Wars of Mass Destruction

People killed:

US war on Iraq: 85,966 – 93,778 (and counting)

US war on Afghanistan: 50,000+ (no clear number though)

WTC Attack: 2974 + 19 hijackers

Terrorism in India: 70000 (in 2001, and still counting)

-------------------------------------

Vietnam war: 1,100,000

World War I: 40,000,000

World War II: 70,000,000

Mao’s land policies: 800,000


Numbers that make you ponder a lot. A hopefully the world leaders too.

Right for good governance

A day after I wrote on the SP’s ulterior objective, I was pleasantly surprised to see an article (Let us not lose sight of good governance ) that raised this issue in the newsprint. Surprising because it’s rare to see such open opinions in my usual read The ToI. But this was from The Hindu, who I feel are usually more outspoken about their political opinions (though sometimes criticised as one-sided).

Here the writer (Harish Khare) has been able to put a better perspective to the issue of the murky Ambanis’ feud getting into Governmental issues. The article gives more data and history to the story. But at one place the article fails. Towards the end of his argument Khare goes on to state “If the ruling alliance’s new ally wants to use its status to correct a perceived tilt, we would all be better off. Even in this age of market reforms, the corporate houses are totally beyond the government’s reach; nor are they above wanting to suborn the law and the loyalties; therefore, if the new political alignments in New Delhi are used to bring about a healthy balance, so be it. Irrespective of the dramatis personae, it would provide the much-needed corrective to our public discourse if we are able to debate on the economics and ethics of allowing windfall profits in a country of vast poverty.”

Well, after all this argument he simply states that “two wrongs make a right” or rather “it is the end and not the means”. I do not subscribe to that policy. If we are letting the Government run according to the individual agendas of its coalition parties who walk in and out like people in a mall, then where is the reason for a political manifesto. In the future elections let’s not invest in anyway-a-farce-statement called Manifesto or now the Common Minimum Programme. Next time on we are into a two party system like the US, albeit with a difference. The political parties will state whether their mandate is to protect Anil or Mukesh. The rest will fall in line. Given that the Ambanis’ are increasingly getting into the nerve of every Indian, this policy should suffice. So if your worry today is that the communication industry is not functioning properly, then vote for the Anil party. The ensuing Government will roll out subsidies for upgrading the CDMA services, slap hefty licenses on GSM providers and bingo.

We have a right to demand ideal political conditions. Mr. Khare, I agree that sometimes these cannot be helped. But as a think tank on a leading newsreel, your duty bound to suggest, to fight for the better and not succumb to the present.

Last head: PM, govt top guns may broker Ambani peace deal. That's nice job for a change.

SP's ulterior objective

Not even a day into supporting the Government, the SP has already shown its ugly head of self fulfilling reasons why it decided to back the Government. Amar Singh is demanding why Petroleum Minister Deora "continues to favour only one well-known private operator". Well it is an open secret that he is talking of none but Mukesh Ambani controlled RIL and nobody needs extra thoughts to infer that he is talking at the behest of his close buddy and fund provider, Anil Ambani. Look at his other concern –GSM operators should be charged higher fee to get 3G licences (again a favour for Anil Ambani who controls CDMA based RCom). Agreed these may be genuine concerns that the Government should look into. But at the time of rising inflation, impeding food crisis, growing internal insurgency and a fractured foreign policy, Amar Singh believes that the first thing he has to review when in Government is to abet his friend Anil Ambani in his personal rivalries.

We have seen Railway Ministers use their position to push more railway lines/development in their constituencies or State. We have also seen kith and kin of Defence Ministers winning defence contracts. But it is appalling to see an inconsequential personal rivalry between two corporate conglomerates to be brought into the day to day affairs of the Central Government. Gone are those days when being in power meant some extra benefits. Today that is the ulterior objective. I just pray that nobody in SP take any ministerial position. You never know where the sights of the leeches are.

And how does Amar Singh quote his words - "If I take the Prime Minister's suggestion on nuclear deal seriously, I hope Prime Minister will take cognizance of what I raised." Last heard, the officials of the Finance, Petroleum and PMO were busy explaining Amar Singh on issues raised by him.

