Manufacturing Outrage

There's a Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid --- Really?

A few years ago, the well known management guru, C K Prahlad, generated a lot of enthusiasm with his claim that there is a fortune to be made at the bottom of the pyramid. Several companies climbed on to the Prahlad bandwagon but so far there is precious little evidence of investments being recovered, forget the making of fortunes.

Having grown up in the middle band of the middle class in India, I remember well the folks whose services made a difference to us. The dabbawala who came to our home each morning to take the dabba (lunchbox) that my mother had packed with hot, delicious food for my dad. The cornerstore owner who would sell us candies and savories for 5 paise (oh well, there .. I'ved dated myself) and 10 paise each. Televisions and telephones were luxuries back then and the radio was a common comfort. Narottam Puri was the "best" Indian commentator on cricket matters and Thums Up was a rare treat.

Against that background, making a fortune would require the provision of low-margin services to tens of millions of Indians. For a national enterprise to operate such a low-margin service, it would need to sell a homegenized service or product across the country. But India is all about regional customization, the ultimate in niche marketing. And every niche has it's local kings at every step in the hierarchy of niches. Each one makes a marginally better living than the person one step below him or her in the hierarchy. How then would a corporate enterprise be able to make enough money to sustain its managerial overhead, operational costs, distribution expenses, AND the low margin? Especially when entrepreneurs at every niche in the hierarchy are already providing excellent management in the context of the particular competitive challenges within their immediate domain of operations?

You can see where I'm going with this. To me, making large corporate fortunes by serving the lower levels of the pyramid seems like a largely improbable mission. Individual fortunes can be made and are made on a daily basis. But those individual fortunes are fortunes only in the relative context of the economic ecosystem that is specific to that particular level of the pyramid and require, primarily in its cultural aspects, a lifestyle that is adapted to that level.

The rest of you - focus on the higher levels of the pyramid.

The Carnage in Mumbai

"If you let them into even the edge of your frontyard, they will slowly encroach, inch by painful inch, into your very home."

Those were the words of a wise old Indian Army veteran who was enjoying a sumptuous lunch next to me at the wedding of one my vast army of relatives. I was a young chap back then, ready to exit my teens and ready to fake adulthood. The response was prompted by my question "Kashmir seems so far away. Why is the Indian Government spending so much money to keep fighting a seemingly endless war?"

As a young kid visiting my uncle in Mumbai, then Bombay, I wondered who could afford the luxuries of such a hotel. I remember the grand looking darwan's who welcomed the guests from overseas as I watched from about a hundred meters away. Then many years later I stayed for a night at the Taj with a colleague who is also a dear friend. We had dinner at The Zodiac Grill. Very expensive. Very very expensive. And I remember thinking that while the food was good, it must be the ambience people are paying for. Bhel at Juhu Beach and Chinese food on Marine drive packed a stronger punch. Or "kick" as we spicy-food-afficionados like to say.

All those memories came flooding back as I watched the flames that licked the inside of the roof of the Grand Taj Palace hotel. With it came outrage. How dare they. And with the outrage came the sinking thought that we are still stuck with the same political establishment. An establishment that will pay lip service to the sacrifice of the noble men who died so others may live. That will talk about a new federal agency, a new NSG-style unit for Maharashtra, and other such things. But until the men and women who vote for those politicians hold them accountable in a meaningful way nothing will change. Mumbai will continue to remain hostage to it's vulnerable underbelly. The dark world infested with shadowy characters who sell death to their citizens. The traitors that turn upon the same society that feeds them.

Feeling a bit disoriented, for now I will end with a few discursive thoughts:

1. Taking the Pakistani Government at face value, will the Indian Government ask them to hand over Dawood Ibrahim. Many knowledgeable reporters claim he is in Karachi. Get him so that the world knows that the Indian Government will hunt down those who unleash violence upon India, even it takes them a decade or two.

2. Will Manmohan Singh acknowledge his mistake in putting India and Pakistan on equal footing as "victims of the terrorists?" Lest someone mistake this for pro-BJP propaganda, let me state for the record, L K Advani is guilty of similar political opportunism in attempting to paint himself as a reborn secularist.

