Financial System and the Economy: America Vs Europe

What is a financial system? It is a system that supplies money for economic activities - like buying a tractor, building a factory or starting a company. What is the need for a financial system? Only rich people have money. So a financial system is needed to provide money to ordinary people for economic activities.

The financial system is to the economy what the circulatory system is to the human body. The body needs blood to function - and the circulatory system supplies it. Similarly, the economy needs money to operate - and the financial system supplies it. Banks are the best-known part of the financial system. The stock exchange is another. There are many more.

In 2003, Raghuram Rajan and Luigi Zingales (professors of finance at the Chicago School of Business) wrote a book called "Saving Capitalism From Capitalists". In it, they argued that the best financial system is a free/unrestricted financial system - like America's. 5 years later, the 2008 American Financial Crisis happened - the worst financial crisis since 1929 (which had caused the Great Depression of the 1930s). Most economists blamed America's unrestricted financial system for this crisis.

In 2014, Raghuram Rajan wrote a 10-page afterword titled 'Lessons from the Great Recession'. In it, he talks about the recession that the financial crisis caused - rather than the financial crisis itself. Further, he blames the recession on long-term economic and political trends - rather than the financial system. He is slightly casual both about the financial crisis itself and the unrestricted American financial system that caused it.

The sub-title of the book is 'Unleashing the power of financial markets to create wealth and spread opportunity'. The authors argue that a free/unrestricted financial system (like America's) is the best financial system because it supplies the maximum money to ordinary people and small companies. On the other hand, they argue that an unfree/restricted financial system (like the European countries) supplies money only to rich people and big companies.

If this argument is correct, then America must perform better than the European countries. Is this so? America's per capita income is higher than all the European countries, yes. But the authors argue that America's free/unrestricted financial system is the best for supplying money to poor people and lifting them out of poverty. So we should look at the income of the poorest 10% of the people. And in this, America is one of the worst among the industrialised countries.

The authors may argue that the poorest 10% in Europe have a higher income due to government handouts. Then let us look at upward mobility - the degree to which the poor can come out of poverty. In this also, America is beaten by:
a) North Europe (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark)
b) West Europe (Germany, France, Holland, Belgium)
c) British colonies (Canada, Australia, New Zealand)
Only South Europe (Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece) is worse than America.

The authors may argue that this is not due to the financial system, but the larger economic system. To this, we can make two points. The first point is trivial and technical. Yes, the financial system is not an independent system. It is only the sub-system of a larger system - the economic system. But in that case, it is the performance of the system that really matters, and not the performance of the sub-system. What is the use if the sub-system works well, but the system does not?

The second point is more fundamental, about philosophy. Every country has a philosophy, and it builds all its systems (political, economic, financial, etc) on the foundation of that philosophy. No country builds one system on one philosophy, and another system on another philosophy. America is no different. And it has built both its economic system and its financial system on the same philosophy - Darwinism (ie, natural selection and survival of the fittest; or 'every man for himself, devil take the hindmost'). So it doesn't make sense to praise the financial system but criticise the economic system when both are built on the same philosophy. (Another view: You cannot expect the financial-economic system to treat ideas, products, services and industries in one way - and people in another way)

But these criticisms aside, "Saving Capitalism From Capitalists" is a very informative and interesting book about the financial system and also about economic history.

America: Stupidity + Ignorance + Racism = Donald Trump

Donald Trump is a real-estate tycoon with zero political experience. His campaign has been a series of stupid, ignorant and racist statements. Now he is the Presidential candidate of one of America's two political parties. He is one step away from becoming the leader of the world's most powerful country. How did this happen?

The core ingredients of Donald Trump's campaign are:
1. Stupidity + Ignorance
2. White Racism
3. Anti-Immigration
4. Anti-Globalisation
5. Christian Fundamentalism

1. Stupidity + Ignorance

In any industrialised country, this is an automatic disqualification for politics - especially for the highest office of the land. Not in America. Why? Because Americans are the perhaps the most ignorant people among the industrialised countries. How? How can the world's most technologically and economically advanced country be the most ignorant (among its industrialised peers)?

America is the world's most techno-economically advanced country due to its scientists, engineers and managers. These are the most intelligent and knowledgeable people in the world. But they are just 1% of the country. The remaining 99% of the people (factory workers, shopkeepers, clerks, etc) are stupid and ignorant. This is due to history and geography. First, America has no history to speak of - it was born only in 1600. Second, it is cut off from the world by two oceans. Third, its population is small compared to its area. So half of Americans live in 'small towns' (actually villages) which are far from one another.

So in America, stupidity and ignorance is not a disqualification for politics - even for the highest office in the land. It can even be a qualification due to the "He is one of us" factor. Example: George W Bush.

2. White Racism

Today's America was born in 1600 - when white Europeans started going there, exterminating the natives and stealing their land. This wasn't enough. They also started 'importing' Africans and using them as slaves. This slavery went on for almost 250 years. In 1865 they stopped slavery - but didn't accept blacks as citizens. They kept blacks as non-citizens for another 100 years. Only in 1964 did blacks become citizens. So racism is deeply embedded in America's DNA.

In 1968, the Republican Party became the party of racist whites. Since then it has carried on a campaign of racist propaganda. Over half a century, this has kept racism alive in America. Enter Donald Trump with his explicit racism. Previously, Republican Party leaders (like Nixon and Reagan) were implicit in their racism. Explicit racism is a disqualification, you may think. It is not. Republican Party voters embraced Trump hysterically.

When Trump launched his campaign, the violent white racist group Ku Klux Klan (infamous for killing blacks) declared its support for him. America was horrified. Even Republican Party leaders were embarrassed by this open display of racism. They called upon Trump to denounce Ku Klux Klan and distance himself from it. Trump did nothing of the sort.

Trump's campaign slogan is "Make America great again". It means "Make America white again".

3. Anti-Immigration

This is Trump's - well - trump card. After dominating America's politics for almost half a century, the Republican Party lost two Presidential elections in a row in 2008 and 2012. The reason was simple. Racist whites voted for the Republican Party. Non-racist whites, blacks and Latinos/Hispanics voted for the Democratic Party. Republican Party leaders did a lot of head-scratching. They came up with the solution: To win, all they had to do was somehow get the Latino vote. And how to do this? Simple: 'immigration reform' - ie, give citizenship to all the illegal Mexican immigrants.

There was just one problem. For half a century, the Republican Party had taught its voters to hate all non-whites - which is not just blacks but also Latinos. Now these voters exploded with rage. Enter Donald Trump with his solidly anti-immigration campaign. He had launched his campaign by calling Mexican immigrants as 'rapists' and 'drug-dealers'. Again, Republican Party voters embraced him hysterically.

America has 1 crore illegal Mexican immigrants. They do low-paying jobs that whites are not willing to do. Without them, many sectors of the American economy will collapse. Trump says he will deport all of them. He says he will build a wall along America's 3,000 km border with Mexico. This will cost $25 billion, but he says he will make Mexico pay for it. How? Only he knows.

4. Anti-Globalisation

Starting with the Industrial Revolution, transportation and communication technology advanced - and helped to connect all the different parts of the world together. This process accelerated after World War 2. People, goods, services, money and information started flowing freely all across the world. The world was 'becoming one'. This process is called globalisation.

Before globalisation, products were made in the place where they were sold. The 20th century was a honeymoon period for America. Being the largest Western country, it had the largest market in the world. American industry boomed and Americans prospered. With just a high school education, lakhs of lower class whites got a job as a worker in the local factory - and lived a middle class life (house + car). This was the American Dream.

After globalisation, products could be made anywhere in the world. Industry's aim is to maximise profits. The best way to maximise profits is to minimise cost. And a major cost is workers' wages. So the best way to maximise profits is to produce in a place where the wages are lowest - ie, poor countries. So multi-national companies started moving their factories from rich countries to poor countries. Specifically, America's factories started moving to China.

As a consequence, America's factory workers - ie, lower class whites - started losing their jobs. Their American Dream became a nightmare. With just a high school education, they could get only low-skilled and low-paying jobs. Today they are angry - very, very angry. Enter Donald Trump saying he will reverse all this and 'bring the jobs back from China'. Lower class whites embraced him hysterically.

What Trump says is impossible. You don't need a PhD in economics to know this. A minimum knowledge of today's world is enough. Yet a large number of Americans believe Trump and support him. Why? See point #1.

5. Christian Fundamentalism

Donald Trump has appealed to Christian fundamentalists also, even though this is not his strong point. He said his favourite book is the Bible. But when asked for his favourite verse, he didn't have an answer. In spite of this, Christian fundamentalists have also embraced him enthusiastically.

Republican Party: Racism, Christian Fundamentalism and Plutocracy

In 1964, America's President Lyndon Johnson (of the Democratic Party) passed the Civil Rights Act giving equal rights to blacks. This enraged racist whites. In 1968, Republican Party leader Richard Nixon appealed to these whites and won the Presidential election. Since then, whites have been voting more for the Republican Party. It effectively became the party of the whites.

