Disallow Open (Season On) Primaries

Bernie Sanders wants all Democratic primaries to be open because he benefited from them. They are not fairer than closed primaries as he claims. It's just the opposite - they can allow avid opponents of the Democratic party to hijack their primaries by voting for the weakest candidate.

This may well be the reason that Bernie could win just one closed primary in Oregon. All his other victories only came from open or semi open primary states, or those holding caucuses. It can also explain Hillary's surprise loss in Michigan where polls showed her leading Bernie by double digits. Michigan as an open primary state could have enough of its Hillary hating Republicans (many calling themselves Independents) voting for Bernie as an easier to beat general election candidate.

Caucuses favor Bernie with his smaller but more passionate following for an entirely different reason. Caucuses suppress voter turnout because they make voting harder. They disallow early voting, have restrictive times for assembly, and take hours to complete instead of simply pulling a lever or marking choices on a sheet. They also lack secret balloting, creating peer pressure among the timid to go along with the vociferous "feel the Bern" supporters. As widely acknowledged in the media, if all caucuses had instead been primaries, Hillary would have won the nomination by even wider margins.

So Bernie is silent on converting Democratic state caucuses (that suppress voter participation much more than alleged by closed primaries) into primaries, even open ones. His hypocrisy here is matched by his about face on the role of  Superdelegates from whom he now seeks the Democratic nomination despite Hillary convincingly winning the popular vote.

Bernie justified his changed demand on the ground that he fared better than Hillary in some polls in a hypothetical general election match up with Republican opponents, including Donald Trump. Such polls have a similar flaw as the open primary elections - participants can deliberately mislead and distort results.

They can do this if they want to tarnish a strong candidate that they dislike. For example, Republicans who are polled can say truthfully that they will choose Trump over Hillary, but then lie on the next question, declaring they will vote for Bernie over Trump. This way they know that Bernie will look better than Hillary in the poll match ups, and weaken her standing. Bernie supporters can truthfully answer that they'd choose Bernie over Trump, but lie and say they'd choose Trump over Hillary just to make Bernie look better than her. Even a small minority of polled respondents engaging in this gamesmanship can easily skew the results, as seems to have happened.

You may wonder why all this is not brought up in media discussions and coverage, if manipulation in open primaries and polls is actually happening. While it is possible that some in the media and polling organizations are simply oblivious, I suspect most keep quiet because publicizing the fact can lead to even greater abuse. That is because many people who hadn't thought about it can then jump in and also engage in this behavior. Plus, it would cast more doubts on the authenticity and reliability of the polls and decreased interest in them would lose audiences, adversely affecting the media and the polling organizations.

Coming back to the design of presidential primaries, why would Bernie who is very unlikely to again contest as a Presidential candidate push for open primaries? I suspect because of how he'd like to be remembered and preserve the sense of outrage among his followers. His preferred narrative would be that he would have done much better had there been open primaries with better scope of voter participation. And that the present corrupt system in a way cheated him of his nomination. That's nonsense of course as he probably knows, but hey, his self importance can trump (pun intended) the facts.

Finally, the design of the primary elections is largely a matter for the individual states and not directly connected to the Democratic Convention, so he's barking up the wrong tree. I do think the state primaries system for Presidential elections should be reformed, through efforts directed at the right (state) quarters, but in a way contrary to what Bernie demands. There should be no caucuses and no open primaries anywhere, only closed primaries so long as voters are allowed two or three months ahead of an election to declare their party choice.

India Visa Misery

According to World Bank India gets 7 million visitors a year, which is shameful for a country of this size, economic importance and cultural heritage. This compares with Vietnam's 8 million, Malaysia's 26 million, Thailand's 27 million, Russia's 31 million, China's 56 million, U.S.A.'s 70 million and France's 85 million. Moreover, as anyone looking around at fellow passengers on flights to India will attest, most of the visitors to India are people of Indian origin visiting their (erstwhile) homeland.

A big reason for this disparity is the torturous process required to secure an Indian visa. This was brought home to me last week when "J", the mother of an Indian friend sought my help to apply for her Indian visa after she was naturalized as a U.S. citizen. Even with liberal use of Google and my familiarity with Indian bureaucracy I found the process to be very time consuming and confusing. It would be much worse for my U.S. friends contemplating vacation alternatives. And they have a wide choice of destinations so why would they not simply go elsewhere?

Back to "J", I found she had to both renounce her Indian citizenship and apply online for a visa application in addition to submitting paper forms. The renunciation process starting with an online link and a separate one for visa application seem simple in theory but are frustrating when you actually go through them. Problems include:

• No integration between the two processes (e.g., common checklist of documents needed) or clarity as to whether you can mail all papers together, combine payments into one sum, etc.
• Unclear about kind of visa needed (e.g., under visa categories, should former Indian citizens wanting to visit apply for tourist visa or entry visa? What is the difference in functionality and fees?) 
• Outdated and contradictory information about visas (e.g., under Visa Provision tab they show a tourist visa is for only 180 days. They have changed the "entry visa" type to "Foreigners of Indian Origin" and say validity is 5 years. Actually both tourist and entry visas can be valid for 10 years.)
• Long and tedious visa application form with too many questions, including your parents' dates and cities of birth, countries you've visited in the past, references in USA and India, etc. Can't they see how much easier and shorter is it with most other countries?
• No up front look possible at the blank application form - you have to fill initial information before being able to move to the next section. (Perhaps preventing a look in advance is to avoid scaring away applicants.)
• No fee information or comparison table up front. For instance, you can't know till you fill both forms that the 10 year multiple entry "tourist visa" costs only $100 versus $240 for the equivalent "entry visa". Or how the entry visa is better (answer: you can stay beyond 180 days per visit.) How much for a business visa? Sorry, you have to fill a fresh form to find out. Also, because they haven't updated the website, they show the maximum period of validity of an entry visa to be 5 years instead of the (correct) 10 years. 
• No proper online "check out" calculator showing total dues including processing and mailing fees for the selected option. So you're not sure if you have correctly added up the application fee, the mailing fee, etc. when you're sending in all the papers. As an added annoyance they don't accept personal checks (the U.S. simply waits for them to clear) and make you go to the bank to get a money order or cashier check. True, they accept credit cards (with an extra 3% convenience fee) but this option doesn't work when you need to renounce Indian citizenship AND get a visa. Reason: a glitch in their system blocks you from making payment online for the second application (e.g., visa) after you've made it for the first (e.g., renunciation.) 

Even a bright high school student with coding skills could make this whole online process easier and glitch free. The problems are probably due to sheer incompetence, though you cannot rule out their partly resulting from cynicism of higher foreign service personnel. A foreign service equivalent of India's "Inspector Raj." You see, the importance of local consular staff and their bosses is inflated and they can oblige more people by helping them overcome hurdles that come up when you apply through regular channels. 

A silver lining is that the private agency that now accepts applications in U.S.A on behalf of the Indian consulate - CKGS -  has good people and strives to be helpful. After we discovered mistakes in her mailed application and submitted documents, I advised "J" to visit the CKGS office in New York. They quickly retrieved her mailed papers, took the revised application form and additional documents required, and she was done in 10 minutes. In three days she got her completed papers mailed back to her. So my advice to anyone living close to CKGS centers is to walk in (preferably after making an online appointment) instead of applying by mail.

With Narendra Modi with his vaunted reputation for efficiency becoming prime minister last year can we hope for fixes to the system? I've already seen some evidence of this. For example, since January 2015 the so called OCIs (Overseas Citizens of India) who hold lifelong visas for India now just need to carry their OCI card to enter India. They no longer need to go through the ordeal of getting a "U visa" sticker affixed to their passport every time they get a new one, or carry their old passport with the sticker with them. (Even in this there are residual inefficiencies in online instructions. The new instructions are mentioned in red in the relevant website, but in the ensuing 9 months the older rules on this haven't been updated in other parts of this and other official websites.) 

Visa difficulties not only severely inconvenience those needing to visit India but also deprive India of a much larger influx of (presently turned off) tourists that can enormously benefit its economy. As with the OCI sticker issue, the top political leadership should pressure the bureaucrats to improve their act in other consular functions as well.