3. Will there ever be a political party in India that is able to synthesize a religion-blind outlook with a national security and national development agenda? None of the existing parties come close. The worst of the lot are the commies for theirs is a toxic agenda of left-wing economics, contempt for Indian tradition, and pro-China (actually, servile to China) policies.

Faculty Reservations at IITs

One hardly knows whether to laugh, cry, or simply turn away from facing the reality of what India is becoming. Underneath the glitter India remains true to the warped polity that shapes its policies.

The problem, you see, is not that the Government has imposed faculty reservations in the IITs. Banish the thought that a meritocracy cannot flourish through diktat, that it requires market forces, in their most primal form, to blossom. India is not a meritocracy. India is a compromisocracy, the original seat of "good enough." Where satyam, eva or otherwise, is no longer jayate.

The real problem is the way the ministry has demonstrated its complete lack of integrity by editing out from the minutes (!!!) all opposition to the reservations. The Government could have documented the opposition and decided to proceed with the reservations on principle. If they had the courage of their convictions. They do not. This weakling impotent Government that first mortgaged its independence to the Commies and subsequently sold what little autonomy they had to the Samajwadi Party, is now paying the tax on that sale. Think about it - they are faking a consensus where they could have taken a stand. Frankly, even writing about it is enervating. There is no longer even a sense of frustration at what India has become. Just a sense of futility at what it is.

I did not go to an IIT, so I have experienced the instructional prowess of the so-called Professors (God knows it is painful to even refer to them that way) recruited under the policy of reservations. My sympathies are with the next generation of IIT students. You starry-eyed, bright, intelligent, hopeful optimists - welcome to the rest of India.

Reintroducing John McCain

Who is John McCain? A man who stands up to his party? Or the man who pick Sarah Palin as his running mate? A maverick? Or an opportunist? The last few days have provided us with a vague picture of the new McCain that is forming.

A man who is comfortable with an over-the-top Giuliani (remember the wannabe President also-ran who's campaign famously unraveled in Florida?).

A poser who claims to reach across the aisle, but dispatches attack pitbulls (don't let the lipstick fool you) that don't let truth stand in the way of a good dig.

A rich man, with a privileged upbringing, who would like us to forget Phil Gramm, McCain's economic adviser who recently famously said that the economic recession is just a "mental recession," and that America is a "nation of whiners."

A staunch Republican who has voted for the policies of the current Government over 90% of the time, but would like us to think he is a centrist. If McCain is a centrist, Bill O'Reilly is a humble gentleman.

A temperamental man who would like us to not see beyond the fake warmth of a forced smile. Watch McCain - he only laughs heartily when he is taking a dig at someone.

A political opportunist who, to distract the public discourse from the problems that ail this country, selected as his running mate a rabidly anti-trust (to me choice and trust are synonymous) anti-abortionist who opposes abortion EVEN in cases of rape and incest.

A hypocrite who argues for transparency yet won't ask his running mate to release emails she wrote as Governor. And forget the claims of "privilege," on these emails she copied her husband who has no official position in the Government of Alaska.

A man who is so desperate to be the President that he took back his words criticizing James Dobson, and recruited a partner to mend his bridges with the same folks he supposedly thought were fringe elements to be rejected.

Is this a profile of a man who should be the next President of the USA?

South Carolina and The Gender Vs. Race Debate

At last night's speech in South Carolina, Obama showed the effects of the accelerated learning process that primaries are. I found his comment about "change is difficult" and about us having to overcome our "own doubts, fears, and cynicism" to be somewhat of a coming-of-age comment for the coalition that he has pulled together. And as expected, the only thing more rousing than his win last night was his victory speech. This guy can inspire with his words.

In reading some of the news articles this morning I came across an article by Jessica Reaves (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-obama_thinkjan27,0,1870901.story) of the Chicago Tribune. Let me start by saying she actually quotes Gloria Steinem's NY Times article as positive evidence for her case. Ms. Steinem exhibited an unfortunate sense of timing by publishing an article on why women are never the front-runners just 2 days before the New Hampshire vote. Now if Ms. Steinem had published that same article in the months before Iowa, she would command our attention and respect. Coming at the time it did, it was more of an apologist's tribute to the slipping Mrs. Clinton.

