Australians, notwithstanding the unrelated fact that they are bad losers, have implemented the two-innings-in-a-limited-overs-match format, the advertisement for which proclaimed the beaten-to-death cliche of "the only constant is change".
Ofcourse, things change. For starters, I am writing again. I am not 22M anymore, as the badge on my blog currently claims. I am 23M and firmly on track to hit 24M soon. I don't even stay in Chennai, fortunately or unfortunately. I stay in Bombay now, fortunately. I am not reachable on Facebook, as I was for most of the last year or two in college. My roommates have changed. I am earning - that is a welcome change. I am not my own boss anymore - I have a real boss, one with flesh and blood. The deadlines are not flexible, infact, they are as good as engraved in stone. Most of my clothes are clean as are my utensils. Oh, I have utensils too. Women around me cannot be referred to as chicks, females or girls anymore. They have to be referred to as women - sometimes out of compulsive polity and other times due to the organisational policies. Bunking the 8 'o clock classes is not an option because there are NO 8'o clock classes anymore, there are only 8'o clock reviews, the kind your boss would not appreciate if you miss. On another note, 8 AM in India is not just 8 AM in India anymore - it is 10.30 AM in Singapore and 3.30 AM in London. And it is 15 minutes away from the first daily submission routine, at 8.15 AM.
Apologies are now apols, presentations are now presos, "dude" has now become "mate", and "Fuck you" has now become "Sure, Sir". Change can be good and intoxicating. This change, from the wilderness of a student life to the almost artificial, perhaps farticifial, and forced-discipline of corporate life has been good and intoxicating, both, and promises to be better.
That India could get 101 medals in any sporting event is a change that is hard to believe. Much like the fact that they let someone like a Kalmadi take charge, in the first place. And when at it, Lalit Bhanot, too. [Lalit Bhanot and Kalmadi warrant an entire blog, not just blogpost, on them - they are a writer's dream]. The Games did much good. The opening ceremony, the unprecedented medals tally, performances in track and field, young sportsmen from the lesser known places of the country, the amazing victory in 4X400m women's relay, Saina Nehwal and Ashwini Ponnappa, the closing ceremony - indicate a welcome and a long, long overdue change.
One thing, though, has not changed and that is the ever-so abysmal quality of reporting by M/s Times of India. That their headline article could actually say "2 parts to Hindus, 1 part to Muslims" - in big bold letters on a day that could have left the nation torn just goes to show that someone very high up in that organisation is either deranged or just plainly incapable of being at the helm of the mouthpiece of a progressive nation. Somethings, after all, never change.
A post on the blog after such a long break warrants an explanation on the underlying motivation. Much thanks to Archana for pepping me all the time, to mom for candidly admitting that she missed my blog, to sister for blatantly admitting that she missed my blog and to a few others who did mail and "facebook-message" me prompting me to write. What tipped it off, though, was a rather unexpected fan mail (Fan mail!!) from Divish, from IITD. Thanks, Divish. :-)
At the very outset, I wish to reassert my loyalties towards the country. Although, I would not mind Rahul Gandhi becoming the Prime Minster of India in the near future and would like to see Pakistani players being included in IPL, I am NOT a traitor. In fact, although I cannot remember very clearly what was my opinion on the Sonia-Gandhi-was-not-a-born-Indian-but-wants-to-be-PM issue, I think I would not really have opposed it tooth and nail.
But I am not a traitor and neither should my opinions in this post be used to judge my patriotic feelings.
That being said, let us talk about Sachin Tendulkar. Undoubtedly, he is the man of the moment. He is the favorite son of the nation and has successfully and deservedly captured the imagination of a billion minds. What he could do at 36 is a testimony to the character of the human being within Sachin. Never the one to be involved in a controversy (unless it's the Shiv Sena, which harps on dragging celebrities into controversies) nor the one who's commitment and love towards the game can be doubted, Sachin's knock of 200* at Gwalior is a stamping of his supremacy on the game. This knock has most certainly taken Sachin into a league of his own, perhaps a league into which even the all time great Sir Don Bradman would have struggled to make it.
