Cain and Able?

The current economic crisis has prompted US Presidential candidate John McCain to make some very powerful statements. My favourite is the following:

"I warned two years ago that this situation was deteriorating and unacceptable," McCain said. "And the old-boy network and the corruption in Washington is directly involved and one of the causes of this financial crisis that we're in today. And I know how to fix it and I know how to get things done."

My question is, Sir if you do know how to fix it, what is stopping you from sharing the wisdom with the senior echelons of the global financial industry. Mr. Bernanke and Paulson notwithstanding, I am sure that the average American worker who you so vociferously proclaim to be the best in the world will be eternally grateful!

Now if you, the Americans were thinking if you could indeed vote for him, read the following:

"We need to set up a 9/11 Commission in order to get to the bottom of this and get it fixed, and act to clean up this corruption… They've violated the social contract that capitalism and the citizen have, and we can't ever let this happen again. I'll make sure it never happens again."

I am beginning to think that this guy might be a bigger entertainer than George Bush. Does capitalism have a social contract? And as far as his promise to ensure that this catastrophe is not repeated goes, well Sir, with all due respect I am sure you are not the only one with that vow. Global regulators have already started working towards that. Oops! You came with that wish a day too late!

Anything other trick that you can pull out of your hat today?

Beginning of the End

The City was not the same today. There was somber silence all around. Market forces had prevailed, the Fed had retreated and Lehman Brothers was laid to rest. Merrill Lynch, the largest US broker, agreed to forsake its independence in order to survive; albeit never again to be the same bull it used to be. AIG is on life support systems and Washington Mutual is fighting to live.

Two days and the world has changed. All the global financial innovation, the seemingly cavernous balance sheets and an opportunity of a life time to gain assets at deep discounts could not prevent this disaster. A look within and everyone saw their own domestic mess. It was too daunting a task to then take on an entity whose transactions cannot be understood or valued. Smug bankers who love to gloat about their deals and paychecks were left speechless and pay less. Some ironic justice on a rare bright, beautiful and sunny September morning in London.

While the US financial industry is licking its wounds, Europe should be ready for the coming onslaught and be prepared. It is not going to be fun ride from here on and there are a lot of hard lessons to be learnt. I only hope that unlike LTCM, Russian crisis and the dot com bust this tragedy is not short lived in the memory of the world. I hope it teaches bankers, corporates and the wider financial industry to control greed and the unnecessary aggression.

Canary Wharf is not the same tonight. There are no waiting cars outside the buildings that house the bulge bracket survivors. More floors are in darkness than usual and there is no one walking home late at night. The tube station is eerily quiet. It seems as if everyone and everything is pensive, except for the Reuters screen showcasing the tanking share market – a mocking reminder of what we have brought upon ourselves. Will we ever learn?

The Unsatiated Hunger

It happened once again yesterday. A middle aged corporate executive met me for an official meeting but did not see a professional, instead saw a woman who his manhood had given the birthright to hit on. I am not sure at what point in the meeting did I realize what was really happening but I do know that the discomfort had set in early on. His mere gaze was making me feel creepy. His smirks were sending unpleasant vibes. His handshake at the end did it all. The pervert refused to let go of my hand. With four other people in the room, he had the guts to be so blatant while I on the other hand was meek enough to wiggle out my hand, walk out of that office and not utter a word.

I was seething with anger, was frustrated with my own reaction and to some extent felt exploited. I had to talk to let the steam out with someone who would understand, someone who I trust. So I called baloo. “Not all of them are swines. Sorry you have to meet them but keep going on”, said my friend and I decided to bury the episode. While on the face of it I have buried the episode I am still thinking about it and wondering if I did something to elicit that behavior. Rationality tells me that I am a complete idiot to hold myself even remotely responsible and yet the violated me feels maybe I do need to partake some of the blame. Just the thought of it makes me feel sick in the pit of my stomach. I also know that it is my word against that of this hungry man and hence there is not much I can do. So maybe I should just forget it all like a nightmare.