The Steinem article also reeked badly of an entitlement attitude - this is supposed to be Mrs. Clinton's turn; she endured all that humiliation and shame in return for this payback; she is the only woman of our generation who has a chance; a young, hopeful, inspiring upstart has no right to take it all away simply because he has a powerful personal story, has worked his heart out on the south side of Chicago helping the underprivileged, was successful at Harvard and Stanford, etc.

Ms. Reaves takes the Steinem hypothesis and builds upon it. A collection of 3 or 4 comments by folks like Chris Matthews and John Edwards is used as the basis for a sweeiping assertion of an imagined backlash against a successful woman. She uses an old journalistic trick by providing the only examples she can find to boost her hypothesis, makes a list, and adds an etc. at the end to make it look like there are more to add if only there were the time and space to do so. What is most telling is the irrational conclusion at the end of Ms. Reaves' article - if Obama wins then everyone will have to concede the point that in politics "gender remains a more profound obstacle than race." Apart from wanting to say "tell that to Jesse Jackson," isn't it appalling that journalists sometimes suffer from the same disease that politicians suffer from? If someone opposes or rejects their pet idea, it is obviously not because the idea isn't a good one but because there is a "vast _insert_your_favorite_category conspiracy" against the idea. Ergo, if Obama were to win then "Gender is a more profound obstacle in politics than Race." Would Ms. Reaves concede the opposite were Mrs. Clinton to win? That the results prove that Ms. Steinem was entirely wrong in her assertions and that, in fact, "Race remains a more profound obstacle than Gender?" Intellectual honesty and integrity would demand that she accept the challenge. But wait, the need for honest and integrity might in fact be the most profound obstacle to meaningful debate in the public sphere.

"Fairy Taled?"

So here is a prediction - by the next election cycle "fairy taled" will join "swift boated" as a new adjectival phrase that is used with a negative connotation.  "Fairy Taled" will likely come to mean that someone falsely maligned your "real story."  

Are the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth really good company for a former President to seek to be in?

Edwards The Loser

Thought I'd share an observation re: Edwards. That Edwards is desperate to turn this into a two person race with him still in it is not a surprise. But his tactic is a bit strange. When Hillary was number 2 going into NH, Edwards sided with Obama to attack Hillary (rememmber "us change mongers are always attacked by pro-establishment dorks") or something along those lines. Now sensing that Obama is number 2 in Nevada, Edwards is siding with Hillary to attack Obama. How can anyone count on a guy with such a sneaky, loserish plan. Sheesh Edwards.

Nevada Caucus Teacher's Union Lawsuit

You know, regardless of the outcome of today's court hearing, it will be Advantage Obama if you accept the premise that in popular public perception the Clinton team is somehow behind the lawsuit by the Teacher's Union.

If the Court decides against the Teacher's Union, then Obama will benefit in Nevada from having the Caucus sites along the strip.   The Culinary Workers' Union will be able to maximize the votes it can deliver to Obama.

If the Court decides in favor of the Teacher's Union, it will form a stunning example of the power of the establishment-backed Clinton to change previously agreed upon rules when the rules don't suit their purposes.  Remember, the decision to allow at-large caucuses was proposed in March 2007 by the state party and approved by the Democratic National Committee in August 2007 - Obama was nowhere close to Clinton in polling back then.  And tellingly no one opposed the ruling until the Culinary Workers decided to back Obama.  Bill Clinton can fake all the outrage he wants to fake but he knows he is in a bind.  Obama will go to town with strong evidence that backs his claim to being the "anti-establishment" change candidate.  In a way, I think I might prefer the Court ruling in favor of the Teacher's Union.  The benefit in the other states will be huge for Obama.

Just to throw in something to make you think - if the Teacher's Union loses, would Obama still be able to claim that he stood up to the establishment and prevailed?

Nevada Democratic Debate 1/15/2008

In the Democratic debate last night in Nevada everybody tried to show themselves in the light of an uniter and not a divider.  But with Hillary it felt contrived.  Very contrived.  While she looked presidential in the debate, especially because she had the center seat, her tone was shrill and her demeanor harsh.

