I don't read MAD magazine anymore (though I should), but when I did, I used to especially love Antonio Prohias' Spy Vs. Spy
Here, from the Economic Times, is India's own version of scumbag versus scumbag-- corporate scumbags versus political scumbags. Advani makes it out to be that the BJP MPs who took money from corporate lobbyists for raising questions in Parliament were poor innocents. I suppose only politicians reserve the right to lie to and deceive others.
The low cunning of Indian politicians is really to be marvelled at.
Full post...
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
The costs of the Chennai Nokia Telecom SEZ
The Citizens' Research Collective (India) has published a report titled 'The public price of success. The costs of the Nokia Telecom SEZ in Chennai'. Here is the abstract, via a friend who forwarded the announcement and report from the Amsterdam-based Good Electronics, the International Network on Human Rights & Sustainability in Electronics.
Here is the abstract:
"The Nokia Special Economic Zone in the Suburb of south Indian city of Chennai has been celebrated as one of the main cases which prove that the Special Economic Zone policies have been successful. Nokia has been praised for providing investment, creating employment, building infrastructure, and for its export of mobile phones. As a trendsetter the company has also been seen as contributing to why other major telecom manufacturers like Motorola and Flextronics also came to Chennai. This report aims to show that the impressive private profits of Nokia come at a high price for the public. The special agreement between Nokia and the Tamil Nadu government signed in 2005 ensures that the government will refund VAT on domestic sales to the value of Nokia's investments in infrastructure. This means it is actually the state government which is paying for the company's infrastructure. Further, the employment generated number a few thousand which is good but the low salaries, the frequent use of contract labour and the imposition of public utility status to prevent strikes, make jobs seem more exploitative than beneficial. Finally, it is found that Nokia sells its phones mainly within India but still manages to get these counted towards export. The conclusion is that if the Nokia SEZ is a success, then it certainly comes at a high price for the public and for the exclusive benefit of a private company."
Full post...
Here is the abstract:
"The Nokia Special Economic Zone in the Suburb of south Indian city of Chennai has been celebrated as one of the main cases which prove that the Special Economic Zone policies have been successful. Nokia has been praised for providing investment, creating employment, building infrastructure, and for its export of mobile phones. As a trendsetter the company has also been seen as contributing to why other major telecom manufacturers like Motorola and Flextronics also came to Chennai. This report aims to show that the impressive private profits of Nokia come at a high price for the public. The special agreement between Nokia and the Tamil Nadu government signed in 2005 ensures that the government will refund VAT on domestic sales to the value of Nokia's investments in infrastructure. This means it is actually the state government which is paying for the company's infrastructure. Further, the employment generated number a few thousand which is good but the low salaries, the frequent use of contract labour and the imposition of public utility status to prevent strikes, make jobs seem more exploitative than beneficial. Finally, it is found that Nokia sells its phones mainly within India but still manages to get these counted towards export. The conclusion is that if the Nokia SEZ is a success, then it certainly comes at a high price for the public and for the exclusive benefit of a private company."
Full post...
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Mallika Sarabhai on corporate social responsibility
A terrific article by Mallika Sarabhai, in DNA, about the "first conference on global ethics" in Geneva, co-sponsored by a host of management schools and industry. Sarabhai gets the self-centeredness of such initiatives perfectly.
"I come to realise three hours through the first day that for the speakers and the organisers there are two pivotal points in the debate -- corporate social responsibility and how management education needs to change to help people learn about corporate social responsibility in an uncertain world.
I find it amusing that the middle class and rich have suddenly, over the last year, post the financial crash, started talking about and being concerned with coping with uncertainty. It was the same earlier this year at the World Economic Conference in Davos."
On the shenanigans of the Davos circuit types check out thishilarious satirical article (thanks Space Bar)
Full post...
"I come to realise three hours through the first day that for the speakers and the organisers there are two pivotal points in the debate -- corporate social responsibility and how management education needs to change to help people learn about corporate social responsibility in an uncertain world.
I find it amusing that the middle class and rich have suddenly, over the last year, post the financial crash, started talking about and being concerned with coping with uncertainty. It was the same earlier this year at the World Economic Conference in Davos."