White voting in Presidential elections:

In 1980, Ronald Reagan combined the Republican Party's white racism with one more element: Christian fundamentalism. He appealed to Christian fundamentalists and won their support. He also did something else that was perhaps even more important. He made the Republican Party the party of the rich by adopting their agenda – which was mainly cutting their taxes. In a democracy, a political party has to work for the good of the majority of the people. Under Reagan, the Republican Party started working for the good of only the 1% rich. Thus it became a plutocratic party – and America became a plutocracy.

So the Republican Party became an alliance of the rich and racist-fundamentalist whites. But this was an unnatural alliance. Today 65% of America is white. In this, only 1% are rich. The remaining 65–1=64% are middle class and lower class. What do these people want from the government? They want welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Now these programs cost money. Where will the money come from? Obviously, from high taxes on the rich. But the aim of the rich is to minimise (not maximise) their taxes. Thus there is a fundamental contradiction in this alliance of the Republican Party.

Yet this strategy was extremely successful. From 1968 to 2007, the Republican Party won 7 out of 10 Presidential elections. How was this possible? Simple. The Republican Party pursued the economic agenda of the rich – ie, cuts in the top tax rate. This went against the economic agenda of the middle class and lower class whites – ie, more money for welfare programs. Yet the Republican Party got those people's votes. How? It diverted their attention from their economic agenda by pursuing their 'cultural' agenda – ie, white racism and Christian fundamentalism. Thus the strategy succeeded brilliantly for almost four decades.

So that is the ideology of the Republican Party – plutocracy combined with white racism and Christian fundamentalism. The rise of Donald Trump is nothing but the direct outcome of this process.

America: Conservatism, Christian Fundamentalism and Racism

For almost 250 years, there was something called 'American Conservatism'. It stood for small government, low taxes and free trade. And for around 150 years, it was the ideology of the Republican Party.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan made a cynical alliance with Christian fundamentalism to increase the power of the Republican Party. A bizarre cocktail of political conservatism and Christian fundamentalism became the new ideology of the Republican Party.

But there was one more, older, ingredient. In 1968, Richard Nixon had shaken hands with another devil – white racism. The undercurrent of racism has been flowing beneath the conservatism and Christian fundamentalism of the Republican Party since then.

Today the chickens have come home to roost. The expedient add-on has ended up becoming the main engine. For the first time in America's 240-year history, a blatant racist has been elected as the Presidential candidate of one of its two parties. With the triumph of Donald Trump, white racism has now become the official ideology of the Republican Party.

What happens to the other two ingredients? Christian fundamentalism is perfectly compatible with white racism. So it will continue as a co-ideology. But the political/economic plank of Trumpism – ie, the real plank – is big government, high taxes and isolationism. This is nothing but the anti-thesis of conservatism.

So American conservatism is dead and buried. RIP.

America, Racism and Donald Trump

Q: Why have Americans elected a blatant racist as their Presidential candidate?
A: Demographics.

Year	Population
	Whites	Blacks	Latinos	Asians
1900	88%	12%	1%	0%
1910	88%	11%	1%	0%
1920	88%	10%	1%	0%
1930	88%	10%	1%	0%
1940	88%	10%	2%	0%
1950	88%	10%	2%	0%
1960	85%	11%	3%	1%
1970	84%	11%	4%	1%
1980	80%	12%	6%	2%
1990	76%	12%	9%	3%
2000	69%	12%	12%	4%
2010	64%	13%	16%	5%

Till 1950, America was almost 90% white. After 1950, other groups (Blacks, Latinos, Asians) started increasing in size slowly. This process accelerated after 1990 – especially with the Latinos/Hispanics. Today, whites are only 64% of America. What is even more important is the trend. If current population growth rates continue:

In 2050, non-whites will outnumber whites. Whites will still be the largest group, but they will no longer be the majority. (The US Census Bureau officially announced this last year)

So this is the #1 reason behind the rise of Donald Trump: the fear of the whites of being reduced to a minority in their 'own' country – ie, racism.

'Tithi' (Kannada Movie): Review

Review of Kannada movie 'Tithi':

One day in a village in Mandya district, a 100-year-old man ('Century' Gowda) dies. 11 days later, his death ceremony is performed. During these 11 days, his three descendants - son Gaddappa, grandson Tammanna and great-grandson Abhishek - go through various adventures and misadventures.

The old Gaddappa spends his time walking around, playing with children, drinking and smoking. The young Abhishek makes some money through several activities (not exactly legal) and spends it on drinking and gambling with his friends. Stuck in between the two is the middle-aged Tammanna whose life revolves around one thing: money problems. Their paths keep intersecting comically with one another in the small universe of their village.

The three characters represent the three different stages of life. The grandfather has seen everything in life and has become a quasi-Buddha. The grandson is just entering life and is full of boyish enthusiasm. The hapless father is stuck in the middle of life - and tries to deal with it by telling some lies and breaking some rules.

Tithi is like a documentary on an Indian village - with a ton of comedy. It looks as if the filmmakers landed up in a village with a camera and simply recorded whatever happened. The actors are all, well, non-actors (ie, real villagers). The language is the rough dialect of rural Mandya - and is outrageously funny (English subtitles are provided).

The multiple intersecting/converging storylines is reminiscent of Alejandro Inarritu's Death trilogy (Amores Perros, 21 Grams, Babel). The stages-of-life approach would get a nod of approval from Leo Tolstoy. And the authentic portrayal of a village is like an S L Bhyrappa novel come to life.

Director Ram Reddy and scriptwriter Eere Gowda have created a masterpiece. Tithi is a hilarious village comedy on the surface. But beneath the humour and simplicity is a beautiful statement on the fundamental truths of life. Tithi is honest, courageous and brilliant - a milestone in Indian cinema.

Tithi won two awards at the Locarno International Film Festival - Best Picture and Best Director.

Donald Trump

'The Man Who Knew Infinity'

Srinivas Ramanujan was born in Erode (250 km south of Bangalore, in today's Tamil Nadu) in 1887. He worked as a clerk in a shipping company in Madras. A devotee of Goddess Namagiri (Lakshmi), he used to 'see' equations that were unknown to mathematics at that time. He wrote about his equations to Godfrey Hardy, a mathematician at Cambridge University. Hardy brought him to Cambridge in 1914. Ramanujan's equations included:
a) An equation to tell the number of prime numbers upto a given number
b) An equation to tell the number of ways in which a number can be obtained by adding other/smaller numbers
c) And many more.

There was just one problem: he didn't have the proofs for these equations. Proofs? What proofs? Goddess Namagiri had told/shown him the equations. There was no need for any 'proofs'. Hardy patiently told him that there is a science called 'mathematics' (and also ordinary humans who don't talk to Goddess Namagiri) that needs proofs. Under Hardy's guidance, Ramanujan studied mathematics at Cambridge, developed the proofs for his equations and published them. He was recognised for his genius with Fellowships at both Cambridge and the Royal Society. But in the meantime, his health had suffered. He returned to India in 1919, and passed away the next year - at the age of 32.

It is difficult to make a good movie about a great man. The few good ones are Gandhi, Patton and Lawrence of Arabia. It is even more difficult to make a good movie about a scientist. A Beautiful Mind? Hollywood gave it a bunch of Oscars just to look smart. Making a good movie about Ramanujan - who is a mystery not just to ordinary people, but also to mathematicians - is almost impossible. British writer/director Matthew Brown makes a heroic effort to turn American author Robert Kanigel's 1991 book (I haven't read it) into a movie. Dev Patel is OK as Ramanujan. Jeremy Irons as Hardy turns an English textbook lesson/chapter (with some maths thrown in) into a movie with life, colour and passion.

The Man Who Knew Infinity is the story of a great mind and its great achievements - which we cannot fully understand. It is also the story of the friendship between two good men - which definitely touches our hearts.

'Batman Vs Superman': The Original Script

The original script of 'Batman Vs Superman':

* Once upon a time, there was a woman. She had two sons. Son1 was 100% good and Son2 was 99% good.
* Then Son1 and Son2 got separated. They grew up separately.
* Son1 and Son2 become Hero1 and Hero2. Both are good guys. So both spend their time beating up bad guys.
* Hero1 meets Girl1, who (like him) is 100% good. Hero2 meets Girl2, who (like him) is 99% good.
* Enter Villain, who is (of course) 100% bad.
* In the course of their pastime of beating up bad guys, both Hero1 and Hero2 run into Villain.
* But Villain is smart. So he pits Hero1 and Hero2 against each other.

Villain: Hero1! Main ne tumhari boodi-andhi-behri-goongi maa ko kidnap kiya hai!
Hero1: Kya! Kyon?
Villain: Agar tum usko zinda dekhna chaahte ho, to mujhe Hero2 ka laash chaahiye!
Hero1: Nahin! Main saari duniya kho sakta hoon! Lekin apni boodi-andhi-behri-goongi maa ko nahin kho sakta!

