Only in India

BBC NEWS | South Asia | India promises to protect writer

As if we do not have enough troubles of our own and from others who are hell bent on causing trouble (read our negihbourhood terrorist organizations and states) we go around inviting trouble.

Why on earth should India host a non Indian whose presence is causing trouble. Let us not say that it is for freedom/ rights and similar blah... blah. Why is the Indian tax payer paying for a foreigner's stay in the country when there are enough and more indians who would like their government provide them enough to live? And, what is the total economic cost of this person's stay?

Maybe, the government views it this way - "We have a whole lot of Bangladeshis living here illegaly, so one more does not change the statistics much." I think even one is one too many.

The Kleptocract and the "democractic" dictator

No this is not a bad musical or the name of a Lollywood movie (but, I guess it could be either one), it is a nice way to reference the happenings in Pakistan.

I think Jemima Goldsmith's (former wife of former cricketer Imran Khan) reference to Benazir Bhutto is the most apt one I have heard. She called her "kleptocract with hermes scarf". It is interesting to see how low the doyens of democracy (US and UK) will swoop to keep their interests. Anyone who thinks Benazir Bhutto will transition Pakistan to a liberal democracy is smoking the stuff that democracy brought to Afghanistan. Just because someone talks in English, got educated in the West and wears western clothes do not make them democratic. And, while US made all the right noises about imposition of emergency in Pakistan it was clear who had whose balls. Soon, the cat was out of the bag - Mush had told Bush about his plans to impose emergency.

How can you have democracy in a country where all democratic institutions have been suspended? And, how can a country be liberal when majority want it to be aligned to a particular religion (if not, a religious state). How can you have a democratic government when at least one legitimate (or, equally legitimate) leader sits in exile in Saudi Arabia? And, can a nation that was formed "because people of a certain religion need a separate state that encompasses their religious majority areas" ever be secural?

I think the Pakistani ambassador was onto something when he said "different nations have different paths to democracy." I guess what he failed to add was "and, some nations do not want to be on the path to democracy." A quick scan of the newgroups and message boards is enough to realize that people in Pakistan are bit cynical about democracy and Mush is more popular than Bush (in their respective countries). You can't blame the people - when democratically elected leaders use the state treasury as their private privy purse (which is the bane of all of south asia) people turn to less corrupt authoritarian heads. In Pakistan it seems the folks who are in the minds of the people are Mush, Mullahs and the madam (probably in that order).

Here is my personal test for "secular" democracies - which are the nations where the religious minorities have increased their population compared to the religious majority since the nation's independence? I think I know the answer for this one in South Asia.

Oh... good lord here we go again

BBC NEWS | South Asia | For and against Lord Ram's bridge

In the last few weeks I have come across a number of articles about religion in India. The Economist had a special feature about religion in which they referred to India as the most religious nation. I am not sure if that is good or bad but I guess the reference was meant to paint India in a bad light. Sometimes I feel that people who grew up with a religion of the book find it hard to understand the millions of gods and customs in India. They keep looking for the most "authoritative" religious book.

Around the same time when this BBC article on Sethu Samudram Shipping Canal Project was published I came across an interview with a Captain (retired) H Balakrishnan of the Indian Navy about the project. In the interview he presents a number of reasons why the project does not make sense. Now, since this guy spent his life on ships I guess he know what he is talking about when he talks about the distances and costs.

I wish BBC and Economist will try to present a balanced and informed view of matters. Instead, often it looks like they have formed an opinion and select people, facts and events that support their opinion. Maybe, they did not plan it that way but sensationalizing the event will sell. More people are likely to read an article about a "development project" that got cancelled due to "a bridge made by monkeys for a god" than an interview with a former captain of the Indian Navy.

Why IT is not Customer Service ... and it should not be

After a number of years in consulting (the IT kind), I decided to try corporate IT in 2004. The immediate reason for my decision was the fact that I was going to school for a part time degree and did not want to miss classes due to travel. I had also become quite cyncial about consulting and the para dropping con-sultan-ts. I had started refering to me and my likes as con-sultan-t (sultan of con. the last t is silent).

In the last three plus years in corporate IT I have come to realize that corporate America deserves the con-sultan-ts. In my current role as the head of an IT organization in a startup I see the same behavior that I have seen in Fortune 500 companies (Sometimes I feel the list should be called Fortunate 500. Some of them are there in spite of themselves).

So, coming to the topic at hand. I have often heard executive in corporations including CIOs say IT is in customer service business. I say it is not. IT is in service business but to call it customer service is doing it a disservice. When you consider and treat IT as customer service you make IT act at the beck & call, whims of the rest of the organization. The customer is right/ keep customer happy attitude may win brownie points, it reduces the effectiveness of IT. The purpose of IT is total transformation of business (Ok, I borrowed that. The original went like this - "The purpose of religion is total transformation of man."). And, for it to do that IT must be ready to educate the rest of the organization on its work, question rest of the organization on their requirements, assumptions and challenge them to define financial metrics to measure success.