Today, I am sad and upset at the news that my friend Oswald Chakravorty has passed away from this earth. We knew each other from our early teenage years (he was a little younger than me but we overlapped at St. Stephen's College, Delhi). I am particularly pleased that I was able to speak with him on the phone twice on the last day of his life here.
Not only am I happy to have known him, I am immensely proud to have known him because he was one of what has unfortunately become a rare breed nowadays, an honest and reliable Indian. He knew his capacities as well as his limitations, and whatever he said you could consider done - no silly excuses at the last minute regarding why something that had been promised could not be done.
Oswald had no self-pity or mawkishness about his condition. He knew that health is ultimately in God's hands, and each day is a gift to be enjoyed but also to be used in the best possible way. He was not merely a Christian but he was one of those Christians who is a follower of Jesus the Lord. So, whatever the circumstances, he simply continued on the straight and narrow, focusing on loving God and loving his neighbours in whatever ways seemed possible.
I admired him, moreover, because he had much more practical wisdom than I have.
As a government servant he was, among other things, Secretary of a particular Housing Association, and you may know that there are numerous Housing Associations in Delhi. His was the only one, of which I know, that was completed both on time and to budget, and he did it all for the sake of the community without cadging a single rupee.
An extraordinary achievement in terms of project management of course, but even more extraordinary in the context of our thoroughly venal culture and our highly corrupt environment where most people consider it normal and indeed essential to give and receive bribes. It takes a living fish to swim against the current.
So he may have been unkonwn but he was extraordinary.
Even as he was dying of cancer, he was more concerned about a mutual friend's asthma and what could be done to relieve that, than about his own condition.
I greatly look forward to seeing him again, by God's grace, in the next world, where there will be no more parting.
But, in the meanwhile, we need many more like him here on earth.
As I sit with my memories and my tears, this is my simple and tiny tribute to one who was dear to me, but who was also one of those who makes me proud to be an Indian.
Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Friday, September 08, 2006
Do marketing issues outweigh medical benefits in decisions taken by pharma companies?
Well, my question is actually phrased as a statement by Life Extension Magazine: "Marketing issues frequently outweigh medical science in drug company decisions."
That is from a revealing article, titled "Pharmaceutical fraud: How Big Pharma's marketing and profits come before consumer safety and wellness" (available at: http://www.newstarget.com/020345.html)
Arising from that, here's another question, this time for you: Perhaps being too concerned about your health is itself unhealthy? Sphere: Related Content
That is from a revealing article, titled "Pharmaceutical fraud: How Big Pharma's marketing and profits come before consumer safety and wellness" (available at: http://www.newstarget.com/020345.html)
Arising from that, here's another question, this time for you: Perhaps being too concerned about your health is itself unhealthy? Sphere: Related Content
Who to sue when your driverless computer-driven taxi takes you to the wrong destination
So the European Union is financing research into the possible introduction of driverless Taxis at Heathrow, "cyber cars" in Rome and an automatic bus in Castellón, Spain.
Interesting question: if the cyber bus or taxi takes me to the wrong destination or causes an accident in which I am injured or killed, who is legally liable for the damages? Presumably the European Union?
The story is at:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,435805,00.html Sphere: Related Content
Interesting question: if the cyber bus or taxi takes me to the wrong destination or causes an accident in which I am injured or killed, who is legally liable for the damages? Presumably the European Union?
The story is at:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,435805,00.html Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Though the ecological disaster is relatively new, all other aspects of the global situation today are as they were in the nineteenth century when the global elite first began to emerge. A way of dealing with the resulting dilemmas was pioneered by the Clapham Circle (led by William Wilberforce) - though that was then reversed by the efforts of the global elite from the 1880s, though more spectacularly from the end of the Second World War and even more spectacularly from the 1980s. That is why the global situation today is relatively similar to what it was when the Clapham Circle was prompted to act.
The members of the Clapham Circle were certainly not perfect - and their lack of perfection is over-enthusiastically attacked by their detractors. One wonders why.
Of course, all lack of perfection should be kept clearly in mind. But not to the extent that it clouds our view, so that we see nothing of the good they did.
Those positive things, in the case of the Clapham Circle include:
- the ability of a (very) few members of the then-emerging global elite to be sensitised to the needs of some of the most oppressed people of their times,
- to enable them to work with grass-roots organisations,
- to study the complex issues so as to master them and in order to identify what needed to be done,
- to be realistic enough to know that they could not do everything that needed doing,
- yet to not allow that to discourage them from setting two incredible goals: that of changing the whole economic basis of society through history, and that of bringing about a moral and humanistic transformation of one of the most powerful but also one of the most corrupt countries that the world had seen till then.
Even more incredibly, they largely succeeded in accomplishing both goals.
So we have a lot to learn from them. Till now, most humanitarin organisations concerned about global issues (such as the UN Global Compact) have only words to show, instead of any real achievements.
Though of course even mere words can have large effects - and I am sure that the combined effect of such words is somehow behind the combined donation of US$98 billion by Buffet and Gates to development-related causes.
We may all therefore be encouraged to go on with our words (the Clapham Circle did use a lot of words too, and Wilberforce wrote one book which was probably the key to transforming the whole moral and humanitarian climate of England then).
But let us also seek to supplement, as the Clapham Circle did with such astounding but little-appreciated sacrifice, our words with some real action. Sphere: Related Content
The members of the Clapham Circle were certainly not perfect - and their lack of perfection is over-enthusiastically attacked by their detractors. One wonders why.