Hero1 goes to beat up Hero2. They beat up each other (a lot).

Enter Girl1 and Girl2:
Ruko! Tum dono gadhe ho! Aur Villain ne tum dono ko ullu banaaya hai! Tum dono dushman nahin ho! Tum dono ek hi maa ke bete ho! Tum dono bhai ho!
Hero1: Bhai!
Hero2: Bhaiya!
Hero1: Mujhe maaph kar do!
Hero2: Mujhe bhi maaph kar do!
Hero1: Chalo hum us kutte-kameene Villain ka khoon peete hain, aur hamaari pyaari maa ko bachaate hain!
Hero2: Haan, chalo bhaiya!

Hero1 and Hero2 go to Villain, beat him up (a lot) and save their mother.

Hero1: Maa!
Maa: Beta!
Hero2: Maa!
Maa: Beta!
Girl1: Maa!
Maa: Beti!
Girl2: 'Beti' nahin, buddi! 'Bahu' bolo!
Maa: Bahu!
Girl2: Mujhe bhi 'bahu' bolo!
Maa: Bahu!
Girl2: Ab buddi aayi line pe.

And then they lived happily ever after.

**********************************

PS – Warner Bros has paid the following people an undisclosed amount to keep their mouths shut and not sue the studio (for copyright violation) :
* Salim Khan & Javed Akhtar
* Amitabh Bachchan & Dharmendra
* Jackie Shroff & Anil Kapoor

About the movie itself . . .
* Bruce Wayne is unshaven, fine. But why the hell is Alfred unshaven? I know Jeremy Irons looks sexy with a stubble, but...
* Wonder Woman fought in World War 1? Great! But why the hell did she pose for a group photograph? Helping mankind by promoting a new technology?
* Aren't Metropolis and Gotham City both supposed to be New York?
* And the Kryptonian spaceship obeys commands given in English?

Most Interesting Place/Time In The World

"May you live in interesting times."
- Ancient Chinese curse

India is:

* The world's oldest civilisation.
* The world's second largest country.
* The world's most complex society.
* The world's largest democracy.
* The world's fastest growing major economy.

So 21st century India is the most interesting place/time in the world.

CIA Plot To Assassinate Donald Trump

In an exclusive interview to The Times Of India, a highly placed source in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has revealed that the Agency has prepared a top secret plan to assassinate Mr Donald Trump if he wins the Presidential election in November.

CIA: Our mission is to ensure that the United States remains the most powerful country in the world - technologically, economically and militarily. And we will use any means necessary to achieve this objective. Right now the number one threat to America is a Donald Trump Presidency. So we have a contingency plan to deal with that situation if it arises.
TOI: What contingency plan?
CIA: We will take him out.
TOI: Take him out? To dinner?
CIA: I mean we will neutralise him.
TOI: Castrate him? Why?
CIA: Not neuter, you idiot - neutralise. We will eliminate him.
TOI: You mean kill?
CIA: Yes.
TOI: Who made this decision? Who gave you this order?
CIA: The President, the CIA Director, the Vice President, the 15 Cabinet Secretaries, the 100 Senators, the 435 Congressmen, the 9 Supreme Court judges - and Kim Kardashian.
TOI: Do you have this order in writing?
CIA: Writing? What's that?
TOI: When was this decision taken?
CIA: Feb 10 - the day after Trump won his first primary (New Hampshire).
TOI: And assuming he wins the election, when will you take him out?
CIA: At the swearing in ceremony.
TOI: Exactly how will you do it?
CIA: As I speak, a crack team of Arab terrorists are being trained for the operation.
TOI: Arab terrorists?
CIA: Yes.
TOI: How on earth did you manage to recruit Arab terrorists?
CIA: We told them we are the Islamic State.
TOI: And they believed you?
CIA: Yes.
TOI: Where are they being trained?
CIA: In Area 51.
TOI: Area 51? And they still think you are the Islamic State?
CIA: We told them Area 51 has become part of the Caliphate.
TOI: OK... but isn't all this illegal?
CIA: Of course it is. That's why we're doing it. If it was legal, the Bureau (FBI) would do it.
TOI: What about the moral side of it?
CIA: This is the only moral thing the Agency has done in its entire history.
TOI: How can murder be moral?
CIA: America is bigger than one man.
TOI: This is not just any man. This is your President.
CIA: America is bigger than the President too. Especially if he's a moron like Trump.
TOI: If Arab terrorists kill America's President, there will be consequences.
CIA: Like?
TOI: Americans will demand action against Arabs.
CIA: Of course. And we have a plan for that too.
TOI: What plan?
CIA: We are going to invade all the Arab countries.
TOI: What?! But that will start World War 3!
CIA: Exactly.
TOI: Why on earth would you want to do that?
CIA: It's the only way to revive our economy. We are in the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. And how did we get out of that one?
TOI: President Franklin Roosevelt's 'New Deal' program.
CIA: Wrong. Only illiterates believe that. Economists know the truth: The only reason we got out of the Great Depression was World War 2.
TOI: So...
CIA: So World War 3 will kickstart our military-industrial complex (again) and finally we'll have all the jobs that we need.
TOI: So your plan of removing Mr Trump will not only prevent America from becoming a basketcase, but in fact will make it even more powerful!
CIA: Absolutely.
TOI: That's brilliant!
CIA: Thank you.

Donald Trump, America and Globalisation

The 2008 American Financial Crisis was mainly due to the Republicans' screwing up the economy from 2000 to 2008. So in 2008 and 2012, Americans voted for a Democrat (Barack Obama) as President.

Today - 8 years after the Crisis - Americans are still in a bad shape. Unemployment is high and wages are low. So now they are asking: Is the problem something else? Is it something bigger, deeper and more fundamental? Their manufacturing jobs have gone to China. This is due to free trade. Their service jobs have gone to the Mexicans. This is due to immigration. And what is free trade plus immigration? Globalisation.

So this Presidential election is nothing but a revolt against globalisation - on both Left and Right. On the left, Democrats are coming out for the anti-globalisation Bernie Sanders - forcing Hillary Clinton to move further to the left. And on the right, Republicans are coming out for the anti-globalisation Donald Trump - making him the frontrunner. (The only difference between Sanders and Trump is that Trump is also a racist)

16 years into the 21st century, the people of the world's largest economy - and the Holy Land of capitalism - are revolting against globalisation. What does this mean for the future of America - and the world?

Great God Shiva

In the snowy peaks
Of the Himalayas
An Ascetic sits
On Mount Kailasa.

He sits cross-legged
Skin blue with poison
Wearing a tiger skin
Body smeared with ash.

Cobra around His neck
Long hair tied in a knot
Eyes closed in meditation
Third eye on His forehead.

Moon resting on His head
Ganga flowing from His hair
Trishul by His side
He watches over the worlds.

Destroyer of evil
Protector of good.

Peace, calm, stillness
When His eyes are closed.
Love, mercy, compassion
When His eyes are open.
Fury, rage, destruction
When His third eye opens.

O Great God!
Lord of the worlds!
Ruler of heaven, hell and earth
Master of gods, demons and humans.

Father, Teacher, Friend!
Bless us
Protect us
Give us wisdom
Give us strength.

May we remember You
May we pray to You
May we worship You
May we serve You
Great God Shiva!

'Neerja': Review

5 Sep 1986 - Pan Am Flight 73 from Bombay to New York halts at Karachi. Four Palestinian terrorists seize the plane to hijack it. Their plan goes awry and they decide to kill all the people on board. Air hostess Neerja Bhanot saves 360 out of the 380 people on the flight - sacrificing her own life in the process. She was honoured with the Ashok Chakra (the highest peacetime gallantry award).

Director Ram Madhvani and scriptwriter Saiwyn Quadras don't put a foot wrong in telling the story - both as a taut thriller and an emotional drama. Sonam Kapoor gets to act for the first time in her career and delivers a controlled performance. Shabana Azmi hits the ball out of the stadium with her portrayal of Neerja's mother (as expected). Yogendra Tiku is also solid as Neerja's father.

Survival is the most fundamental instinct of any human. We all do our duty - but not at the cost of our life. Neerja Bhanot was a 22-year-old girl who had her whole life ahead of her. Two days before her 23rd birthday, she put her duty above her life. In doing so, she rose above ordinary and became extraordinary. She rose above good and became great.

In a telling moment, Neerja says "Main marne se pehle marna nahin chaahti". Haan Neerja-ji, bahut log marne se pehle hi mar jaate hain. Lekin aap marne ke baad bhi nahin mare. Aap amar hain. Pranaam, Neerja . . .

'Revenant': Review

In 1600, white Europeans started occupying the east coast of America. In 1776, they became free from British rule and founded a new country: the United States of America. By 1800, they occupied the eastern one-third of the land (upto the Mississippi river). After 1800, they moved into the western two-thirds of the land. Throughout this process, they massacred all the native American people they came across.