The only milestone I'd love to see Sachin conquer is a triple ton in Test matches. In about a year, he'll be playing his last World Cup and a player of his calibre and a man of his virtues does deserve a share in the highest cricketing honour. As rightly pointed by Harsha Bhogle in this article, he could plan for it but he doesn't hold the key to a win in a team sport. It must happen, he cannot make it happen.
So, we can only hope that his 36-year-old body and his teammates ably support him in this endeavour. I'd also love to see Sachin leave a un-erasable mark as a match winner. Sachin is still not in the same club as the likes of Steve Waugh and Brian Lara. Steve Waugh, who is not as gifted as Sachin, has won matches for his country and at times single-handedly. It probably helped that he had a team which could ably play around him. Lara, a genius by himself, has certainly taken the West Indian cricket to new heights. Given his talent, combined with his deadly aggression, he has batte(re)d innumerable oppositions out of the match. Lara did not have the same cushion of a talented team as Waugh. Lara, in my humble opinion, is the greatest match-winner of the past decade.
Sachin, on the other hand has come dangerously close but never made it there. During the period which was till now being referred to as his prime - the '99 Sharjah innings against Australia - two back-to-back centuries that helped India clinch that series, Sachin was at his best ever. My memory of Sachin as a match-winner deserts me there. Perhaps, his performance in the 2003 World Cup is worth a mention, where he hit the likes of Shoaib Akhtar and Andy Caddick for towering sixes. Sachin getting the better of Shane Warne during the home series of 2001 is also a showcase batting performance of the era.
That said, Sachin has got India mindboggingly close to epic victories: The '99 Chennai test against Pakistan where we lost by 13 runs after a heroic knock of 136 by Sachin. He had gotten India close to victory, where there was none to be seen. He got out with India needing 18 runs and 4 wickets in hand. We lost. Another instance is the recent 175 against Australia at Hyderabad. The whole nation was on its knees reeling under the brilliance of that knock. Chasing 351, he got us there, almost.
The Gwalior innings and his performance over the past year has certainly made people rethink. Sachin is one of the greatest ever sportsmen in this era. I would love to see him end his career as a match-winner too. I wish in the next few months upto and including the World Cup, Sachin erases that one blemish I see in his career. He can certainly do it - one billion people can't be wrong!
----
There is an interesting discussion on my Facebook profile (oh yes, Facebook can be used for constructive discussions too!) - on whether Anwar's knock of 194 at Gwalior was better than Sachin's 200 at Gwalior.
The facts of the case are:
1. Anwar had a runner through-out the innings
2. Sachin had 20 overs of power play which Anwar did not.
3. Anwar had just returned to ODIs after a 4-month injury break.
4. Anwar scored it at Chennai in May,which is much more testing at 40C than Gwalior at 29C.
5. Anwar scored it on foreign soil.
6. Sachin scored it at the age of 36, while Anwar did it at 29.
7. Anwar's bowling attack had Kumble & Prasad, Sachin had Steyn and Parnell.
8. Anwar's opposition had a weaker fielding attack than South Africa.
9. Gwalior ground was smaller compared to Chennai.
10. Pitches during Anwar's times were not designed for ultra-high scores. Gwalior was.
My personal opinion is that Anwar's innings ranks higher than Sachin's. What do you think?
Like I said at the beginning of the post,I am not a traitor and neither should my opinions in this post be used to judge my patriotic feelings. :-) I love Sachin as much as you all do!
It is 3:15 AM. I just got back from an energetic and engaging discussion with a bunch of friends. That discussion has prompted me to write about the most-favourite topic of mine. The IITs. The discussion was more general in nature, talking about the education system as a whole.
Let me start with a brief incident that I encountered on a Sleeper Class coach when I was travelling from Pune to Bangalore.
Two railway employees were talking about their kids. One of them mentioned that both his sons got into IITs this year. The younger one ("woh bade wale se zyada hoshiyaar tha") joined IIT Bombay and the elder one joined IIT BHU (sic). (The whole discussion on whether BHU is an IIT at all, is something I have already ranted about here). He went on to explain how much he spent on the studies of the two kids and it obviously ran into lakhs.