Overall, I felt Obama prevailed in last nights' debate.  He appeared thoughtful and calm.  Of all 3 candidates, Obama was the only one who would answer the question head on, assert his positives, and stop talking.  Almost every single time Hillary and Edwards would try to either evade the question or talk about one of the other candidate's shortcomings.  Obama did it a couple of times but with the other two the negative contrasting seemed excessive to me.

Obama also made the audience laugh with him at least 3 times.  And each time his humorous comments had a genuine warmth to them.   He came across as the most human candidate of the 3.  By far.

BTW, commentators haven't noticed yet but they will soon.  The worst line last night came from Hillary "I am a political realist ..."  Great going.

The Parsing of "Is" - A Retrospective of the 2008 Clinton

Hillary and Bill Clinton make some stupid, ill advised comments that display a fundamental lack of understanding and respect for the impact of historical icons such as MLK.  But rather than admitting to making a mistake or even admitting to a poor choice of words, they would rather attack reasonable people for making reasonable inferences.   This insult-to-intelligence retrospective parsing that has been a characteristic of Bill Clinton (who, by the way, I strongly supported much to my recent chagrin) seems also to be a characteristic of Hillary.

Do the Clintons have a racist streak?  Probably not.  But the real message of the MLK incident is not really that the Clintons are somehow dismissive of the Black community.  The real message is that they are dismissive of everyone else in their grasping, desperate desire to grab power.  In fact, it is a fair bet that Hillary's moment of emotion in New Hampshire was really more about her feeling vulnerable and lost than about her concern for America's future.  Let me digress for a moment and talk about the NH result.

My theory is that Clinton took New Hampshire by a slim margin (with no delegate advantage) due to the following 3 reasons:

1. The Democratic establishment which is alive and well in the major cities went into overdrive in order to minimize the margin by which Hillary would lose.  Remember, the Clinton campaign thought she was sure to lose the primary in NH.  That panic drove the establishment folks into frantic action that resulted in a larger turnout of pro-establishment folks in the big cities.

2. The polls lulled independents into a sense of comfort about Obama ("oh he will win") and pushed those choosing between him and McCain to vote for McCain and save that candidacy from extinction this early in the process.

3. Women who saw Hillary's moment of emotion identified with her as someone in need of support at an emotional, not political, level.  They saw a woman who had to live through the humiliation of a philandering husband's public indiscretions.  And they saw her on the brink of total personal humiliation by losing the primary in a big way.  So a few, but a decisive few, came out and voted for her.

These 3 reasons could easily account for the small margin of victory.  But now that Hillary has been saved from that public embarassment women in future primaries are free to reject her.   And they will.

But back to the MLK incident.  The NH moment of emotion showed that Hillary is in the game for no larger cause than herself.  But unfortunately that moment gave her campaign the room to claim that it showed her "human" side.  The MLK incident shows, without any room for triangulation, that the 2008 Clintons are the same as the 1992 Clintons - they will attack anyone, any ideal, any icon, anything that they think stands in their way.  And they will do that without regard for the feelings and values of others.  So because Obama is compared with MLK and Kennedy they attack King as merely a dreamer and Kennedy as someone who was "hopeful" of getting it done.  Note that she dismisses King and Kennedy.  Even though, as we all know, the act was passed essentially due to King's leadership, Kennedy's vision, and his tragic assasination.

But note also that Hillary thinks of herself as being like LBJ.  In one of my management classes the professor talked about politicians and their leadership styles.  She presented us with a lot of material on LBJ.  What I remember is this - LBJ was the ultimate Washington insider, a political operator par excellence.  I will let the reader draw her or his conclusions.  

Finally, let me touch upon one other thought that sends chills down my spine.  I recently heard on the news that Hillary is reaching out to Latinos in order to counter her weak support among blacks.  Now, if you haven't guessed it yet from the rest of this blog, I hail from India.  India is the original home of "vote bank" politics that Karl Rove perfected in the US.  Slice and dice the electorate and put together a coalition of the slices and dices that guarantees victory even if the price is a highly polarized nation with a political environment that makes it impossible to pass anything other than cliched legislation.  If "vote bank" politics is not defeated as a discredited paradigm of politics then America will end up becoming a soft power.  And the world will be left without any decisive leader.