On the shenanigans of the Davos circuit types check out thishilarious satirical article (thanks Space Bar)
Full post...
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Further: Decriminalizing Homosexuality in India
Harsh Kapoor, who runs South Asia Citizens Wire, notes in the July 2-3 despatch that conservative forces from religio-political lobbies, as he terms it, will unite in their homophobia to oppose the decision.
Regarding the scope of the decision, Soli Sorabjee points out in The Indian Express that the decision does not legalize nor endorse homosexuality but only decriminalizes it. Sorabjee lauds the decision as a step in preventing the police from extorting people by harassing them through the use of Section 377.
The Wall Street Journal, however, has a story titled, "Delhi High Court Legalizes Gay Sex." Vir Sanghvi rightly points out, in an excellent piece, that the law should be scrapped altogether.
Something that our Indian secular and left intellectuals need to note here is that several of the people who are protesting against the High court's landmark decision are often touted as bastions of secularism, inter-faith harmony, and so-called 'progressive' values.
A prime example of such would be Islamic scholar, Maulana Wahiuddin Khan. Khan's regrettable reaction to the decision- "As far as the practice of homosexuality is concerned, I think that is completely wrong." Khan is known as Islam's "spiritual ambassador" to the world, according to his Wikipedia entry.
Representatives of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, which constantly paints itself as a defender of minority rights in India, have also taken a similar stand.
Lalu Prasad, who claims to be a secular leader, when he is not stealing from animals, insists that homosexuality is a crime.
This astrologer is unhappy.
Bhanu Pratap Narayan Mishra, an astrologer and a politician was of the opinion that man should not go against nature. "God created man and woman to procreate. The concept of homosexuality goes against the laws of nature. It disturbs nature's balance. Homosexuality is the aberration of a miniscule minority. They are setting a bad example for the society which bores ill for the society," he said.
Full post...
Regarding the scope of the decision, Soli Sorabjee points out in The Indian Express that the decision does not legalize nor endorse homosexuality but only decriminalizes it. Sorabjee lauds the decision as a step in preventing the police from extorting people by harassing them through the use of Section 377.
The Wall Street Journal, however, has a story titled, "Delhi High Court Legalizes Gay Sex." Vir Sanghvi rightly points out, in an excellent piece, that the law should be scrapped altogether.
Something that our Indian secular and left intellectuals need to note here is that several of the people who are protesting against the High court's landmark decision are often touted as bastions of secularism, inter-faith harmony, and so-called 'progressive' values.
A prime example of such would be Islamic scholar, Maulana Wahiuddin Khan. Khan's regrettable reaction to the decision- "As far as the practice of homosexuality is concerned, I think that is completely wrong." Khan is known as Islam's "spiritual ambassador" to the world, according to his Wikipedia entry.
Representatives of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, which constantly paints itself as a defender of minority rights in India, have also taken a similar stand.
Lalu Prasad, who claims to be a secular leader, when he is not stealing from animals, insists that homosexuality is a crime.
This astrologer is unhappy.
Bhanu Pratap Narayan Mishra, an astrologer and a politician was of the opinion that man should not go against nature. "God created man and woman to procreate. The concept of homosexuality goes against the laws of nature. It disturbs nature's balance. Homosexuality is the aberration of a miniscule minority. They are setting a bad example for the society which bores ill for the society," he said.
Full post...
Thursday, July 2, 2009
The Delhi High Court decriminalizes homosexuality
A landmark ruling and historic day. Homosexuality is no longer criminal in India. The July 2-3 dispatch of South Asia Citizens Wire has a number of articles on the matter.
The Catholic Church in India, the Islamic seminary Deoband, Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, and media-hungry sleazebag, Amar Singh have all reacted in a predictably unfortunate manner, judging from the mean-spirited nature of their remarks.
For some inexplicable reason, the West and America are being blamed for the judgment.
This is Indian Catholic church spokesperson, Paul Thelaket's response: "Legalising gay sex will open up the society to some sort of sexual anarchy. Perhaps Indian culture is being eroded by the western promiscuous culture." (The Wall Street Journal also notes, "A grouping of Indian Catholic bishops said the church doesn't oppose the decision but doesn't support extending marriage rights for gay or lesbian Indians.")