In 1823, an expedition went up the Missouri river. A bear attacked a hunter called Hugh Glass and left him half dead. The expedition abandoned him and continued on its way. Glass miraculously survived both his injuries and the harsh winter, and made his way across 300 km of hostile terrain to reach the nearest white camp. Then he set about wreaking vengeance on his unfaithful comrades.

In 2002, US trade representative Michael Punke wrote a novel called Revenant based on Hugh Glass's adventure. And last year, Mexican director Alejandro Inarritu made the book into a movie - starring Leonardo DiCaprio as Glass.

The central theme of Revenant is violence. There are two types of violence: man vs nature and man vs man. The clash between man and nature is for the sake of survival - and has some meaning. The conflict between man and man, on the other hand, is mainly due to greed - and is devoid of any meaning. Revenant uncompromisingly shows both the types of violence (especially the second type - in all its ugliness).

The story itself is a simple survival-cum-revenge drama. What sets the movie apart is the stunning visuals. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki brilliantly captures the savage and majestic beauty of Canada's mountains, forests and rivers (where the movie was shot). Composer Ryuichi Sakamoto's music complements the pictures beautifully. Leonardo DiCaprio does a competent job. But the stand-out performance is from Tom Hardy, who plays the scumbag villain to perfection.

'Spotlight': Review

If there is anything more evil than rape, it is the rape of children. In 2002, the newspaper 'Boston Globe' revealed that 250 Catholic priests in Boston had raped 1,000 children over almost 50 years. That triggered investigations all over America, which revealed that 5% of all priests had raped children, and the total number of victims was 1 lakh.

[Accurate numbers for rapist-priests and their child-victims are available only from America. We can extrapolate these numbers to the world to know the full scale of this evil. The total number of Catholic priests in the world is 4 lakh. 5% of that gives us 20,000 rapist-priests across the world. America's 7 crore Catholics have among them 1 lakh child-victims. So the world's 100 crore Catholics have among them a total of 14 lakh child-victims]

Further, Boston Globe revealed something that was much more stunning (if such a thing was possible): the Church KNEW about this. It knew about the evil right from the beginning. Not only that, it had also been actively covering up the rapes and protecting the rapist-priests. And this conspiracy of knowledge, silence and cover-up did not just involve the Bishops and the Cardinals. It went all the way up to the top - ie, the Vatican.

Tom McCarthy's Spotlight tells the story of Boston Globe's investigation. It shows how a team of investigative reporters painstakingly put together the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle one by one, and revealed the horrifying truth. Spotlight is movie-making at its old-fashioned best: a good story told by using a well-written script. There are no superstars, no special effects, no action and no romance. The result is a movie that is simple, but at the same time powerful and emotional.

The cast is made up of first-rate actors (Liev Schreiber, Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup and Rachel McAdams) who deliver solid performances. But the real stars of the movie are the side-actors who play the rape victims. They steal the show with their heart-rending portrayals of innocent people whose lives were destroyed. Destroyed not just by a few evil men - but also by an evil system.

'Deadpool': Review

Q: Who is a superhero?
A: A guy who wears a funny costume, has superpowers and beats up bad guys.

The superhero is an American phenomenon. It was the product of the Great Depression of the 1930s. The world's richest country found itself in the worst economic crisis in history. Americans yearned for a saviour to solve their problems. Enter the superhero: first Superman (1938) and Batman (1939). Later others followed.

Next the superhero moved from the comic book to the movies. The Big Three were the first: Superman, Batman and Spiderman. Then the river turned into a flood: X-Men and Avengers. Today superhero movies dominate Hollywood. The 12 Avengers movies have made a total of $9 billion, and account for 3 out of the 10 all-time biggest blockbusters. And this year will see more superhero movies: Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, Captain America: Civil War, X-Men: Apocalypse, etc.

Hollywood is the world's biggest movie industry. And within this industry, the superhero factory has become the biggest sub-industry. It is a factory in every sense of the word. It uses a formula to churn out assembly-line products, which we go to see like robots and turn into $1 billion blockbusters.

Enter Deadpool: anti-hero, anti-superhero and basically anti-everything. Deadpool is not just an anti-hero, or even an anti-superhero. He is anti-superhero-industry. Nothing is sacred for this wisecracker. There are no holy cows for this smartass. He makes fun of everything and everybody – including (of course) himself. He fights fast, but talks even faster.

Scriptwriters Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick use the standard superhero formula story as a vehicle to mock the superhero industry itself. The tongue-in-cheek humour is fast, furious and deliciously irreverent. Ryan Reynolds delivers the jokes with a deadpan face (maybe it has something to do with his wearing a mask all the time). The action (and romance) is just a sideshow. Deadpool is all about the humour: no-holds-barred and in-your-face.

'Government controls. Art liberates' is the conventional wisdom. But what when art becomes an industry and a system of control – as it has become today? Artists make fun of government. But who will make fun of artists when they become powerful – as they have become today? Then you need an anti-artist like director Tim Miller, to make anti-art like Deadpool.

We need Christopher Nolan's Batman to ask existential questions and to seek metaphysical answers. We also need Deadpool to laugh at ourselves, our lives and the world.

'Airlift': A Review

Raja Krishna Menon delivers something almost unheard of in Bollywood: a realistic drama and a gripping thriller. Right at the start you realise this is not just another Bollywood movie – whether it is the impressive scenes of a Kuwait City ravaged by the invading Iraqi army (2 Aug 1990) or the grim depiction of the fear and unpredictability of a war-zone. This is not a boy-meets-girl movie.

The saga of evacuating the 1.7 lakh Indians in Kuwait is portrayed with all its twists and turns – including (of course) the infuriating slowness of India's bureaucratic machinery, whose wheels grind at a snail's pace. The script and the direction keep getting better as the movie progresses. The actors do a competent job. They don't try to overact, but simply allow the script to do its work. Akshay Kumar gives a restrained and understated performance.

The movie is inevitably inviting comparisons with two classics of this genre: Schindler's List and Hotel Rwanda (anybody who mentions Argo here should be shot). Airlift doesn't match those masterpieces, but such comparisons show its quality. This is a remarkable achievement for Raja Krishna Menon working in the Bollywood system.

Watch Airlift. Not because it is patriotic, but because it is a good story – well written, well directed and well acted. The patriotism is just a bonus :-)

Liberals are calling the movie 'jingoistic'. Apparently, only Hollywood has the licence to make patriotic movies. Only Americans have the right to be patriotic. We Indians are supposed to be like stones.

Quentin Tarantino's 'Hateful Eight'

What is a movie? It is a story told by using moving images and words. That is, in a movie the purpose of words is to tell the story. Words are the means to an end - not an end in itself. The end of a movie is the story.

This is how almost all movies are. Except Quentin Tarantino's. For QT (and his fans), it is the other way around. The story is the means, and the words are the end. The story is just an excuse to bombard the viewer with words – lots of words.

In one sense, this is justifiable. Real life is like this only. People simply talk (a lot) all the time. Their words (and actions) are completely random. They are not part of a straight-line story inside a scriptwriter's head. So in that sense, this style/approach is more realistic. But then again, one purpose of art is to impose some order on a chaotic reality – rather than merely reproducing it as it is.

So that is the USP of QT – words, a lot of words. His movies are filled with the characters having random conversations on everything from the meaning of life to the most mundane matters. QT fans love it. QT critics hate it.

The second feature of QT is violence – lots of violence. But this is not a unique feature. What is unique perhaps is the blood. Other directors have higher body counts. But QT has the highest litre count.

The third and final feature of QT is nihilism. There is no 'victory of good over evil' or 'triumph of the human spirit' in QT. Life is meaningless. And everybody dies in the end – both the bad guys and the good guys.

So this is the QT package. If you like this, you will like Hateful Eight. It is verbose, violent and nihilistic. Samuel L Jackson holds the movie together with his masterful presence. Walton Goggins supports him with a brilliant performance. And Ennio Morricone's music is a majestic contrast (or complement?) to the X-rated language, violence and nihilism.

'Star Wars: Force Awakens'

J J Abrams is a brilliant storyteller. He made the TV serial Lost and movies like Mission Impossible 3 and Star Trek. So when he was hired to continue the Star Wars saga, we had great expectations. Could he take Star Wars to the next level - like Christopher Nolan did with Batman?

If you thought like this, Force Awakens is a bloody nightmare. Because Episode 7 is just a remix of the old Star Wars story (especially New Hope). The characters have simply been recycled into new avatars:
Darth Vader --> Kylo Ren
Luke Skywalker --> Rey
Emperor Palpatine --> Supreme Leader Snoke
Galactic Empire --> First Order
Death Star --> Starkiller Base
R2D2 --> BB8

The 'scriptwriters' have simply done Ctrl-H (find & replace) on the old script. Above all, the core element of the hexology - the father/son story - has also been recycled! [Who is father? Who is son? You also pay your hard-earned money, like me, to find out!]