He seemed to extremely pleased with his 'investment'. Paraphrasing that gentleman's comment, the gist of what he said is this - "If I had invested the same amount of money in a plot of land, it would have given me certain returns after a few years. Instead of that, I have invested that in my kids and since they have gotten into IITs, my investment is worth every penny and the returns that I expect are much more than the returns I'd have gotten on the plot of land."
This gentleman had just put words to the feelings of lakhs of middleclass Indians. Thinking about it, it makes perfect business sense. For a middle-class Indian, it is a gamble. 'Invest' in your kid's JEE coaching and hope to reap benefits of the investment. It is, without doubt, a high-risk-high-return game. 2% of investors get the desired returns. 98% are forced to write-off the investment as non-performing asset(s).
Well, strictly speaking, of the 2% who ultimately make it to the IITs, a considerable fraction don't end up being 'high performing assets'. Indeed, of the 98% too, a considerable fraction turn out to be 'high performing assets'. That's their good fortune and hard work. But what irks me is the fact that an entire generation of 'Engineers' are being misled into Engineering and Technology courses, primarily driven by peer pressure and false information. The premier newspapers of the nation leave no stone unturned in this regard. The much-hyped, but utterly sub-standard Times of India comes out with articles that are factually incorrect and ones that are meant purely to capture the imagination of the populace. Many a articles distort the information in a manner that will ensure that the copies sell, compromising heavily on the fundamental spirit of journalism. This article in the Economic Times is a stand-out example. An IIM degree might fetch you a 1.5 crore job. But is that the point of the MBA degree?
To the Indian middle-class bystander, such articles fuel his desires to be rich. They force him to rethink the path that he had set out for himself. In that article, he sees himself as the protagonist. He'd do a quick cost-benefit analysis - If I spend a year preparing for CAT and then another two years at IIM, at the end of it, I'll be earning 1.5 crores an annum. Tax deducted, I will still be able to earn about 8-9 Lakhs a month. Oh, that is sweet. Let me chuck whatever I am doing, let me prepare for CAT!
There! thanks to some masala-journalism, you have a miserable victim. Now, multiply that by about 3 Lakh people, and you have the state of today's management aspirants. Please be careful to note that nowhere in his thought process did the bystander include anything about becoming a good manager, which is what the MBA is supposed to do, I think.
As it turns out, that front-page news article on ET was false as per this blog post by IIM Ahmedabad.
Pan across to the undergraduate engineering scenario: You have 9 Lakh such engineering-aspirants, who are being misled into pursuing engineering degrees (as opposed to becoming 'Engineers') simply because at the end of the dark tunnel, after enduring 4 years of whatever they throw at you, you will land a job in an MNC. Oh, and congratulations, you are an engineer too!
When I take a step back, I realise that an entire generation of people has no idea of why they are doing what they are doing. 9 Lakh people X 4 years = 36 Lakh man years. Discount that by about 10% - I'd like to believe that atleast 10% of the people are doing what they are doing because they WANT to do it - you still have about 32 Lakh man years being utilised sub-optimally, that translates to 8 Lakh man years being utilised sub-optimally every year in a country like India, that prides itself on being young and resourceful. You do not need to be Paul Krugman to identify that should these 8 Lakh man years be put to 'better' use, the overall efficiency would drastically increase and the country can actually benefit immensely from being 'young'.
The media has a major role to play in how a country shapes up. Everybody joins the IITs assuming they have hit a jackpot. At the end of four years, irrespective of what you are and what you do, you'll have a heavy wallet. If you are lucky, you will end up with that 1-crore job, about which your news daily had reported just days back. Is this not what they think?
And that has as much basis in reality as Avatar! Reality is vastly different. But reality is boring. And hence, reality doesn't sell. Consequently, reality is hard to find. As long as the Indian thought process and decision making is based on fables and wishful thinking, our populace will never take a moment to THINK. They will instead race with the other rats of their generation towards the jackpot which, I suspect, is just an illusion. Twenty five years hence, when we realise this, I can only wish it would not be too late.
Very recently, IT-BHU was in the fray to be an IIT. If you are a supporter of that move, you would not want to check this. A few days back, I read about a new IITB that is coming up! Hold your breath, it is not an abroad campus of IIT Bombay (which could be reality in a few years time), but a new proposal for an IIT at Belgaum, Karnataka.