Good Times After High Crimes

The two murderous lifers who escaped from a maximum security upstate New York prison have expended massive resources towards their recapture. But even if this hadn't happened taxpayers spend up to $60,000 per high risk prisoner per year. Our sense of justice not to speak of our physical and economic well being would have been better served if these two had been executed for their crimes long ago. And since their guilt was never in doubt there was no chance of imposing the ultimate penalty on an innocent.

As of now 19 states have no capital punishment and it is very sparingly used in the rest. We are very easy on our most violent criminals in other ways as well. The worst offenders can lead pretty nice lives, have regular sex (one even impregnated four guards) and get good healthcare. I wrote about "Crime and (Low) Punishment" back in May 2007 and "Arming and Coddling Our Criminals" in July 2012.

According to Gallup Americans favor the death penalty 63% to 33% and yet more and more states are abolishing it. The reason elected political leaders are collectively going against popular will has something to do with the packaged set of political choices that voters face. I like the Democratic platform favoring choice on abortions, universal healthcare, legalizing marijuana, easing up on victim-less crimes like drug use and prostitution, environmental conservation, gay rights, gun control and more public spending on infrastructure and R&D. Yet the Democratic package comes with things a majority including me don't like: favoring strong unions that extract wages and benefits far above free market levels; ethnic quotas over meritocracy in the name of diversity and affirmative action; litigious malpractice and tort system; and yes, coddling vicious and violent criminals.

The same can be said on the flip side for Republicans. The primaries process makes it worse, since the more extreme elements have a bigger role in choosing and influencing candidates in each party than in the general election. Look what happened to the moderate Mitt Romney in 2012 - his forced rightward shift in the primaries made him unwinnable in the general election. To his credit Obama in the 2008 primaries came across as more liberal than he actually turned out to be, helping him topple Hillary. This time the centrist candidates like Hillary and Jeb Bush have a much better shot at winning their primaries, especially if partisan voters place more emphasis on who is winnable in the  general election.

But I digress. Is there a way to have popular preferences better reflected in laws and their implementation on the ground? I'd like more issues like capital punishment, gun control, legalizing marijuana and assisted suicide decided at the state level through referendums. This way voter intent is less likely to be hijacked by minority views bundled into each party's platform.

Pay More And Get (Much) More

The latest Congressional lawmakers caught in ethical and financial wrongdoing are Democratic Senator Bob Menendez and Republican (now ex) Rep. Aaron Schock. And sure, I feel anger and disgust. Only most of it is directed at the simpleminded public and an imbecilic media influencing it to keep our elected leaders ill paid and vulnerable to petty temptations.

Americans by and large accept our capitalist system where CEOs and other top officers of large companies are paid millions or tens of millions of dollars in salary. In the same way our annual federal budget of over $3.5 trillion is collectively controlled by a 100 Senators and 435 Representatives, or over $6 billion apiece. That's above the revenue threshold of $5 billion for a Fortune 500 company. Yet they're paid only $174,000 each with no raises since 2009.

This does not even count the millions of dollars they have to raise to fight elections - every 2 years for Representatives and 6 years for Senators. Unless they are very wealthy and prepared to use their own money they have to fund their campaigns by turning to deep pocketed donors who rarely give anything for free. And once lawmakers of modest means are taking help in cash or kind for their campaigns it's a small extra step accepting this for personal gain or pleasure.

Sen. Menendez' lengthy list of alleged transgressions sound relatively minor to me. He has a rich ophthalmologist friend of 20 years named Dr. Salomon Melgen who contributed over the years a total of $750,000 to various campaign funds helping Mr. Menendez. The Senator also used perks like private jet travel, hotel and villa stays paid for by Dr. Melgen. Mr. Menendez for his part pushed for favorable treatment of Dr. Melgen's cases involving billing disputes with CMS (Medicare), grant of visas to foreign girlfriends of Dr. Melgen on three occasions, and trying to further Dr. Melgen's financial interests by dissuading donations of monitoring equipment to ports by the Customs and Border Patrol.

Political leaders and officials frequently try to help or further the interests of their constituents, friends and relatives. My colleagues and I regularly fielded such calls when I was in the Indian government. Some matters were purely discretionary, i.e., the decision could have gone either way on merits. It is for the concerned agencies to decide whether to accommodate such requests or refuse because they clearly violate some rules or principles. Grant of a U.S. visa for example (as I know from the experiences of hundreds of Indians) often hinges on the whims of the consular officer who happens to be interviewing the applicant. So a Senator weighing in on behalf of a close friend's girlfriend(s) isn't a big deal.

Rep. Schock's excesses are more trivial still, though his donors claim they were swindled by his "campaign full of corruption and lies about his integrity." He splurged taxpayer or campaign funds on doing up his office like in Downton Abbey, some duty free shopping, a couple of non-official trips by private jet, and taking his staff / interns for a New York trip and a Katy Perry concert. The cumulative excess tab was well under $200,000, and there was no "bribe multiplier." By that I mean that taxpayer or donor loss is no higher than Mr. Schock's benefit, unlike in bribes where the loss to government (or briber's gain) is far higher than the payoff to the public official. (That's the whole point of paying a bribe - getting back much more than your "investment.")

These lapses by the two lawmakers are microscopic as compared to failure of all in Congress on the truly big issues. Take healthcare expenses, which nationally run to $3 trillion annually with almost half in public funds. This is about $9,000 per capita, over twice as much as in peer developed countries, and yet Americans on average get less care and suffer worse outcomes.  We can bring down our prices to West Europe levels without compromising quality through straightforward steps I outlined back in March 2011. We don't because lawmakers instead heed and protect the health insurer, provider and affiliated lobbies. This costs us $1.5 trillion extra, or a sellout of nearly $3 billion annually per Congress member. Another example: low tax rates for hedge fund managers (who overall don't produce anything useful, and typically through their seldom detected shenanigans like insider trading, hurt ordinary investors.)

I see three takeaways. First, let us mainly judge our lawmakers and leaders on how they promote and protect our national interests on which we spend billions and trillions of dollars, and cut them some slack on travel and office expenses. Second, let us be enlightened enough to pay them salaries and allowances commensurate with their responsibilities that have at least partial parity with those in the private sector. This will make them less vulnerable to petty corruption and not so easily bought out for small favors. (That's why you rarely see CEOs of S&P 500 companies engage in petty corruption, not because of their superior morality.) And third, let us have true campaign finance reform and publicly funded elections so that our lawmakers need to depend less on special interests.

About the last it is heartening that Hillary Clinton after announcing her 2016 Presidential bid spelled out campaign finance reform as one of the four main tenets of her campaign. It will be great if President Obama (who as outgoing President will be seen as having no axe to grind) strongly pitches for much higher salaries for Congress members, federal and state heads, as they're all underpaid. Even Republican lawmakers and Governors who oppose Mr. Obama will appreciate this as their espousing this themselves is seen and derided in the shallow media as being self-serving. And I'd certainly like to see the new President champion this, perhaps as an adjunct to campaign finance reform.

So how much is a fair salary? I'd point to "clean" Singapore's example where top officials and administrators are paid in the seven figures, and their prime minister is the highest paid worldwide. Illustratively, a large and rich country like U.S.A. can pay its President $5 million annually, Congress members $2 million, about the same for state governors, adjusted for state size, and significant raises for most states' legislators. They should also be paid very decent pensions, while being barred from holding future "influence" jobs such as of lobbyists where they interact with former colleagues and staffers. All this may cost an extra $4 billion or so annually but think of how it will improve the stewardship of our $4 trillion federal budget, and similarly of state funds.

Myopic thinking fanned by an asinine media that is behind the poor pay of our public leaders is not just a problem in U.S.A.  Back in an Aug. 2007 post I had reacted to chain emails sent by otherwise educated and intelligent friends about how overpaid Indian Members of Parliament are swallowing up our national resources. Then in May 2009 I wrote on the misplaced outrage at some pathetically small expenses by British Members of Parliament.

So no, we're not alone in our thinking. But I just hope Americans can like Singapore be more progressive and enlightened in paying our public representatives better, and reaping the rewards in the form of much better and cleaner governance.

Obama's Words (Still) Speak Louder Than Actions

"In the military, as in any organization, giving the order might be the easiest part. Execution is the real game." - Russel Honore.