Of course, all lack of perfection should be kept clearly in mind. But not to the extent that it clouds our view, so that we see nothing of the good they did.
Those positive things, in the case of the Clapham Circle include:
- the ability of a (very) few members of the then-emerging global elite to be sensitised to the needs of some of the most oppressed people of their times,
- to enable them to work with grass-roots organisations,
- to study the complex issues so as to master them and in order to identify what needed to be done,
- to be realistic enough to know that they could not do everything that needed doing,
- yet to not allow that to discourage them from setting two incredible goals: that of changing the whole economic basis of society through history, and that of bringing about a moral and humanistic transformation of one of the most powerful but also one of the most corrupt countries that the world had seen till then.
Even more incredibly, they largely succeeded in accomplishing both goals.
So we have a lot to learn from them. Till now, most humanitarin organisations concerned about global issues (such as the UN Global Compact) have only words to show, instead of any real achievements.
Though of course even mere words can have large effects - and I am sure that the combined effect of such words is somehow behind the combined donation of US$98 billion by Buffet and Gates to development-related causes.
We may all therefore be encouraged to go on with our words (the Clapham Circle did use a lot of words too, and Wilberforce wrote one book which was probably the key to transforming the whole moral and humanitarian climate of England then).
But let us also seek to supplement, as the Clapham Circle did with such astounding but little-appreciated sacrifice, our words with some real action. Sphere: Related Content
We haven't even learnt to manage the old sciences well
The latest reflection on our inability to manage the "old sciences and technologies" well is found at:
http://am.novopress.info/?p=1851
"Before pharma-giant Glaxosmithkline (GSK) was sued by the state of New York in June 2004, over two million children and adolescents in the United States were popping Paxil to treat their depression. Doctors comfortably prescribed the drug because published clinical trials – while showing mixed effects on children – did not reveal anything overwhelmingly negative. It was the best information they had, and it turned out to be completely misleading."
In fact, studies had already showed that taking Paxil might actually increase the risk of suicide, according to New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer.
The Novopress story features, among other such gems, an internal memo that instructed the company to manage the release of the data “to minimize any potential negative commercial impact”.
Apparently, pharma companies don't publish the results of all the tests they run. Nor are all the tests run in an objective way. And the pharma industry sponsors around seven out of every ten scientific studies quoted in the top four major medical journals – Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine.
Pharma in its modern form has certainly brought enormous benefit to humanity. If it were publicly financed, with IP being licenced by society to efficient producers in exchange for a reasonable profit, with proper monitoring of the results and consequent amendments to the system, pharma could benefit humanity many times more than it does.
In spite of being able to organise "old" pharma in the most efficient and least harmful way, we continue to rush headlong into the newest sciences and technologies even though that we will need to be even more careful if we want them to do good rather than harm. Sphere: Related Content
http://am.novopress.info/?p=1851
"Before pharma-giant Glaxosmithkline (GSK) was sued by the state of New York in June 2004, over two million children and adolescents in the United States were popping Paxil to treat their depression. Doctors comfortably prescribed the drug because published clinical trials – while showing mixed effects on children – did not reveal anything overwhelmingly negative. It was the best information they had, and it turned out to be completely misleading."
In fact, studies had already showed that taking Paxil might actually increase the risk of suicide, according to New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer.
The Novopress story features, among other such gems, an internal memo that instructed the company to manage the release of the data “to minimize any potential negative commercial impact”.
Apparently, pharma companies don't publish the results of all the tests they run. Nor are all the tests run in an objective way. And the pharma industry sponsors around seven out of every ten scientific studies quoted in the top four major medical journals – Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine.
Pharma in its modern form has certainly brought enormous benefit to humanity. If it were publicly financed, with IP being licenced by society to efficient producers in exchange for a reasonable profit, with proper monitoring of the results and consequent amendments to the system, pharma could benefit humanity many times more than it does.
In spite of being able to organise "old" pharma in the most efficient and least harmful way, we continue to rush headlong into the newest sciences and technologies even though that we will need to be even more careful if we want them to do good rather than harm. Sphere: Related Content
Monday, September 04, 2006
Scientific hypotheses versus scientific laws
I've always wondered why it is that a scattering or group of people confronted by the same set of facts will usually come up with such hugely different explanations regarding what the facts represent, whether the facts relate to politics, literature, history - or even the physical sciences.
What's caused the latest round of my "wondering" is a discovery in Indonesia over which paleoanthropologists are apparently squabbling "like fifth graders" (according to Time magazine). Or, in the words of Britain's newspaper, The Independent, these scientists are "at war".
The discovery is that of skeletons (though only one of them with a skull) of nine midget-sized humans who lived between 18,000 and 12,000 years ago.
What the paleoanthropologists are quarrelling over is whether this is one of the most significant paleoanthropological discoveries of the last half century (as it would be if the skeletons represent the discovery of a "new human species") or whether this is merely the discovery of a group of prehistoric humans that suffered from certain deformities.
The full story is at: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,434604,00.html
The Der Spiegel online story concludes: "How can it be that staid scientists working on the basis of the same measurements reach diametrically opposed conclusions? Who's right? There is a depressing sense in which the little man from Flores is revealing the truth about the paleoanthropologists: It seems as if his bones can provide evidence for whatever hypothesis promises research funds, fame -- or both." Sphere: Related Content
What's caused the latest round of my "wondering" is a discovery in Indonesia over which paleoanthropologists are apparently squabbling "like fifth graders" (according to Time magazine). Or, in the words of Britain's newspaper, The Independent, these scientists are "at war".