---Vj

ET: SP targets pvt oil firms; wants PM to take cognizance

What a way to run the world

Now its on front page. The foreign policy that India had in the past decade has only been how to get a seat in the security council. Representing more than 1/6 of humanity, largest democracy and oldest civilization, it was odd to see India being left out of the big bodies that "manage" the world order. But now along with the old titles it also has the most important title of economic superpower (albeit growing). Good press like this lead article on economist supporting the inclusion of emerging giants like India and Brazil in world organisations and will bring in more credibility (also buy in) to these organisations' claim that they maintain world peace. India has grown beyond the bickering of Pakistan, but it has got a new obstacle in form of China that will be uncomfortable having a superpower in its neighbourhood. The elections in India and US will stall any progress in this area for another year but then China does not have such hinderances.

----Vj
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Global institutions are an outdated muddle; the rise of Asia makes their reform a priority for the West

CLUBS are all too often full of people prattling on about things they no longer know about. On July 7th the leaders of the group that allegedly runs the world—the G7 democracies plus Russia—gather in Japan to review the world economy. But what is the point of their discussing the oil price without Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest producer? Or waffling about the dollar without China, which holds so many American Treasury bills? Or slapping sanctions on Robert Mugabe, with no African present? Or talking about global warming, AIDS or inflation without anybody from the emerging world? Cigar smoke and ignorance are in the air.

The G8 is not the only global club that looks old and impotent (see article). The UN Security Council has told Iran to stop enriching uranium, without much effect. The nuclear non-proliferation regime is in tatters. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the fireman in previous financial crises, has been a bystander during the credit crunch. The World Trade Organisation’s Doha round is stuck. Of course, some bodies, such as the venerable Bank for International Settlements (see article), still do a fine job. But as global problems proliferate and information whips round the world ever faster, the organisational response looks ever shabbier, slower and feebler. The world’s governing bodies need to change.

Time for a cull?

There has always been an excuse for putting off reform. For a long time it was the cold war; more recently, “the unipolar moment” convinced neoconservatives that America could run things alone. But now calls for change are coming thick and fast. Britain’s prime minister, Gordon Brown, and America’s treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, want to redesign global financial regulation. Others are looking at starting afresh: John McCain is promoting a League of Democracies, while Asian countries are setting up clubs of their own—there is even talk of an Asian Union to match the European one. And many critics, especially in America, want a cull. Surely economic progress in the emerging world argues for getting rid of the World Bank? Is a divided Security Council really any use?

The critics are right to argue that global organisations should be more focused than they are, but wrong to assume they can be dispensed with altogether. Get rid of the Security Council or the World Bank and the clamour to invent something similar would begin: you need somebody to boss around 100,000 peacekeepers and to lend to countries that find it hard to access capital markets. International talking-shops and standard-setters are here to stay; instead of trying to bin them, focus on making them work well.

That means recognising how economics has changed the world order. Emerging economies now account for more than half of global growth. The most powerful among them need to be given a bigger say in international institutions—unless of course you think India will always be happy outside the Security Council and China content to have a smaller voting share than the Benelux countries do at the IMF.

Any solution must accept three constraints. First, better institutions will not solve intractable problems. A larger G8 will not automatically lick inflation, a better World Food Programme would not stop hunger. Second, no matter how you reform the clubs’ membership rules, somebody somewhere will feel left out. Third, you cannot start again. In 1945 the UN’s founders had a clean slate to write upon, because everything had been destroyed. The modern age does not have that dubious luxury, so must build on what already exists.

Take for instance the G8. Some dream of reducing it to just the economic superpowers: the United States, the EU, China and Japan. An appealing idea, but Silvio Berlusconi and Vladimir Putin are unlikely to give up their seats at the top table. Better to enlarge the current body to include the world’s biggest dozen economies. A G12 would bring India, Brazil, China and Spain into the club, while allowing Canada (just) to stay in.

The politics of the Security Council are even more outdated. Nobody now would give France or Britain a permanent veto, but neither wants to give up that right. Meanwhile, the four obvious candidates are held back by regional jealousies: India by Pakistan; Brazil by Argentina; Germany by Italy; and Japan by China. The most sensible plan gives these four permanent but non-veto-wielding seats, with two other seats provided for Islamic countries and one for an African nation.

America has yet to get behind these proposals, but a sharpened Security Council could mitigate the emerging world’s objections to UN reform. With a more representative high command, more jobs could be allocated on merit, the globocracy slimmed and bolder steps considered: for instance, the case for a small standing army, or earmarked forces, to nip Darfur-style catastrophes in the bud, would be easier to make.