What went wrong? Disney didn't give Abrams any freedom (like Warner Bros gave to Nolan)? Or Abrams himself decided to play safe? The original was almost 40 years ago. So half the suckers today weren't even born then. The kindest verdict on Force Awakens is that it is just an introduction to the real story - which will be told in Episodes 8 and 9. We will see.

Anyway, what does it matter? Disney is laughing all the way to the bank. Force Awakens has already grossed $750 million, and will easily reach $2 billion. It is a triumph of the Hollywood marketing machinery. However, real Star Wars fans should be deeply disappointed. J J Abrams had the Force. But he chose to embrace the Dark Side.

PS: Almost all critics have given this xerox copy rave reviews (Rotten Tomatoes rating is 95%). How is this possible? The only answer is herd mentality. See Crucible (1996) for a brilliant analysis of herd mentality.

America In West Asia

America in West Asia:

9/11 happens.
US hawks: Saddam did it.
World: Nuts!
US hawks: OK, Al-Qaeda did it. But it has a base in Iraq.
World: Nuts!
US hawks: OK, Saddam has WMDs.
World: Nuts!
US hawks: Go to hell! We'll invade Iraq anyway.
America invades Iraq.
Number of WMDs in Iraq = 0.
World: WMDs?!
US hawks: Never mind. Saddam was a dictator. We'll make Iraq a democracy.
Civil war breaks out in Iraq between Sunnis & Shias.
World: Democracy?!
US hawks: (Silence)
'Arab Spring' begins.
US hawks: We triggered the Arab Spring by invading Iraq.
World: Nuts!
Revolt begins in Syria against Bashar Al-Assad.
US hawks: Assad must go.
World: Nuts!
'Arab Spring' turns into 'Arab Nightmare'.
World: Do you still take credit for this?
US hawks: (Silence)
Syrian rebels turn out to be Al-Qaeda.
World: You want Al-Qaeda to rule Syria?
US hawks: (Silence)
Al-Qaeda moves into Iraq.
World: You were right - Al-Qaeda is in Iraq... now.
US hawks: (Silence)

[5,00,000 Iraqi men, women & children have been killed due to the US invasion & its aftermath]

Sardar Patel: The Re-Unification of India

India was born 5000 years ago. Around 300 BC, Chanakya and Chandragupta unified this land from the Himalayas to the Indian Ocean. But the unity lasted only 100 years. After Ashoka, India broke up into many kingdoms. And starting around 700 AD, she was conquered and ruled by foreign invaders.

Finally in 1947, the last foreign invader - the British - left. But they handed over to us only the half of India that they directly ruled. The other half was made up of 565 kingdoms. They had to be merged with the rest of the country if we were to be both free and united. It was done by one man - Sardar Vallabhai Patel. (So the liberals' argument that the British made/ created/ united India is b***s***)

So more than 2000 years after the Maurya Empire, we were free and united again (of course, with the exception of Sindh, West Punjab & East Bengal). All because of one man - Sardar Patel. This was the re-unification of India. And that is what it should be called. Instead, Leftist historians called it 'Integration of Princely States'. They deliberately coined this silly phrase to downplay the magnitude of Sardar Patel's achievement.

Let us call a spade, a spade. Sardar Patel was not an 'integrator of princely states'. He was the re-unifier of India. Today on his 140th birthday, let us remember this great son of Mother India, and thank him for the priceless gift of freedom and unity he gave us. Bharat Mata ki jai!

A Short History Of The World

A short history of the world:

1. America fought USSR.
2. Jihadis fought USSR.
3. So America helped jihadis.
4. Jihadis formed Al-Qaeda.
5. Al-Qaeda attacked America.
6. America blamed Iraq.
7. America invaded Iraq.
8. Islamic State took over Iraq.
9. America is fighting Islamic State. (See #1)
10. Al-Qaeda is fighting Islamic State. (See #2)
11. So... (See #3)

Moral: The more things change, the more they remain the same.

'Post-Industrial Society'

In 1971, French sociologist Alain Touraine wrote a book called Post-Industrial Society. He said that Western society after 1950 had entered a new stage of development – the 'post-industrial' stage. His thesis was:

Society	Dominant Sector of Economy	Dominant Factor of Production
1. Agricultural	Agriculture	Land
2. Industrial	Industry	Capital
3. 'Post-Industrial'	Services	Knowledge

In 1973, American sociologist Daniel Bell wrote a book called Coming of Post-Industrial Society, and popularised this idea among English-speaking social scientists. And in 1980, American futurologist Alvin Toffler wrote a book called Third Wave, and popularised this idea among laymen across the world.

Is this thesis correct?

There are some differences between early industrial society (the West till 1950) and advanced industrial society (the West after 1950). But they are nothing compared to the differences between agricultural society and industrial society. Touraine, Bell, Toffler (and others) are 20th century Westerners who have never seen agricultural society. So they do not know the huge chasm that separates agricultural society and industrial society. They saw the minor differences between early industrial society and advanced industrial society, and jumped to the conclusion that the latter is a new stage of society. It is not. It is only the second sub-stage of industrial society.

So the term 'post-industrial' (and 'post-modern') is meaningless.

'Baahubali - 1': Review

Review of 'Baahubali-1':

A. Traditional Indian Story =
"Once upon a time, there was a king. He was good, brave & wise . . . "

B. Typical Indian Movie =
Handsome hero + beautiful heroine + wicked villain + romance + songs-dances + drama + action

C. South Indian Masala =
LTL + OTT (larger than life + over the top)

D. Hollywood Seasoning =
CGI special effects

A + B + C + D = 'BAAHUBALI'! :-)

* Paisa-vasool scene: When Kattappa places Baahubali's foot on his head.
* Best performance: Satyaraj (Kattappa)
* Doesn't Prabhas look like Manoj Bajpai?
* Why the hell can't we see this movie (& others) in Kannada?

India's Complexity/Diversity: Survey Categories

If you want to do a survey for India, what are the various categories you have to cover – so that your survey captures the whole country?

A. ZONE
1. North+Central
2. South
3. West
4. East
5. North-east

B. LOCATION
1. City
2. Town
3. Village

C. SEX
1. Male
2. Female

D. AGE
1. Young
2. Middle-age
3. Old

E. CLASS
1. Middle class
2. Lower class
3. Poor

F. CASTE
1. Upper-caste
2. OBC
3. SC/ST
4. Other

So total number of survey categories = 5 x 3 x 2 x 3 x 3 x 4 = 1080!!!

'Mad Max: Fury Road'

The 1973 & 1979 oil shocks increased oil from $20 to $100. The world suddenly faced a new question: What if oil runs out?

In 1980, Australian director George Miller made a movie called Mad Max to answer this question. In an imaginary future – oil becomes scarce, modern civilisation disappears, and humans go back to living as savages. The movie became a blockbuster and a cult classic.

35 years later, George Miller remakes Mad Max with Tom Hardy (Bane in Dark Knight Rises). Human society has been through 3 stages: tribal, agricultural & industrial/modern. But its fundamental forces have always been - and will always be - the same: resources/wealth, power & religion. Mad Max: Fury Road illustrates this truth brilliantly.

Even if you don't care about social-economic-philosophical analysis, watch it (if you haven't already). Because it's one hell of a kick-ass action movie! :-)

Trivia:
* The movie was shot in Namibia.
* Heath Ledger was the 1st choice for the new Mad Max.
* George Miller's other movies include Babe: Pig in the city and Happy Feet!

India's Complexity: Religion, Language, Caste

India's complexity (religion, language, caste):

Country	Religions	Languages	Castes
India	7	15	5,000
China	0	1	0
America	1	1	0

Total number of combinations possible in India = 7 X 15 X 5,000 = 5,25,000.

Kannada Movie Industry: Economic Analysis

Q: Why is the Kannada movie industry so weak – especially when compared to its neighbours?

Movie industry	Annual revenue
Kannada	Not available
Telugu	Rs 1150 crore
Tamil	Rs 1200 crore
Malayalam	Not available

Total revenue figures are not available for the Kannada and Malayalam movie industries. So we use another measure:

Movie industry	#1 Movie	Box office gross
Kannada	Mungaaru Male (2006)	Rs 65 crore
Telugu	Attarintiki Daredi (2013)	Rs 180 crore
Tamil	Enthiran (2010)	Rs 250 crore
Malayalam	Drishyam (2013)	Rs 60 crore

Immediately we see the strength of each film industry. How to explain this difference? We start with the most basic fact:

State	Population
Karnataka	6.1 crore
Andhra Pradesh	8.5 crore
Tamil Nadu	7.2 crore
Kerala	3.3 crore

1. Karnataka is straightaway at a disadvantage – being only the 3rd biggest state in south India. (only Kerala is smaller)

But how many people actually speak Kannada (as their 1st language)?