President Obama's soaring speeches essentially got him into the White House. His DNC 2004 keynote speech first won him national attention.  Then a couple of "Hope and Change" oratories with mix and match phrases were key to his 2008 primary and general election victories. He also has a great sense of humor, which makes his White House Correspondents Dinner addresses and appearances on Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert shows like on Dec. 9, '14 worth watching. His policies haven't appeased most Republicans but they're quite centrist and track majority opinion fairly well. So what's his biggest problem?

His weakness per my March 2013 post is in poor implementation, neglecting routine administration, and not anticipating and addressing problems before they become critical.  When faced squarely with a crisis or challenge Obama marshals his faculties and resources to rise to the occasion. That's how he outplayed Hillary Clinton in 2008, dealt with Hurricane Sandy effectively in 2012 just before his re-election, recovered from the awful start of the HealthCare.gov website, and so on. But the Executive-in-Chief should execute well in general, not just in firefighting mode.

The President cannot do everything, so he needs to pick the right people to work under him, track their performance, press them to improve where needed, and replace them quickly if they don't. Obama here is no worse - and probably better - than "heckuva job, Brownie" G.W. Bush.

But he falls well short of Bill Clinton whose operational excellence was a largely unsung and under appreciated aspect of his presidency. Not only did the cogs of the day to day government machinery run smoothly then, but major programs took off without hiccups. Examples in health care are the Clinton launch of children's health insurance program and the overhaul and immense improvement of the Veteran's Health Administration (VA).

And how is Obama doing now, as compared to his earlier years? Significantly better in some aspects. Examples:

• In health care he finally dispensed with Kathleen Sebelius and appointed the far more competent Sylvia Burwell as health secretary. The lackluster CMS chief Marilyn Tavenner is also gone. A post 2013 team along with Accenture now running HealthCare.gov has immensely improved operations including enrollments under ACA (Obamacare). 
• Janet Napolitano is gone as Secretary of Homeland Security, replaced by a much better Jeh Johnson since December 2013. One change I personally noticed is the much quicker processing of international flight passengers at our JFK and Newark airports. The hour plus long lines have now decreased to a wait of 20 minutes or less.
• U.S. postal services have improved some services, e.g., with insurance and tracking already included in Priority Mail packages.  More outlets like Staples now sell products and accept postal packages. 

There are still visible shortcomings, ranging from the trivial and irritating ones I see in my daily domestic life to those of national importance. Examples:

• The streams of unwelcome phone calls from marketers, including robo-calls on Do-Not-Call registered land line and mobile phones has become even worse. The FTC seems totally unresponsive to complaints, and this has made marketers more brazen in flouting this one very welcome law passed in the G.W. Bush presidency. Even authentic information about U.S. based scammers and violators contained in complaints seems to disappear into a black hole. Although the FTC is an independent agency, its Bureau of Consumer Protection works closely with the Department of Justice. So the Obama Administration through Eric Holder's Department of Justice can and should get them to go after violators much more vigorously. Let's see if Holder's chosen successor (currently nominee Loretta Lynch awaiting Senate approval) turns out to be better in this regard.
• U.S. post offices still don't display prices for common services like rates for domestic and international mail and packages. You can ascertain these piecemeal at automated stations, but these should be displayed for quick information and comparison. Why isn't this done on now so inexpensive electronic displays that can be readily updated when rates change? Plus the USPS is still losing money. A competent administrator should be improving efficiency and reversing past giveaways in pensions and benefits instead of trying to curtail services, like Saturday mail delivery.
• Highly paid West Coast dock workers in a labor dispute are crippling the supply chains for many American businesses and hurting our economy. Yet Obama's administration is dragging its feet on ordering an end to this work stoppage. In contrast, the Canadian government moved to end a rail strike there, prompting the management and the union to quickly resume operations and agree to arbitration. 

In foreign relations there are lapses in policy as well as execution pertaining to the Middle East and Ukraine:

• An Oct. 9,'14 Reuters report describes Obama's rejection of proposals of his senior advisers to intervene in Syria and Iraq that allowed ISIS to expand. Though liberals may defend his initial restraint, there's little excuse for the poor execution of his subsequent decision to intervene militarily, support forces against ISIS, etc. 
• Obama's hesitance to help Ukraine militarily in countering Russian backed separatists has contributed to Ukraine's rout and loss of strategic towns in recent battles. He argued against supplying lethal weapons on the grounds that this will further antagonize Russia and kill off peace talks.  I'd have expected an effective administration to at least be feverishly positioning such arms for rapid transfer and deployment if peace fails, and to be covertly training Ukrainians in their use. After all, Russia and the separatists have repeatedly violated prior agreements. Instead, the Middle East problems of US military help coming too little, too late seems to apply to Ukraine as well. 

Some of these outcomes could have been different under a better Secretary of Defense. Obama has at least appointed the well regarded Ashton Carter as the new Secretary who emphasized competence and effectiveness after being sworn in.

In sum, the Obama Administration functions better now than till 2013, though there is still ample room for improvement in his remaining second term.  I also hope that his successor after 2016 is more into good governance from the start.

Independence Day - Just How Much To Celebrate?

It's July 4th today, the biggest day of celebration for Americans. What I personally value most about it is the fireworks display and the opportunity to go on a mini-vacation for the long weekend.  Right now Anita and I are enjoying our road trip to Toronto, meeting up with friends and family after stopping to admire Niagara Falls for the nth time.

For U.S. patriots it's unquestionable that the U.S. winning its war of independence was the best thing that could ever have happened, and was the basis for U.S.A. becoming a superpower. We're certainly in a very happy place, and Americans have a lot to be very proud of. 

But what if the war of independence had never been fought, or our founding fathers had lost it and the British continued to rule as a colonial power? It's similar to what happened when the Rebellions of 1837 were successfully put down in Canada. Would Americans today really have been worse off?

An answer may lie in looking at how other colonies set up populated largely by British and other European settlers have evolved to this day.  These are Canada, Australia and New Zealand.  The GDP per capita comparison shows Australia's is higher than U.S.A.'s ($67K Vs. $53K), Canada's is almost the same ($52K) and New Zealand's lags slightly at $41K. All of them have robust democracies and good quality of life for their residents that some may argue is better (because of universal healthcare, lower crime, lower unemployment, etc.) than for the average American.

The British were hardly monsters who mercilessly exploited these colonies made up of their own emigrants.  Over time they loosened their grip so that self-rule evolved anyway.  It is entirely possible that the American States with their larger population, more favorable geography and climate would have done even better.

More importantly, Canada and U.S.A. could have been one country if we had evolved instead of breaking away from British rule. That would mean twice the land mass, all the oil and gas (including shale oil), minerals and other natural resources of Canada added to our own.  More liberal Canadian thinking may have tempered our (new) Tea Party activism and influence.  Heck, Britain also abolished slavery in 1833, so we may never have come to events leading up to the civil war.

It's a good question as to what Canadians would have gained from being part of the U.S.  Should our successful war of independence and 4th of July be celebrated equally by Canadians because it gave them a whole country (with much higher natural resources per inhabitant) to themselves?
 

We're All Fair And Balanced In Our Own Eyes

Non-Republicans laugh at the Fox News Channel's describing itself as "Fair & Balanced" and this slogan is the butt of endless Jon Stewart digs on The Daily Show.  But its hardcore audience laps up  the Fox News fare as gospel truth (an appropriately applicable term for this viewer demographic) and sees no irony.

Most of the world including many Muslims regard the Al-Qaeda and the Taliban as destructive and fanatical operatives that are a blight to civilized society.  Yet these militants think of themselves as soldier-saints of Allah setting out to right society. 

Israeli rightwing nationalists feel it's entirely justified and reasonable for them to expand Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.  And Iranian hardliners feel the same way about denying Israel's right to exist.

We all tend to see our own viewpoint as being right and those deviating from it - even if it's an overwhelming majority - as being wrong.  In her 2008 "Buried Prejudice: the Bigot in Your Brain" in Scientific American, Siri Carpenter describes how reported facts are filtered by our biases that are often shored up by self-interest.  "We are pre-disposed to ascribe superior characteristics to the groups to which we belong, and to exaggerate differences between our own groups and outsiders."  She goes on to quote studies showing that "many of our implicit associations about social groups form before we are old enough to consider them rationally... full fledged implicit racial bias emerges by age six - and never retreats."  This may also apply to religious bias.

