Boasting may not help repeating success!

There is a great euphoria in Indian media on the well-planned and successful surgical strike against terrorists targets in the Indo-Myanmar border. India lost 20 [1] of its service men in an ambush on June 4, 2015. This was followed by another attack on June 7, 2015 in which no causalities reported [2]. The well-planned and successful strike is commendable. However, this is not the first time Indian Armed Forces have crossed the border in pursuit of terrorist targets [3]. According, to Brig. Rumel Dahiya the operation Golden bird could have been more successful but for the untimely announcement of Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding for Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi [4]. Though Indian armed forces have been having the capability for quite some time, it is the change in the attitude of political bosses that is new. It is widely believed that order for the operation was given to raise the morals of the service men.

While the Defence Minister of India is correct in saying that the action reflected the change of attitude of Indian Government, his insinuation that India is capable of such operations in the other regions of its hostile neighbourhood is an exaggeration at the best. His insinuation isn’t lost on Pakistan, either. Mr. Parrikar’s dig prompted a response from Pakistan reminding him that Pakistan is not Myanmar [5]. The principal opposition has also reacted in response to his comments [6]. Interestingly, there are contradictions from Myanmar, as well [7]. In any case, I believe that it is not currently possible for India to repeat its Myanmar success in Pakistan or China.

Myanmar’s military has a good relation with India and in many cases they cooperated but for the foot soldiers who seem to side with the militants. Though there is gaping void between the capabilities of respective countries, Myanmar is more occupied with its counter-insurgence activities. Hence, a combination of good-will and the definite military superiority could have given the edge to India.

May not be possible to replicate

In the case of Pakistan, India has a hostile relation particularly with respect to the former’s use of terrorists in its soil. Further, though Pakistan’s military prowess fare low in comparison to India it is among the top 20 military powers in the world [8]. It is also the country with the fastest growing nuclear arsenal [9]. With no no-first-use moratorium, Pakistan is not shy in using its nuclear card either [10]. India is well aware of Pakistan’s tendency to escalate any limited interventions to a full-fledged war that could easily escalate to a nuclear war, as was feared during Kargil war [11].  This is reason the reason behind India’s Cold Start War doctrine [12]. However, this doctrine is criticized by many analysts as could lead to war expansion [13-14], the very scenario the doctorine is supposed to prevent. In addition, Pakistan’s relation with US and China is likely to put pressure on India. This is the reason why India has desisted in the past to cross border against terrorist’s camps in Pakistan, though it had known its operations for a long time. 

In this context, if indeed India intents to talk the walk, it could do so if it acquires the following capabilities:

• Ability to rapidly mobilize troops to prevent Pakistan from escalating any such interventions into a full-fledged war.
• Ability to plan, execute and extract troops in a very short time – in a matter of hours, so that India would have the element of surprise and Pakistan would be incapable of responding and internationalizing the issue.
• Ability to stealth intrusion and extraction – abilities that India currently doesn’t have. India may have those capabilities when the Fifth Generation Fighter it develops with Russia enters production. However, the fighter wouldn’t be of much use if China is to supply capabilities to counter it.
• Superior technologies - most of the military technologies currently India has had been acquired from friendly nations, which means Pakistan could do so too. Unlike China, which used its foreign educated nationals to bring back know-hows to build its technology, to my knowledge, India is not that keen.

The stakes totally tilt against India, in the case of China. In any case, China is not harboring terrorists against India in its soils, though on occasion it had aided groups that were against India.

In this case, the best India could do to neutralize terrorist targets within Pakistan’s territory are:

• Re-activating its covert abilities which were disbanded by Mr. I. K. Gujjral as an act of good-faith [15].
• Continue to acquire weapon systems encouraging an arms-race with Pakistan, which would force Pakistan’s already perilous economy into further doom. However, this would likely put Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.

India could do better, if it tries to remove its red-tape and control its corruption and nepotism to bring talents drained to other countries. However, it remains to be seen if India is indeed intent on developing this capability.

References

[1]http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/20-soldiers-killed-in-manipur-ambush/article7283373.ece

[2] http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/militants-attack-assam-rifles-camp/article7292644.ece

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Golden_Bird

[4] http://idsa.in/policybrief/EnsuringPeaceinNortheast_rdahiya_110615.html

[5] http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/those-who-fear-indias-new-posture-have-started-reacting-defence-minister-manhohar-parrikar-on-myanma-770650

[6] http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/congress-bjp-on-war-of-words-over-armys-myanmar-operation/article7306073.ece?homepage=true

[7] http://www.ibnlive.com/news/india/govt-rubbishes-myanmars-claim-as-diplomatic-parrikar-says-operation-changed-mindset-towards-india-1004632.html

[8] http://www.businessinsider.com/35-most-powerful-militaries-in-the-world-2014-7

[9] http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/4/91.full

[10] http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/pervez-musharraf-accuses-india-of-destabilising-pakistan/article7305793.ece?homepage=true

[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War#WMDs_and_the_nuclear_factor

[12] http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/IndiasColdStartDoctrineandStrategicStability_gkanwal_010610

[13] http://www.idsa.in/~idsa/strategicanalysis/35_3/ProactiveMilitaryStrategy_aahmed.html

[14] http://www.ibnlive.com/news/india/wikileaks-indias-cold-start-mix-of-myth-reality-353499.html

[15] http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1182

Lack of Regional leadership helps China's hegemony in South Asia

Xi Jinping, declared that "China will never pursue its development at the cost of sacrificing interests of other countries... We will never give up our legitimate rights and will never sacrifice our national core interests. No country should presume that we will engage in trade involving our core interests or that we will swallow the bitter fruit of harming of sovereignty, security or development interests", at a Party Politburo Study session on 28 Jan 2013 [1].

The statement is clear that it won't compromise on its territorial claims even though its claims, on historical grounds is dubious at the best[2].  However, I believe that the lack of regional leadership is what helping China push its way through coercion.

China aspires a bipolar world (at least for now) with US and itself as twin poles. China's booming economy is largely fuelling its aspiration. Its military expenditure grows accordingly. However, what is troubling to the countries in the region is its territorial claims. China claims almost the entire South China Sea and Arunachal Pradesh in India. 