The Bretton Woods duo are easier to change: all that is needed is Western will. Their problem is finding a useful purpose. The World Bank is still needed as a donor to the really poor and as a supporter of global public goods, such as climate-change projects. There is less obvious need for the IMF, which was originally set up to monitor exchange rates. It could become a committee of oversight, but the main financial regulation will stay at the national level.

League of Good Hope

Supporters of Mr McCain’s League of Democracies suggest it could be like NATO—a useful democratic subcommittee in the global club. But Mr McCain needs to define his democracies. (Will Malaysia count? How about Russia or Iran?) And, crucially, any league must not be seen as an alternative to reforming the UN. The whole point of global talking-shops is that they include everybody, not just your friends.

Faced with the need to reform international institutions, the rich world—and America in particular—has a choice. Cling to power, and China and India will form their own clubs, focused on their own interests and problems. Cede power and bind them in, and interests and problems are shared. Now that would be a decent way to run a world.

Too much hot air in nuke deal

This editorial from today's ET brings a fresh look at the nuclear deal. Though I do not agree with the author's view that the feeling in the market is that nuclear deal will reduce oil bill, I surely do agree with the author's opinion on how the nuclear power might also become costly affair like oil given limited uranium resources. But what the author misses is the bigger psychological benefit of this deal. It is step forward for India to be recognised among elite economic groups and gradually giving it more clout in world economy. Moreover, the deal, in no way is committing India to build uneconomical nuclear plants but it will keep the doors open for it to adapt new innovations in nuclear field as and when they appear in the future.

--Vj
-------------------------------------------------------

The partisan rancour over the Indo-US nuclear deal has helped obscure facts, allowing shibboleths and fantasies to substitute for an informed debate on a critical issue. Several myths continue to be repeated untiringly. The biggest of them draws a meretricious link between nuclear energy and soaring oil prices to justify the proposed import of high-priced, foreign fuel-dependent power reactors from overseas.

What does nuclear power have to do with the price or import requirements of any transportation fuel? Thanks to the oil price shocks in the 1970s and 1980s and the advent of new energy technologies, the share of global electricity produced from oil has shrunk from 25% in 1973 to barely 4%. The remaining oil-fired power plants - of which India has only a handful - will be phased out, or refitted to run on gas. Oil now is primarily used for transportation, while the reactor-import option is about electricity generation.

The link between nuclear power and oil is specious. In the years ahead, the world could move toward electric vehicles and even use grid power to make hydrogen for the fuel-cell vehicles of the future. In another futuristic scenario, nuclear energy may indirectly serve as a substitute to some oil use in the commercial and industrial sectors. But today, greater nuclear-generated electricity is not going to really reduce any country’s oil needs, certainly not India’s. In fact, with little overlap in the oil and nuclear global-market structures, nuclear power now competes principally against coal, natural gas and renewables.

If global oil demand is threatening to outstrip supply, so is the case with uranium. Current concerns associated with oil’s price volatility, supply security and geopolitical risks are no different than uranium’s. And if global oil reserves are finite, so are uranium resources, with proven uranium reserves likely to last barely 85 years, according to the Red Book published jointly by the OECD and IAEA.

In fact, in the past five years, the international spot price of uranium has risen faster than that of crude oil, with uranium today trading six times above its $10 a pound historical average. Oil and uranium prices are likely to stay volatile, but the long-term trend for both is surely up.

Just as cheap oil now seems fanciful, cheap nuclear power for long has been a mirage. More than half a century after the then US Atomic Energy Agency chairman Lewis Strauss claimed nuclear energy would become “too cheap to meter”, the nuclear power industry everywhere subsists on generous state subsidies, not reflected in the published costs of generation.

The current electricity-market liberalisation trends spell trouble for the global nuclear-power industry as they threaten the state support on which it survives. As a 2005 IAEA study by Ferenc Toth and Hans-Holger Rogner warns, “nuclear power’s market share might indeed follow a downward trajectory” if state subsidies abate and more cost-effective reactors are not designed.

Other international studies have shown that nuclear power, although a long-matured technology, has demonstrated the slowest rate of learning in comparison to other energy technologies, including newer sources like wind and combined-cycle gas turbines. Instead of the price declining with nuclear power’s maturation, the opposite has happened.