This brings me again to my ongoing discussions about Muslims, with relatives and friends in India who are highly intelligent, fair minded and decent, even if we've different perspectives.  Some exchanges have been triggered by blog posts and popular forwarded emails I get from them.  They talk about secular politicians pandering to Indian Muslims, the destructive role of Islam and its meager contributions to humanity (measured by Nobel Prizes awarded to Muslims), etc.  Some others in my circle have been privately reacting to my June 27 post "Treating Our Indian Muslims Right".  Three examples below illustrate my disagreements with them:

a) An email doing the rounds glorifies Nathuram Godse, the Hindu assassin of Mahatma Gandhi, reproducing his supposed speech at his trial where he talks of Gandhi working against Hindus and favoring Muslims.  Those who forward it generally preface it with a disclaimer like "I don't agree with what Godse did or all he says, but he does have a point."  I personally am repelled at the killer of Gandhi, a disgrace to their Hindu community, sought to be partially rehabilitated through half rationalizations in this manner.  You'll find this Godse speech and reenactments all over on Google and on YouTube.  In viewer comments, Hindu zealots hailing Godse's murder of Gandhi outnumber those who deplore this by ten to one or worse.  At least this shows that bigotry abounds in all religions, and "pacifist" and "all-embracing" Hinduism isn't different in this aspect.

b) Some of my friends and relatives proclaim that "secular" in India means being "pro-Muslim" and reverse discriminating against Hindus in order to garner Muslim votes en bloc. A friend in his blog uses the phrase "secular fundamentalists" to describe secular politicians. He says that "secular" in their dictionary means being contemptuous of their own (Hindu) religion and being obsessed with that of another minority, the Muslims.  I pointed out that the Muslim vote bank (14.5% of the population) is much smaller than the Hindu vote bank (80% of population) that would be put off by such a bias.  The friend countered that Hindus are too fragmented and turn out in smaller percentages, so wooing Muslims this way still makes sense to these politicians. 

Well, UP is India's most populous state where the Muzaffarnagar Hindu-Muslim riots recently occurred. I see from UP 2012 election results that the winning Samajwadi Party got 34% of the votes, and secular BSP and Congress got 24% and 12% respectively.  In other words the secular parties combined had about 70% of the vote, and given that Muslims comprise 18% of UP's population, the other 52% of their supporters have to be primarily Hindus. You'd hardly expect such support from Hindus for a party that discriminated against them. In any case it's much easier to cast lots with a dominant majority and stronger side.  While corruption, inefficiency and infighting may justifiably sink them, we should at least credit secular parties with  fair-mindedness and courage for trying to level the field for minorities.

c) An otherwise saintly elder relative in India echoed a sentiment in our circle when he said, "If you see Muslims on TV they are so aggressive (while seeking rights and denouncing oppression).  Can Hindus raise their voice in Pakistan and other Muslim countries?"  I on the contrary expect Muslims to freely express their justified indignation at being targeted in riots on account of their religion.  Moreover, I'd hate to see Muslims in India treated the way less tolerant countries treat their minorities, including Hindus.  That's what makes India's secularism and inclusiveness so much better than the ethos in those other countries.

Of course, being "truly" fair and balanced should be just one of the major factors for voters everywhere, including Indians.  Given the widespread corruption, stifling bureaucracy and ineptness that permeates the present Congress government in India, I'd agree with its detractors that it should be replaced.  The clear frontrunner to lead a new Indian government is Narendra Modi of the BJP, the Hindu-centric opposition party.  Modi has developed a solid record and reputation as an able and incorruptible administrator as Chief Minister of Gujarat State which has made remarkable progress in his 12 year tenure. Widespread accusations of his involvement in the deadly 2002 anti-Muslim riots have never been proved and he has protested his innocence and made numerous overtures and reassurances to Muslims recently.  So I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and cautiously favor his election, especially if other alternatives like the well regarded Nitish Kumar of Bihar are not nationally viable. But unlike Modi's BJP supporters, my choice would be based purely on economic and administrative grounds, and in spite of, not because of his RSS / Hindutva roots.








 

Treating Our Indian Muslims Right

I've received an email from a friend implying India should emulate Japan when it comes to keeping Islam in check and the Muslims at a distance.  The email includes a lot of the claims about Japan and the Muslims mentioned in this supposedly Muslim hating website "BNI" that instead refutes them. 

I'd instead like to see our Hindu majority to go out of its way to reassure Indian Muslims that they are a welcome and valuable part of the fabric of our society. This will strengthen our secular values and further distance our Muslim community from extremist elements.  I admired and appreciated Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee's sponsoring in 2002 of prominent scientist Dr. Abdul Kalam (a Muslim) to be President of India.  This significantly reshaped my perceptions about Mr. Vajpayee's BJP party which has Hindu-centric origins and affiliations. 

Our Muslim community braces for silent suspicion and hostility towards them whenever there's a terrorist act in India by Muslim extremists.  This is in spite of most Muslims having no links or sympathies with such radicals.  Ideally, after any such incident our Hindu leaders and community figures should rush to declare that we know our Muslim community condemns these acts as much as anyone else.  And our leaders should follow through by exhorting their followers to make Muslims living among them feel as safe as possible.  Thomas Friedman in his Times columns speaks glowingly of Indian tolerance and minorities largely thriving and safe in our society, and we should remain committed to this ideal.

Then there are my personal experiences.  When I visit Mumbai in India I often happen to use cabs driven by Muslim drivers.  Mumbai residents are often compared to New Yorkers in their disinterested demeanor as both belong to large bustling cities and tend to mind their own business.  I'm sometimes surprised at how these supposedly impersonal Mumbai drivers warm up and become almost sentimental if I (who they think is Hindu) talk to them amiably and respectfully after knowing that they're Muslim. 

In Pune in 2008 we hired attendants for my in-laws (Daddy and Mummy) who were both hospitalized.  It didn't even register with me that one of them named Shabana was a Muslim until another of them referred to her as "woh Musulman" ("that Muslim" in slightly derogatory terms.)  When Daddy and Mummy left the hospital, on advice from our family and friends we asked if they were comfortable having a Muslim like Shabana working for them at home (along with three others who were Hindu).  They said yes.  Shabana turned out to be the most caring and kindest to Mummy, who passed away in Dec. 2010.  After we had to terminate her service Shabana came to visit Daddy three times in the next two years just out of fondness and concern. 

Daddy's favorite doctor in his neighborhood was the reputed Dr. Inamdar, a deeply religious Muslim, who has a very busy practice and sees over a hundred patients a day. He had no time for house calls but made an exception when I appealed to his sentiments and informed that Daddy and Mummy were in no condition to leave home.  From 2008 till they both passed away (Daddy in May 2013) Dr. Inamdar regularly and devotedly attended to them at home.  He would tell me how he was impelled in part by the respect and affection that Daddy and the rest of us accorded to him.

From time to time I get forwarded emails from friends and family in India faulting some political parties for pampering and pandering to Muslims.  Other emails are more vehement about Muslim teachings and customs that make this populace as a whole untrustworthy or prone to militancy. I'd urge more understanding, and regard a more relevant distinction to be between the zealots and bigots who make trouble, and the moderates in any religion.  Hindus comprise over 80% of India's population with Muslims at about 13.5%.  A little magnanimity on the part of our Hindu majority will counter some inevitable feelings of insecurity among our Muslim community and considerably help in their regarding themselves as Indians first.
 

Sensible Security Vs. Paranoid Privacy

I've viewed the ACLU as a mixed blessing at best, as some of their laudable defense of civil liberties and social equality has been offset by needlessly obstructive litigation.  In the second category I'd include their lawsuit against the government's "phone spying program" that aims to prevent or detect terrorism.

The US National Security Agency (NSA) collects meta data (place and time of calls, and to whom) and likely records a lot of calls made overseas as well.  It is not clear from news reports if their analysts can mine that data and access recorded conversations without a court order.  Even if they can, I'm fine with it so long as there are stringent penalties for misuse or unauthorized disclosure of such information, e.g., to expose extra-marital affairs or other embarrassing but non-criminal acts.