This is the response of Kamal Farooqui, Member, All India Muslim Personal Law Board, "This judgement is just to please our western and american friends."
Especially surprising is the homophobic reaction of religious minorities. They appear not to see the contradiction in their insistence that religious minorities should have special rights in India but not sexual minorities. Imagine if LGBT communities were to petition the Indian courts asking them to take away the rights of religious minorities.
Here is a brief excerpt from Shohini Ghosh's piece in the HIndustan Times, which notes that the legislation was drafted by Macaulay.
END TO UNNATURAL EXCLUSION
by Shohini Ghosh
Hindustan Times
New Delhi, July 02, 2009
In a historic judgement, a two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice Murlidharan has decriminalised non-heterosexual sex between consenting adults. In an eloquently argued judgement of 150 pages, the bench has struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a colonial legislation drafted by Lord Macaulay in 1860, that criminalised “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” punishable by imprisonment extending up to ten years. India was one of the few countries left in the world that criminalised and discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. By overturning Section 377, the Delhi High Court has foregrounded the importance of sexual rights, lent dignity to people of different sexualities and upheld the Constitutional values of democracy and equality.
.....
Here is the ruling itself.
Gay sex among adults ’not criminal’ in India - Full Text of Delhi High Court Ruling of 2 July 2009
Full post...
The Catholic Church in India, the Islamic seminary Deoband, Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, and media-hungry sleazebag, Amar Singh have all reacted in a predictably unfortunate manner, judging from the mean-spirited nature of their remarks.
For some inexplicable reason, the West and America are being blamed for the judgment.
This is Indian Catholic church spokesperson, Paul Thelaket's response: "Legalising gay sex will open up the society to some sort of sexual anarchy. Perhaps Indian culture is being eroded by the western promiscuous culture." (The Wall Street Journal also notes, "A grouping of Indian Catholic bishops said the church doesn't oppose the decision but doesn't support extending marriage rights for gay or lesbian Indians.")
This is the response of Kamal Farooqui, Member, All India Muslim Personal Law Board, "This judgement is just to please our western and american friends."
Especially surprising is the homophobic reaction of religious minorities. They appear not to see the contradiction in their insistence that religious minorities should have special rights in India but not sexual minorities. Imagine if LGBT communities were to petition the Indian courts asking them to take away the rights of religious minorities.
Here is a brief excerpt from Shohini Ghosh's piece in the HIndustan Times, which notes that the legislation was drafted by Macaulay.
END TO UNNATURAL EXCLUSION
by Shohini Ghosh
Hindustan Times
New Delhi, July 02, 2009
In a historic judgement, a two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice Murlidharan has decriminalised non-heterosexual sex between consenting adults. In an eloquently argued judgement of 150 pages, the bench has struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a colonial legislation drafted by Lord Macaulay in 1860, that criminalised “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” punishable by imprisonment extending up to ten years. India was one of the few countries left in the world that criminalised and discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. By overturning Section 377, the Delhi High Court has foregrounded the importance of sexual rights, lent dignity to people of different sexualities and upheld the Constitutional values of democracy and equality.
.....
Here is the ruling itself.
Gay sex among adults ’not criminal’ in India - Full Text of Delhi High Court Ruling of 2 July 2009
Full post...
David Horowitz, Islamic fundamentalist?
It is a familiar trope in literature: adversaries who need each other and come to resemble each other over the years. This describes David Horowitz's relationship to Islamic fundamentalists perfectly. If Islamic fundamentalists didn't exist, Horowitz would need to invent them. They are the reason he exists in his public persona.
Horowitz is an 'activist' involved in any number of conservative causes. Among his achievements: encouraging students to spy on their 'liberal' professors, and who, with co-activist Daniel Pipes, has been on a mission to battle what he terms 'Islamo-fascism' (though it is not very clear what the term itself means)
Horowitz and Pipes also have the distinction of using free speech arguments to attempt deprive others of their right to free speech: in particular, university professors and members of minority communities.