Source: Wikipedia

The claims of China on the South China sea intensified following its publication of huge potential oil reserves in the region[3]. This area overlaps the Exclusive Economic Zones of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan and Vietnam. However, none of these countries could stand up to the military brinkmanship of China whose military expenditure ($131 billions) is more than thrice the total military expenditure of these countries put together. However, China also has disputes with Japan and claims the Senkaku islands of Japan as its own[4].  US also comes into fray due to close association with Japan and interests in the region.  

Source: The Economist

Similar situation prevails in India's North East. After its occupation of Tibet, it claims Arunachal Pradesh as Southern Tibet. It claims the Twang region of the Arunachal Pradesh on the grounds that the Fourth Dalai Lama was born there. However, being a religious leader, Dalai Lama can be born anywhere[5]. The claims are in contrast to its earlier agreement in 2005 that no populated regions would be exchanged. Further, to complicate the issue China avoids providing clarifications on Line of Actual Control (LAC)[6]. To complicate the situation Chinese army routinely enter into regions claimed by India as under its LAC[7]. Though the CBMs and the established procedures had helped diffuse the situations from escalating into a full-fledged war, so far, it seems China is least interested to settle the dispute. It complicates the situation by implicitly accepting Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) as Pakistani territory by issuing visa while contending J&K and Arunachal Pradesh as disputed territories. Historically, it doesn't share a border with Pakistan but thanks to PoK and Askai Chin, it now does and by enforcing PoK as Pakistani territory it tries to pre-empt India from reclaiming its regions, in future.

Whenever any of the countries, with which it has conflict with, tries to internationalize the situation or tries to build relations with a superior force, it adopts to coercive diplomacy, like in the case of Vietnam [8] and India [9]. At the same time, it pushes economic ties that are in its favour, which by fuelling its economy is helping in building its military might[10] leading to more coercion from China. 

The China's strategy in the region seems to be centred on: 

1. Make India pre-occupied with South East Asia
2. Pre-empt any attempt by countries in the regions from forming a front.
3. Resist US deployments

China is helping Pakistan to build its missile[11] and nuclear capabilities[12], though it is against International norms. Pakistan has good network of terrorists in India and is a volatile country constantly engaging in exchange of fire and has already been in war with India multiple times. By making Pakistan Nuclear, China is has placed India's focus on countering Pakistan which is more likely to engage in war than China whose last war with India was in 1962. Further, in the name economic cooperation it is pushing a "string of pearls" strategy to engage and contain India within the region. As a part of the strategy, China is developing Gwadar port in Pakistan and Hambantota port in Sri Lanka. Both these countries are also caught in the debt trap set by China and could not refuse to China's intentions without heavy cost to the economies[13]. In South China Sea region, China coerces countries that tries to internationalize the border dispute while pre-empting any attempts by the countries to form an alliance. It is forming artificial islands in the region to bolster its claims and to use them as backup airstrips to its carriers to pre-empt US from the region. China also feels that US is incapable of helping the region given its engagements in the Middle-East and its sagging economy. Nevertheless, it accepts US as a force to reckon with. 

China's tactic in the region is not just its military might. It uses economy as its second weapon. Pakistan, Sri Lanka and a host of other countries carry huge Chinese debt and have to follow Chinese suit in the matter. It now pushes its ambitious Silk Road policy, which India views with suspicion as the same infrastructure could be used to mobilize armed forces during conflict. As a matter of fact, I believe that China is slowly building infrastructure surrounding India in the name of co-operation with India's neighbours until an opportune moment. Similar situation prevails for the maritime route connecting countries in the South China sea as well.

Further, by encouraging rogue states such as Pakistan and N. Korea to develop nuclear weapons, it adds a level of uncertainty in the region. In the likelihood of war with China, Pakistan will jump in to make the most of the situation. India, having focused for a very long time on Pakistan is incapable to fight war at two fronts. Similarly, it can use unpredictable N. Korea against Japan and US installations in the region. 

If all the countries in the region including Japan and Australia forms a economic-military block, then it would be possible to contain China's hegemonist attitude and brinkmanship in the region. Such an attempt requires commendable leadership and the ability to outmaneuver Chinese designs in the region. However, it seems, the South Asian region is devoid of such leadership which is what is letting China unchecked in the region to pursue its hegemonist attitude. Though US could not spread its resources thin across the globe, it could let countries like India, Japan and Australia and help them from behind. However, US is also highly dependent on China for its imports and China holds ~7% of US treasury bonds, which makes one doubt if US would be full committed to contain China in the region. Unlikely, as is evident from the very many one step forward two-step backward acts of US in the region. This is the South-Asian Conundrum Waiting for a solution.

Reference

1. http://southasiaanalysis.org/node/1671
2. http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/historical-fiction-china%E2%80%99s-south-china-sea-claims
3. http://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/bitstream/handle/10635/15352/MASHAOHUATHESIS.pdf?sequence=1
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute
5. http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1745
6. http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1778
7. http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1758
8. http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1761
9. http://www.businessinsider.com/china-gripes-about-us-india-relations-2015-1
10. http://theanalyzt.blogspot.ca/2015/05/the-challenge-for-india-and-mr.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheAnalyzt+(The+Analyzt)
11. http://cns.miis.edu/archive/country_india/china/mpakchr.htm
12. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/12/AR2009111211060.html
13. http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1753

Spot the "Mocking bird"

What Everyone Should know about the Media

The title is derived from the infamous CIA campaign of the 1950s called the "Operation Mockingbird". It was(?) the propaganda arm of CIA to spread dissent, influence public opinion, etc. During 1950s, in its peak, around 3000 employees were working on propaganda efforts. In 1976, the then Director of CIA George H. W. Bush declared that CIA wouldn't enter into any paid contract with journalists. However, if it is the actually the case is anyone's guess...

In any case, a close observer could find the footprints of "Mockingbird" all over the media. Let us see some of the cases, which may make one suspect if the "Mockingbird" is still alive. 

Iraq War I & II

Source: Wikipedia.org

Perhaps the most well known example in the recent history is the testimony of Nayirah al-Sabah. Until her testimony to the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq went widely unnoticed by the Western Media. The emotional testimony of Nayirah, supposedly as a part of the campaign, "Citizens for a Free Kuwait" helped stir public opinion in US to support Kuwait in the War (Operation Desert Storm). It is also alleged that she was paid by CIA to take acting lessons. 

