ease the burden of Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) on foreign companies.
I have not read the actual call yet, since it has not yet been released by the USCC.
However, it seems to me a little strange if the USCC has really called for the "burden" of SOX to be eased for non-U.S. companies, but not for U.S. companies.
How does this contribute to a level playing field?
And how come the USCC wants a tougher regulatory regime for its own "home" members than it does for "foreign" companies?!
Something fishy here....
It may be worth recollecting that the rough hammer of SOX was introduced in the hot emotion of immediate response to Enron and other disasters. While it makes sense to re-think SOX in the cold light of day, that rethinking needs to be done in such a way as to produce:
(1) a regulatory that is light but effective (all the suggestions that I have seen at present are focused on being light, but rather less focused on being effective)
2) a level playing field for U.S. and non-U.S. companies.
When the USCC comes up with a sensible suggestion that meets these two criteria, I will be happy to support that. Sphere: Related Content
This second proposal is that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) be allowed to ease the burden of Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) on foreign companies.
I have not read the actual call yet, since it has not yet been released by the USCC.
However, it seems to me a little strange if the USCC has really called for the "burden" of SOX to be eased for non-U.S. companies, but not for U.S. companies.
How does this contribute to a level playing field?
And how come the USCC wants a tougher regulatory regime for its own "home" members than it does for "foreign" companies?!
Something fishy here....
It may be worth recollecting that the rough hammer of SOX was introduced in the hot emotion of immediate response to Enron and other disasters. While it makes sense to re-think SOX in the cold light of day, that rethinking needs to be done in such a way as to produce:
(1) a regulatory that is light but effective (all the suggestions that I have seen at present are focused on being light, but rather less focused on being effective)
2) a level playing field for U.S. and non-U.S. companies.
When the USCC comes up with a sensible suggestion that meets these two criteria, I will be happy to support that. Sphere: Related Content
Ending Quarterly Earnings Guidance?
According to a report today in the FT by Jeremy Grant ("US reform sought to aid capital markets"), the US Chamber of Commerce will call today for an end to quarterly earnings guidance from companies.
This is eminently sensible on classical grounds as well as more modern ones.
The classical grounds are there is no logic to "quarterly" guidance since a "quarter of a year" relates to no natural period of time. "Annual guidance" makes sense because it does relate to a significant natural division of time.
So why not "monthly guidance? Or "daily guidance"? Well, anything less than annual guidance encourages short-termism in a marketplace that is already short-term enough.
The modern grounds are that most traders already have enough information, even on a moment-by-moment basis to adjust their investment behaviour (rightly or wrongly), so quarterly guidance merely adds effort and expense for hard-worked Chief Executives and Investment Relations teams, and produces little or no benefit for companies in terms of Return on the Investment made. In other words, if all companies were prohibited from producing anything other than annual guidance, then money, time and effor could be put into more productive activities instead.
What has taken the US Chamber of Commerce so long to wake up to these elementary matters?
. Sphere: Related Content
This is eminently sensible on classical grounds as well as more modern ones.
The classical grounds are there is no logic to "quarterly" guidance since a "quarter of a year" relates to no natural period of time. "Annual guidance" makes sense because it does relate to a significant natural division of time.
So why not "monthly guidance? Or "daily guidance"? Well, anything less than annual guidance encourages short-termism in a marketplace that is already short-term enough.
The modern grounds are that most traders already have enough information, even on a moment-by-moment basis to adjust their investment behaviour (rightly or wrongly), so quarterly guidance merely adds effort and expense for hard-worked Chief Executives and Investment Relations teams, and produces little or no benefit for companies in terms of Return on the Investment made. In other words, if all companies were prohibited from producing anything other than annual guidance, then money, time and effor could be put into more productive activities instead.
What has taken the US Chamber of Commerce so long to wake up to these elementary matters?
. Sphere: Related Content
Friday, February 09, 2007
When were "untouchables" first allowed to enter Hindu temples?