In a dangerous and uncertain time when there are inevitably those living within the US who'd like to do us harm I'd much rather choose security over some loss of privacy.  That includes measures like widespread video surveillance in public places, a national ID card, a national gun registry, some degree of profiling as I wrote in August 2009, and yes, electronic eavesdropping.  Tom Friedman in his June 11 Times column voices a lot of my thoughts except that I'd not so "reluctantly, very reluctantly, trade off the government using data mining" but strongly endorse it.  In the same spirit I consider Bradley Manning who sent a trove of secret State cables to Wikileaks and NSA leaker Edward Snowden (if the US ever gets him) to be deserving of stiff jail terms. 

Many Americans agree with me, though poll results over the past couple of weeks vary depending on whom you ask and how you frame the questions.  According to USA Today on June 18, most Americans support prosecuting Snowden who is sought by the US and is for now in Russia.  There's an age divide, with the younger generation much more supportive of Snowden's leaks, which I attribute to their naivete.  After all, this is the demographic that helped Obama top a more capable and qualified Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic Primary. (Sorry, past and present Obama fans, I couldn't resist this dig.)

Curiously, I see some mainstream media reports referring to Snowden and even Manning as "whistle blowers" which is a term for exposing illegality or wrongdoing.  That is not the case here, as they've instead leaked secret but legal acts or communications, so the the term "whistle blower" shouldn't be debased by applying it to them.

About the other security measures I reeled off above, to my mind privacy for privacy's sake is overrated, especially when it tips the scales heavily in favor of criminals.  Why not introduce a national ID?  Accompanied by biometric markers it would be much harder to fake and could significantly impede identity theft.  It could also make life for the truly innocent and harmless more convenient, as in airport security screening.

Why not have everyone's DNA and fingerprints in a national registry along with criminal information, so long as access to it is graduated and available to the authority only to the extent justified?  For example, police officers making a traffic stop could access if there are any outstanding arrest warrants for anyone they pull over, but not prior convictions that could prejudice them.  This type of comprehensive registry would enormously expedite and ensure detection and apprehending of the guilty if their DNA or fingerprints are found at the crime scene.  For the same reason we should indeed have not just a national gun registry but also to the extent feasible the ballistic records of every weapon to make criminal forensics more effective.

Privacy is another term for concealment, and I can see why we'd want things like our bedroom behavior, non-criminal fetishes or even some misdemeanor offenses to be inaccessible to the public at large.  But that's very different from information we're talking about here, which can seriously impede crime, terrorism and other really bad stuff.  Modern technology makes it possible for us to not just store vast amounts of useful information about people but also to selectively restrict access to it.

Of course, data hacking and cyber security failures can expose secret information but that happens anyway in other settings like email and other records, and lapses can be mitigated with extra care.  After all, our banks, the Pentagon and the CIA do not avoid collecting and storing confidential information in electronic format just 'cause this can possibly be hacked. The same logic should apply to keeping relevant and useful information about all Americans in a common, well secured database.

So while the ACLU and libertarians keep crusading against NSA "excesses" like warehousing electronic communications and centralized databases  I view most of these as sensible measures to make us safer.

Execution Vs Policy

In his second term President Obama's Administration should do a better job of day to day administration in which some of his departments fell short.  But first some background.

When Snowstorm Nemo dumped two feet of snow in our town of Danbury CT on Feb. 9 we had a couple of pleasant surprises.  First, our local roads were quickly and efficiently cleared thanks to Mayor Mark Boughton's workforce and similarly our highways by state crews under Gov. Dannel Malloy.  Second, unlike in past storms we didn't suffer major and widespread power outages. This may be partly due to better preventive operations like cutting trees threatening overhead power lines.  Gov. Malloy replaced the power company's management in Oct. 2011 when 70% of the state's homes lost power for several days, and he pushed for better preparedness against future storms.

 The point is, both Republican Mayor Boughton and Democrat Gov. Malloy enjoy high approval ratings and support from the same set of voters among us.  It's not so much because of their policies as for their efficient execution and running a responsive day to day administration.  In a Democratic leaning Danbury I've seen Mayor Boughton win with two thirds of the vote over his Democratic opponent in the past three elections, and deservedly so. 

At a national level good execution was a big reason for President Clinton's success and popularity.  For example his administration transformed veterans hospitals (VHA) from "dangerous, dirty, scandal-ridden" institutions to ones delivering "the highest quality care in the country."  In general I just remember feeling that the branches of federal government though imperfect ran more smoothly and efficiently during his tenure.

President George W. Bush on the other hand (in Paul Krugman's words) had a reverse Midas touch - everything he touched turned into crud.  It wasn't just his wrong decision to invade Iraq, but the faulty planning and execution of the war and its aftermath that turned it into a costly debacle.  Who can forget the "Heck of a job, Brownie" handling of Hurricane Katrina?  Unlike Clinton, GWB tended to appoint cronies based on personal relationships and ideology rather than on ability, which compounded his lack of natural ability to govern effectively.  The financial crisis of 2008 had complex roots including policy failures by the Fed's Alan Greenspan and Clinton's Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin's earlier deregulation leading to risky bank behavior.  But there was an execution aspect as well, like allowing Lehman Brothers to collapse like it did leading to a domino effect.  To be fair though, GWB made some amends by appointing William Gates as Secretary of Defense, and Ben Bernanke as Fed Chairman.

In India one of the most admired (and controversial) leaders is Narendra Modi, the long serving Chief Minister (equivalent to Governor in the US) of Gujarat state.  He is widely regarded as a Hindu zealot suspected of encouraging the 2002 anti-Muslim riots that killed 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus.  Yet it's his efficient and clean administration with a progressive outlook that has raised Gujarat's fortunes and made even secular minded voters look upon him favorably as a possible future Prime Minister of India.  In contrast, I agree with much of the philosophy and ideals of Congress Party's Sonia Gandhi with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. But the ineptitude and corruption pervading their administration has alienated even staunch supporters of their Party.  

People standing for elections and the voters deciding amongst them tend to set more store on policy declarations and the likeability factor ("whom would you more like to have a drink with").  Their ability to execute takes a back seat or at least isn't evaluated in depth.  That's fine for legislative roles since Senators and Congressmen are charged with setting policy and laying down laws, but not so much for Presidential and governor races.  After all, for elections to the "Executive" branch of government, shouldn't the ability to "execute" well be a crucial criteria? 

This brings me back to the Obama Administration whose score card in implementing laws and execution has been mixed.  President Obama seems more into speeches and broad ideas, without Bill Clinton's knack of keeping tabs on implementing laws, administrative efficiency and effectiveness.  (Obama fans may dispute this by pointing to his personal involvement in those drone kill lists, but I distinguish that one bit of micromanaging from general emphasis on administrative effectiveness.)  Obama's remoteness means that the performance of his departments depended on who he chose to head them. 

One reason I rooted for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primaries was her better grasp of the issues (which also helps in administering well) and her being the other half of the Clinton team of 1992 - 2000.  Obama made her Secretary of State where the attack on an unprotected US mission in Benghazi is an exception to her overall sterling performance.  Obama also got Bin Laden of course, and did solidly in continuing the appointments of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. His other good choices in his first term were Leon Panetta for CIA and later Defense, and Arne Duncan for Education.  He did well in areas under national spotlight like restoring the effectiveness of FEMA and responding to Hurricane Sandy on the eve of his re-election.

In other departments his choices left something to be desired, and Obama so far hasn't matched Clinton's ability to spot and tighten under-performers whose actions are less in the  news.  While minor in themselves these add up to how his administration impacts the everyday lives of ordinary Americans.  Here are some examples including what I've seen and experienced at first hand:

• FCC and the do-nothing Do Not Call registry.  George W. Bush did something right when in 2003 his administration started the Do Not Call registry to save us from those nuisance marketing calls. Getting on that list is easy and over three fourths of Americans have registered for it. The penalties of up to $11,000 and $16,000 per violation should be enough to deter offending marketers.  The problem is that the FTC and the FCC who are supposed to act on complaints of violations do so little about it.  Consumer complaints have poured in with 212,000 in April 2012 alone, but the enforcement penalties have been a measly $5.6 million to date in the most prominent of violations. I've personally filed scores of complaints after digging out the identities and contact information of the callers (no easy task as they know they're violating the DNC) and heard nothing back.  What's the use of having laws if the FTC as well as the FCC does so little to enforce them?  I see robo-callers and marketers increasingly emboldened and flouting the law, and get half a dozen of these calls on many days.  I'm glad FCC Chairman Jules Genachowski is leaving.  Now if only Obama can get his successor to better mind day to day enforcement in parallel with those "bigger" anti-trust and policy issues.