The discovery is that of skeletons (though only one of them with a skull) of nine midget-sized humans who lived between 18,000 and 12,000 years ago.
What the paleoanthropologists are quarrelling over is whether this is one of the most significant paleoanthropological discoveries of the last half century (as it would be if the skeletons represent the discovery of a "new human species") or whether this is merely the discovery of a group of prehistoric humans that suffered from certain deformities.
The full story is at: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,434604,00.html
The Der Spiegel online story concludes: "How can it be that staid scientists working on the basis of the same measurements reach diametrically opposed conclusions? Who's right? There is a depressing sense in which the little man from Flores is revealing the truth about the paleoanthropologists: It seems as if his bones can provide evidence for whatever hypothesis promises research funds, fame -- or both." Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, September 02, 2006
So Iran's defiance is final
Iran is not the first country to defy the United Nations. Nor will it be the last.
But each time the UN is defied, it provides the institution the opportunity to rise to the crisis and come out of it stronger or weaker.
As usual, the result will be momentous not just for the UN but for what kind of civilisation we want to build for the future.
If regimes bent on doing wrong will not be stopped by diplomacy, it will be interesting to see whether the UN will simply re-write the rules for the future of civilisation or will find sufficiently robust ways to stop such regimes. Sphere: Related Content
But each time the UN is defied, it provides the institution the opportunity to rise to the crisis and come out of it stronger or weaker.
As usual, the result will be momentous not just for the UN but for what kind of civilisation we want to build for the future.
If regimes bent on doing wrong will not be stopped by diplomacy, it will be interesting to see whether the UN will simply re-write the rules for the future of civilisation or will find sufficiently robust ways to stop such regimes. Sphere: Related Content
Finally, a balanced picture of nanotech risks
I have often mentioned the risks of nanotech and other such modern technologies. The truth is that I am also very excited by the latest developments in science and technology. I studied for my school and university exams by candlelight, so even electricity is a miracle so far as I am concerned. I taught myself to type at the age of 17 or so, because I was so fascinated by the technology, and have kept up with all the transitions from the ancient system of keystrokes to golf-ball typewriters and on to word-processors and the internet and blogging and now podcasting and the rest. I mention all this not to impress you with my knowledge but simply to communicate how fascinated I am by the latest developments in science and technology - though I remain self-taught in a disorganised fashion. However, I do lean against the contemporary view that everything that is possible must be good and we must simply push ahead with it regardless of social, political and economic consequences. As a result I worry that my Blog gives an unbalanced picture of where I stand.
Now, I am pleased to say that I have finally found an article that is accessible and free which gives (to my mind) a balanced picture of the pros and cons at least of nanotech. So I commend it to you:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/01/nanotech
I will be interested to have your views on it. Sphere: Related Content
Now, I am pleased to say that I have finally found an article that is accessible and free which gives (to my mind) a balanced picture of the pros and cons at least of nanotech. So I commend it to you:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/01/nanotech
I will be interested to have your views on it. Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Money now officially more important than human life according to US government?
The US Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, has made it clear that the US government now values money more than it values health safety.
He did this when he indicated that "an economic motive was behind the government’s delay of nearly three weeks before informing the public about the contamination, as the government anticipated foreign rice importers might reject the product". The "contamination" was of rice for human consumption with experimental genetically modified rice strain known as LL Rice 601, and Mr Johanns said the USDA spent the time preparing tests. This seems to reveal that, till this point, the US government had no system for such testing in place (though many US companies do test).
Till yesterday, 30 August, the US government had not even given the food safety authorities in the European Union details of "the extent of the contamination, origin or timeframe for when this happened". Legally, no biotech rice strains may be imported or sold in the European Union and, last week, the EU tightened requirements on U.S. long grain rice imports to prove the absence of the genetically modified strain.
Presumably, the EU has not had any information either regarding what, if anything, the US government can do about the situation, as that country does not even have any "cohesive government regulation" according to a just-released report issued by the Food and Drug Administration and written by a 20-member committee of farmers, academics, manufacturers and others.
The US government's report both points out and demonstrates that there is little consensus as to how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should regulate genetically engineered crops and animals. Currently, companies selling genetically enhanced crops submit safety data voluntarily to the FDA even though they are not required to do so. The US government claims that the majority do so.
Some committee members argued there should be a mandatory safety review for all such products, pointing out that nearly every other developed country has such a system in place. Naturally, other committee members disagreed – after all, some of them represent precisely the money-related interests referred to at the start of this article.
The committee's members "have different points of view regarding how strongly consumers feel about having information about whether their food is genetically engineered and whether the food should be labelled as such".
The report, titled "Opportunities and Challenges in Agricultural Biotechnology: the Decade Ahead", is available on the USDA website, at: http://www.usda.gov/documents/final_main_report-v6.doc,
There is no evidence on the basis of which it can be asserted that the individuals on the committee opposing such oversight are, or are not, representatives of commercial interests. However, the committee includes representatives of Cargill, Dow Agrisciences, DuPont, General Mills, Kraft Foods, Monsanto, Procter and Gamble, and Syngenta Corp.
You may be wondering why I am beating the drum regarding genetically modified food. After all, Secretary Johanns stated that based on "available scientific data.... there are no human-health, food-safety or environmental concerns associated with this G.E. rice."
However, scientific data sometimes misses the obvious. It is clear to anyone who has seen a random sample of US citizens that the obesity epidemic in the USA has perhaps something to do with overeating but is in very many cases totally unrelated to overeating. The "obesity" is a result of some sort of physical malfunction, and that this malfunction affects US citizens disproportionately in comparison to citizens of other developed nations.