What could be the reason? Karnataka, as opposed to many other states in the country has no IITs. Hence, setup an IIT there! Then, there is a demand from Kerala also to setup an IIT there for a similar reason. A very deplorable situation - the fundamentals of the education system of a country are compromised for mere political mileage. I suspect, Arjun Singh can take the entire blame and Kapil Sibal can consider himself equally guilty.
So, what does the ET article say?
As many as 505 students, who got an opportunity to study in these premier technological institutes, did the unthinkable this year; they refused to study in an IIT.
The reasons varied from ‘‘not having confidence in the new IITs’ ’ to ‘‘ getting allotments in not-so-popular streams’’, IIT officials said, adding that this experience might force HRD minister Kapil Sibal to do a rethink on his expansion plans for the IITs.
Does it take anything more than common sense to foresee this situation? I will not involve myself in the same old conversation again. The most frequently used rebuttal for the argument against, and quoted by ET in the article, is:
‘‘There were several parents who were not comfortable sending their kids to an IIT without a campus currently; few realised that all the old IITs, too, started from temporary campuses,’’ the head of one of the new IITs said.
In 1950s when the IITs were setup in temporary campuses, there were hardly ANY engineering institutions in India and there definitely were not 400,000 people taking the JEE. Now, there are. In India, "engineering" has ceased to be a discipline, it has become an obsession with students and parents alike. The reason - IITs. In such a sensitive scenario, screwing around with the system will leave irrepairable scars in the fabric of education.
Two decades hence, when the "engineers" - thousands from the IITs and lakhs from other engineering institutions - take up the mantle of powering the economy, the repercussions might be severe. For, we will have a whole generation that had forayed into a career, just to live someone else's dreams and follow someone else's footsteps.
The parliament of India, meanwhile is busy creating an uproar over the body-frisking of a former President. The power of democracy. The voice of the people. Whatever.
The past couple of days I've been at home and have been teaching my sister some of her class XI science and mathematics. So, while I juggle among molarity, molality, dimensional analysis, significant figures (?!) and the likes, she keeps barraging me with random questions - most of which I could answer thanks to my JEE preparation. Whether she does this out of curiosity OR whether to verify my JEE rank credentials - I don't know.
Anyway, at one point, she asked me a seemingly trivial question in chemistry and she was surprised at the ease of the solution. She later told me that her teacher told her that this is "high-level" and she cannot solve it. I am surprised because all that the question demanded was an understanding of the mole concept. A few other anecdotes from her and my own experience of the Indian education system lead me to a disturbing conclusion: The system is decaying, and it is decaying fast, and we are running out of time, and it won't fix itself, and they are not really bothered!
My sister has a good theory about why the senior secondary teachers suck at their job. Let me paraphrase her:
Most of the class XI/XII syllabus is "irritating" and requires sound fundamentals to grasp the subject. Most teachers prefer to teach class X-and-below because it is "very easy" in comparison to senior classes and students hardly ask (or are encouraged to ask) "difficult" questions.
The few who actually manage to master the syllabus never return to teaching because there are greener pastures for such people. So, there is a void created and this void gets filled with sub-standard (or, as she said, "bekar") teachers.
To think of it, she makes perfect sense.
Going through her NCERT books, I realised that class XI/XII is indeed demanding (and rightly so!). To teach the thousands of these students, we need teachers of the very best calibre and it seems not forthcoming. You know that the system is rotting when your teachers advise the parents to arrange for "coaching", even for basic school syllabi; when the school lets a professional coaching institute "counsel" the students and for all their queries, there seems to only one answer - Jay E Eee. (After the counselling session, the coaching institute offered the students a discount on their JEE-coaching program.)
While Pranab Mukherjee is busy alloting thousands of crores towards education, I hope he realises that there are serious problems with the Indian education system that cannot be solved by pumping-in cash. Perhaps, we need a revamped pedagogy - one which understands the changing needs of the students while still able to deliver quality input.
The IITs face a somewhat similar crunch - 20-30% shortage of faculty. But thankfully, they are not appointing bekar professors (or so I'd like to believe). There was/is an attempt, though, to bring in reservations in the faculty, which would undoubtedly lead to a compromise of merit. Last I heard, the IITs managed to deflect the issue for the time being but Sibal was vociferous in claiming that "IITs should learn to live with faculty reservation". Pure bullshit.