Similarly, in the lead up to the Iraq War of 2003, Western media was whipping up mass hysteria and paranoia about the WMD in Iraq. Only after the war, at the cost many US lives and its allies', it was found that Iraq had none. While over 4000 US life were lost, some were extremely benefitted. I followed up the news to ExxonMobils website and apparently it is having a couple of affiliates in Iraq but I'm not sure if these oil companies shared their profit with the deceased, after all its the death of the service men which led to their profits, isn't it?

Interestingly, during the 1990s and in 2002, US was experiencing recession and unemployment was high. Can the occurrence of such incidents twice be coincidence?

Zunzeo

Source: www.mun2.tv

In 2014, AP exposed the secret US program aimed at encouraging Cuban Youth to revolt against the countries communist government. In 2010, US Agency for International Development (USAID) created a text only social networking and microblogging service called "Zunzeo" (in cuban slang referring to a hummingbird's call) through a complex network of shell companies in Cayman Islands. The US Govt. obtained the phone numbers of some 40000 Cuban youths, who would form the seed subscribers for the program. Though no details is available on how the phone numbers were obtained, it is suspected to be through covert means. While the programs objective was to slowly grow the network until it reaches a critical mass to foment "Cuban Spring", it was retired without notice in 2012, ostensibly due to the expiration of funds.

While the reception of "Zunzeo" among Cuban Youths and the "actual" reasons for its retirement is anyone's guess, it demonstrates US mastery over social networking. However, US is not alone in this. The UK's top secret STRAP COMINT unit of the GCHQ is similarly manipulating posts to go "viral". Thanks to Mr. Snowden the UK's capabilities of social network manipulation came to fore. The documents along with the exposure of Zunzeo reveals how aggressively the Western Govt. are exploiting Internet as a means to manipulate public sentiments both within and abroad to suit their interests.

Indian Elections

Source: post.jagran.com

While manipulating social networks for propaganda is organized by secret Govt. programs in the West, it seems Indian politicians are masters in that as well. The recent victories of Mr. Modi and Mr. Kejriwal is largely attributed to their adept manipulation of public sentiments through social networks. Mr. Modi has been cultivating NRI and upper middle class' networks for quite some time since his time as the Chief Minister of Gujarat. This network aided him to project himself as a leader of change though other states such as TamilNadu and Andhra Pradesh had better GDP, and was rated high in Human Development index than Gujarat. Wikileaks leak that he is incorruptible helped to secure public sentiments in his favour. However, the series of tweets later by Wikileaks that it never described Mr. Modi as incorruptible, never reached Indian ears. Thanks to Mr. Modi's vast network and effective propaganda. Another personality who rose to power by piggy-backing on the anti-corruption sentiment and Mr. Hazare's anti-corruption movement is Mr. Kejriwal. His party too have used social network extensively for its propaganda. The use of social networks for political propaganda are also effective in circumventing the restrictions imposed by the Election Commission of India (ECI) on Electoral spending since these restrictions only come to existence after the declaration of elections and since ECI currently don't have a means to estimate expenses in such propaganda.

Source: Cover image of The Bane of Ethical Journalism

It should also be noted that, unlike Western Media, Indian media is already for sale. Between 2009 - 2013, ECI registered 1400 cases of paid-news where politicians paid print and television media to run favourable stories on them. Some media, is also embarking on extortion of industries/celebrities by threatening to run stories against them.  Thankfully, Indian public were usually adept and they hardly believed the media. But apparently, the situation is currently changing with the rise of urban youth who thinks less but are more busy forwarding funny pics. These youths with large social networks but with least capabilities to separate "grain from husks" are likely to be the target of present and future social manipulation by foreign countries/companies. With its huge population, India is at the risk of attaining "critical mass" in a very short period of time.

Canadian Politics

Source: www.shoebat.com

Recently, I published post on Mr. Harper using Islamophobia and Xenophobia to divert public attention from the failure of his economic policies.  Mr. Harper's intention to spend over 200 million Canadian dollars in a fight against ISIS also closely resembles the US' actions against Iraq in 2003. Prior to attack, as mentioned before, US used its media to whip up mass hysteria. Similarly, Mr. Harper used the two lone attacks in Canada to whip-up Islamophobia, which in addition to encouraging racism provided him a basis to intervene in Iraq. The attempt was so successful that there was no public sentiment against him for the intervention which costed Canadian public over 200 Million CAD, which could have been used to generate more Canadian jobs. Just think about it, assuming that an average person makes 1 million during his effective lifetime, the amount means a close of 200 jobs. However, when these dollars are invested to encourage industries, more than just 200 jobs would be created. When looked from the perspective of beneficiaries of Canada's action in Iraq, it seems some oil companies do have interests in the region. In addition, the prolonged crisis in Iraq is likely to boost the profits of Canada's domestic oil sector. In other words, Canadian public (federal and provincial) lost their jobs so that certain parties could make billions. However, there was no public response, thanks to the effective propaganda machinery of Mr. Harper.

Source: http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/

In Canadian politics, Mr. Harper, is not alone in using media to push is agenda. Ms. Wynne, the premier of Ontario is also similarly using media to push her agenda on Sex Education. In my recent post, I described how Mr. Wynne is using the ignorance of teens to her advantage while diverting the public from asking pertinent questions. Her only defence is that parents could opt their children out of those subjects. What didn't she tell and what the public failed to ask is the efficacy of that measure, given that the children are now highly social-media savvy. Just imagine, how difficult it is for a student to keep her mobile open transferring the content of his/her sex-education to those students whose parents had opted out of those course. In that situation, the students who are not in the course are likely to err more given their natural curiosity and prurience at that age, which would eventually justify her curriculum. In effect, using media she had not only diverted public opinion but she is effectively manipulating the thought process itself. 