According to the USDA, 70 percent of processed foods on grocery store shelves contain genetically engineered ingredients.
That may or may not have anything to do with the US version of "obesity". But does it not indicate that there is certainly something to investigate here?
If nothing else, the US needs to have some facts regarding what percentage of "obesity" is caused by simple over-eating and what percentage by other known or unknown factors.
Time for Secretary Johanns to stop making the usual reassuring noises and defending money interests, and instead to put a little money behind some targeted research into the relationship between the prevalence of GM products in the USA and accelerating health problems there. Sphere: Related Content
He did this when he indicated that "an economic motive was behind the government’s delay of nearly three weeks before informing the public about the contamination, as the government anticipated foreign rice importers might reject the product". The "contamination" was of rice for human consumption with experimental genetically modified rice strain known as LL Rice 601, and Mr Johanns said the USDA spent the time preparing tests. This seems to reveal that, till this point, the US government had no system for such testing in place (though many US companies do test).
Till yesterday, 30 August, the US government had not even given the food safety authorities in the European Union details of "the extent of the contamination, origin or timeframe for when this happened". Legally, no biotech rice strains may be imported or sold in the European Union and, last week, the EU tightened requirements on U.S. long grain rice imports to prove the absence of the genetically modified strain.
Presumably, the EU has not had any information either regarding what, if anything, the US government can do about the situation, as that country does not even have any "cohesive government regulation" according to a just-released report issued by the Food and Drug Administration and written by a 20-member committee of farmers, academics, manufacturers and others.
The US government's report both points out and demonstrates that there is little consensus as to how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should regulate genetically engineered crops and animals. Currently, companies selling genetically enhanced crops submit safety data voluntarily to the FDA even though they are not required to do so. The US government claims that the majority do so.
Some committee members argued there should be a mandatory safety review for all such products, pointing out that nearly every other developed country has such a system in place. Naturally, other committee members disagreed – after all, some of them represent precisely the money-related interests referred to at the start of this article.
The committee's members "have different points of view regarding how strongly consumers feel about having information about whether their food is genetically engineered and whether the food should be labelled as such".
The report, titled "Opportunities and Challenges in Agricultural Biotechnology: the Decade Ahead", is available on the USDA website, at: http://www.usda.gov/documents/final_main_report-v6.doc,
There is no evidence on the basis of which it can be asserted that the individuals on the committee opposing such oversight are, or are not, representatives of commercial interests. However, the committee includes representatives of Cargill, Dow Agrisciences, DuPont, General Mills, Kraft Foods, Monsanto, Procter and Gamble, and Syngenta Corp.
You may be wondering why I am beating the drum regarding genetically modified food. After all, Secretary Johanns stated that based on "available scientific data.... there are no human-health, food-safety or environmental concerns associated with this G.E. rice."
However, scientific data sometimes misses the obvious. It is clear to anyone who has seen a random sample of US citizens that the obesity epidemic in the USA has perhaps something to do with overeating but is in very many cases totally unrelated to overeating. The "obesity" is a result of some sort of physical malfunction, and that this malfunction affects US citizens disproportionately in comparison to citizens of other developed nations.
According to the USDA, 70 percent of processed foods on grocery store shelves contain genetically engineered ingredients.
That may or may not have anything to do with the US version of "obesity". But does it not indicate that there is certainly something to investigate here?
If nothing else, the US needs to have some facts regarding what percentage of "obesity" is caused by simple over-eating and what percentage by other known or unknown factors.
Time for Secretary Johanns to stop making the usual reassuring noises and defending money interests, and instead to put a little money behind some targeted research into the relationship between the prevalence of GM products in the USA and accelerating health problems there. Sphere: Related Content
Should farmers have filed a courst case (suit) against Bayer CropScience?
I am interested to see the story titled, "Farmers file suit over biotech rice contamination", which is at:
http://www.brownfieldnetwork.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=5B707E55-0E54-6499-80DCD8CED5CD2871
This naturally raises the question of whether the farmers are right to file a suit against the company.
In my view, till evidence surfaces that Bayer CropScience was in breach of any rules or regulations, the company has no case to answer.
The body that the farmers should be suing is the US government, and the US Department of Agriculture, for creating a framework in which a reasonably responsible company such as Bayer CropScience could have found itself in such a situation.
The problem is not the company, it is the government which allows such testing without adequate safeguards.
There is of course a deeper question regarding the way in which such regulations are set up, and the role of lobbying by commercial companies in the creation of looser regulations than is proper.
But that is a wider and deeper question that could be opened by a suit against the US Government - but will not be opened up by a suit against the company. Sphere: Related Content
http://www.brownfieldnetwork.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=5B707E55-0E54-6499-80DCD8CED5CD2871
This naturally raises the question of whether the farmers are right to file a suit against the company.
In my view, till evidence surfaces that Bayer CropScience was in breach of any rules or regulations, the company has no case to answer.
The body that the farmers should be suing is the US government, and the US Department of Agriculture, for creating a framework in which a reasonably responsible company such as Bayer CropScience could have found itself in such a situation.
The problem is not the company, it is the government which allows such testing without adequate safeguards.
There is of course a deeper question regarding the way in which such regulations are set up, and the role of lobbying by commercial companies in the creation of looser regulations than is proper.