A little bit of research reveals that it was on 17 July 1928, under the inspiration of Mahatma Gandhi and at the initiative of an Indian businessman, Jamnalal Bajaj, that Acharya Vinoba Bhave led a group of "untouchables" (also called "Harijans" by Mahatma Gandhi, and "Dalits" by themselves) - some 21 years after the temple was instituted.
However, I cannot find out how many of the temples in India now allow actually allow Dalits ("untouchables") entry. Any help appreciated. Sphere: Related Content
However, I cannot find out how many of the temples in India now allow actually allow Dalits ("untouchables") entry. Any help appreciated. Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, January 27, 2007
On Separatism in Europe
My friend Professor Miguel Mesquita da Cunha sent me the following reflection and I have asked permission to publish it here, particularly as his thoughts have significance for India:
"Sir,
Europe is at heart a community of values. A scrupulous respect of the norms of behaviour whose observance ensures the preservation of liberty and human dignity is a sine qua non for any country within, or aspiring to join, the EU.
Threats or the use of force against people or their property in order to elicit silence or acquiescence is the gist of dictatorship, in fundamental contradiction with all that Europe stands for – not the EU only, but indeed Europe as a civilisation.
Yet, such is the ordinary behaviour of thugs posing as patriots in the Basque country & (with slightly lesser intensity) in Corsica. In these regions, the mere fact of opining against hard core nationalism entails a real risk of being assassinated.
There may be historic circumstances when the use of violence to repel tyranny is legitimate. But when, like in Spain or France, the state guarantees the fundamental freedoms of thought, expression, communication, meeting & indeed of vote, when governments can be elected or dismissed through the ballot box, & laws enacted or repelled by elected assemblies, then there can be no justification for the use of violence. None whatsoever.
It is hardly for outsiders to determine whether the Basques, or the Corsicans, nor any others, should maintain current political arrangements or should seek another path.
But every European country & citizen has the right - indeed the duty - to condemn & combat the egregious violations of human rights routinely perpetrated by ETA or its Corsican counterparts against any of their fellow citizens who do not submit to their ideological diktat.
Such a duty of interference – whose opposite would be a ‘sin of indifference’ – was the root of the EU’s attitude in the Balkans. Are the Basques any less European, or any less worthy of respect, than the Bosnians? Or the Corsicans than the Croats? How come then that most of Europe’s political leadership display such callous neglect of crimes committed not on our doorsteps, but rather very much in our midst? EU institutions as well as national political leaders ought to speak up unambiguously in support of Spain & France as they fight to uphold the rule of law.
Fascism is highly contagious. Europe may have to pay a high price tomorrow for letting it spread today.
Miguel Mesquita da Cunha" Sphere: Related Content
"Sir,
Europe is at heart a community of values. A scrupulous respect of the norms of behaviour whose observance ensures the preservation of liberty and human dignity is a sine qua non for any country within, or aspiring to join, the EU.
Threats or the use of force against people or their property in order to elicit silence or acquiescence is the gist of dictatorship, in fundamental contradiction with all that Europe stands for – not the EU only, but indeed Europe as a civilisation.
Yet, such is the ordinary behaviour of thugs posing as patriots in the Basque country & (with slightly lesser intensity) in Corsica. In these regions, the mere fact of opining against hard core nationalism entails a real risk of being assassinated.
There may be historic circumstances when the use of violence to repel tyranny is legitimate. But when, like in Spain or France, the state guarantees the fundamental freedoms of thought, expression, communication, meeting & indeed of vote, when governments can be elected or dismissed through the ballot box, & laws enacted or repelled by elected assemblies, then there can be no justification for the use of violence. None whatsoever.
It is hardly for outsiders to determine whether the Basques, or the Corsicans, nor any others, should maintain current political arrangements or should seek another path.
But every European country & citizen has the right - indeed the duty - to condemn & combat the egregious violations of human rights routinely perpetrated by ETA or its Corsican counterparts against any of their fellow citizens who do not submit to their ideological diktat.