"Mocking Bird" everywhere

This phenomenon of manipulating or controlling media to manipulate public opinion is not limited to US and its allies alone.  China from the time of Mao is effective in using its propaganda to shape its public opinion. It even controls religion so that no other opinion creeps into public minds but its own. Censorship of foreign media criticizing it human rights abuses in Tibet or Xinjiang are also part of its strategy to prevent foreign media from sowing dissent in Chinese minds. In other words, China seeks to control what its people sees, hears or thinks. However, its propaganda machinery is not limited to its territory alone.  Its media, particularly Global Times, has been quite aggressive in posts in response to any Indian activities in Arunachal Pradesh, which China claims as its own as it claims the entire South China Sea. By terming 'Global Times' as a Tabloid it is able to maintain certain level of deniability. However, any one with some insights in how China operates would hardly believe it. However, recently there has been news of China's propaganda officials heading Chinese journalism schools. Taking a cue from China, Mr. Modi's Govt. too seems to be interested in training journalists in propaganda. If this phenomena continues unabated, the public could hardly believe what they hear, whatever they hear...!

Spot the "Mocking bird"

The previous sections gives a glimpse of how the Govts./politicians all over the world is using media (conventional and social) to shape/manipulate public sentiments in its favour. This is not limited to them alone. Even industries are in the game (Ex. Vogue). However, could we spot these attempts?

It is possible, but extremely difficult... From my perspective, asking rationally right questions is the start. However, as the "right questions" itself are subjective and changes with the news, spotting the public manipulation attempts become difficult. In my perspective, the following questions could help:

• Who are the beneficiaries?
• Why now?
• How could the claim be justified?
• What is not addressed? Why only certain things are addressed?
• How could the news/information be proved?
• What are the counter arguments against the said news?
• How the counter-arguments weigh against the advertised arguments?
• What is unstated expectation of the news?
• Why this particular news is given so much attention compared to others?
• How would I be benefitted?

These are just the some of the questions, in no specific order, that everyone should use to understand the real intention of the media coverage. The questions and analyzis become challenging and complex depending upon how the "news" is delivered. The very intention of this blog is to help people analyze situation and bring to fore those questions that were usually missed but, nevertheless, important to ask. The greatest of success of this blog would be how effective it is encouraging people to ask such questions.

Physics Ends the "Free Will" debate

"A man is a sum total of his experiences"...

Recently I came across a video in YouTube, which was shared through my LinkedIn connections. According to Newtonian mechanics, the destiny of a particle is already determined. Einstein, being a deterministic agrees when he said that, " God doesn't play dice". However, Heisenberg comes and introduces the concept of uncertainty. That is there is always an uncertainty associated with the position of the particles. Thus, the video concludes that the destiny of the particles is not predetermined and since it involves certain uncertainty, leads to "Free will".

There are some holes in that argument. First Heisenberg uncertainty principles more specifically says that it is not possible to determine the position and velocity of the particle simultaneously, in which case, he quantifies the error. If we assume that position and velocity together describe the state of a particle, then the argument in the video may seem plausible.

However, now quantum nanostructures exists that restrict the movement of the particles. In such case, although it is not possible to determine the exact state of the particle, there is a definite probability for the particle to exist in within the structure i.e in a boundary. Consider the case of tunneling effect (Tunnel Diode), the electron in the box cannot get over the energy barrier if doesn't have enough energy. However, once it acquires sufficient energy, even though this energy is less than what is required to jump over the energy barrier, it could tunnel through the barrier due to its wave nature. In either case, whether it remains trapped within the box or it exits the box by jumping over the energy barrier or by tunnelling, there exits a definite probability depending upon the energy input and the barrier. In other words, the state i.e. inside or outside the box is determined by its energy. By extension, the one who controls this energy determines the particles destiny. The probability of the particle existing within a nanostructure follows a well defined Gaussian distribution, under some conditions.

So, I argue that though the particle state at any instant of time cannot determined with sufficient accuracy, on an average the state of the particle could be estimated as it is based inputs and the system in which it resides. Similarly, in the case of "Free Will", while it may not be possible to predict a particular thought of an individual at any given instant, the average behaviour (thought process) of the individual or group would converge based on what his inputs were at the time and the system he has been a part of. In other word, the "Free will" is bounded and its average behaviour is predictable and can be influenced (i.e. basically no "Free will") by genetic, economic and environmental factors.

Factors that may determine an individuals destiny

Genetics

Like energy which determines the particle state, genetics is one of the factors that could influence the development and maturity of a person. There are studies that find correlation between school performance and genetic predisposition. This is the case of physical performance also. For example most of the Marathon title were held by the Ethiopians. One of my friends in my Masters class was from Ethiopia and he said that it is not all Ethiopians who have the ability but only people coming from a particular tribe. This tribe happen to be a hunter-gatherer group for a very long time and have evolved to have the endurance required to survive in their environment. So, isn't that destiny of the individual determined, in a broad sense? Of course, he is still free to choose what he does, but his genetics only permits certain things...!

Economy

It is another factor, that influence the development and thought process of an individual. The development of the "free will" itself seem to be interlinked with economy or the families income. A study in UK, apparently showed that the children from poorer families tend to have some parts of their brain smaller than other kids, which affect their performance in their school. So, being born in poor family, already determines the level of academic achievement the child could achieve. Irrespective of whether he wants to or not. In other words, his destiny in a broad sense is determined. The only "free will" he/she then has is how to act in such a way to reduce disadvantage... even for that he is at a disadvantage... because it is the brain that makes this reasoning.

Environment

In the first two factors, I discussed the natural elements that affect the development. The third is environment. A child born to a poor family in a locality is more likely to involve in criminal activity (deduced based on bayesian inference), if the last two factors are true. Even if the child has reasonable intelligence and school performance, he or she could never realize his true potential if the environment is not right. As a personal case, during my 9th grade, I developed a fully herbal mosquito repeller. It was tested in the Vector Control Research Centre (VCRC) in our home town, thanks to one of my teachers who trusted me. However, everyone my parents, my school and even the scientist at the VCRC only discouraged me from further developing the product (Once I get a job one of my first work would be to fully develop that). This is an exact example of how environment could prevent one from realizing his/her full potential. The only "Free will" I had/have is to determine if I want to continue my fight or kill myself.

What if there is complete "Free Will"

Complete free will would be akin to having zero mean white noise. In such a case, there would be no behaviour patterns that companies could use to sell their products, predicting election outcomes won't work, banking will become cumbersome, economy will crash, etc.

Anyone who have visited Amazon would know that Amazon suggests items based on the items that you are checking. The system that does that is called a recommender system, a piece of machine learning software. Consider that there is no pattern, then the systems results would make no sense... every item would have equal probability.

