Viswanathan K's Thoughts

Shakespeare famously said, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. I don’t know if he was being sarcastic when he said that. If he wasn ’t, then boy, was Shakespeare wrong! George Orwell, on the other hand, was spot on when he assumed that the most noble sounding terms would be used by the very people who would be its worst violators. Take the official names of countries for instance. Like German Democratic Republic (East Germany), People's Republic of China and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The first one wasn ’t democratic, the second did mass deportations of its own and the third is the pious hub of all terrorism. Contrast that with the names of the countries that are truly free. Like the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany), Republic of India and the United States of America. Notice how their names make no tall claims about their intent and are just so, well, bland? Or take the religion whose name means “peace”. And the one whose name is just derived from t

Why did the Indian government give $5 million to Pakistan for flood relief ? Pakistan’s Mr.Ten Percent, Zardari, will swindle 10% (how do you think he got that nickname?) of the money. The ISI, Pakistani Army and their terrorist groups will swindle much of the rest. And use it to launch the next 26/11. Or to kill Indians in Afghanistan. Even if a small fraction is left over after all those groups take “their share”, do you think the Pakistanis getting aid purchased with that money would be told it came from India? Yeah, right, keep dreaming. Some countries even suggested India should have given more. And offered it earlier. Really? By this “logic”, I am guessing the same folks would have criticized the Jews for not funding the Nazis! Some suggest we give them items of use instead of cash. Newsflash: we already tried that during the 2005 earthquake in Pakistani Kashmir. Guess what the Pakistanis did? They removed the “Made in India” labels to avoid any goodwill from being cre

When Karl Marx pointed out the exploitative nature of capitalism with his famous point about workers having nothing to lose but their chains, he had many valid points. Today though, what Joan Robinson, a British economist, said (in 1962) is more accurate: “The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all.” The wheel had come full circle! Sadly, that is not the case in India. At least not in terms of our labour laws. They still reflect Marx rather than Robinson. Take the manufacturing sector for an example. In most countries, that sector creates the most jobs. Not so in India. The reason is our labour laws: they make layoffs close to impossible. That in turn discourages hiring of temporary workers. Industries like steel, textiles and automobile are cyclical, i.e., they grow, then contract and the cycle repeats itself. Such industries turn to technology to automate the work instead of hiring people during the boom times who they

Demographics refers to the characteristics of a population. Like age or income or education or a combination of some attributes. Depending on the context, it could refer to different attributes. Age has become one of the most important demographic parameter when evaluating future economic prospects of countries. Simply put, one looks at the age distribution of the population. And if the number of people in the working age is going to shrink in a country, it’s very likely that the country will get poorer in the long run. Strangely, that is especially true for developed countries. Why? Because their increasingly aged population will draw more and more on their healthcare and pension facilities even as the younger set contributing to that kitty decreases . Today, one in five Japanese and Europeans are over age 65. As per UN estimates, in 2050, that ratio will be one in three. That would inevitably stress their healthcare and pension systems further, require a raise in retirement age and

Want to convey a positive image to something that is bad? You don’t need to call a PR guy or advertising professional. Just add the Buddha name somewhere in the narrative. At the very least, that will dilute the badness. I found an amusing instance of that in a book titled “Johnny Gone Bad” . The protagonist of that story goes from being (among a host of other things) a Buddhist monk in Cambodia to a drug dealer in South America. Guess what they called him? Coke Buddha! Even nations have used that trick. Just look at the words used to announce India’s successful nuclear tests in 1974: “The Buddha is smiling”. What better way to declare your weapons were developed with a peaceful intent?! Of all the founders and prophets of religions, it’s only Buddha whose name can be taken in jest without fear of retaliation by some group or the other. In a world where fanatics will cite their religion as the justification for their violence, Buddhists stand out in magnificent contrast. I guess that’s

We see evil around us all the time. Today, it’s terrorism. Before that, some called it communism (Reagan even called the Soviet Union the “Evil Empire”). The holocaust, imperialism, the Inquisitions, slavery…the list of what we call evil seems endless as we go back in time. Religions don’t pretend evil doesn’t exist. And they inevitably face the question: Why does evil exist if God is good and all-powerful? Their usual response is that good shall be rewarded and evil punished…eventually. In ways that can be described but never proved. But for many, “just believing” is not enough. I found this solution by a philosopher named Spinoza very interesting. He felt that what we humans call good and evil is just based on our criteria, preferences and ends. In other words, the descriptions are neither absolute nor accurate. And that is why we run into the "problem of evil". In his words: “…we have but a partial knowledge of things, and are in the main ignorant of the order and coheren

Most people who go to work curse and crib about their jobs. But a strange transformation seems to happen when some of those same folks retire. Several of them go back to work! It’s not like they start doing the sort of things they wanted to but couldn’t. They go back to the same profession! Sure, in some cases, it may have to do with money problems. A few of my dad’s office colleagues have even gone abroad for engineering jobs post-retirement. I’ve always wondered what possessed them to do that at their age. After all, there are very few things you don’t get in India today. What could possibly be so appealing about going to another country and adapting to their culture and their systems? And, oh yeah, working again? Another set gets back to the workplace because they are bored. Again, something I don’t understand. C’mon, guys, there are a zillion options today. Watch TV. Surf the Net. Read a book. Blog about something. Paint. Do day-trading. Watch that game. Or see those saas-bahu seri

Pointing at a picture of early man’s tools, Matt Ridley in his TED talk said: “Who made them and for whom? Early man made them for himself; it was called self-sufficiency. We call it poverty these days.” Self-sufficiency equals poverty? But think for a minute. Do you know anyone who grows his own food? Or hunts for it? Know anyone who grows cotton, converts it into cloth, stitches it and then wears it? The guys who come closest to doing all that are farmers. And an overwhelming number of them are indeed poverty stricken. Next, look at the set that is far better off economically than the farmer. Like journalists, teachers, engineers, doctors, businessmen, sports stars and movie stars. What’s common with that set? None of them is even remotely close to self-sufficiency. They all depend on others to provide different things for them! Well, ok, but maybe that only holds for individuals? Are self-sufficient societies richer than the non-self-sufficient ones? Not at all. America is rich and