• Homeland security and airport entry.  I marvel at the speed at which the hordes of incoming international passengers are processed at Mumbai and Delhi airports in "third world" India.  They have about 40 immigration counters open, and even with several planeloads arriving simultaneously the longest I've had to wait in the last half a dozen visits has been 40 minutes.  In Europe and the Middle East it's been much faster - never longer than 10 minutes.  In contrast, the last four times I've entered the US at JFK or Newark airports the wait has been at least an hour, even though the number of incoming passengers is a fraction of those in India.  The reason?  They seem to consistently have too few agents at the counters, with most of these closed. I've felt particularly bad for women with babies and young children who had to struggle through this as there is no separate quicker processing for them.  Surely the Homeland functionary sitting in Washington DC who oversees airport entry could have video feeds from the processing halls of all major airports to see these long lines.  It speaks poorly of Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano and her deputies who directly supervise this.  My complaints and suggestions in this regard have been met with stock responses from underlings of the very official at these airports who is responsible for such laxity.  

• US Postal Services (USPS).  We have excellent mail carriers for our home, as is the staff at our local post office.  But here are some experiences pointing to management miscues.
•  Our local post office no longer displays prices of standard products like first class mail, priority mail, express mail, international mail or passport processing.  True, you can find them at the automated kiosk or once you talk to a postal clerk but there's often a line for both of these.  So it wastes time when you cannot think and plan in advance while waiting in the line and slows customer processing from the post office's viewpoint.  The only rates I see are of overpriced stationery products like envelopes and boxes that you can buy for a third of the price at Staples or Office Depot.
• Three years ago I went to our area's 24/7 automatic postal station after regular manned working hours to buy stamps for mailing some letters to India.  But the menu of choices on the kiosk screen did not include mailing to foreign destinations, nor dispense stamps for an amount I wanted to specify.  So I had to go back home, look up the rate information on the internet and use stamps at home before dropping off the letters.  The problem? A glitch in their software upgrade that may well have affected automated stations in many parts of the country.  This problem persisted for several weeks, if not months.
• To lower costs a lot of USPS mail boxes have been removed all over the US in the past years, so they're typically a couple of miles apart in our Danbury area.  That's fine.  The one closest to our home by the roadside is a drive-up with a protruding slot in which we can drop off letters without needing to get out of the car.  It was damaged 4 years back and replaced with one without the protruding lip (that costs may be $50 extra) so that everyone using it had to park and get out of the car to use it.  It took them two years to affix that lip and I'm thinking of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of times users had to be inconvenienced in this time. 
• When our daughter Rubina was getting married I went to a privately run authorized post office which was open later than our main office in Danbury. I showed the agent our wedding invitation cards being mailed within and outside the US.  He determined the postage due, sold the stamps, helped affix these and accepted the cards for delivery.  Ten days later some of these came back to our address (apparently from some sorting facility) for insufficient postage.  Because they were square in shape, not rectangular, they asked for 17 cents extra.  So the mail sorters acted at odds with the counter sales person working for the same organization, wasting our time and effort in the process. 

There's hope.  When Obama first entered the White House he didn't have any executive experience unlike Clinton who had been governor of Arkansas.  Now with four plus years under his belt Obama can do better in performing the "ordinary" but important role of government.

Voter, Blame (Or Pat) Thyself

Cynicism pays.  Mitt Romney doesn't seem to be hurting from switching positions in the blink of an eye to whatever his audience of the moment wants to hear.  All his "then and now" video excerpts  played by Jon Stewart in the Daily Show and by other media haven't stopped his upward momentum in popularity.  With two weeks to go before elections he's pulled even with (or even slightly surpassed) Obama in national polls.  Pundits on average have Romney's chances of winning the election improving from less than one in four a month ago to almost even now (though NerdWallet still has him only at 29% today.)

And then we have India where corruption, the role of money in politics, inefficiency and populism has severely affected economic growth. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with a clean image is called an underachiever by Time in its July 16 issue for failing to check corruption around him, and to stick his neck out for reforms.  With a few notable exceptions it looks like elected leaders of whatever party or political platform are on the take.

Looking at India and the US as examples, are the virtues of democracy as great as they're cracked up to be?

"Even the worst democracy is better than the best of dictatorship." Thus said then Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani of Pakistan in Feb. 2010 and I've heard this sagely intoned in our polite circles in India for decades. 

Really? Will average Chinese citizens trade places with their Indian counterparts, including the growth rates over the past quarter century that have made the Chinese thrice as rich?  A June 21, 2011 article in Business Insider lists the most economically successful dictators of the past century, and generally left their people a lot better off than before.  England's golden age was in the 16th century when Queen Elizabeth I reigned (1558-1603) wielding absolute power, seeding the idea of benevolent despotism. 

Still, the odds favor democracies.

Corruption and misuse of power can flourish in any political system, but democratic checks and balances like a free press and independent judiciary can better restrict the most egregious behavior.  An Oct. 26, 2012, NY Times story describes $2.7 billion of wealth amassed by the once humble family of Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao.  Compare this to Robert Vadra, Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law and Priyanka's husband whose wealth grew in 3 years from $100,000 to "just" $60 million.  And consider that Robert Vadra's alleged misdeeds are being widely reported and criticized by Indian media, while a tight lid is kept in China on any adverse news about its leaders.

Democracy has another thing going for it - people choose their leaders and hence are responsible for their own plight.  Chance still plays a role, of course.  Two prime ministers, Narasimha Rao who started economic reforms and his successor from the opposing party A.B. Vajpayee, were better than expected, and India thrived.  Mr. Manmohan Singh isn't terrible but he fell short of his high promise.  In US recent history Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush probably represent the opposite ends of the performance spectrum.  

Still, in past presidencies and the coming general elections of Nov. 6, US citizens decide on their leaders, for better or for worse.  There's no one else to blame or congratulate for that choice, whether it's made with eyes wide open, or out of ignorance.  Does there have to be a lot of the latter for the Republicans to win?  After all Republican stances on important issues like taxes, health care coverage and the social safety net are less favorable to the middle class (and the poor of course) than Democratic ones.  In the NY Times on Oct. 24 Nicholas Kristof describes how Obama's economic policies trump Romney's.  Instead of USA's steady if modest recovery under Obama, Europe style austerity measures favored by Romney and Republicans would have led to Europe style economic crisis.  Yet Republicans can only clinch elections with substantial middle class backing.

Election propaganda and voter ignorance of course play a role, but more complex factors may matter more.  Man does not live on bread alone, and factors beyond material and physical benefits may turn the scales to explain why many in the middle class identify with Republicans. 

Are Romney supporters oblivious of his duplicity, especially the 95% who lose out in Republican intent to "broaden the tax base" while lowering taxes for the richest? Some are, though many more may simply overlook it because his party's platform is closer to their disposition on social values, religious zeal, immigration and racial issues, etc. 

In a few days we'll know who and what wins out.  And with the US being a great democracy our voters will get to live with their choices.

Arming And Coddling Our Criminals

Democrats and Republicans both provide comfort and help to our violent offenders. 

The Democrats (actually the Liberals who closely identify with them) have made jail terms shorter and more pleasant for felons.  They've had the death penalty abolished in 17 states and Washington, D.C., and cheered its erosion in the remaining 33.  The 12 killed and 58 injured by James Holmes in a Colorado movie theater have created headlines and the guilt or deliberate intent of the shooter is never in doubt.  Yet an insanity defense is almost certain and it will be many years if ever before this guy gets the ultimate punishment.  Something he would have dodged with certainty if he had chosen the "right" state - one of those 17 merciful ones - to stage his crimes.