Similarly, based on public sentiments, there are many studies in the world that try predict election outcomes. Isn't it how the Tories utilized the public opinion to come to power in Canada or Mr. Modi in India. If the public opinion is totally random, then it is highly likely that the results would be inconclusive.

Banking and Economy (stock prices) would also suffer. Bloomberg has a team of experts in analyzing sentiments from different source to predict stock prices. What if the opinions are random?
Similarly, if the Banks could not predict the user behaviour they could not invest and the banking will collapse.

And no boutiques for girls would stack up only pink...:)

There would be no racism, stereotypes, xenophobia, etc.

To conclude, "Free will" is bounded by the system in which it exists... Breaking the system is not always possible, as was found by Galileo, Edward Snowden and the like...!

Top 5 reasons why Graduate Studies are (actually) encouraged

In my last post, I was discussing why a bachelor-degree drop-out may have a better chance at earning more money than a graduate with doctorate. Now, I share my top 5 reasons on why, irrespective of the grim picture for the graduates, is graduate studies encouraged:

1. To compete with other countries

Countries are constantly competing with one another. China, a once developing third world country is now aspiring to excel US in economic and military might. It would have never been possible without the strides in science and technology. Even in India, which was once dependent on farm produce is increasingly dependent on IT services for its GDP. The significance of science and technology and consequently graduate education could not have been well said than Mr. Bill Gates himself. So, in short, higher studies fuel economy and country's might, without which the status and prominence of the country itself would be lost. This one of the reasons, why every country is trying to promote education, particularly higher education. And a very noble one. However, what is there for an individual? While some may argue that while the country grows individual grows it cannot be the case for everyone. As when the country grows, increase in inflation would offset the increase in income. Second, corruption and nepotism grows, making it difficult for people without money or influence.

2. To generate cheap labor for research

Don't get me wrong, but research is costly. Getting qualified individuals for the job is much more. The funding usually provided for research in the universities are highly insufficient to hire contract or consulting scientists. So, most of the Universities and laboratories tries to get things done by exploiting young graduates who have energy and are ready to work without any benefits, in the hope of landing a good position someday. From my experience, I cannot blame the scientists. They are very helpful. Sometime, might go out of their way to get you a position. However, they can only do so much when  the funding cuts limits the number of academic and research recruitment (think about superdocs and junior scientists). But what is disturbing is that none would ever say that by pursuing PhD you are going to put your economic future at risk! I definitely don't know if those scientists hope things would get better, or colluding with their political bosses, or forced not to sensitize the next graduate or outright selfish... In any case, the final sufferer is the graduate. 

3. To exploit workforce

Mr. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet were trying to promote STEM education. However, it seems his own company is not inclined to even give a chance to STEM graduates (postdocs) other than from Ivy league universities. Personally, when I doing my undergraduate degree in engineering Microsoft wouldn't even set their foot on our university irrespective of the fact that Tata, Cognizant and a whole lot holds our university in good esteem. Trying to prove myself, was one of my motivations to pursue higher studies. Anyway, that is a different story. However, their constant promotion is only likely increase the workforce supply, which would naturally lead to the exploitation of workforce. For example, many IT companies in India force their employees to work over 16 hrs without weekends and holidays. I was once penalized, as not being time inflexible, for completing my work before 18h00. The employees have no say because, they are easily replaceable with someone with a need. In the case of recession, some companies laid off their employees but they had no reason to, most of their projects are long-term and most of them saw hike in their profits, generated by these lay-offs. They could do so due to the huge supply of workforce...

In my perspective, Mr. Gates, is either trying to generate cheap labor for his industry or is completely misinformed of the reality.

4. To attain social status

This is a very common reason for parents motivating their children to become graduates and is more common when they are from socially/economically backward community. I believe, this is their subconscious drive to prove that they are equal. While education does bring some social status, the ultimate status is determined only by one's paycheck... Even if the person is a noble laureate, he gets his insurance coverage only based on his premium and net worth, not on his contribution...!

5. To attain economic status

Many believe that higher education would lead to better income. There is some truth in that but also a lot of lies. As have indicated in my previous post, an undergraduate is likely to derive more benefits. This could be justified by the plethora of job opportunities available to them and low debt accumulated during those undergraduate studies. Further, since they start early, they are likely to accumulate more over the years. However, the situation would change immediately once you venture beyond your undergraduate degree. With Masters, the opportunity reduces, reduces further with PhD and proceeds towards zeros as the number of years in one's postdoc increases. Take my case for example, I left a nice job to do graduate studies in robotics. Yes, it is a very good subject with lot of civilian and military applications. The consequence, I'm now desperately hunting for a job after a PhD in remote sensing and 2 years of experience as a postdoc as my funding would run out in another 6 months. 

Conclusion

Now comes the interesting question, irrespective of the risks involved, how and why is that many of the articles continue to sing paeans encouraging graduate education? First, these studies project amazing life-time earnings based on past earners, who now have comfortable in jobs and have a decade or more years to retire. Those studies didn't take into account the present job market and its evolution over time to predict its future state. They conveniently left out the truth about the risks involved and were also "unethical" in failing to highlight the limits of their analyzes. Regarding why they do this, it may probably be to reduce competition. For example, if every one knows the truth about graduate education, they would try to emulate people in power i.e., businessmen and politicians, which would increasingly make the market competitive. Since, it is impossible to derive economic benefits from a perfectly competitive market, the best alternative for those in power is to make the people believe in a system of long-duration education. This would reduce the competition immediately and would also shift the unemployment crisis to a later date. 

Limitations:

This analysis is based on an average perspective. Ivy leaguers and "close-enough"s get preferential treatments, so they may not agree with this. And obviously certain subjects would be better preferred than other. These aspects are not discussed in this study.

Do you have any personal experience that buttress or counter the arguments in this post?
I would more than happy to hear from people with different views...!

Should I study more?!

 a bachelor degree drop-out is likely to make more money

I was a brat, who wanted to become a scientist . Period! I want to become a scientist! However, my parents had a different plan for me - finish engineering, join IT!