Such a duty of interference – whose opposite would be a ‘sin of indifference’ – was the root of the EU’s attitude in the Balkans. Are the Basques any less European, or any less worthy of respect, than the Bosnians? Or the Corsicans than the Croats? How come then that most of Europe’s political leadership display such callous neglect of crimes committed not on our doorsteps, but rather very much in our midst? EU institutions as well as national political leaders ought to speak up unambiguously in support of Spain & France as they fight to uphold the rule of law.
Fascism is highly contagious. Europe may have to pay a high price tomorrow for letting it spread today.
Miguel Mesquita da Cunha" Sphere: Related Content
Sunday, January 21, 2007
some confusion about awards
I am confused by the following two news reports:
1. The government of U.P. has decided to felicitate Kishore Sharan Shastri, with an award titled “Sadbhavana Puraskaar”
2. The Uttar Pradesh government has decided to confer the Guru Govind Singh National Unity Award for 2006-2007 to Yugal Kishore Sharan Shastri.
Two very similar names (perhaps the same individual?) but two very different awards!
So:
(a) can anyone shed light on whether one or both of the reports are true?
(b) are any of the works of the(se) writer(s) available in English or in Hindi on the Internet? Sphere: Related Content
1. The government of U.P. has decided to felicitate Kishore Sharan Shastri, with an award titled “Sadbhavana Puraskaar”
2. The Uttar Pradesh government has decided to confer the Guru Govind Singh National Unity Award for 2006-2007 to Yugal Kishore Sharan Shastri.
Two very similar names (perhaps the same individual?) but two very different awards!
So:
(a) can anyone shed light on whether one or both of the reports are true?
(b) are any of the works of the(se) writer(s) available in English or in Hindi on the Internet? Sphere: Related Content
Friday, January 19, 2007
Will Barrack Obama reform America?
I've been reading quite a bit about Obama in the last few months.
The best piece I've read on whether Obama will succeed in genuinely reforming America is by James W. Skillen, the President of the Center for Public Justice in DC.
Skillen is an elegant and insightful writer - and he has the rare gift (for an American) of being self-critical. Here is a sample of his writing:
"Americans can more easily say what they don't want than what they want. And when they express their desires, it is usually in the contradictory language of asking government to elevate the nation and solve big problems but without raising taxes or burdening them with too much red tape."
For Skillen's full piece, titled "Obama for President?" and posted on January 19, 2007, go to:
http://www.cpjustice.org/capitalcom Sphere: Related Content
The best piece I've read on whether Obama will succeed in genuinely reforming America is by James W. Skillen, the President of the Center for Public Justice in DC.
Skillen is an elegant and insightful writer - and he has the rare gift (for an American) of being self-critical. Here is a sample of his writing:
"Americans can more easily say what they don't want than what they want. And when they express their desires, it is usually in the contradictory language of asking government to elevate the nation and solve big problems but without raising taxes or burdening them with too much red tape."
For Skillen's full piece, titled "Obama for President?" and posted on January 19, 2007, go to:
http://www.cpjustice.org/capitalcom Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Response to my "Speaking of Faith" broadcast
Among the hundreds of responses I've had to this broadcast, is the following substantial one from someone who only identifies her/himself as "Free Polazzo":
Hi,
I appreciated your presentation on "Speaking of Faith". It is important to raise the questions you did, even if we don't know what the answers are. After all, that's what makes it a fun topic.
You mentioned on the show and Christie recapped the fact that "fixed prices" were introduced by Jewish and Christian businesspeople. As a Jew I learned that we needed to treat other Jews fairly. As a Quaker I learned that we needed to treat other people fairly, no matter what (if any) faith/culture they belonged to.
I have learned that it was The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) who began the fixed price in the West as a way to practice our Testimony on Equality and our Testimony on Truth. They/we believe in one standard of truth in all cases, so that when you ask for a price you get the same price no matter who you are. Even a child could be sent to the store without fear that they would be ripped off. (I guess the practice does save time, too, like you said).