Language	Number of speakers (a)
Kannada	3.8 crore
Telugu	7.4 crore
Tamil	6.1 crore
Malayalam	3.3 crore

2. Now the situation becomes even worse. The Kannada-speaking population is much smaller than Karnataka's population. In every state, some people speak another language (as their 1st language). But the situation is worst in Karnataka.

[So Karnataka's size is misleading – only about 60% of its people speak Kannada as their 1st language]

Next, it's not enough to have people. The people need money to see movies. So:

State	Per capita income (b)
Karnataka	Rs 1,00,755
Andhra Pradesh	Rs 1,00,698
Tamil Nadu	Rs 1,18,100
Kerala	Rs 1,20,085

3. The situation gets even worse for Karnataka – with almost the lowest per capita income in south India.

[Tamil Nadu is the most developed state; but Kerala has the highest per capita income due to money sent by Keralite workers in West Asia]

Finally if we multiply the per capita income by the number of language-speakers, we get a measure of the total market size in that language:

Language	Total market size (a x b)
Kannada	Rs 3,82,870 crore
Telugu	Rs 7,45,166 crore
Tamil	Rs 7,20,409 crore
Malayalam	Rs 3,96,282 crore

4. The Kannada movie industry has the smallest market in south India. The markets for the Telugu and Tamil movie industries are almost 2 times bigger.

That is why the Kannada movie industry is so weak.

Bollywood/India's Movies: Logic and Realism

Logic and realism are industrial values. That is, they are the values of an industrial society (in-soc). They do not exist in an agricultural society (ag-soc). What does this mean for art – especially motion picture?

Movies in industrial societies (US & Europe) are logical and realistic. Movies in an agricultural society (like India) are not logical and realistic. How are they then? They are just the modern (technologically, not culturally) version of the village play. In fact, it can be argued that village plays are more logical and realistic than ag-soc movies – the former are stories from Ramayana and Mahabharata. For the real inspiration of the ag-soc movie, we must look elsewhere.

In the old days, a "picture man" travelled from village to village with his "picture box". If you looked into the window of the picture-box, you could see a picture. The picture-man would turn a lever, and you could see different pictures one after another. The pictures were sights from the big cities: Bangalore (Vidhan Soudha), Bombay (Gateway of India), Delhi (Red Fort), etc. You would pay the picture-man a coin for this pleasure. The ag-soc movie is nothing but the hi-tech version of the village picture-box.

The ag-soc movie is not what a movie should be: a logical and realistic story told using moving images. Instead it is just a visual spectacle: handsome hero, beautiful heroine, nice houses, nice clothes, songs and dances, some romance, ugly villain, some violence, uglier comedian, some humour, saintly mother, some melodrama, hero and heroine marry, then they live happily ever after. This is the typical ag-soc movie. (And Bangalore/Bombay/Delhi are out of the question; we are shown New York/London/Paris instead)

This is why Indian movies are illogical and unrealistic. As India becomes an industrial society, hopefully it will make logical and realistic movies.

This analysis applies to all Indian cinema: Kannada, Hindi (Bollywood), Telugu, Tamil, etc.

India's Greatest Prime Ministers (Ranking: Best/Worst)

Ranking of India's greatest Prime Ministers (best to worst):

1. P V Narasimha Rao
For starting India's real modernisation in 1991 by switching the economy from socialism to capitalism.

2. Jawaharlal Nehru
For helping India to survive as a free and united country by steering the Republic in its infancy.

3. Lal Bahadur Shastri
For making India self-reliant in food production by fathering the Green Revolution in 1966.

4. Atal Behari Vajpayee
For making India a nuclear-weapon power and continuing its modernisation.

5. Rajiv Gandhi
For not doing much good, but not doing much harm either.

6. Manmohan Singh
For heading post-Independence India's most corrupt government.

7. Jawaharlal Nehru
For condemning India to half-a-century of poverty by imposing a socialist economy.

8. Indira Gandhi
For making India a most poor and corrupt country by destroying its institutions.

Society/System: Sheep & Wolves

People go to work and make money.
They go to malls and spend money.
They live in nice houses.
They drive nice cars.
This is the system called 'society'.

Nothing runs on its own.
Especially a system.
It has to be run.
By some people.

99% of people simply live in the system.
They make money.
They spend money.
They are the sheep.

1% of people run the system.
They are the wolves.
They control the sheep.

Sheep are good.
Wolves are bad.

It is the existence of wolves that allows sheep to exist and to be good.

The Soldier

All the battles he fought
All the battles he lost
Do they mean something?
Do they mean anything?

He stands amidst the ruins
Ruins of his own making
Where does he go from here?
Is there anywhere?

Where did he go wrong?
At the beginning?
How did he go wrong?
By following You?

Why did You make him?
To fight a war?
Where is his army?
Where are his weapons?

You sent him here
Alone and unarmed
To fight a battle
A wolf among sheep.

A soldier he is
In the battlefield
Lost and lonely
Afraid and defeated.

Each day comes
As a dark cloud
And goes away
Followed by another.

Where is the light?
Where is the path?
Where is the answer?
Where is the joy?

How much longer?
How much more?
Till he gives way
And falls to the ground.

He has nothing left
Only pain and fear
Show him the way
Or end his fate.

What wrong did he do?
All he did was
Walk on Your path
The path of right.

Are You testing him?
Is this a test?
If yes, he is close
To failing it.

He is falling apart
Piece by piece
Just a matter of time
Till nothing is left.

He lies in the battlefield
Bruised and battered
Wounded and tired
Waiting for a sign.

Show him something
Show him a way
Or take him
And be done with it.

He will fight
To the bitter end
Till jackals and vultures
Feast on his bones.

He will go down
With a sword in his hand
A smile on his face
And a song on his lips.

Technocrats in India's Politics

Technocrats in India's politics:

Name	Education	Career
Manmohan Singh	PhD @ Oxford	UNCTAD
P Chidambaram	MBA @ Harvard	Lawyer
Yashwant Sinha	MA @ Patna University	IAS
Arun Shourie	PhD @ Syracuse	World Bank
Jairam Ramesh	MS @ Carnegie Mellon	World Bank
Montek S Ahluwalia	MPhil @ Oxford	World Bank

Politics: India, China, America

1. AMERICA [Scene: A school inspection]

Teacher: Good morning, sir.
Inspector: Good morning.
Teacher: Welcome to our school.
Inspector: Thank you.
Teacher: Our school is the best school in the city. Our boys are the best boys in the city.
Inspector: Really?
Teacher: Yes, sir.
Inspector: Can you show me some of your boys?
Teacher (points to 1st boy in 1st bench): This is John. He is our 1st rank student. He will study law, enter politics and become President of the country.
Inspector: Excellent!!!
Teacher (points to 2nd boy in 1st bench): This is James. He is our 2nd rank student. He will study law, enter politics and become Governor of the state.
Inspector: Excellent!!
Teacher (points to 3rd boy in 1st bench): This is Joseph. He is our 3rd rank student. He will study law, enter politics and become Mayor of the city.
Inspector: Excellent!
Inspector (points to the boy in last bench): What about him?
Teacher (embarrassed): He is Alex. He has flunked 3 years in a row.
Inspector: Don't worry. He will drop out and become a drug addict. Then he'll become a rock star.

2. CHINA [Scene: A school inspection]

Teacher: Good morning, sir.
Inspector: Good morning.
Teacher: Welcome to our school.
Inspector: Thank you.
Teacher: Our school is the best school in the city. Our boys are the best boys in the city.
Inspector: Really?
Teacher: Yes, sir.
Inspector: Can you show me some of your boys?
Teacher (points to 1st boy in 1st bench): This is Chang. He is our 1st rank student. He will study engineering, join the government and become President of the country.
Inspector: Excellent!!!
Teacher (points to 2nd boy in 1st bench): This is Ching. He is our 2nd rank student. He will study engineering, join the government and become Governor of the province.
Inspector: Excellent!!
Teacher (points to 3rd boy in 1st bench): This is Chung. He is our 3rd rank student. He will study engineering, join the government and become Mayor of the city.
Inspector: Excellent!
Inspector (points to the boy in last bench): What about him?
Teacher (embarrassed): He is Cho. He has flunked 3 years in a row.
Inspector: Don't worry. He will drop out and learn kung fu. Then he'll become a movie star.

3. INDIA [Scene: A school inspection]

Teacher: Good morning, sir.
Inspector: Good morning.
Teacher: Welcome to our school.
Inspector: Thank you.
Teacher: Our school is the best school in the city. Our boys are the best boys in the city.
Inspector: Really?
Teacher: Yes, sir.
Inspector: Can you show me some of your boys?
Teacher (points to 1st boy in 1st bench): This is Rama. He is our 1st rank student. He will study medicine and become a doctor.
Inspector: Excellent!!!
Teacher (points to 2nd boy in 1st bench): This is Shyama. He is our 2nd rank student. He will study engineering and become an engineer.
Inspector: Excellent!!
Teacher (points to 3rd boy in 1st bench): This is Bhima. He is our 3rd rank student. He will study management and become a manager.
Inspector: Excellent!
Inspector (points to the boy in last bench): What about him?
Teacher (embarrassed): He is Timma. He has flunked 3 years in a row.
Inspector: Don't worry. He will drop out and become a politician. He will become a corporator, MLA and MP. He may become Chief Minister or even Prime Minister.