But that is a wider and deeper question that could be opened by a suit against the US Government - but will not be opened up by a suit against the company. Sphere: Related Content
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Iran Nuclear Intentions Revealed
In an article under the above title published today, Sunday, 27 August 2006, Stewart Stogel argues that Iran's nuclear intentions are military, not civil - on the basis that Iran has only two nuclear power plants close to operation, both of them Russian-built reactors in Bushehr on the Persian Gulf coast. The two are light, not heavy, water reactors, and they produce far less bomb-grade nuclear waste. Now Iran is opening a heavy water plant, so...
However, the above argument is highly simplistic.
As anyone who is acquainted with India's experience of the nuclear sector will affirm, these are at best relative matters of quantity.
The science, technology and facilities involved in "peaceful, civilian" nuclear programmes and "military" nuclear programmes are exactly the same.
The peacefulness or maliciousness lies in the intent. That is not judged best by declarations (India too was making similar declarations!) but by actions. If any country opens its facilities to international inspection, its intentions can be confirmed.
Without international inspection, the intentions can only be guessed to be at least partly malicious.
Stewart Stogel's story is at:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/8/26/160930.shtml?s=lh Sphere: Related Content
However, the above argument is highly simplistic.
As anyone who is acquainted with India's experience of the nuclear sector will affirm, these are at best relative matters of quantity.
The science, technology and facilities involved in "peaceful, civilian" nuclear programmes and "military" nuclear programmes are exactly the same.
The peacefulness or maliciousness lies in the intent. That is not judged best by declarations (India too was making similar declarations!) but by actions. If any country opens its facilities to international inspection, its intentions can be confirmed.
Without international inspection, the intentions can only be guessed to be at least partly malicious.
Stewart Stogel's story is at:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/8/26/160930.shtml?s=lh Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Why India, Inc. needs to stop bleating and to get on with real action
According to Boston Consulting Group's recently-released study, "The New Global Challengers" which looked at 3000 companies from "rapidly developing economies" and selected the top 100 for detailed study, China has 44 companies in this list, while India has only 21.
We might also want to keep in mind that China's income per capita (at just over US$1300) is more than twice that of India (just over US$600).
What is the main reason for this difference in performance? Everyone knows and everyone agrees that it India's lack of investment in social and infrastructual development. Whose fault is that? Clearly, the fault of the Indian elite. We have been far busier indulging ourselves than thinking through and doing what needs to be done.
Our political class has begun to wake up. But when it urges simple and clear steps like a quota system to help the "Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes" (SCs and STs) who we have oppressed for thousands of years by means of our religious caste system, what is the response of our business class? Corporate India simply increases the volume of its bleating.
Mr R Seshasayee, president of the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), speaking on 29 July 2006 at the launch of the CII report ,"Affirmative action for social equity in the work place", could only offer excuses such as that the private sector "could not build an egalitarian society on its own" and that the private sector "could at best be part of the solution". Mr Seshayee is a business luminary who I respect greatly because he is one of the few, apart from the Birlas, who has actually recognised the problem and done something about it. Mr J J Irani is another. However, all of them seem to have become victims of group think.
The affirmative actions proposed under the report, said Mr Irani, "will be done without compromising on competitiveness, in a perfectly voluntary manner". There are two phrases here, and both of them strike a false note. First, no one has asked India, Inc. to compromise competitiveness. In fact, affirmative action is entirely about IMPROVING India's competitiveness by increasing the supply of educated and trained people - a shortage of which is increasingly holding back the country as well as industry. Second, there is nothing voluntary about this report - it has come as a result of the extreme pressure that has been applied by the political class on CII and Assocham. If CII and Assocham wanted to do something about the problem voluntarily, what stopped them recognising it and acting on it for the last fifty or hundred years?
In any case, what is apparent is that the private sector is reluctantly prepared to do only the minimum necessary to help India's (and the private sector's own) continuing growth.
So what is the private sector offering to do? Well, for a start, CII and its sister body, Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry (Assocham), "will soon formulate a code of conduct for their members to facilitate them take concrete steps". So CII and Assocham think that codes facilitate action?! No wonder India lags China. We still put real action way down the line behind nice-sounding talk.
Even after the codes are formulated, they will not immediately become binding but will "progressively be adopted by their respective members from October, 2006"!
And even after they have begun to be adopted, actions will be initiated only "from 2007".
So what are the mighty actions that the combined power of CII and Assocham will accomplish? Well, they will establish coaching centres in 10 universities for 10,000 students. What will be the budget for setting up these coaching centres? What will these centres coach people to do? How long will be the courses in these centres? How will the effectiveness of the coaching be judged? We haven't been told....
Further, CII and Assocham will attempt to help 100 people from the untouchable and other oppressed classed to start(presumably small) businesses. Did you get that number? Not a million, not a hundred thousand, not ten thousand, not a thousand, but one hundred! Come on CII! Come on Assocham! Are we supposed to take this seriously?
Oh, I forgot about the FIVE scholarships for study abroad and the FIFTY scholarships in the national institutes!
But I am being uncharitable. CII and Assocham have also promised to "work towards greater representation of SCs and STs in their workforce". Do these august bodies not know, or are they simply refusing to recognise, the difference between input and output? Input is the work that might or might not be done. Output is what will be accomplished. What matters is not what work they do "towards greater representation". What matters is whether representation will actually be increased. How will we know whether representation will actually have increased if we don't know what the representation IS at present? So the first step that anyone serious about such matters would have taken would have been to commission a study of how much representation there is at present. Then in a year, or in subsequent years, we would know how much progress has, or has not, been made.