Power reactors also remain very capital-intensive, with high up-front capital costs, long lead times for construction and commissioning, and drawn-out amortisation periods that discourage private investors. In the US, two separate studies by the University of Chicago (2004) and MIT (2003) showed new nuclear power remaining comparatively more expensive.

That explains why the US industry has yet to receive its first domestic power reactor order in more than three decades, despite the Bush administration offering among the world’s most-attractive tax sops and other state incentives.

But in India there has been little debate on the nuclear deal’s premise - that the way to meet burgeoning energy demands is to import power reactors. While nuclear power certainly deserves a place in a diversified energy portfolio, reactor imports will be a path to external fuel dependency and exorbitant plant costs.

India ought not to confuse its electrical generation problem with transportation fuel problem. Also, India cannot correct its oil-import dependency on the Gulf region by fashioning a new dependency on a tiny nuclear-supply cartel made up of a few state-guided firms.

While oil is freely purchasable on world markets, the global nuclear reactor and fuel business is the most monopolised and politically regulated commerce in the world, with no sanctity of contract. Without having loosened its bondage to oil exporters, should India get yoked to the nuclear cartel?

With few reactors being built in the West or Russia, this cartel has aggressively sought export markets. In a bizarre spectacle, after having castigated Iran’s pursuit of civil nuclear technology as unsuited to its energy wealth, France and the US have competed to sign up reactor deals with oil-rich Arab countries.

Yet, even at the current slack rate of construction of reactors, bottlenecks are becoming a serious problem for key components. There are just a few manufacturers for many components. For example, at least nine reactor components, including giant pressure vessels and steam generators, are made only in one facility owned by Japan Steel Works. A recent study by the US-based Keystone Centre reported a six-year lead time for some parts.

The harsh truth is that reactor imports, far from cutting India’s oil imports, will increase the already wide price differential between nuclear energy and thermal power. While all the Indian power reactors built since the 1990s have priced their electricity at between 270 and 285 paise per KW hour or higher, the coal-fired Sason plant project has contracted to sell power at 119 paise per KWh.

Of the three countries lobbying to sell power reactors to India, the US has little record to show while France’s stands blemished by a two-year time overrun and $2.1 billion cost escalation in building Finland’s Olkiluoto-3 plant. The third, Russia, is struggling to complete its already-delayed twin reactors in Kundakulam. Wishful thinking ought not to cloud India’s options.

(The author, Brahma Chellaney, is professor, Centre for Policy Research)

Bollywood films showing Muslims as villains is offensive: Zeba

ET: Pakistani actress Zeba Bakhtiyar, who played the title role in the film Heena, says her countrymen feel offended when Bollywood potboilers depict Muslims as villains.

"Pakistanis love to watch Bollywood films. But they feel awful and offended as all the villains portrayed in them are Muslims. I always feel that religion is one's private affair and a way of life," the actress said.

Speaking about her own experiences during the filming of "Heena" in the early 90s, Zeba said she was first apprehensive of coming to India to shoot for the movie directed by Randhir Kapoor.

"It was because I was naive and not accustomed to the functioning of the film industry. But, all my fears vanished when I came to Mumbai and met the Kapoors," the actress-turned-director said during a seminar at the third South Asian Film Festival (SAFF) here today.

Zeba had to face strong opposition in her home country for her decision to work in an Indian film. "That was a time when India-Pakistan relations were not at its best. Besides, people in Pakistan thought that since it was a Raj Kapoor film, there would be exposure and the theme would be anti-Pakistan," she recalled.

The filmmaker said there were several stories in the South Asian region that could be translated into good movies.

article link
---------------------------------------------------------------

As I had mentioned in one of my earlier posts, I believe movies (the mainstream, the popular fare) are more of a reflection of what society thinks and not that it is the movies which influence the thinking of a society. Hence one should not be surprised to see Muslims being shown as enemies in movies. After all since the early nineties the biggest of the villainous events in India has involved Muslims - from Kashmir, to Kargil, Bombay blasts to America's 'war on terror' and most of the never ending blasts that keep going off across the country.