What happened with me was minor and trivial compared to the agony of molested and/or raped women. Their trauma is not easily assuaged. Yet the society (eastern and western) often neglects their suffering and deems them partially accountable. Take the case of the 25-year old rape victim in the UK who was told that her compensation would be reduced 25% as she had been drinking before the assault. It took a lawyer to point out that drinking was in no form or fashion an invitation for exploitation. The girl ultimately received the compensation in entirety, however, the intermediate verdict did the work of salt in the wounds; ensuring that any healing of the scars would be more aggravating.

In a number of countries sexual assault is considered an offense only if penetration happens or in case the physical association occurs without consent. What about the cases where there is no intercourse but the forced foreplay itself inhibits the woman from seeking sexual intimacy in the future? What about marital rape or instances where the woman gives in to physical intimacy only to save her own life? And why is it that the woman who is the victim needs to answer all the difficult questions, face the embarrassment and further expose her humiliation for evidence?

The feeling of being victimized, extended emotional and physical exposure, insensitive dealings of the law enforcement authorities and the attitude of the society prevents majority of the women from speaking out about sexual abuse that they have been subjected to. The ordeal ferments within causing confidence issues and emotional imbalances. With time the anguish only worsens and the woman suffers in silence while the perpetrator goes about leading a normal life probably inflicting pain on more innocent women who cross his path.

What can satisfy this hunger of men? Is it unlimited flow of the female body in varied shapes and sizes at their beck and call? Is it easy access to anything and everything that can be associated with sex? Or is it the other extreme of starving men completely of any female association? Or should every accused be simply castrated to set an example for the others of his kind? There needs to be a solution and there needs to be more sympathy. In a society where we fight for the rights of animals, we need to find some way to restore respect for the gender responsible for sustaining human life.

Women - More experimental or simply more open minded?

According to Hog Gadling, his observations lead him to conclude that while men are either straight or gay, women tend to be more experimental. Hence his hypotheses that there could be a higher number of bisexual women than men. He asked me what my views were. Are women really more experimental?

Now, I am not the most qualified person to answer this question with authority. However, if I were to consider the driving factors of what drives men and women into relationships, then I think I would tend to agree with Hob. To begin with there is the common knowledge that while physical intimacy is typically more important for men in a relationship, for women it is emotional intimacy that is more essential. Next, there are probably more societal pressures on single women to get out of the situation than there are on men. And lastly, women can tend to have more expectations from a relationship than men.

If I take all these three factors together then I would think that in the absence of expectations being met and faced with societal pressures, it is highly probable that women enter into a relationship with their own gender as that is also more emotionally satisfying. So there is a possibility that women become more experimental. For men however, given their need for physical intimacy it would be very difficult to experiment with a gender that holds no attraction or possibility of satisfaction!

The truth none the less could also simply be that women are simply more open minded than men. Any views, ideas, research anyone?

Abortion - Is The Timing Right?

In the twenty first century we scream about equality. Equality between races, equality between religions, equality between genders; our quest for equality is never ending. However, in some cases, while trying to empower one stakeholder we overlook another stakeholder who becomes a sacrificial lamb in the whole exercise. This in particular seems to be true in case of abortion.

I am not anti abortion. I am completely for it. Women should have the right to decide the life they want to lead, the economic pressures they want to put up with and the physical challenges they wish to endure. To that extent, abortion is fair. I also believe that every child that is born should be loved and cared for. This is not possible if the child is considered a burden even before she is born. And from that point of view an abortion is justified for a foetus as well.

The debate that I am having with myself and with my readers is not about the legality of abortion but more about the timing of abortion. Let us consider the human gestation cycle briefly. There are two clear stages in prenatal development. The first stage lasts for eight weeks, the embryonic stage. From week four to week eight there are basic organs that begin to develop. The next stage is the foetal development stage, the first four weeks of which are the ones where the foetus is most vulnerable. From week thirteen; the skin, bones and muscles start to take shape such that by week nineteen a heart beat is in place and can be heard with a stethoscope. This also when scientific research proves that the foetus becomes aware of pain, distress and suffering.