One last matter: by what refined and exalted process of strategic analysis did India's business elite hit upon these as the most important steps for addressing one of our key constraints to growth? Sphere: Related Content
We might also want to keep in mind that China's income per capita (at just over US$1300) is more than twice that of India (just over US$600).
What is the main reason for this difference in performance? Everyone knows and everyone agrees that it India's lack of investment in social and infrastructual development. Whose fault is that? Clearly, the fault of the Indian elite. We have been far busier indulging ourselves than thinking through and doing what needs to be done.
Our political class has begun to wake up. But when it urges simple and clear steps like a quota system to help the "Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes" (SCs and STs) who we have oppressed for thousands of years by means of our religious caste system, what is the response of our business class? Corporate India simply increases the volume of its bleating.
Mr R Seshasayee, president of the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), speaking on 29 July 2006 at the launch of the CII report ,"Affirmative action for social equity in the work place", could only offer excuses such as that the private sector "could not build an egalitarian society on its own" and that the private sector "could at best be part of the solution". Mr Seshayee is a business luminary who I respect greatly because he is one of the few, apart from the Birlas, who has actually recognised the problem and done something about it. Mr J J Irani is another. However, all of them seem to have become victims of group think.
The affirmative actions proposed under the report, said Mr Irani, "will be done without compromising on competitiveness, in a perfectly voluntary manner". There are two phrases here, and both of them strike a false note. First, no one has asked India, Inc. to compromise competitiveness. In fact, affirmative action is entirely about IMPROVING India's competitiveness by increasing the supply of educated and trained people - a shortage of which is increasingly holding back the country as well as industry. Second, there is nothing voluntary about this report - it has come as a result of the extreme pressure that has been applied by the political class on CII and Assocham. If CII and Assocham wanted to do something about the problem voluntarily, what stopped them recognising it and acting on it for the last fifty or hundred years?
In any case, what is apparent is that the private sector is reluctantly prepared to do only the minimum necessary to help India's (and the private sector's own) continuing growth.
So what is the private sector offering to do? Well, for a start, CII and its sister body, Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry (Assocham), "will soon formulate a code of conduct for their members to facilitate them take concrete steps". So CII and Assocham think that codes facilitate action?! No wonder India lags China. We still put real action way down the line behind nice-sounding talk.
Even after the codes are formulated, they will not immediately become binding but will "progressively be adopted by their respective members from October, 2006"!
And even after they have begun to be adopted, actions will be initiated only "from 2007".
So what are the mighty actions that the combined power of CII and Assocham will accomplish? Well, they will establish coaching centres in 10 universities for 10,000 students. What will be the budget for setting up these coaching centres? What will these centres coach people to do? How long will be the courses in these centres? How will the effectiveness of the coaching be judged? We haven't been told....
Further, CII and Assocham will attempt to help 100 people from the untouchable and other oppressed classed to start(presumably small) businesses. Did you get that number? Not a million, not a hundred thousand, not ten thousand, not a thousand, but one hundred! Come on CII! Come on Assocham! Are we supposed to take this seriously?
Oh, I forgot about the FIVE scholarships for study abroad and the FIFTY scholarships in the national institutes!
But I am being uncharitable. CII and Assocham have also promised to "work towards greater representation of SCs and STs in their workforce". Do these august bodies not know, or are they simply refusing to recognise, the difference between input and output? Input is the work that might or might not be done. Output is what will be accomplished. What matters is not what work they do "towards greater representation". What matters is whether representation will actually be increased. How will we know whether representation will actually have increased if we don't know what the representation IS at present? So the first step that anyone serious about such matters would have taken would have been to commission a study of how much representation there is at present. Then in a year, or in subsequent years, we would know how much progress has, or has not, been made.
One last matter: by what refined and exalted process of strategic analysis did India's business elite hit upon these as the most important steps for addressing one of our key constraints to growth? Sphere: Related Content
America's GM rice (Continued)
I forgot to say, in my last post on the matter that Bayer had abandoned the weedkiller-resistant strain in 2001 after field experiments between 1998 and 2001 had shown the strain to be less effective than others.
Worryingly, it is not at all clear how that GM rice, which is not okayed for human consumption in either the US or the EU, entered commercial stocks for human consumption.
So it is equally unclear whether other GM rice has, or can, enter stocks for human consumption.
Till there is sufficient light on this mess, my conclusion is to steer clear of rice from the USA. Sphere: Related Content
Worryingly, it is not at all clear how that GM rice, which is not okayed for human consumption in either the US or the EU, entered commercial stocks for human consumption.
So it is equally unclear whether other GM rice has, or can, enter stocks for human consumption.
Till there is sufficient light on this mess, my conclusion is to steer clear of rice from the USA. Sphere: Related Content
More trade for India's north-east?
Because of entirely understandable concerns regarding security, India's north-east has not been opened to trade with China.
However, if India really believes its own rhetoric about improved relations with China, then those security concerns should be a thing of the past, and the area should be opened to trade with China.
Since that is not the case, it is clear that the Indian government rhetoric about improved relations with China extends in reality only to very specific contexts that do not, at present, include India's northeast region.
However, there are no such concerns about India's relations with Thailand, so Thailand's move to develop trade relations with this part of India should be warmly welcomed.
My only reservation is that the present Thai initiative is confined to the State of Assam, whereas there are at least as lucrative trade and tourism possibilities in relation to Nagaland, Mizoram and Meghalaya.
As soon as Burma's repressive elite (which calls the country "Myanmar") re-enters the civilised world, there is even more scope for all these states to do business with that country.