Critics and secularists might argue otherwise. But the psyche of the average Indian today says that there is some correlation of violence by Muslims and their belief in Islam. This is not restricted to just the Hindus. Across religions, even the Muslims feel that they are being related so. No I'm not stating that the Islam or Muslims equate violence. For people who know me closely will vouch that I'm the most anti-Hindutva/anit-Islamisization candidate and equally anti-generalization of the “Islam=Terrorism equation”. What I'm stressing here is the change in perception of people around me, the common milieu. It is no longer a feeling restricted to the intellectuals and fundamental thoughts of the Sangh bastion. Over the past decade or so it has seeped into the common man on the streets.

This feeling of course is not affecting the daily transactions. And basic level the brotherly feeling, friendships etc. still remain. Religion still does not come in between daily business transactions. But I see the common man cringe when the politicians announce vote bank saving pro-Muslim policies. I find fewer people among the "younger generation" supporting the secular idea, the usual group where people debunk the religion based rifts.

A final argument: many will agree with the portrayal of police and politicians as corrupt and selfish in the popular media. Same is the case current with Muslims. It’s about popular perception. The reality could be that a majority of creed are actually like that or that the infamous ones are bending perceptions. It calls for better management of perception by the victims and more restraint by the popular media.

---Vj

Nuclear Deal

Some of the comments picked in the media on the nuclear deal:

- CPM spokesperson Pandhe: “as Muslims were opposed to the nuclear deal and since the Samajwadi Party enjoyed the community's support in Uttar Pradesh, it should refrain from backing the deal.”

- The deal will not gain much political as there will not be much publicity feel members of the Congress.

- The deal should go through to save the face of the Prime Minister.

Did someone say whether the deal was good for India. Yes, that is what they apparently seem to be arguing about. Read between the lines and one can see that the decisive factors are the ones stated above. Ego, communal politics and looming elections are the main drivers. (Mulayam Singh of Samajwadi Party did say that the deal is not in India’s interest, but I very much doubt what knowledge he has on the deal.)

God save our country!

Boy child bias in Indian ads?

Does media set the societal trends or is media a reflection of the trend? This chicken-n-egg question quite often pops among the debaters. This question came to my mind in the following case.

The idiot box was airing an ad of Complan. A little boy drinks the drink, wins all competitions, mom happy; boy happy. I add other ads with kids – Boost with teenage boys zipping on BMX bikes, Kellogg cornflakes and the smart boy, small boy with bad math score uses a long drive in esteem (or some other car) to butter his dad, Sunsilk and the little girl with beautiful hair, Santhoor soap and a little girl who shouts mummeeee, and so on…

So what, you would ask. Do you see the pattern, I ask. The first few are about health drinks, education, studies, sports, achievement in school and all have “boys” as the protagonists. The last two are about beautiful skin, hair etc. and we have “girls” in the lead role. So here is my question. Are the media guys (and girls) intentionally portraying in their ads that boys are about education, sports etc. and girls are about beauty products. Scarier issue is whether this portrays the Indian society’s bias towards all round development of a boy child over that of a girl child. Are the media people portraying the reality in the society that boys should go to school and girls should stay at home?

Now one may say that given most of these ads are urban based and such bias is absent in urban India. But I beg to differ here. Yes, urban India has girls going to schools and they do get equal treatment. But I believe that there is still a bias against the girl child in the Indian society. One of the best statistics to support this is the deteriorating sex ratio (against women) of India – even a metropolis like Delhi has only 827 girls for 1000 boys against not so good national average of 927 (1991 census). Many Indian homes still would prefer boys given a choice, even if they are not indifferent with the nature’s choice.

One may also point out to ads like that of Maruti Omni has a girl child playing tabla to the world. Quite progressive and hatke I would say. OK, I have not done enough research to study the whole population of ads and what I’m stating is more of an observation. The moot point is whether my observation is aiding the argument or my argument clouding my observation!

Nevertheless, I feel a research on this topic would yield some interesting observations. As for my initial question, this clearly seems to be a case of media following the society.

-----------Vj

ISB on Top 20

FT Global MBA Rankings: ISB ranked 20th globally
http://rankings.ft.com/global-mba-rankings

OK agreed. This is not an opinion. Nor a commentary. But as an Indian (as much as an ISBian), I'm proud to know that Indian School of Business is ranked 20th in the latest FT Global MBA Rankings much ahead of the greats like Kellogg and UCLA.

This could probably be the best for new school. Just six years old, started in an emerging economy, it surely is a great achievement.

Wonder if the IIMs take part in these rankings, a few deserve to be among the Top.

Vj