Watching HBO's terrific documentary, "Shouting Fire: Stories From the Edge of Free Speech," I was struck by the extent to which Horowitz and Pipes sounded like fanatic mullahs who are utterly convinced about their theories. Among self-appointed spokespersons for Muslim communities in India or elsewhere, one often finds a disturbing streak of anti-Americanism and anti-semitism. Everything is an American or Zionist conspiracy, according to these individuals. Anyone attempting to present a contrary viewpoint is labelled an 'American agent'. Horowitz and Pipes are carbon copies of these mullahs, with the object of their suspicion inverted. Islam and Islamic culture are suspect in their eyes. Everything that Muslims do is an anti-American or anti-Jewish conspiracy. Anyone who disagrees with them is accused to either promoting an Islamic agenda to undermine America or is condemned as a sympathizer with Islamo-fascism.
The documentary also brought to light the fact that in America folks like Horowitz can get away with generalizations about Muslims (and, by implication, possibly about Hindus and Buddhists) that would provoke outrage if they were attributed to other religious or ethnic groups, such as Baptists, Methodists, Jews, or European-Americans.
I had the same thought when a few years ago Horowitz had taken out a vile advertisement in the Emory Wheel, Emory University's student newspaper. The ad does not seem to be online but I remember that it teemed with the worst kinds of generalizations about Muslims and Islam.
For me, HBO's thought-provoking documentary raised, among other questions, two sets of key issues:
One, who does free speech exist for in America? And does it exist equally for all communities? What does it mean when some powerful individuals and groups use free speech to deprive others of free speech?
And, two, why has there been such a silence in the media on the patently unfair and hypocritical actions of Horowitz & Co.? Why don't the likes of CNN and MSNBC not take up such issues. Is it, in part, because of their strong political connections? The widespread support that their views seem to have among sections of American society?
Full post...
Horowitz is an 'activist' involved in any number of conservative causes. Among his achievements: encouraging students to spy on their 'liberal' professors, and who, with co-activist Daniel Pipes, has been on a mission to battle what he terms 'Islamo-fascism' (though it is not very clear what the term itself means)
Horowitz and Pipes also have the distinction of using free speech arguments to attempt deprive others of their right to free speech: in particular, university professors and members of minority communities.
Watching HBO's terrific documentary, "Shouting Fire: Stories From the Edge of Free Speech," I was struck by the extent to which Horowitz and Pipes sounded like fanatic mullahs who are utterly convinced about their theories. Among self-appointed spokespersons for Muslim communities in India or elsewhere, one often finds a disturbing streak of anti-Americanism and anti-semitism. Everything is an American or Zionist conspiracy, according to these individuals. Anyone attempting to present a contrary viewpoint is labelled an 'American agent'. Horowitz and Pipes are carbon copies of these mullahs, with the object of their suspicion inverted. Islam and Islamic culture are suspect in their eyes. Everything that Muslims do is an anti-American or anti-Jewish conspiracy. Anyone who disagrees with them is accused to either promoting an Islamic agenda to undermine America or is condemned as a sympathizer with Islamo-fascism.
The documentary also brought to light the fact that in America folks like Horowitz can get away with generalizations about Muslims (and, by implication, possibly about Hindus and Buddhists) that would provoke outrage if they were attributed to other religious or ethnic groups, such as Baptists, Methodists, Jews, or European-Americans.
I had the same thought when a few years ago Horowitz had taken out a vile advertisement in the Emory Wheel, Emory University's student newspaper. The ad does not seem to be online but I remember that it teemed with the worst kinds of generalizations about Muslims and Islam.
For me, HBO's thought-provoking documentary raised, among other questions, two sets of key issues:
One, who does free speech exist for in America? And does it exist equally for all communities? What does it mean when some powerful individuals and groups use free speech to deprive others of free speech?
And, two, why has there been such a silence in the media on the patently unfair and hypocritical actions of Horowitz & Co.? Why don't the likes of CNN and MSNBC not take up such issues. Is it, in part, because of their strong political connections? The widespread support that their views seem to have among sections of American society?
Full post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