Currently in the UK abortion is legal up to the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. In the first nine weeks in fact all procedures carried out are oral and do not call for any surgery. However, from there on the “treatment” is not oral. From week nine to thirteen “suction” is used to literally suck the pregnancy out of the womb. From week thirteen to twenty-four there are varied forms of surgeries used to terminate the pregnancy. Most often this involves an oral medicine in step one and then a physical procedure in step two. This second step causes the cervix to dilate and the uterus to contract resulting in an orchestrated miscarriage. From week nineteen onwards this implies that as the uterus is contracting, there is a possibility of the foetus feeling the anguish and distress. Have we considered if we are in a position of authority to subject the foetus to this pain?

Overlooking the moral aspect of this, there are instances of late abortions in which the abortion actually results in an underdeveloped child being born who subsequently perishes outside of the womb. The child is then dismembered and disposed. This entire exercise can be a trauma for the woman undergoing the procedure not withstanding what the helpless gasping soul would go through. Are we really justified in bringing a life into this world for a few minutes only to kill it?

This was the crux of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill that was dismissed by the UK parliament. The bill attempted to reduce the abortion time limit from twenty four to twenty two weeks. However, majority of the MPs backed the twenty four week limit. The MPs deliberated and pondered and finally expressed their views. Should we women also not consider making up our minds sooner if unfortunately caught in such a situation or are we justified in taking our time to make up our minds, only to subject an innocent, vulnerable and helpless foetus to capital punishment of sorts.

A resurrecting institution or a crumbling pillar?

Human relationships do not survive on rationale, they thrive on emotions; and binding emotions are the foundations of the most basic human relationship - friendship. The knowledge of unconditional acceptance, existence of mutual respect and trust and the presence of genuine affection. It is hard to imagine that with these ingredients in place, there would be fragility in any relationship (occasional feeling of vulnerability maybe) let alone friendship. If this foundation forms the basis of a marriage, strengthens with time and the individuals grow in tandem, why should that marriage be deemed fragile?

For one, marriage can be viewed as limiting and curtailing individual freedom. Logic nevertheless insinuates that where there is mutual respect there is space for both partners to achieve their ambitions. Unconditional acceptance on the other hand results in complementing a partner’s perceived weaknesses by lending support. Affection facilitates compromises which call for a slight challenge, parking the so called ego on the roadside while traveling on life’s journeys.

A second reason is external interference - the perception of our society on what married life should be. It could range from what the role of a man and woman in a marriage should be to how the couple appear in public to what constitutes a “family”. External interference becomes a concern when it bothers either of the two stakeholders of marriage who makes an “issue” out of this external noise. Once again, a simple view I have is that mutual respect and trust lend confidence to adopt honest sharing and aid in devising a solution that works for the couple.

Intolerance and impatience are a combined third culprit which could potentially weaken the foundation of marriage. Acknowledging that not a single one of us is perfect should ward away intolerance. Even Gandhi was not perfect! And the fact that time takes it own course should help us deal with impatience.

In the Indian context, a fourth very important factor is “arranged” marriage. In the true sense of the word, the marriage is arranged by elders of the family. Little or no choice is given to the two people expected to commit for life, on how they feel about the alliance. No argument can support that a relationship created thus is susceptible to significant weakness. This was the only route available to older Indian generations. It did lead to several unhappy marriages which continued to ferment in their sorrows due to societal pressures. However, with the current generation having a choice to pick who they want to spend their life and grow old with; with increased levels of awareness and understanding, why should the institution be deemed fragile. It should only become stronger or so I would “rationally” conclude.

I could be looking at things simplistically; however, life is what we make out of it. It is as simple as we keep it or as complicated as we weave it to become. Marriage has been the pillar of modern society for a long time, and if it has stood the test of time there must be some merit in the institution. The perception is ours and the decision to challenge our views and beliefs is solely ours. While marriage is not fragile it is not tamper proof either. But then life itself is not invincible, is it?