India's Middle Class and Politics

Q: Why does India's middle class not participate in politics?

Middle class is a modern/industrial class. But Indian society is not yet an industrial society. It is still an agricultural society. Worse, it is a feudal society. So India's middle class is an industrial island in an agricultural/feudal ocean. An industrial society runs on merit, knowledge and education. A feudal society runs on money, muscle and caste.

A country's politics is a function of its society. That is, a country's politics is decided by what kind of society it has. An industrial society has industrial politics – ie, professional knowledge-based politics. A feudal society has feudal politics – ie, the politics of money, muscle and caste. Since India is a feudal society, it has money-muscle-caste politics.

Since the middle class is an industrial class, it has only merit, knowledge and education – but not money, muscle and caste. So it is unable to operate in India's money-muscle-caste politics.

Therefore the Indian middle class does not participate in politics.

Middle Class Indians' Marriage Obsession

Middle class Indians are obsessed with marriage. But there is a small exception to this rule:

Group	% obsessed with marriage
Brahmins	99%
Non-Brahmins	100%

Why is it so?

In ancient/traditional India, there were two types of people:
1. Grihasthas (householders)
2. Sanyasis (ascetics)

The vast majority of the people were Grihasthas. They married, had children and took care of their families. That is, they pursued Kama and Artha. Then there were a few Sanyasis. These stayed single and devoted themselves completely to working for society or to spirituality. That is, they pursued either Dharma or Moksha.

Both these options were open to all the Varnas. But since only Brahmanas had knowledge, only they (ie, a few of them) became Sanyasis. Since non-Brahmanas did not have knowledge, none of them became Sanyasis; they were all Grihasthas only. Thus society became like this:

Group	Grihasthas	Sanyasis
Brahmanas	99%	1%
Non-Brahmanas	100%	0%

This system has existed for 3000 years. So today's society is a result of 3000 years of social programming – which is very powerful. Therefore we have the situation described by the first table. Non-Brahmins (most of them) know only one thing: make money, marry and have children. But Brahmins (a few at least) are aware of an alternate path: devote oneself completely to society or to spirituality.

Thus the middle class Indian marriage obsession has a small Brahmin exception. But among non-Brahmins, it is total.

The Sanyasi system is and should be an exception. If everybody becomes a Sanyasi, then society will cease to exist.

Life, Love, Duty, Society, Country

COUNTRY

# There is Absolute Truth and there are relative truths. And the greatest relative truth is India.

# Love is the greatest force in the world. And love of one's country is the greatest love in the world.

# What can be more natural than the love of one's land, its people and their culture?

# If there is any cause in this world worth living for, fighting for and dying for – it is India.

# The 3 greatest blessings in the world:
1. To be born in India
2. To live in India
3. To work for India

LIFE

# Life is war. The world is a battlefield. And we are all soldiers.

# Life is a war. Every day is a battle. Give every day/battle your 100%.

# Life|War = 1/3 Preparing + 1/3 Fighting + 1/3 Waiting. The last is the toughest.

# A man's life must be judged by how much it increases the order of the System (ie, society).

DUTY

# Dharma is the highest Purushartha. And Rashtra Dharma is the highest Dharma.

# Great nations are not built by people who seek their own happiness. They are built by sacrifice.

# A patriot's life is dedicated 100% to his country. There is no 'balance' in his life. 'Balance' is for vegetable sellers, not patriots.

# The lofty ideals of country/nation/Motherland and duty/service/sacrifice can only be achieved through the mundane thing called SYSTEM – ie, getting into the right system and working in it.

LOVE

# What is love? It is surrender. It is submission. It is sacrifice. To an ideal greater than our petty individual selves.

# Romantic love, or male-female attraction, is a chemical reaction inside the brain. It is a program written by evolution to ensure the survival of the species.

# Most people don't know the meaning of love. They equate love with sexual attraction. True love is dedication to a great ideal.

# The concept of love has been hijacked by the entertainment industry, which has reduced it to sexual attraction. Patriots must take it back and make it their own.

# All love is good. But all love is not the same. There is the lower/ordinary love (family/friends) and the higher/great love (country/society).

SOCIETY

# Society/civilisation is the constant struggle of Order against Chaos.

# First law of thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created – it can only be converted from one form to another. Brahmacharya transforms sexual energy into social energy.

# Second law of thermodynamics says that a system's order can be increased only by supplying energy. For the system called society, where must this extra energy come from? It comes from Brahmacharya.

Nietzsche: A Brief Life Story/Biography

Today is the 170th birth anniversary of the great German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900). A brief life story/biography:

Nietzsche (pronounced 'neecha') was born on 15 October 1844 in a village called Roecken in the kingdom of Prussia (today's east Germany). His father, a priest, passed away when he was 5 years old. The family then moved to a nearby town called Naumburg. There he studied at Prussia's most prestigious school - Schulpforta - and excelled as a student. He then went to Bonn University to study philology – the study of the ancient Western languages: Greek and Latin. After one year, he moved to the University of Leipzig.

At age 23, Nietzsche joined the Prussian army and excelled as a cavalry officer. But a horse-riding accident injured his chest severely and forced him to quit the army. The injury would stay with him all his life. 2 years later, he volunteered as a paramedic in the Franco-Prussian war and contracted dysentery and diphtheria. These diseases too stayed with him till the end.

[That year (1870), Otto von Bismarck (Prime Minister of Prussia) completed unifying the 40 different kingdoms of Germany into a single kingdom – for the first time in history. Germany was now Europe's largest – and most powerful – country]

Nietzsche finished his PhD at age 25. He became a professor of philology at the University of Basel in Switzerland. He was the youngest philology professor in Europe. But he suffered a lot from his injury and diseases. 10 years later, at age 35, he retired and got a small pension. He spent the next 10 years (age 35 to 45) living in different places in Italy, France and Switzerland. This was the period when he wrote his greatest books: Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1885), Beyond Good And Evil (1886) and others.

At age 45, when he was in Turin (Italy), Nietzsche had a mental breakdown and became insane. His mother took him to Naumburg and looked after him. 10 years later, he passed away at age 55 in Weimar, on 25 August 1900. His body was buried in the Roecken churchyard. His notes were published as Will To Power the next year.

Nietzsche is the greatest thinker produced by Western civilisation. He went far ahead of Western philosophy. He had the honesty, the courage and the intelligence to ask the right questions. Unfortunately, 19th century Europe was unaware of Hindu/Indian philosophy – which has the answers. So he had only the pain of his questions (which finally drove him insane). He never found the peace of the answers (which he so richly deserved).

We are filled with respect and admiration for Nietzsche's genius. Equally, we are filled with sadness at his tragic fate. My pranaams to this great Rishi of the West.

See Nietzsche's Superman theory.

Education in the Agricultural Age/Society

In the Agricultural Age, there were 4 groups in society:
1. Scholars
2. Warriors
3. Merchants
4. Farmers
This was true for all civilisations (India, China, Europe, etc).

Knowledge in the Agricultural Age was low. The knowledge required in people for the effective functioning of society was also low. Whatever knowledge existed was required only for the scholars. It was not required for the other groups – ie, warriors, merchants, farmers. So in all civilisations, only the scholars got education. The others (warriors, merchants, farmers) did not get education.

In India, these social groups were nothing but the Varnas:
1. Scholars – Brahmanas
2. Warriors – Kshatriyas
3. Merchants – Vaishyas
4. Farmers – Shudras

Thus in ancient India, only the Brahmanas had education. The others (Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras) did not have education.

India's Middle Class: Money, Marriage, Family

India's middle class is obsessed with two things: money and marriage. Why?

An industrial society (US, Europe, Japan) has welfare systems like social security, social welfare, etc. An agricultural society (like India) has no such systems. Because there is no social security, people must rely completely on their savings. Because there is no social welfare system, people must rely completely on their family (ie, wife/husband and children). Therefore people in agricultural societies are obsessed with money and marriage. Obsession with money and marriage is a feature of the agricultural mindset. People with a truly modern/industrial mindset are not obsessed with money and marriage.

As India industrialises and becomes an industrial society – and builds the systems of an industrial society, this obsession will reduce.