After 3 years of toil in IT, I finally accumulated enough money to take TOEFL and GRE and finally landed on a prestigious European scholarship to pursue Masters in Computer Vision and Robotics. But all the time, my father was insisting, "the money you might earn through higher studies could be obtained through experience"... Blinded by my love for science, ambition and to prove my self, I resigned my job and joined my Masters. Four years after my Masters, I finally got my PhD.... Yahoo!!! It was from a prestigious lab, under a great remote sensing scientist... I was all but proud. All my lonely and boring days doesn't matter anymore. Like most other doctorates, in my quest to become a scientist, I became a Postdoc. The current project is amazing and my supervisor, is really great! I'm learning a lot... In the mean time, I became a father... Then the reality struck me hard in the face... POSTDOC CRISIS! My funding is running out, my PhD is not for 3 years as initially envisaged but only 2... My visa is running out! And I don't have a job... yet!

What the hell did I do? Am I blame myself for not seeing this coming? Then I read articles in the internet, where Mr. Bill Gates was promoting STEM education. Not only Gates but many other blogs were also showing that graduate education is worth the investment. Ok, then why is the crisis... Then why is it difficult for Postdocs (Curiously NSERC fellows were treated as immigrant workers and not postdocs while immigrants in Universities were considered as postdocs, in Canada...?!)? So, I have been wondering... Finally I thought,  OK, since the cost of education is usually considered an investment, may be there is an ideal numbers of years of study that could return well on the investment, at the least the investment itself. So, I set to discover this optimal point i.e the number of years that breaks-even on the investment.

1-http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
2-http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/average-published-undergraduate-charges-sector-2014-15, http://www.bestmastersdegrees.com/how-much-does-a-masters-degree-cost, http://study.com/articles/How_Much_Does_a_Doctorate_Degree_Cost.html
3-https://www.bankofamerica.com/deposits/bank-cds/standard-term-certificate-of-deposit.go

The figure, above shows how the income, the total cost of education, and the opportunity cost of education of a student increases with the number of years of study. From the figure, it could be seen that at little over 2 years of study after High school (year 0), the opportunity cost breaks-even with the income. And, around 3 years of study after Higher school, the actual cost breaks-even with the income to be earned. So, in other words, in the current labor market a bachelor degree drop-out is likely to make more money than a guy who was working his ass-off towards his PhD. Worse, the PhDs have limited opportunities than an undergraduate.

A case in point, is a lesson I learnt too late. I had a classmate during my high school days, whose grade used to be so bad, that he had to leave the school after his 10th Grade to some other schools to continue his education. Of course, our school used to eliminate students with poor standing every year. However, when I was doing my bachelors degree in Engineering, I saw him doing some bachelors degree in the University, which was not one of the STEM subjects, everyone longs for. In 2013, when I came across him after a PhD with no property or riches, he was already a multi-millionaire having grown his family business to great extent. Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, etc., where all university dropout and yet they are all billionaires. Others...?!

For wondering about the earlier studies that champion longer study periods, it should be noted that those studies don't usually include long-term risk factors. Further, those studies on life-term earnings are based on past observations which may not hold good for present or future. For example, 20 years back a PhD could easily get a job and his earning would accrue with benefits. Could we say that now?

In short, I'm not advocating against education but it might probably be best if someone don't pursue higher studies, particularly if they are not from some Ivy League Universities...! It might even be better, if one pursues his studies for growing his/her venture, as my friend did on his family business.

Personal point: The studies, paint a grim picture. I some time feel remorseful for leaving a good job, the company I enjoyed and for not listening to my father. However, had I not pursued my graduate studies, probably I would have never acquired these skills of analyzes and reasoning. So, they are worth it...and more! 

How did I do it?

For those curious to know, how arrived at the results:

• For this study, completion of High School is fixed as reference i.e., year 0. After which, the student may either pursue a 2-year Associate degree or a 4-year bachelors degree. 2 more years are required for a masters degree and an average of 5 more years is assumed for obtaining PhD. 
• The actual cost, is the actual amount that is spent to attain a specific degree. For example, for obtaining a Masters degree, is the sum of the cost of obtaining a bachelors degree and the cost during Masters. 
• The opportunity cost, is the cost of a missed opportunity to invest. I took the example of investing in a certificate of deposit account in US, with an annual percentage yield of about 0.1%. One of the reasons to choose this investment is the low risk of investment. 
• Similarly, information on median income was obtained from the Bureau of Labor statistics
• These cumulated values were plotted to identify the break-even point. 

Limitations:

In many ways, the study is an approximation:

• This study didn't use the long-term rate of return calculations because such calculation would have to include the risk due socio-politico-economic factors. I would love to include that analyses but if I'm to try and include those factors of benefit and risk then this post would be about 30 pages long, which would enervate even the most energetic person. 
• This study also didn't include, social-factors - like the status accorded to a person due to his education, which could be kept for another study. 
• Many of these values are approximate and obtained from internet sources. Obviously, the results would be different with other data, nevertheless, the approach could be defended.
• Also, it should be understood that learning some subjects is worth than other. For example, becoming a graduate in Computer Science or Law may be worth more than a graduation in Earth Sciences or Education.
• These data were obtained from internet sources (mostly google searches)

However, did you ever wonder why, irrespective of the grim picture about higher studies, why people are encouraging it? Wait for my next post...!
And share your thoughts...!

"India builds China's capability against US"

 the real challenge is not the appeasement of China but building capacities to deal with China on equal footing by taming nepotism, racism and corruption.

Source: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/g7653j.ct001059

The recently concluded visit of Mr. Modi to China raised many expectations and was not missed by any media. Wall Street Journal tries to summarize Indo-China relationship as 5 gaps based on the economic difference and border disputes that mar the relationship of these Asian Giants. In this context, it is interesting to analyze if closing these gaps is in the interest of China and if any of Indian "concessions" are of significance in closing this gaps to ensure peace and prosperity. 

India and China seems to have coexisted in peace for quite a long time until the People Republic of China came to power in 1949 (PRC) overthrowing Republic of China (ROC). India was one of the first countries to recognize PRC and even passed the UN Security Council seat offered to it by US and USSR to China in 1955. Irrespective of these earlier rapprochements, India and China have had 3 major military conflicts in 1962, 1967 and 1987. India suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of China in 1962, after which both India and China with drew to their respective prewar positions. While, Nehru's 'forward policy' is blamed by many of the Western analysts, Indian analysts points out that the inept policy of Nehru was itself a response to Chinese preparation for war since 1959. However, in the later Chola Incident, it seems India was able to inflict over three times as much casualties as it had suffered on China. The later incident in 1987 was bloodless, thanks to some good diplomacy. Irrespective of that fact, and after having moved into the 21st century, the ghost of 1962 looms at large in the Indian mindset.  