The story regarding the Thai initiative is at:
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/india/article_1194775.php/Thailand_keen_to_do_business_in_Indias_northeast Sphere: Related Content
However, if India really believes its own rhetoric about improved relations with China, then those security concerns should be a thing of the past, and the area should be opened to trade with China.
Since that is not the case, it is clear that the Indian government rhetoric about improved relations with China extends in reality only to very specific contexts that do not, at present, include India's northeast region.
However, there are no such concerns about India's relations with Thailand, so Thailand's move to develop trade relations with this part of India should be warmly welcomed.
My only reservation is that the present Thai initiative is confined to the State of Assam, whereas there are at least as lucrative trade and tourism possibilities in relation to Nagaland, Mizoram and Meghalaya.
As soon as Burma's repressive elite (which calls the country "Myanmar") re-enters the civilised world, there is even more scope for all these states to do business with that country.
The story regarding the Thai initiative is at:
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/india/article_1194775.php/Thailand_keen_to_do_business_in_Indias_northeast Sphere: Related Content
Friday, August 25, 2006
Top British Scholars of Islam
There are many lists of top scholars of Islam around, but I have not found one for British scholars of Islam. So here is my list of those that I have found most helpful:
1. Akbar Ahmed
2. Haroon Ahmed
3. Hani Al-Siba'i
4. Ruqaiyyah Waris Masood
5. Thomas McElwain
6. Tariq Modood
7. Abdal-Hakim Murad
8. Farhan Nizami
9. Ziauddin Sardar
10. Patrick Sookhdeo Sphere: Related Content
1. Akbar Ahmed
2. Haroon Ahmed
3. Hani Al-Siba'i
4. Ruqaiyyah Waris Masood
5. Thomas McElwain
6. Tariq Modood
7. Abdal-Hakim Murad
8. Farhan Nizami
9. Ziauddin Sardar
10. Patrick Sookhdeo Sphere: Related Content
Why is Iran imposing a total information blackout on its people?
Simple, because the Iranian government has something to fear: the power of truth.
Unless a government has plenty to hide, there is no need for it to go around smashing satellite dishes that its ordinary citizens use to listen to broadcasts from abroad.
If it allowed its own media to operate uncensored, Iranians would not *need* to listen to foreign broadcasters.
See the story at: http://vitalperspective.typepad.com/vital_perspective_clarity/2006/08/total_informati.html Sphere: Related Content
Unless a government has plenty to hide, there is no need for it to go around smashing satellite dishes that its ordinary citizens use to listen to broadcasts from abroad.
If it allowed its own media to operate uncensored, Iranians would not *need* to listen to foreign broadcasters.
See the story at: http://vitalperspective.typepad.com/vital_perspective_clarity/2006/08/total_informati.html Sphere: Related Content
Calling Wafa Sultan the Arab equivalent of Martin Luther King may be excessive
Though it is pretty close to the truth.
Wafa Sultan certainly has MLK's verbal power and passion.
The question is whether the Arab masses are ready to rise as the black population of the USA was ready to rise when MLK called.
See http://eclairci.typepad.com/civilisation_vs_the_middl/ Sphere: Related Content
Wafa Sultan certainly has MLK's verbal power and passion.
The question is whether the Arab masses are ready to rise as the black population of the USA was ready to rise when MLK called.
See http://eclairci.typepad.com/civilisation_vs_the_middl/ Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Why do authorities in supposedly free countries suppress facts?
Before I say anything else, I think I need to reassert two things:
1. Governments are good things, and democratic governments are in the long run the best because they are (or can be) held accountable by their citizens
2. Science and technology are good things and ought to be supported and nurtured, provide they are being led by people with a lively conscience and desire to do good to humanity rather than simply make money or gain greater power to impose their will.
As you and I know, both the assertions above and being challenged by developments in our modern world.
The latest instance has just happened. We are all aware that the safety of GM products is currently not established - and, moreover, that no government or company is investing what needs to be invested in establishing this.
Well, as long ago as January, some GM rice that should never have been approved for commercial planting, was detected to have contaminated normal rice that is for human consumption.
For whatever reason, the company that detected the problem either did not even try, or tried unsuccessfully to alert others to the problem. Bayer became officially aware of the problem only in May but did not notify the US government till the very last day of July. And then it took the US Dept of Agriculture 18 days to inform the public.
This is not the first time that scientific, technological, business and governmental organisations have suppressed the truth- let us recollect Space Shuttle Challenger which blew up before our eyes (and Space Shuttle Columbia which disintegrated before our eyes), and range across DDT and tobacco and breast implants...
So why do companies and governments refuse to recognise the truth about problems in the area of science and technology? Because and because companies are locked into the business of beating other companies to the market and of course in the market - and because governments are locked into the old and out of date business of helping "their" companies succeed against the companies of other countries.
But the brute fact is that the world has moved on. Companies belong less and less to any one country (in terms of shareholders, employees, suppliers or customers), so the world community should simply ban governments from supporting companies based in their countries, whether in terms of research or in terms of tax-breaks or anything else. All countries should be required to undertake a transparent process of tender that is equally open to companies wherever they may be based. The US has gone futhest in this direction but it clearly cannot continue in this direction if the rest of the world does not move too.
However, that is not the reason that companies and government are so reluctant to face the truth about the inadequacies of scientific and technological safety. It is because the entire system for doing so is deficient across the world and needs urgently to be examined on a worldwide basis.