So, Pranab dada giving the IITs 2000-odd crores is great news but it will hardly solve any of the fundamental problems that plague the IITs - and there are enough and more. (If you a new joinee to IIT - too bad I am squashing your dreams so soon :-) some of my other posts might offer solace!)
I leave you with a question that often bewilders me:
Why does India not have a network of world-class government high schools which attract and train the best minds in the country? And how come we have the world-class IITs and IIMs without a sound higher-edu foundation in the system?
Following is an article I authored for the Energy Bulletin of IIT Madras. It is a beginner's guide to understanding the hype and the ballyhoo of climate change and green energy.
My previous article titled 'At The Crossroads: India's Energy Demands' can be accessed here.
---------
More than 10,000 people from about 200 countries of the world will meet later this year at Copenhagen, Denmark in what has been touted to be the most important meeting ever to address the growing issue of global warming.
Convention of Parties (COP) – 15, as it is called, is a forum where leaders and policymakers from all over the globe will meet and decide the future course of action on the impending doom of climate change. Kyoto protocol, although a significant legislation, never could satisfy the environmentalists and they complained of political ill-will towards climate change mitigation. The United States which is the largest contributor of greenhouse gases in the world, was never party to the Kyoto protocol. This fact is often used by critics to undermine the effectiveness of Kyoto protocol. China, the second largest emitter was not bound by Kyoto protocol to reduce its emissions. The Kyoto protocol covered countries responsible for only 29 pc of global emissions, leaving out countries like US, China and India. The very scale at which the treaty operates made tracking and verifying governmental actions and claims impractical.
The 2 degree Celsius barrier:
The academia is unanimous in its opinion that a more than 2 C rise in global temperature from 1990 to 2050 will have adverse effects on human population. Some scientists warn that CO2 levels must be kept below 350 ppm (or about 1.5 C increase in temperature) to avoid serious impacts. Current levels are around 386 ppm, growing at an annual rate of 2.1 ppm. 450 ppm levels offer a 50 pc chance to keep the temperature change below 2 C and scientists argue that a 50 pc chance is not good enough when dealing with climate because the effects could be catastrophic.
The current scenario: developing v/s developed nations
Optimists are betting their money on COP 15 to evolve a new consensus among the nations of the world. They are hoping that the Obama administration, along with the other leaders of the world, takes strong and concrete steps. But there are already signs of discord. Developing countries like India and China demand that the rich countries decrease their emissions levels 40 pc below 1990 levels by 2020. The rich countries, which benefitted from an earlier industrial revolution, should take more drastic steps than developing countries which maintain that strong climate change sanctions could hamper their economic progress.
Japan, a leading emitter or GHG recently announced that it intends to reduce its emission levels by 15 % in 2020 as compared to 2005 levels. Critics argue that this is not enough and such shallow commitments by rich countries will not drive countries like India and China towards stronger action. Japanese government, on the other hand, defends their decision by arguing that Japan is already a very carbon-efficient economy and any further increase in efficiency will be unrealistic. Japan emits less relative to other major economies. Though it has the second largest economy, behind the US, it ranks fifth in global emissions, behind US, China, Russia and India.
The European Union has committed to 20 pc reduction by 2020 as compared to 1990 levels and by 30 pc if other rich countries follow suit. The congressional panel in US recently cleared a bill that aims at a 6 pc reduction in CO2 levels from 1990 to 2020. Overall, the developed nations have offered to reduce their emissions by about 8pc to 14 pc, whilst a reduction of 40 pc by them is required to carry any real hope of mitigating the change. Clearly, the developing world is at loggerheads with the developed nations.
FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS:
Another important consensus that needs to evolve at COP 15 is the architecture of financial instruments needed to curb climate change. The Kyoto protocol adapted a cap-and-trade mechanism. Cap-and-trade mechanisms put a ceiling (cap) on consumption/production of a commodity and then the involved parties can trade the sanctions. Kyoto protocol imposed upper limits on carbon emissions for about 37 developed countries (called Annex-I countries). The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) was the preferred cap-and-trade mechanism adopted at Kyoto which allowed Annex-I countries to trade Carbon Emission Reductions (CERs) with developing countries (called non-Annex I countries).A CER is a carbon credit which is equivalent to a reduction of 1 ton of carbon dioxide.