1944: Russia's "Year Of Ten Victories"

This year Russia celebrates the 70th anniversary of The Year Of Ten Victories. During World War 2, USSR won 10 major battles against Germany, as the Red Army pushed the Wehrmacht west:

Month	Battle
1. January	Leningrad
2. February/March	Korsun
3. April	Crimea
4. June	Finland
5. June	Belorussia
6. July/August	Ukraine
7. August	Moldavia/Romania
8. September	Estonia/Latvia
9. October	Hungary/Czechoslovakia/Yugoslavia
10. November	Norway

At least 2 crore Soviet men, women and children died in World War 2.

Chanakya/Kautilya's Arthashastra

From Chanakya/Kautilya's Arthashastra*:

By following this book one can create and preserve Dharma (good), Artha (wealth) and Kama (happiness) – and also destroy their opposites: evil, poverty and sorrow. [15.1.72]

The four branches of knowledge are philosophy, the Vedas, economics and politics. Philosophy is the lamp that illuminates all sciences; it provides the techniques for all actions; it is the pillar that supports Dharma. We must study philosophy because it helps us to distinguish between Dharma and Adharma in the study of the Vedas, between profit and loss in the study of economics, and between good and bad policies in the study of politics. Studying the other three sciences by the light of philosophy keeps our minds steady in adversity and prosperity, and makes us proficient in thought, speech and action. [1.2.10]

May the wisdom of Chanakya and the strength of Chandragupta be with us always.

*The Arthashastra – L N Rangarajan (1987, Penguin)

India, My India

India, my India
You are my passion, you are my obsession
You are my dream, you are my nightmare
You are my hope, you are my fear
You are my blessing, you are my curse
You are my mission, you are my destiny
You are my mother, you are my goddess
You are the best thing to happen to me
You are the worst thing to happen to me.

I live for you
I work for you
I die for you.

Every breath of my body belongs to you
Every ounce of my strength belongs to you
Every moment of my life belongs to you
My body, my mind, my soul
Everything I have belongs to you.

24 hours are not enough
365 days are not enough
One life is not enough
To serve you.

Two arms are not enough
Two legs are not enough
One head is not enough
One body is not enough
To fight for you.

If I can bring but one smile on your face
I will consider my life fulfilled.
To see you sitting on your throne
Wearing your crown, ruling the world
Would be the greatest joy of my life.
I would give everything, I would do anything.

No cost is too much to bear
No price is too high to pay
No burden is too heavy to carry
No sacrifice is too big to make.

I will walk on thorns for you
I will stand in fire for you
I will burn in hell for you.

Hunger, thirst, heat, cold
Fear, pain, suffering
I will bear anything for you.

What care do I for wealth?
What care do I for luxury?
What care do I for comforts?
What care do I for happiness?

All I care about is you
All I think about is you
All I want is you.

To be born in your womb
To live in your lap
Is the greatest gift of all.
To pour my life at your feet
Is the greatest privilege of all.

My intelligence, my knowledge
My ability, my energy
And my insanity
Are given to me
So I can serve you.

Darkness, loneliness
Fear, frustration
Doubt, depression
And meaninglessness;
One glimpse of your beautiful face
Is enough to drive all demons away
And bring back the shining light.

You are the sun in the day
You are the moon in the night
You are the stars in the sky
You are the lighthouse in the stormy sea
You are my guide
As long as I have you
I cannot stray.

You are my aim, you are my way
You are my ends, you are my means
You are my goal, you are my path
You are my purpose, you are my meaning.

You are the air I breathe
You are the water I drink
You are the earth I stand on.

Every pore of my skin is filled with you
Every cell of my body is filled with you
Every thought of my mind is filled with you
My whole being is filled with you.

You are my father, you are my mother
You are my brother, you are my sister
You are my friend, you are my lover.

What deeds did I do to deserve this boon?
What good did I do to deserve this grace?
What merit did I earn? In which life?
To bathe in the sweet waters of your love
Sinner that I am.

God, give me strength
Turn my body into iron
Turn my mind into metal
Turn my nerves into steel
Turn my heart into stone.

Let me not flinch
Let me not hesitate
Let me not look back.
There is only way to go
That way is forward.

I love you, I hate you
I laugh for you, I cry for you
I wake for you, I sleep for you
I sing for you, I dance for you
I sweat for you, I bleed for you
Everything I do, I do for you.

If I have you I have everything
Without you life is not worth living
India, my India.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Purusharthas

Correspondence between Maslow's hierarchy of needs and Purusharthas:

Maslow's Need	Purushartha
1. Basic/Physical	Kama
2. Security	Kama
3. Emotional	Kama
4. Success	Artha
5. Self-actualisation	Dharma/Moksha

India: Democracy or Feudocracy?

The political system of the Modern Age is democracy. The political system of the medieval period was feudalism.

	Democracy	Feudalism
1. Objective of the system	Good of the people	Good of the rulers
2. Basis of the system	Professional organisations	Feudal lords with their own private wealth and private armies
3. Selection of system workers	Merit	Personal connection with a feudal lord

India's political system looks more like column 2 than like column 1. So India is not a democracy, but a feudocracy.

Revolution/Reform in India

Revolution = rapid change (Latin volvere = 'roll')
Reform = gradual change (Latin forma = 'mould')

In every country gradual change is the norm, and rapid change is the exception. That is – reform is the norm, and revolution is the exception.

India is the world's oldest civilisation (5000 years old). Inertia is proportional to age. So India's inertia is very high. Here no change is the norm, gradual change is the exception, and rapid change is impossible. That is – reform is the exception, and revolution is impossible. The only revolution possible in India is reform. In India, reform itself is a revolution.

* Every revolution begins with one man.

* A revolution is not an event. It is a process.

* The most successful revolution is an invisible revolution.

* The best place and time for a revolution is always here and now.

* Every revolutionary is a wannabe dictator. Every dictator is a former revolutionary.

"A Perfect Life"

Perfection is a static state.
Life is a dynamic process.

So "perfect life" is a contradiction in terms. Such a thing cannot exist. It is logically impossible.

India/Hindus and Israel/Jews: Similarities

Similarities between India/Hindus and Israel/Jews:

Year	INVASIONS
(approx)	India	Israel
700 BC		Assyrians
600 BC		Babylonians
500 BC	Persians	Persians
300 BC	Greeks	Greeks
100 BC	Scythians	Romans
1 AD	Parthians
100 AD	Kushans
500 AD	Huns
600 AD		Arabs
700 AD	Arabs
1000 AD	Turks-1	Seljuk Turks
1200 AD	Turks-2	Mamelukes
1400 AD	Afghans
1500 AD	Mughals	Ottoman Turks
1750 AD	British

Year	WARS
	India	Israel
1948	Pakistan	Arabs
1956		Arabs
1962	China
1965	Pakistan
1967		Arabs
1971	Pakistan
1973		Arabs
1999	Pakistan

"Lincoln" Vs Bollywood: Movies and Idealism

Steven Spielberg's Lincoln has a misleading title. A more accurate title would have been Amendment 13. For that is what the movie is really about – the 13th amendment to America's constitution, that abolished slavery (in 1865). But the central figure is still President Abraham Lincoln, played by Daniel Day-Lewis. Day-Lewis' Lincoln is an idealist, a man of lofty ideals. But he is also a realist, a practical man. He realises that to achieve those lofty ideals, it is sometimes necessary to use not-so-lofty means. He is a simple and humble man. But he is also a powerful man – a man who is aware of his power, and is willing to use that power to achieve what he thinks is right. Tommy Lee Jones is superb as the liberal Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, who pushes the amendment through the House. The debates in the House are the best scenes of the movie, with some powerful dialogues (written by Tony Kushner). Lincoln is about idealism. It is about freedom, justice and doing what is right. A movie about the President who freed America's blacks – when the country has its first black President. Can it get more poetic?

In a TV program, Bollywood producer/director Karan Johar said that Lincoln was "boring", and he had "fallen asleep" while watching it. Lincoln got 12 Oscar nominations, and won 2 Oscar awards. Spielberg's previous films include Schindler's List, Amistad and Munich. I am sure Johar found them also boring, and slept through them too. He, on the other hand, has given us all-time cinematic masterpieces like Kuch kuch hota hai, Kabhi khushi kabhi gham, Kabhi alvida na kehna, My name is Khan and Student of the year.

The difference in quality between Spielberg and Johar apart, there is a larger point here. For Bollywood, love means only romantic love. Is there no other kind of love? What about love of one's country? For Bollywood, the only thing in the world worth falling in love with is a good-looking woman/man. Is there nothing else? What about ideals like freedom, justice and equality? Are they not worth loving? Are they not worth living for, fighting for and dying for? Every guy tells his girlfriend that he will die for her, but how many have actually done that? On the other hand, history is drenched with the blood of the crores of men and women who gave their lives for their country and their ideals. Yet Bollywood prides itself on churning out boy-meets-girl flicks (with the boy and girl singing and dancing around trees). The pinnacle of this industry's achievement is Salman Khan starrers that gross Rs 100 crore at the box office. As for the smug and pompous Karan Johar, he will earn my respect the day he makes a picture that moves me and inspires me – like Lincoln.