Land of Jungle Raj

India is a land of contrasts. The north and the south are poles apart. North Indians are typically materialistic while the southerners are spiritual. Languages of the two regions have distinct origins, hence are entirely uncorrelated. If north Indian food is rich and spicy, south Indian food is simple and mild. Similarly, the east and the west have individual identities. The west is more industrialized than the east. While the east is mountainous and lush green, the west is a desert. The typical soft demeanour of east Indians is an antithesis to the more prevalent aggression in west India. With such disparity, I could not find one word or phrase that described modern India. That was until my current trip to the homeland.

Total chaos in Indian politics over the Indo US nuclear deal, the rampant “fix and settle it” attitude of corporate India and the complete ignorance of urban India towards civic responsibilities, highlighted the national attitude and description of India - “survival of the fittest” in a thriving “jungle Raj”.

Nuclear energy can be a part solution to India’s energy crisis. The communists supporting the coalition government, however, object to the Indo US nuclear deal on pretext of “perceived threat to national security”. Instead of devising counter proposals like mature adults, or forming an expert committee to weigh the pros and cons, the left decided to withdraw support and put the country at risk of early elections in the current difficult times. The entire melodrama was a lame means to gain much needed political mileage. Presumably the communists have realized their limitations and dying influence. If the nuclear deal is implemented and successful, the left would not only lose further ground but also a historic election propaganda suggesting all that is foreign is bad. The ensuing horse trading prior to the parliamentary vote of confidence was bewildering. Money was distributed like candy; imprisoned parliamentarians were called to support their factions and blatant opportunistic defection transpired. All in an attempt to retain power and survive! This crude “power hungry" attitude has made us the laughing stock of the world. But do we care?

As long as there is economic advancement at individual level there is little concern for the image of the country, inclusive growth or even working with foresight. We are content in being a reactive society rather than being proactive people. India is predominantly an agricultural economy, however, little has been done to empower farmers, while IT sector for example gets unessential support. Finally, a huge “compassionate” effort was made in the form of the farm loan waiver program in the last budget. More of an attempt to win votes keeping in mind next years’ elections! There is an upcoming sector, however, which could make a difference – the retail sector. At a recent conference, I asked a panel comprising of senior executives of leading Indian retail chains, on how they could help farmers and improve their lives. The answer was crisp and clear. While cooperation between the corporate and the farmer could prove productive, since it does not make sense for the bottom line yet, there is no point in making the effort. Simple analysis shows that a little time, effort and money invested today would help the retailers going forward – reduce dependence on imports, increase sourcing mix, ensuring quality etc. At the same time it will spread prosperity to the grass root level. However, with just the short term in mind there is little that is deemed fit to be done.

When the crunch time comes and there is realisation that something should have been done in the past, Indians have a convenient trick at hand to use – “settle” the issue and fix the problem ostensibly. That is why reliable “relationships” with bureaucracy and judiciary are paramount to succeed in corporate India. If required environmental clearances have not been obtained and the concerned entity is pulled up, it is only a matter of time and a few bank rolls that the enquiry is withdrawn. When an ostentatious amount of money is raised via a ridiculously priced IPO; bankers, regulators and lawyers all keep mum despite glaring absence of any bankable asset to lend value to the project. The clout of the promoter prohibits anyone from speaking their mind and the fee earned is another reason to stifle speech. When post IPO the share price crashes, in a grand (“face saving”) gesture the promoter “dilutes” his own holding by a meagre 3% and conducts a bonus issue. If the investors were purely institutional accounts I would have said well too bad they knew the risk they were undertaking. With substantial retail participation, there needs to be some more prudence adopted. Or will we protect investors only once another stock market scandal surfaces?

There is an absence of independent regulators and think tanks in India. Media and journalists are neither incentivised nor encouraged to build awareness and rouse public discussions. In fact even the educated population enjoys reading Bollywood gossip more than grasping the fundamentals about national economics, policy, politics and security. We seem to be content being a nation that works in hindsight and not with foresight. How then do we propose to grow and become a world leader? Or is it just more talk without substance in the typical Indian fashion?