You may also want to see my earlier posts on these subjects, specifically "Did they jump or were they pushed?"
BTW the story regarding the GM rice is "Biotech Firm, Govt. Hid Rice Contamination from Public", and can be viewed at: http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3575 Sphere: Related Content
1. Governments are good things, and democratic governments are in the long run the best because they are (or can be) held accountable by their citizens
2. Science and technology are good things and ought to be supported and nurtured, provide they are being led by people with a lively conscience and desire to do good to humanity rather than simply make money or gain greater power to impose their will.
As you and I know, both the assertions above and being challenged by developments in our modern world.
The latest instance has just happened. We are all aware that the safety of GM products is currently not established - and, moreover, that no government or company is investing what needs to be invested in establishing this.
Well, as long ago as January, some GM rice that should never have been approved for commercial planting, was detected to have contaminated normal rice that is for human consumption.
For whatever reason, the company that detected the problem either did not even try, or tried unsuccessfully to alert others to the problem. Bayer became officially aware of the problem only in May but did not notify the US government till the very last day of July. And then it took the US Dept of Agriculture 18 days to inform the public.
This is not the first time that scientific, technological, business and governmental organisations have suppressed the truth- let us recollect Space Shuttle Challenger which blew up before our eyes (and Space Shuttle Columbia which disintegrated before our eyes), and range across DDT and tobacco and breast implants...
So why do companies and governments refuse to recognise the truth about problems in the area of science and technology? Because and because companies are locked into the business of beating other companies to the market and of course in the market - and because governments are locked into the old and out of date business of helping "their" companies succeed against the companies of other countries.
But the brute fact is that the world has moved on. Companies belong less and less to any one country (in terms of shareholders, employees, suppliers or customers), so the world community should simply ban governments from supporting companies based in their countries, whether in terms of research or in terms of tax-breaks or anything else. All countries should be required to undertake a transparent process of tender that is equally open to companies wherever they may be based. The US has gone futhest in this direction but it clearly cannot continue in this direction if the rest of the world does not move too.
However, that is not the reason that companies and government are so reluctant to face the truth about the inadequacies of scientific and technological safety. It is because the entire system for doing so is deficient across the world and needs urgently to be examined on a worldwide basis.
You may also want to see my earlier posts on these subjects, specifically "Did they jump or were they pushed?"
BTW the story regarding the GM rice is "Biotech Firm, Govt. Hid Rice Contamination from Public", and can be viewed at: http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3575 Sphere: Related Content
Monday, August 21, 2006
Fighting bureaucracy: India vs. Switzerland (Continued)
My Swiss friend tells me that she has been informed that a "letter of recourse" will take 4 to 6 weeks to get a response. A "letter of recourse", readers of previous posts will recollect, is the procedure in Switzerland for redress from inaccurate, inadequate or inappropriate actions by a bureaucrat or by the bureaucracy in general.
By contrast, I read that the Bombay bureaucracy is now responding within 5 days.
See Jamal Mecklai's article posted yesterday, "A beacon for a new India", on his experience with India's Right to Information Act, which is the way one can now fight bureaucracy in India.
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1048585
Five days! Not bad for anywhere in the world! Sphere: Related Content
By contrast, I read that the Bombay bureaucracy is now responding within 5 days.
See Jamal Mecklai's article posted yesterday, "A beacon for a new India", on his experience with India's Right to Information Act, which is the way one can now fight bureaucracy in India.
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1048585
Five days! Not bad for anywhere in the world! Sphere: Related Content
Should all Indians back the Indo-US nuclear deal?
For the clearest statement in favour of the Indo-US nuclear deal, see
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060820/main3.htm
This argues that, due to changed world conditions, India is breaking out of the "nuclear apartheid" imposed on it by the West and that every Indian should welcome this.
From India's point of view, this is undoubtedly right. But anyone who argues only from the viewpoint of what is good for India is looking at reality with one eye closed. Every Indian has to also open the closed eye and look also at what is good for the world.
If India's admission to the "nuclear club" because of the Indo-US nuclear deal results in the virtual elimination of the NPT (as it will), that will make it much more difficult to tame rogue regimes who want to gain nuclear missiles and bombs, such as Iran and Korea (and in future other countries, some of whom are already signalling their desire and indeed their "right" to do so).
I am not arguing that Indians (or anyone else) should oppose the Indo-US nuclear deal. I am arguing that all of us, round the world, need to give thought to what replaces NPT.
My view on this has already been made clear in my post of 24 June, titled: "Capital punishment versus mass murder in the case of rogue states and rogue groups" Sphere: Related Content
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060820/main3.htm
This argues that, due to changed world conditions, India is breaking out of the "nuclear apartheid" imposed on it by the West and that every Indian should welcome this.
From India's point of view, this is undoubtedly right. But anyone who argues only from the viewpoint of what is good for India is looking at reality with one eye closed. Every Indian has to also open the closed eye and look also at what is good for the world.
If India's admission to the "nuclear club" because of the Indo-US nuclear deal results in the virtual elimination of the NPT (as it will), that will make it much more difficult to tame rogue regimes who want to gain nuclear missiles and bombs, such as Iran and Korea (and in future other countries, some of whom are already signalling their desire and indeed their "right" to do so).
I am not arguing that Indians (or anyone else) should oppose the Indo-US nuclear deal. I am arguing that all of us, round the world, need to give thought to what replaces NPT.
My view on this has already been made clear in my post of 24 June, titled: "Capital punishment versus mass murder in the case of rogue states and rogue groups" Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)