Still, violent criminals everywhere should be heartened by the overall statistics.  There are about 14,000 murders committed in the US every year, and only about 43 of the guilty are eventually executed.  So the odds are very good that killers even if they're caught will spend their lives in prisons with decent food, stay, entertainment and health benefits, thanks to liberals' efforts and court directives by progressive judges.  Not to mention the opportunity to bask in media publicity and star in shows like "Lockup Raw."

About two thirds of our murders are committed with use of firearms.  And this is where the NRA backed Republicans are key to ensuring that our criminals are well supplied.  Some precautions like background checks are rendered meaningless when you can avoid them in gun shows.  But as remarkable is letting assault weapons like AK 47s or hand guns with high round magazines be owned for self-protection under the 2nd Amendment.  There have been ample studies like this one of Feb. 2010 in News Medical about how guns in homes do far more harm than good to the owners themselves, leave alone other victims.  Mere facts can't compete of course with the NRA's "Founding Fathers" rhetoric. If it was valid 200 years ago (when slavery and subservience of women was also the norm) many Americans think that alone is a good enough reason to continue such practices. 

There were several media laments about how Obama uttered platitudes but did nothing substantial after the Colorado massacre to force gun control.  But this close to elections I don't blame him.  A large chunk of independents or undecideds can be turned off by such a measure, and those who favor it may be upset, but they'll never switch to Romney.  And conversely, the same may hold though to a much smaller extent for Romney to stick to the NRA playbook. 

After the elections there should be a serious overhaul.  In September 2009 I suggested key changes to our criminal justice system, though these may shock Liberals as well as those on the hard right.  An articulate and astute President supported by some key Congressional leaders with similar qualities from both parties could make this happen.  They can win broad acceptance and acclaim from the "non-fringe" populace, and find alternative sources of campaign funding and support to replace some they'll lose from their extreme base.  See how many of these proposed changes you agree with.

On Rajat After The Verdict

A month ago on June 15 a jury found Rajat Gupta guilty of insider trading.  He faces sentencing with substantial jail time in October, although he will appeal and his lawyer said "This is only Round 1."  His best case scenario is overturning of the verdict on appeal, followed by retrial with a more favorable outcome - a harrowing process that will last years.

Headlines like the one in WSJ said "Insider Case Lands Big Catch" but this is misleading. It implies snaring someone who played a huge part in, or was at the root of insider trading.  Instead, Rajat's "bigness" lies in his fame and prominence in contributions to business and philanthropy, or the respect and esteem he was held in prior to being charged in this insider case. Any wrongful gains as a result of his alleged insider tip-offs adding up to a few million dollars to his friends (none to him personally) are dwarfed by his positive contributions to society, business and philanthropy.  Those could easily run into tens of billions of dollars, if quantifiable in monetary terms, quite apart from the way he profoundly touched people in personal contact with him.

Assuming he's guilty as charged (a jury's findings don't necessarily make it so) what caused him to act that way?  Even the prosecution said it wasn't for greed or "quick profits but rather a lifestyle where inside tips are the currency of friendships and elite business relationships." The Financial Times on June 19 and the WSJ on June 18 offer insights on how the Indian culture and way of helping friends could have affected Rajat's perceptions about passing on inside information.  While it is illegal just like in the US, "insider trading is widespread in India, and often not considered a serious crime."

Anant Rangaswami in his June 16 article "Rajat is no criminal, he's just an Indian" in FirstPost says, "... in India, many of us are bemused by the accusations and the conviction. A man goes to jail because he shared information with a friend? By that yardstick, half of India would be in jail.  Knowing people in power and to benefit from the knowledge and contacts that they possess is the ladder to success that Indians have recognised centuries ago.  It’s an ethos and a culture – and it’s deep-rooted...That’s the first step to insider information, to an unfair advantage.  But that’s what India is all about – having the contacts and taking advantage of the contacts to give one an edge...The moment everybody does it, we forget that, in the first place, what is being done IS wrong. And when everybody does it for decades and centuries, it’s so much a part of us, part of the way we behave and interact." 

But the US is very different with very tough laws against leaking of and trading on non-public information, right?  Well, no. It just depends on who is doing the leaking and the trading, and on the type of information.  Rampant legalized corruption existed right through till April 4, 2012 when under media glare and public pressure the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act was finally passed.  Till then Congressional leaders and their staffers could freely trade on stocks even if they knew these would be drastically affected by their pending or forthcoming legislation that wasn't public knowledge.  And even this law has deliberate loopholes that would let a truck through.

For instance, Ron DeLegge in ETFguide on April 12 writes: "When a hedge fund or an influence peddling individual wants inside information, they can still buy it – by paying members of Congress or other high level officials for something called "political intelligence." This rogue but still legal practice of gathering information from lawmakers and Hill aides is regularly used by Wall Street to steer money into profitable investments. It's nothing more than legalized cheating, because he with the most money and political influence wins.  CASE STUDY: Former US Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson sold political intelligence when he tipped off hedge funds about Fannie Mae's rescue in 2008 while he was serving as the U.S. Treasury Secretary. Paulson's hedge funds pals made billions in illicit profits. That type of unethical conduct is still legal under the "new and improved" STOCK Act. ... Here's another gaping omission: The STOCK Act still allows elected officials to own stock in industries they can affect with their political power." 

On the non-government side another Paulson, hedge fund manager John ("JP") Paulson, packaged the worst mortgage backed securities he could find into the "Abacus" fund and bet heavily against them.  He then colluded with Goldman Sachs to dupe its own clients into buying these funds, causing them heavy losses.  "JP" as the counter party made $1 billion from this and got clean away with it. And a July 15, '12 NYT story describes how hedge funds and big investors widely use as yet non-public analyst inputs to gain improper trading advantages.

In sum the ethos in India as well as in US financial circles may have shaped the actions of an otherwise upright Rajat whose goodness and modesty I saw and mentioned in my March 29, '11 post.  He may not have considered it that big a deal to share scraps of yet-to-be-public information with a friend, especially if he was not personally benefiting from this.  Of course he must now be regretting if he did it, and is paying a terrible price.

Interestingly, my May 12, '12 post analogy about even Mother Teresa being prosecuted in our justice system if she committed a robbery was repeated almost verbatim by Judge Rakoff in court 5 days later.  He may have seen my post, or simply thought of the same analogy.  Either way he also hopefully considers a person's history of good deeds and overall conduct, though irrelevant in the charging and jury trial stage, to be a key factor when it comes to sentencing. 

Rajat is almost the diametric opposite of a face for financial greed and misdeed.   Unsavory Wall Street titans often give a portion of their ill-gotten wealth to charity or philanthropy to burnish their image, salve their conscience or feed their egos while lavishing the rest of it on themselves.  Rajat in contrast has used his talents and energies for doing good that outweighs the value of alleged illegal favors to friends by a thousandfold.  As for any personal gains he made none and ironically was instead stiffed out of $10 million by Rajaratnam who quietly withdrew his own investment from his ailing Voyager fund without informing Rajat. 

Some of the more sympathetic media coverage has highlighted Rajat's contributions and philanthropy in the abstract sense.  Yet just as much it's the personal goodwill and concern for those around him that has rallied friends to his side, including the 300 plus who signed an open letter at a website set up to support him.  I've interacted with him just about a dozen times, and yet he made a profound impression.  To see why, consider for example my first meeting with him and his ever warm and kindly wife Anita. (They may not even recall any of this as I understand that this was quite typical of their behavior.)

It was early 1991 and my family had just joined me from Shimla, India a few months after I joined my Ph.D. program at the University of Chicago.  The saintly Mr. P.K. Mattoo, retired Chief Secretary of Himachal state and my ex-boss whom I loved and respected had sent a little gift packet through my wife Anita to be given to his niece Anita Gupta.  All we knew through Mr. Mattoo was that his niece had married a fellow IIT student named Rajat "who after completing his MBA in the US had settled into a nice job in Chicago."

 I called Anita Gupta and learned they lived in the northern suburb of Winnetka on the opposite side of Chicago from our Hyde Park campus.  We combined dropping off their packet with a Sunday evening drive to pick up Indian groceries and dine in Chicago's Indian sector of Devon Street that was much closer to their home.  Keen to spare them any hassles (as we were strangers merely carrying an uncle's gift) I said to Anita Gupta, "We'll just have eaten so no food or drinks for us. We'll hand over the package, say hi and be on our way home. We'll be a little late - will about 8 to 8:30pm be okay?"