Concluded visit and un-reciprocated Concessions

Mr. Modi was as usual more than life itself and the much hyped visit to China was more favorable to China than India. While Mr. Modi was direct in broaching up the subject of border dispute and the growing trade imbalance, nothing concrete was obtained from China. Instead, Mr. Modi ended up announcing e-visas to Chinese, which is not reciprocated as in the case of any previous concessions. Further, until now, China is issuing stapled visas to Indian citizens from Arunachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir. The e-visa is also a problem from a security perspective, given the Chinese penchant for spying. In addition to this it is understood that Chinese companies struck deals worth $22 billions, which would only widen the trade-deficit with China.  

However, the most important concession China got was before Mr. Modi reached China, which unfortunately didn't receive much media attention it should have. During the UPA regime, after the many cries of strategic analysts, the then Prime Minister of India approved the setting up of Indian Mountain Strike Force (IMSF). This IMSF was particularly raised to counter the Chinese Rapid Action Force (RAFs) stationed at the other side of the border. There is no announcement on China reducing its RAF or moving it away from its stations near the border. Shortly, before Mr. Modi's visit Mr. Parrikar announced the reduction the size of  IMSF, ostensibly under the guise of finance crunch.

In contrast to many expectations for Mr. Modi before he came to power and irrespective of his overwhelming majority, NDA Govt. is yet to re-initiate India's covert capabilities.

Source: UN COMTRADE

 India feeds China's Might

Mr. Modi may have been direct seeking clarification on Line of Actual Control (LAC) and Mr. Ajit Doval would may have been direct in saying that all bilateral relations are centered around the border issue, but India has been seeking the clarification for over 10 years now. And, China is definitely not inclined to provide that lest it would cool of the border issue. Many Indian analysts are of the view that China is particularly uncomfortable with the clause in 2005 agreement that explicitly states that no populated regions would be exchanged. Further, they are of the opinion that China is keeping up the ante over the border issue to pressure India to isolate Dalai Lama. 

However, I tend to disagree. For one reason, Chinese are pragmatists. They have no problem over Human Right excesses whether in their own land or in a foreign country. If all they wanted was to eliminate Dalai Lama, they could have resorted to a number of ways to that without upping the ante over the border issue. Their "all-weather friend" has sufficient influence and penetration and influence to see to that. China itself has sufficient level of penetration in India. Hence, I couldn't believe that Dalai Lama is the primary issue over which China is least inclined to solve the border dispute. 

In my perspective, the border issue is more to do with the China's global ambition to equal US in power terms. Dalai Lama and Tibet is a just an add-on.

In my perspective, the major reason for China to keep up the border issue is its to equal US in economic and power terms. For that China, which is largely dependent on its exports require markets. India, with its huge population and potential is a great market for its products, irrespective of the fact those products are defective or of the least quality. The bilateral relationships were ignited after 1987 and it is the hope of India that an increased economic relationship with China is likely to make China  more sympathetic to its cause, irrespective of many actions to the contrary by the latter. As long as the border issue is hot and as long as the 1962 ghost looms at large in the Indian mindset, China expects India to bend backwards to suits its interest. India, aptly does so. With India being the largest trading partner of China, it is not in the interest of China to settle the dispute now or in near future. If the border dispute is settled, there would be no incentive to India to keep up the yawning trade deficit and would be free to chose partners more amenable to its interest, which China cannot afford. Hence, China wants the border issue to burn hot as much as possible. The only time, when it may settle is when China equals US in power parity and have "settled" its disputes over South China Sea. India unwittingly aids in the rise of China's might through economic largess (trade deals that greatly benefit China). Such trade surplus on the Chinese part have enabled it to modernize its defence forces with a double digit raise in defence expenditure. This only draws India into a vicious cycle of appeasement and fear, yet no action is seen from the side of India. 

Challenge of India

It is difficult not to draw parallels between India 1962 and India in 2015. While it is true that India has developed military and economic capabilities, it is also true that China is ahead of India in all these sphere by at least a decade. Like then, infrastructure development is largely neglected at the best tardy. Like then, China is building infrastructure that could be used strategically but India stand as a mute spectator. India is even running short of ammunitions. Like then, if not more, nepotism, racism, casteism, and corruption is rampant in India. It is believed that the 1962 debacle was at least partially because of nepotism. In addition to all these, like then, India still believes in appeasement politics vis-a-vis China.

Currently, India is not China's target at least for now. Any war with India would mean a setback to China by at least decade, irrespective of the fact that India may lose. In a way, India's border dispute is a red-herring to keep people attention on one thing when the real fight is somewhere else. The West hardly misses it but try to use the situation to its advantage by proposing to sell its antiquated equipments to India. India is forced to consider those deals mainly because of its lack of capacity to produce those equipments indigenously. 

Hence, the continued appeasement by India to win China's sympathy could hardly be expected to work. If the border dispute is to be settled India has to deal with China at the same level. However, it is highly unlikely that the China would be least interested to settle the dispute before it becomes equal to US and have settled its territorial disputes in the South China Sea. In this context, it could said that India is building China's might against US, through its huge trade deficits vis-a-vis China (in the same vein, other trading partners who maintain a large trade deficit vis-a-vis China). 

Though Mr. Modi is a fan of China, he had hardly understood China. China came to this position most through its covert activities (Ex. US arrests of Chinese for economic espionage) and by reversing brain drain. On the other hand, India neither has covert abilities nor is keen on reversing brain drain. This is irrespective of the fact that many in the Indian diaspora is increasingly showing interest to come back for economic opportunities and resume family ties. The current economic crises and subsequent policies, many Indian students and researches were stranded abroad who would gladly return given an opportunity. Hence, if Mr. Modi sincerely longs to settle the border dispute, the real challenge is not the appeasement of China but building capacities to deal with China on equal footing by taming nepotism, racism and corruption. 