So to me the choice is not between Hillary and Obama, it is between a future where a strong, compassionate America is once again referred to as the United States and a future where America is effete and defensive. 

Narendra Modi and The Gujarat Surprise

So Modi won. Sonia, Rahul, the Congress, the Left, BSP, and other minor parties collectively lost. And now the great Indian Leftist Hyprocrisy machine has embarked on its "fact finding" mission. What mission you ask? The mission is to fabricate a reason that allows the Left to continue their pretense of a moral high ground while denying the reality of the people's mandate.

Whether one agrees with everything Modi does or not, it seems like a general consensus is forming amongst the educated majority that the Congress and the Left does not have the nation's interest at heart. The Left, to repeat the old story - so old that no one repeats it any more, is owned by the Chinese. Scoundrels such as Sitaram Yechury continue to exert an influence on the Indian polity that would not be tolerated anywhere else. Especially so given that the jokers in the Politburo cannot even win an election on their own. In fact, it is this isolation from the reality of everyday politics that allows them to continue to plight their ideological troth to the now discredited ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao.

The Congress, ah, what can one say about the great mythical Party. Once it was all things to all people. But Indira destroyed the federalism of the Congress Party and with it its ability to maintain two levels of relationship with the Indian voter - the local and the national. As she promoted Jyoti Basu in the West Bengal and cut down Kamaraj in Tamil Nadu, she sowed the seeds of today's Congress. A party that still aspires to maintaining its tenuous claim on being the party of "Freedom Fighters" is now led and controlled mostly by Sonia (who, by the way, according to many reports still holds an Italian passport) and Rahul (ditto). Look at their home page (www.aicc.org.in). The introductory page seems almost apologetic about India - the Congress is beating back the Communal cesspool that India threatens to become. The dark joke of course is that it is the Congress and the Communist Party that continue to pose the greatest Communal threat of all. With the reprehensible class and caste-based politics, the two seek to divide and rule.

Despite his various shortcomings and flaws, Modi has exposed one critical weakness in the Congress/Left combine. They are incapable of effective governance because their decisions are mortgaged to far too many stakeholders with conflicting demands. Modi, on the other hand, has provided effective governance, superb social services infrastructure, and an action-oriented administration. When people can see the results, it is hard for the Congress to deny them. Imagine this - in the rural areas in the recent state elections, the Congress was reduced to making claims such "Modi has failed to provide electricity for 24 hours a day" while simultaneously admitting to journos (ah, yet another bane of modern India) that he only manages to provide it for "22 hours." And that is a failure!! In India! Does the Congress even want to get into that kind of match?

JNU: The Last Communist Bastion

For long, JNU has been a Government subsidised leftist resort. Actually, not subsidised ... entirely paid for. As with any institute that is insulated from competition, the quality of the institute now befits its name. But a recent article by Shri Vivek Kumar, Asst. Professor of Sociology at JNU (see http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1493711.cms) is terrible even by the low standards of what passes for research at JNU.

Let me see if I can get Shri Vivek (oh the irony!) Kumar to follow his own twisted logic to its, dare I say it, logical conclusion. Shri Kumar's central thesis is this: if the caste system was so good (ah! you got it --- he is setting up an easy facade to pull down) and if the upper castes are so meritorious (another red herring -- nobody who opposes reservations really argues that this is so), then how come they failed the country by failing to make us all well-educated (the task of the Brahmins), protecting our borders (the Kshatriyas), and by making us a competitive economy (the Vaishyas).

So here goes. First, if the insinuation (what else do these leftist worthies have time for) is that the upper castes are not meritorious then a merit-based system should work phenomenally well for the rest of society. By forcing the merit-starved upper castes to compete in a meritocracy, the JNU stalwarts can provide the merit-rich a framework in which they can accomplish their full worth.

Actually, that alone should do it. The other arguments that come to mind would be beyond Shri Vivek Kumar's comprehension if the above one eludes his understanding.

Random Musings on India

Ya ya, its been a long time since the glorious start but, you know, I have a real life too. So.