"Agreed, and that's perfectly fine," Anita Gupta assured.

We were late reaching Devon driving in traffic on unfamiliar roads (this was before the GPS and cell phone era) and further bogged down in shopping amid the crowds.  I reached Anita Gupta from a pay phone and asked if arriving as late as 9:30pm was okay as we'd been held up.  She again said it wasn't any problem.  "Remember, no food or drink for us," I reminded, "and we won't stop at this unearthly hour." "Okay, Baba," she said, "but just come in for a minute."

Using maps and directions we actually reached the Gupta home after 9:45pm.  The large estates and stately homes in the area set it apart from our typical neighborhoods.  Anita and Rajat with their three daughters behind them (their fourth was just a few months old) welcomed us at the door of  their mansion-like home.  After handing Mr. Mattoo's packet at that late hour on a Sunday we were ready to leave but Anita and Rajat urged us to come inside.

We were surprised when they led us to a large dining table set with four placements and a nice dinner.  They had guessed (correctly, despite my fibs on phone) that we may not have eaten properly at Devon.  "We've kept a little food for you," said Rajat softly, sounding almost apologetic for having ignored my request not to serve us anything.

Our kids had had a long day and our older daughter Sheena wanted to lie down right away.  Anita Gupta made soothing noises and their eldest daughter Geetanjali cheerfully led the way to her room where Sheena hit the bed and promptly fell asleep.

Then Anita Gupta and Rajat who had already eaten sat with us at the dining table as Rubina, Anita and I tucked into the food.  By the time we were done, both the Anitas were chatting like good friends as they cleared the table and put the dishes away.  The Gupta daughters were remarkably sweet and unspoilt considering their family's obvious wealth.  After dinner the elder three took Rubina away for play and kept her happily occupied.

Rajat and I went to the living room to be joined later by the two Anitas.  Rajat was as good a listener as he was gracious and time passed quickly.  I looked around and solemnly proclaimed that his company must be paying him really well to have a home like this.  The Guptas laughed and Rajat explained what he did.  That's the first time I had heard of McKinsey and it sparked my interest in management consulting.  He didn't let on about his stature at McKinsey.  Nor (so as not to rush us and I only learned of this by chance) that he had to leave for work at 6:15am the next morning.

When we finally collected our kids to leave the Guptas came out to see us off.  They weren't at all fazed at the sight of our battered old Honda Accord hatchback sitting incongruously in their driveway, and Rajat opened its door to help me settle the children in the rear seat. They solicitously gave us directions to I-94S for the drive home and we were on our way.  It was past 11pm.

 

We Are Gullible And Easily Manipulated

The title of this post is my understanding in plain words of the essence of behavioral economics, particularly as applied to politics and public discourse.  A series of studies have validated this view that people often don't realize what's (fairly obviously) in their best interest and hence undermine it.

It explains for example, why more Americans disapprove rather than approve of the 2009 health reforms (inadequate and marred by compromise as they were) that overall better their lot.  Or how so many Americans fall for Tea Party tax ideals that basically favor the top 1% at the expense of the 95% (even if not all the 99%.)

Now The Economist in its March 24, 2012 article "Nudge, Nudge, Think, Think" describes how forces for public good can use behavioral economics to manipulate people back to collectively bettering their lot. The article informs how the two authors of "Nudge" are helping governments and socio-political campaigns. Cass Sunstein, has been recruited by Barack Obama to the White House. Richard Thaler has been advising policymakers in several countries including Denmark, France and, above all, Britain, where David Cameron has established a Behavioural Insights Team, nicknamed the Nudge Unit.

Prof. Richard Thaler has since my University of Chicago days in the 1990s been engaged in a vigorous and running though largely good-natured debate with his "efficient markets" colleagues.  The latter who dominated our University's financial ideas say that investors as a whole make completely rational decisions based on their self-interest. Can there be irrational investors who pay more or sell securities for less than what they're worth according to publicly available information?  Sure.  But according to efficient markets theory there are enough rational counter parties to benefit from their stupidity to drive the prices back to the "correct" level.

The University to its credit brought in Thaler and others to enrich its diversity of economic ideas instead of stacking its faculty ranks with just its renowned efficient market theorists.  Thaler's thinking has increasingly gained traction in academic, financial, social and political circles.

Behavioral economics is of course a double edged sword and special interests have been using it to dupe people into supporting their causes even at the expense of the general populace.  Now genuine reformers in politics and government can harness the concepts to swing the pendulum back towards gaining popular approval for the best public interests.

India's Anti-Terrorism Medicine Is Worse Than The Disease

It looks like terrorists merely have to start disrupting life for Indians and the authorities will finish the job for them. The damage done by them is too often magnified by the official response. I see more of this in my present visit to India and have been greeted with these instances since arriving here a few days back:

• My Indian prepaid cell phone didn't work. My service had been blocked because my carrier is required to re-verify and obtain documentation of proof of address and identity plus a new picture of the owner after a while (6 months? A year? Two years? The frequency isn't clear.)  

• Visitors from abroad simply cannot get cell phones in their name even if they have valid documents and proof of identity.  All carriers "officially" advised me to get it in the name of a local resident (I chose an uncle). The alternative is to pay international roaming fees that cost 50 to 100 times as much as an India based phone.  As if paying an extra few hundred dollars will deter actual terrorists.  The Nov. 26, 2008 Mumbai attackers used satellite phones anyway, and none of the steps taken prevents this.

• I went to draw some rupees from my bank account with paltry balances only to find my bank account was on hold pending submission of documents. The bank folks explained this was required under a new KYC (Know Your Customer) policy thrust upon them by the Reserve Bank of India.  And never mind I'd gone through this routine 11 months back with two branches - some fresh guidelines required me to produce copies of papers submitted two decades ago at the time of opening of the account. Plus, this process of "re-verification" is to be repeated every two years.

• This "KYC" ordeal is for all bank account holders, not just foreigners.  My 92 year old father-in-law in Pune suffered a protracted back and forth, having to produce fresh documents for his bank accounts that were opened and in regular use for over 30 years.  And Anita's 83 year old uncle is being pressed for "official" documentary evidence to prove his marriage to his wife of 50+ years to avoid a freeze of his decades old and continuously used joint account with her.  Most Indians don't obtain marriage licenses, at least didn't in the past. 

• A close friend in IBM (of Indian origin, now a US citizen) traveled to India on work, then left to attend a meeting in Malaysia.  He then had problems re-entering India because of the new policy barring re-entry of Indian visa holders within 60 days of leaving the country. The then Indian Foreign Minister of State Shashi Tharoor had rightly derided this policy by his own ministry through his much publicized tweet "26/11 killers had no visas."

Such new restrictions are ostensibly to curb and prevent terrorists from funding their activities and carrying out attacks on Indian soil.  But as Tharoor pointed out (much to the annoyance of his seniors, the Foreign and the Home Ministers) they'd hardly deter actual extremists while adding to the bureaucratic hell faced by ordinary Indians and foreign visitors.

Why does this happen?  Having been in the Indian government for over a decade I know how this can be as much a result of ulterior power grabbing as of bone-headed decision making.  In a milieu of widespread restrictions officials can relish their discretion to interpret, enforce or to relax burdensome rules. They can use their power to help those around them in exchange for gratitude or gratification, and become more relevant than in a freer, more smoothly functioning environment. Of course the problem can also be created or compounded by a bumbling administration that's under pressure to show that "strong" steps are being taken in response to militant attacks.

The trauma of the terrorist attacks probably prompted the leadership to seek the advice of its security apparatus for preventive measures.  The latter apparently didn't let this crisis go to waste, using it as an excuse to reintroduce "inspector raj" type controls that had been drastically loosened during Indian economic and administrative reforms of the 1990s.

I hope that smarter and more enlightened people at the top are aware of this dynamic and reverse such trends.  A tragic loss of a few hundred innocents at the hands of fanatics shouldn't bring on these strangely drastic yet ineffective measures that gum up the lives of a billion.