The Clean Development Mechanism and why it is not the solution:
The intentions of the CDM were noble – impose continually stricter sanctions on rich countries so that they shift towards a greener economy and in the process, the developing nations benefit from the green investments. In order to earn carbon credits, the rich countries would invest in developing countries, thereby enabling technology transfer. All the nations of the world therefore had economic incentives to reduce carbon emissions.
However, recent research suggests that CDM has been very ineffective in reducing carbon emissions. The market architecture of CDM stresses on carbon credits as a tool for mitigation. The private players in the carbon credit market have suitably taken up “low-hanging” projects to generate carbon credits – projects that are easy and cheap to execute but which do not significantly aid sustainable development. It has been reported that of the CER production, 51 % are from HFC destruction and N2O capture that do not deliver any sustainability benefits.Also, when developing countries themselves would have sanctions in the future, all the cheap abatement options would already have been exploited by the rich countries, leaving them at a disadvantage.
Interestingly, the carbon market is predicted to be the largest commodity market in the near future, slated to rise to $400 billion by 2012 -2015 from about $ 11 billion in 2005. Critics describe this as a “market for hot air” and accuse legislators of creating an artificial scarcity when none existed. With such a huge financial value attached to the market, industry lobbyists are working hard to retain the CDM. The CDM is particularly prone to manipulation by politicians and polluters. Also, given the advanced stage to which countries have committed themselves towards the CDM, it is highly unlikely that the COP 15 will see any major changes in the architecture of CDM.
A Carbon Tax regime: advantages and bottlenecks
The cap-and-trade is a quantity-based approach. A large fraction of economists and environmentalists advocate the use of price-based mechanisms. Experts suggest the use of a “carbon tax”, as a pigovian pollution tax for a global public good. There will no country emissions quota, no trading and no reference period. It will be a tax on services and goods that will increase every year at a rate commensurate with desired abatement of emissions. Although the intricacies of this system are complex and need substantial discussion to be agreeable across the countries, it offers many benefits. Al Gore says “tax what you burn and not what you earn” – he advocates the implementation of carbon tax, while reducing other taxes so that the consumer has a disincentive when buying a gas-guzzling car or coal-produced electricity as against a hybrid vehicle or hydel/wind power.
There are two major roadblocks for the carbon tax. Most of the arguments against it have come from a “it’s a tax and therefore it is bad” crowd. Taxes have never been welcomed by politicians for a fear of backlash from the public. Secondly, it is the unwillingness of a consumer to pay a higher price for a product although it translates to an overall saving over years.Consider the incandescent light bulb v/s CFLs debate. Although the CFL offers a longer lifespan and consumes significantly less energy than a light bulb, people tend to choose the incandescent light bulb because of its cost, which is a fraction of that of CFL. It has been estimated that the average US household might need to pay about $ 1500 per annum in 2020 if the government imposes such legislations. The average consumer responds only to economic incentives. Governments, therefore, have a strong role to ensure that there are adequate economic incentives for the consumer to switch to cleaner and greener products.
India, for one, has fared very poorly in this respect. Reva, the revolutionary electric car from a Bangalore-based company emits about 60 pc less carbon per kilometer as compared to other cars in the market. It costs about Rs. 4 Lakh against a Maruti which costs about 2.5- 3 Lakh and the new Nano which’ll be around 1.2 Lakh. In spite of the lower cost per km and lower emissions per km, Reva has managed to sell only about 1000 cars in India. Interestingly, Reva has sold about 2000 cars abroad in countries, many of which offer incentives for such environment-friendly products.
Cheap GHG emission reduction possibilities:
McKinsey & Co. in a recent report has identified developing Asian countries to possess about 60 pc of the world’s cheap GHG abatement potentials. These measures do not require any substantial investment and can be met with existing technologies. Measures like improving vehicle efficiency, better building design and greener power account for about 70 pc of low-cost abatement options. These measures require involve very little technology (like those in forestry or agriculture) or mature existing technologies like nuclear power and energy-efficient lighting.