Why are people poor?

Poverty is a problem all over the world. Since recession the rich-poor gap has only widened. In this article, I share some of my observations and thoughts on why some stay poor. 

1. They are lazy: Some may take offence on this but if the truth be told, it is the poor who spend more time with their TV's (or any entertainment) than the rich (who delve more on self-improvement, management, etc.). For example, the grumpy cat pic (the owner became a millionaire what about those who got entertained?). How many times have you come across someone sharing items that makes or motivates someone to think/think differently? Further, if you give an idea to make money to a middle class or poor, he/she would immediately produce a deluge of ideas off-his-hat of why your idea won't work and why he/she would never do it (I'm sure many have many pics like Grumpy Cat pic but none even tried to think of something to use them). On the other hand, if you give that idea to a rich he/she would immediately try to analyze the potential of the idea and try to think of how he could make it work. While some may attribute this attitude of the poor to their disinclination to risk taking, I would only attribute it to their laziness to put even the smallest of effort to think it through.
2. They tend to blame everyone else but themselves: The first step to improvement is to acknowledge one's mistake. For example, many wouldn't know that Walt Disney was twice bankrupt before his current successful venture. Hollywood actor Will Smith went nearly broke in 1990 but now is considered among the money-wise. History is replete with people who have outgrown their initial failures. If you ask them why they failed the first time they'd tell you what they did wrong, how they should have done it and possibly why they were successful now. On the other hand, go to a poor and ask the reason for his plight, he/she would immediately blame everyone else (parents, teachers, politicians, economy, poverty, etc.) except themselves.  Personally, my parents never wanted me to do my Masters or PhD. I wanted to pursue higher studies, and I hid all my efforts through my elaborate schemes saving every penny that I could. They were taken off-guard when I went to them with my admission to my Masters. Hence, in my perspective, self-improvement could only begin with self-realization! So, not acknowledging one's own mistake or giving excuses for their lack of action is never going to help anyone.
3. They believe in everyone: The poor trusts everyone, astrologers, politicians, priests, etc, with no questions asked. On the other hand, rich tries to make use of these elements to their advantage. For example, royalties are portrayed by various religious entities throughout history as descendants of Gods or adorned by them to rule common men. Many people believe that and tend to live their life in poverty. While the rich(royalty), would use those religious elements to make the common men endorse their dominion and strengthen their power. Nazis were very adept at spreading rumours to win people's mind, the theory is now widely known as the "Goebbel's law". Now, this is one of the pillars of Psy-warfare (Chinese have a large number of people working on this). Even now, Mr. Modi's Govt. is trying to crack-down NGOs that are trying to protect environment. GoI's (Govt. of India) contention is that these NGOs are funded by foreign elements to prevent development in India. However, if those Nuclear plants come to existence, aren't these the foreign countries which are benefitting from it? Why none asked Mr. Modi's Govt., this question? However, Mr. Modi has no problem in NGOs working to destroy Indian culture or spread Western propaganda (Ex. The Hindu*). In either case, people believed the GoI and didn't even care to question the logic. In this context, I'm only remembered of the great sayings of Thiruvalluvar (sage poet who lived more than 2000 years ago), when I think about their state!
4. They follow the crowd: One of the most deplorable things among the poor is their tendency to follow the crowd. Aren't there any better options, no poor or middle class care to look or hardly do. On the other hand, rich tend to constantly look out for new opportunities. Steve Jobs, learnt calligraphy, which eventually motivated him invent the first Apple Computers. Hardly, a middle class or poor, tend to make the connection between calligraphy and computers. Basically, they do things because everyone does them. When we had our baby, some of our acquaintances/friends (Canada and its Govt. as such is promoting breast-feeding in a great way...) were "advising" us to use baby-formula instead mother's milk. I was both astounded and disappointed. Their reason, every other person they knew of used that brand of formula-milk. None, cared to look or analyze the benefits of one over  the other. 
5. Under or Over educated: Most of the poor either are less educated or overeducated. American Bureau of Labor statistics makes a direct connection between the level of education and the amount of money earned. Though this is an average, less education could be considered a cause for low income. However, what is not very apparent is, too much education also tends to make one poor. Statistics paint a grim picture of the student debt of graduates, every year. Consider also the plight of postdocs who have great ideas but not much opportunities. In Australia, one postdoc seemed to have worked as a forklift, before getting into some position. On the other hand, rich start to earn early. While education is in their interest, they would rather spend more time in learning their business and developing it. 
6. They are cowards: The poor are less inclined to take risk or to stand out from the crowd. Even when their property is acquired by their Govt.,  or forcefully abducted by some "mafia" the poor hardly put a brave fight, even when they might have an advantage of winning the fight. For example, take the case of Target which recently failed in Canada. The CEO went home with more money than the severance package of all the other Target employees' put together. Even though the leadership is responsible for the failure, it is employees who ended up paying the price. Yet, there has been no noticeable protest or anger about it. This is irrespective of the fact that Canada is in election mode now and no politician would risk antagonizing their electorate. 
7. They are not born rich: Being born to rich couple has its advantage. A recent study found the  richer twin to have better mental faculties than the poorer twin. Further, even when a poor has some idea, it is the rich who have the money to implement that and they usually hire the poor for their ideas. However, the good news is that around 50% of the new-billionaires are self-made (Ex. Sergey Brin).
8. Lack of sacrifice: Every achievement requires sacrifice (No pain, no gain). Many rich, would have almost sacrificed their entire youth to get to the point they are now. They would have traded their "popularity" in their schools for their current position even be ridiculed and bullied. Many wouldn't even have had an opportunity to have date, while working like a nerd (many are). While, I wonder how many of the poor had ever sacrificed their want for an ice-cream or the dinner to save that one buck for investing?!
9. Selflessness: One of the interesting things about rich, is that they are mean and tend to stretch every bit of their dollar. Warren Buffett, though is one among the top 10 billionaires consistently, who is well-known for his frugality.  However, he is not the only one. Think about the poor, they are usually over spending and more generous than these billionaires.

Please don't forget to share with us your thoughts on why you think poor are poor...

* It is my observation that 'The Hindu' publish mostly Western propaganda, when it comes to socio-economic issues and hardly prints a rational comment opposing that view. Please refer to my earlier post, for example.