Quaker Entrepreneurial Activity
Early Quakers were mainly from the yeoman and artisan classes: there were very few from the landed gentry or labouring class. Many were traders and craftspeople. They were well educated and literate. Because of official persecution, they were prohibited from working in the government, attending the universities, and entering trades in a corporate city. A number had their tools, such as looms and agricultural equipment, deliberately broken. Many became traders. They usually sold goods for a fixed price, rather than bargaining, as was the custom, and developed a reputation for honesty. "Their produce was sound, their prices fair, their services honest, their word good and their agreements honourable" (Walvin p210).
See: http://www.casi.org.nz/quakersinbusiness.html
So, consumers found out that they could send their children to stores owned by Quakers and that they would be treated fairly. This helped Quakers to thrive and encouraged others to adopt their practice.
Thank you for working to bring to consciousness the issue of people working without considering the ethical issues of their actions. As an accountant, I can attest to the fact that much of the "profit" we measure does not ever consider the long term health of the society or even of those working for the company that is earning the profits.
There are Quakers who have organized to consider the questions you ask. For example:
http://www.quakerbusiness.org/resources.htm
Remember that what made the "West" successful was not what happened in the last 50 years, but what happened 300 years and more ago. We are just reaping what we sowed. Something that we will be doing in the future but without the same great results we know have.
A more recent analysis of why some countries did well for their populations and others have not, was done by a Quaker Historian/Economist, Jack Powelson. It is a wonderful treatise on the basic issue of our times. How to be "successful" and also "ethical", although that was not his stated goal in writing the book:
See his book on line at: http://tqe.quaker.org/wealth-and-poverty/
Enoyed your blog. Looking forward to more.
Regards,
Free Polazzo
Douglasville, GA, USA Sphere: Related Content
Hi,
I appreciated your presentation on "Speaking of Faith". It is important to raise the questions you did, even if we don't know what the answers are. After all, that's what makes it a fun topic.
You mentioned on the show and Christie recapped the fact that "fixed prices" were introduced by Jewish and Christian businesspeople. As a Jew I learned that we needed to treat other Jews fairly. As a Quaker I learned that we needed to treat other people fairly, no matter what (if any) faith/culture they belonged to.
I have learned that it was The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) who began the fixed price in the West as a way to practice our Testimony on Equality and our Testimony on Truth. They/we believe in one standard of truth in all cases, so that when you ask for a price you get the same price no matter who you are. Even a child could be sent to the store without fear that they would be ripped off. (I guess the practice does save time, too, like you said).
Quaker Entrepreneurial Activity
Early Quakers were mainly from the yeoman and artisan classes: there were very few from the landed gentry or labouring class. Many were traders and craftspeople. They were well educated and literate. Because of official persecution, they were prohibited from working in the government, attending the universities, and entering trades in a corporate city. A number had their tools, such as looms and agricultural equipment, deliberately broken. Many became traders. They usually sold goods for a fixed price, rather than bargaining, as was the custom, and developed a reputation for honesty. "Their produce was sound, their prices fair, their services honest, their word good and their agreements honourable" (Walvin p210).
See: http://www.casi.org.nz/quakersinbusiness.html
So, consumers found out that they could send their children to stores owned by Quakers and that they would be treated fairly. This helped Quakers to thrive and encouraged others to adopt their practice.
Thank you for working to bring to consciousness the issue of people working without considering the ethical issues of their actions. As an accountant, I can attest to the fact that much of the "profit" we measure does not ever consider the long term health of the society or even of those working for the company that is earning the profits.
There are Quakers who have organized to consider the questions you ask. For example:
http://www.quakerbusiness.org/resources.htm
Remember that what made the "West" successful was not what happened in the last 50 years, but what happened 300 years and more ago. We are just reaping what we sowed. Something that we will be doing in the future but without the same great results we know have.
A more recent analysis of why some countries did well for their populations and others have not, was done by a Quaker Historian/Economist, Jack Powelson. It is a wonderful treatise on the basic issue of our times. How to be "successful" and also "ethical", although that was not his stated goal in writing the book:
See his book on line at: http://tqe.quaker.org/wealth-and-poverty/
Enoyed your blog. Looking forward to more.
Regards,
Free Polazzo
Douglasville, GA, USA Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)