Continuing on the same lines, a substantial public investment by governments (as opposed to private investments through CDM) will intensify the action to implement clean energy technologies. Past examples in the US - the JFK Apollo program in the 60’s, Carter Energy program in the late 70’s and lately the investment in security after 9/11 have accelerated the developments in those sectors. Governments across the world have to invest massively in clean energy technologies because no effort to achieve emission reductions will be possible without adopting cleaner energy over fossil-fuel based energy and currently low-carbon energy is significantly costlier.
Conclusion:
The COP-15 should develop a robust institutional framework for mitigation and adaptation, with enthusiastic participation from countries willing to take bold steps and embrace ambitious commitments. The stretch from here to Copenhagen is difficult and uncertain. It is imperative that the leaders and policymakers evolve consensus on mitigation practices and policies. Countries like the US need to own-up for their previous actions and lead the world in climate change efforts, while countries like India and China has a major role to play in deciding the future course of action. Copenhagen, in all probability, offers the last chance for the world to design a greener tomorrow and in these designs lay the fates of millions of poor people who are the most vulnerable to adverse climate change effects.
*******
The ticker on the side panel called 'Countdown to Copenhagen' is about COP 15. Should you need references, I'd be happy to share.
Remember that question from your Class VIII Geography textbook?
Ignoring the obvious answer, I was thinking on other lines. India is also unique in its being covered by problems on three sides problems and well.. no-problems* on one side.
Think of it:
West/North-West: Pakistan (By the way, NY Times has called Pakistan "arguably the most dangerous country on earth")
North/North East: China - Inspite of being a huge huge country, they still want parts of Arunachal Pradesh. Sigh.
East: Bangladesh, which is making every effort to emulate Pakistan. Nepal - I mean what's with all the political instability - you have no Mayawati/Devegowda there!
(Sri Lanka is a spoiler though - If it was not for the LTTE , our waters would have atleast been trouble-free!)
I am elated to see the Tato Nano making waves. That it found a mention in the NY Times blog was itself surprising.
They have received more than 200,000 orders within two weeks and what's more - only 20% pf the bookings are for the famous '$2000 car'! The Indian consumer now seems to exercise a lot of choices. And it is a sure sign of the new India.
The NYT article mentions that about 50% bookings are for the 'high-end' $3300 model. BUT here's the cherry:
The number of bookings is more than double what Tata is capable of building in the car’s initial production run. The first 100,000 owners will be selected through a lottery. Tata expected to start delivery of the Nano in July.
People's car. Indeed.
It is so heartening to see such a market response in India. On the one hand, you have the Chrysler - rather, had the Chrysler -bankrupt and left with their wounds to lick. And on the other you have the Tata Nano, unable to match production with demand.
The lessons from this are three-fold:
India has an amazing consumer base, hungry for innovations and willing to spend that extra buck for value-add. In the economists' words, the 'consumer confidence' is high.
In spite of the worldwide hit to the Manufacturing industry, India could be the least hit because there still is such a big void to fill. Our automotive industry is still in its nascent stages of growth. Here's the take-home: Indian auto industry is still a virgin industry whereas in the west, it is a replacement market.
On a slightly tangential note, politicians (read Mamta Bannerjee and the likes) can - howsoever hard they try -only hinder growth, but not stop it. And this perhaps is the beauty of a democracy - what West Bengal lost, Gujarat (and perhaps rest of India) gained. I doubt if this could have been possible in China.
I have been reading a few articles and reports about the concept of Clean Development Mechanism - the use of financial instruments to reduce carbon emissions. A brilliant story, quoted to forewarn the stakeholders about the vested interests of the Wall Street is as follows:
For aficionados of offbeat road races, there are few events that top the Tour de Donut, a 30-mile bicycle race held every July in tiny Staunton, Illinois. In this belly-busting race, competitors stop twice during the course at break stations where they are offered glazed donuts. For every donut that competitors consume, five minutes are deducted from their scores. Thus, for even mediocre riders who also are really good donut eaters, the ride offers an offset structure that makes them champions. In recent years, with top competitors downing over 20 donuts each, winners have actually posted negative times, finishing their races—on the books at least– before they began.