Anyway, this piece is inspired by televised scenes of India's cities. In this piece, I'll start off with my favorite folks - the police in India.

Has anyone thought about how every televised visual shows the inefficiency that is rampant in India's Government institutions? The most emphatic example of this has got to be scenes that show policement. In Indian cities, whenever there is an "incident" the lathi-wielding police are out in numbers. But that, of course, is no different from anywhere else in the world. What is different is what they seem to be doing. First, not one of you, I assert, wil be able to recollect any scene where the police personnel seem to be arranged in some kind of professional scheme. They are all usually clustered together, slouching, their shoulders in the eternal droop of the physically indolent, paunchy, and with a body language that practically screams "lackadaisical". Why? Why do we silently countenance the expenditure of crores of public monies in the maintenance of such a force, if we can call it that. I would say spent if I felt that they had ever exerted themselves.

The uniformed ones never ever seem to be doing stuff alone; they hunt in packs. Usually of tens. They are usually shown crossing the street towards no particular goal. And all together of course.

Another place you meet the police are at traffic stops. We must be one of the few countries in the world where we have traffic police and electric stop lights in the same place. Always. If we are going to spend money on policemen, then cant' we at least dispense with the electric lights and save some money.

And of course - reflecting our colonial past, our bureaucratic mindset, and the uniquely Indian conflation of responsibilities across insitutional boundaries, we have the police deployed at airports to check the passports and visas of those coming in. Not once, not once has any of these worthies said anything remotely like "welcome back", "hope you had a pleasant travel"; never. There is the surly, wordless extension of the hand into which you are supposed to divine the request for your passport and some other paperwork. There is some officious and noisy stamping of multiple pages. And then there is the surly turning away from you, supposedly dismissive in the worthies' mind.

A digression - The socialists and communists in India have robbed us of our soul. Anti-god by principle and anti-human in their practice, these worthies have reduced India's once splendorous architectural history to a soulless, uninspiring industry today. Government buildings are all uniquely drab, Orwellian nightmares. The buildings are solid blocks of badly built rectangular concrete blocks whose sides are punctuated with narrow slits creatively labeled as windows. The buildings are either unpainted or are painted in yellow or green with streaks of rust running down the sides.

The Fake Scientist

After initially falling over each other to heap praise and undeserved prizes on Saurabh Singh of Ballia, Uttar Pradesh, the Indian media is now on its next mission of "exposing" Saurabh. Sad thing is that this entire episode really captures, in a stunning, brilliant, snapshot the current state of the Indian media. For years I have read reports of how our journos simply take press releases from organizations and file them as news reports. The Saurabh Singh episode shows that in its current state, the media has no self-correcting mechanism. Self-referential and circularly referential writing has been a hallmark of Indian scholarship. One simply has to look at the Irfan Habib-Satish Chandra scandal where clear evidence of plagiarism was presented by Arun Shourie. This by a person who was the chariman (or wanted to be, I forget now) of the Indian Council for Historical Research. The current Saurabh Singh episode is simply a continuation of the same mindset. One paper reports it. Another journo reads the article and arbitrages it from the vernacular to the English media as a "news report". It is revealing that there is no editorial review of such breathtaking news. In a marketplace where credibility has no value, who will spend time or money protecting it?

Now before you start wondering whether I am simply taking one incident (however big) and using it in a disproportionate way think about this: Ganapati drinking milk, Ramar pillai and petroleum from leaves, Saurabh Singh ... all these huge huge "news reports" within the space of a few years! I have long felt that Indian media is in a tailspin - just take any newspaper and read through the frontpage looking for typos, syntax errors, bad English, etc. etc. Within the space of a few column inches you will run out of red ink in your correction marker.

That said, there are a few quality operations that still exist. But the market is flooded with purveyors of bad news. Unless India as a society can filter out the incredible from the genuine, debate on any topic will continue to be marked by false claims, unattributable quotes, non-existent numbers, plagiarized opinion pieces, etc. etc. etc.

How it all started

So this is how it starts. My first blog. Well .. actually my second blog but I forgot the username and password for my first one. A long time back. If I don't remember it .. did I do it? So perhaps this is my first blog.