The full article can be accessed here. The article goes on to mention why the CDM will be a failure and how the US government is playing into the hands of the rich and powerful at the Wall Street. According to them, Wall Street is trying to create a huge financial market which trades carbon-reductions as a commodity. Since the volumes will be low, the market will not actually possess all the reductions being traded - it will be hedged and re-packaged in futures and swaps. This could well be the foundation for another financial meltdown!
Reading the article and learning about the possibility of carbon-based futures/contracts and swaps reminds me of Enron - how the company used to hedge natural gas and oil and make money and finally ceased to exist. The carbon finance space seems exciting and should throw up a lot of controversies over the next decade.
Post the carnage at Mumbai, global political games have kicked off. While India is constantly and as it seems, convincingly, accusing Pakistan of having played a direct role in the attack, Pakistan is using the good-will of its civilian leadership to act the angel. The US, never a mute spectator, has its own ends to meet through India and Pakistan. The leaders are measuring their words, encapsulating it in diplomacy to avoid a face-off.
A war-like situation is developing. Given the economic situation in Pakistan [their economy was on the verge of collapsing a few fortnights back; received a 'bailout' loan from IMF to the tune of $7 bn. ], it is evident that Pakistan can't afford a war. India, on the other hand, is economically much better off to deal with the inevitable.
Pakistani troops, about 100,00 in number are occupying its western border with Afghan and this is of utmost importance to the US to maintain pressure on Taliban. Fearing an Indian backlash, the Pakistan army has started to 'blackmail' the US maintaining that if India ups the ante along their border, Pakis would have no option but to mobilize their forces towards the east to fend off any Indian insurgency. That would inturn give Bush/Obama sleepless nights as all their progress in Afghan till now will be undone.
Given that international consensus and support is imperative for Pakistan's survival (lets talk about growth later), the civilian government led by Asif Zardari is playing all its diplomatic cards, including appeasing India to minimize the damage. If the civilian government is indeed looking at bettering ties with India, then this incident is a clinching proof to show that the military is the real boss. The international community, including India, fears that should a war break out in the near future, the military in Pakistan would overturn the people's government and we will again have a situation where the jehadi extremists call the shots. Add the nukes, the concoction becomes extremely precarious. Whether they have the pair to engage in nuclear warfare is a question better not posed to the radical extremists.
While India, in all its sanity would wage a 'clean war', the Pakis can resort to anything because the leadership there is based on anti-India ideology, a hatred based one. Infact, the Army Chief of Pakistan is a former ISI chief. This might prevent India from going ahead with a full-fledged war.
A quote from a recent TOI article:
Even in the political sphere, Pakistan's continued existence as a single entity is premised on enmity with India, the glue which keeps the country together. Some Pakistanis have suggested in recent months that take away animosity against India, then Pakistan's founding itself becomes questionable.
International community might vehemently side with India in the coming days but will also be careful enough to craft strategies to ward off war calls. The US has a bunch of problems to heed to - the economic recession and the transition in their own leadership. An Indo-Pak standoff will only add to their woes. US can't sever its links with Pakistan and they can't go back on the newly established love relationship with India. And at a juncture of transition between two leaderships opposite in their beliefs, more external trouble spells more internal indifferences.
Leave out everything, the coming few days will see a lot of international lobbying. Needless to say, a war SHOULD be avoided - but not at the cost of appellation of 'soft state' to India. Its time we show the world who's the boss and if need be, be the means to the end.
I, like everybody else, have a mortgage to pay. So, they want me to get a 'pseud' job. These guys here will give me an engineering degree very soon and ask me to leave. Others outside want me to have fun while I still can. Some people here are lost, like most other people here. A handful few here see that light at the end of the tunnel. She wouldn't believe me, though she says she does. And yes, to top it all, there is global warming, which I am told needs to be stopped.
Here I am trying my level best at changing the world, being a Douglas Adams. And I am, to change the world, quigga! View my complete profile
Email me: vikas DOT shen AT gmail DOT com. A turn-around time of less than 24 hours is assured unless the mail amounts to spam or requires (very) deep thought.
