THE VALUE OF HIGHER EDUCATION
A Two-Pager by Ajit Chaudhuri – May 2011
‘The enemy of truth is not the lie but the myth’
I would like to introduce you to Peter Thiel, one of the promoters of Paypal and more relevant to this paper also known for having predicted the dotcom and housing bubbles in the US. When is a price rise normal interplay between supply and demand, and when is it a bubble that needs policy intervention? According to Thiel , a true bubble is when something is both overvalued and intensely believed – and that belief, while rooted in truth, gets pushed to unhealthy levels. He says that the next big bubble to burst will be higher education, with its too high and rapidly rising costs, the onerous debt levels that its consumers acquire, and mounting evidence that the rewards are over-valued. This paper looks to examine this contention.
A typical bubble has buyers thinking that they are buying something that will appreciate in value and make them rich in the future. The product grows more and more expensive. The expense is off-shored by easy credit. An increasing numbers of buyers buy at increasing prices in the expectation that the value will continue to increase. At some point, Stein’s Law (‘if something cannot go on forever, it will stop’) kicks in and the bubble bursts. Buyers dry up, sellers proliferate, the product’s value drops abruptly, and those holding it are left with a mound of debt that surpasses the value of the product. Larger bubbles take down entire financial systems, which is why central banks are supposed to keep a close watch on irrational exuberance within the economy.
Can higher education be a bubble? This is controversial! The Bennett Hypothesis of 1987 first identified the possibility, observing that college rankings are partially driven by spending levels, that higher tuition prices are correlated with perceptions of prestige, and that it is in colleges’ best interests to increase prices as long as financial aid ensures an ability to pay. Coupled with this is the widespread belief that, no matter what the cost, education is necessary for future prosperity. The ingredients for a bubble exist.
Several recent papers look into the possibility, and examine the price of higher education in the US, the demand for it, the returns to it, and the level of debt incurred to obtain it. This is disturbing stuff! Tuition fees have gone up at well over inflation, and demand for higher education has behaved similarly. Average salaries for new bachelor degrees have dropped. And the class of 2011 is the most indebted ever, with outstanding student debt surpassing credit card debt for the first time ever in June 2010. In a rapidly de-leveraging US economy, this is the only category of debt that is increasing.
The premise that higher education equals future prosperity too is being subject to scrutiny. The economist Paul Krugman questions the belief that progress increases job opportunities for those who work with minds and hurts those who work with hands, and others point out that the trend may be the opposite and that demand for truck drivers and manual labourers is likely to outstrip that for low-end white collar jobs (which can easily be Bangalored).
But is this a bubble? Higher education is not a typical product in that the buyer cannot subsequently sell it (necessary for a bursting bubble), only rent it for wages. Also, most economists do not think that the returns to higher education are falling in the long term, and do think that demand supply corrections should sort out temporary imbalances. This has already begun, with an 11 percent decline in applications to law school this year, mainly because students see no sense in piling up debt to join the legion of unemployed lawyers. Mid-ranking business schools too are seeing a drop in demand, masked by them taking weaker candidates. And an economic recovery should see demand for college graduates pick up, and a subsequent return to business as usual for the system. But this is by no means certain.
Why is this debate important for us here in India? Higher education was seen to have a strong public good component, and the state therefore provided the service and contributed a significant proportion of the cost. This thinking is changing to it being seen as a commodity in which all the benefits accrue to the one undergoing higher education, and s/he should therefore bear a larger proportion of the (rapidly increasing) costs. The demand and supply, in the mean time, are increasing significantly and the debate regarding increased tuition fees is couched in terms such as institutional autonomy and the need to ensure that any capable but broke person should have access to student loans. Proponents of the Bennett Hypothesis would feel a sense of déjà vu.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Monday, August 30, 2010
BULLSHIT BINGO!
BULLSHIT BINGO!
Ajit Chaudhuri – August 2010
Transparency
Indicators
Giving voice
Livelihood security
Gender variance
Civil society
People-centred
Distress migration
Social capital
Bottom-up development
Neo-liberal
Mobilisation
Sustainable
Accountable
Community
Participation
Gate-keeper
Activist
Capacity building
Globalisation
Micro-enterprise
Attribution
Programmatic
Impact
Empowerment
Appropriate technology
One of the requirements of a life in the development sector is the ability to sit through long and boring meetings. In my early years, I had the God-given gift of being able to sleep with my eyes wide open, scoring goals in world cup finals and acknowledging the cheers of crowds while people around me pontificated endlessly. This, combined with an inventory of three semi-intelligent things to say in case some dickhead suddenly went ‘So, Chaudhuri, what are your views on this?’ ensured survival. Later, when I moved up the food chain, I simply cut out attending meetings from my work profile. Things that go round come around, they say, and I am being punished for past misdemeanours by now having to a) attend more meetings (profile building, my bosses call it), and b) contribute to the discussion, i.e. no more sleeping.
This is where Bullshit Bingo comes in! For those of you who are uninitiated, the rules are that you prepare a list of 25 commonly used terms, put them 5 by 5 in a table as above in different orders, and then share these with like-minded participants to the meeting. When a speaker uses one of the terms, you cross it on your table. When you complete a column, row or diagonal of crosses, you get up and say something pre-ordained – it’s supposed to be a loud ‘BULLSHIT’ but, as that may not be appropriate to profile building or contribution, it can be something lighter like ‘I deeply regret my inability to agree with that last contention!’ Ditto with a full house! Needless to add, participants are not allowed to use any of the terms until after someone else.
Playing BB increases concentration powers and enables one to listen carefully to the most mundane of discussions. Be warned, though, that this requires the presence of somewhat like-minded participants to the meeting.
How does one identify them? Remember that ‘many a dumb blonde is actually a smart brunette’ and look for grey beards, khadi attire, and conspicuous commitment to poverty alleviation – these are invariably pointers to the most enthusiastic participants to BB. Stay away from the visiting card flashers, those who introduce themselves with their position (thank you, designation inflation!), and those who inform others of their presence at the pre-lunch post-tea session only because of multiple commitments and busy schedules.
Have a good game, oops sorry, meeting!
Ajit Chaudhuri – August 2010
Transparency
Indicators
Giving voice
Livelihood security
Gender variance
Civil society
People-centred
Distress migration
Social capital
Bottom-up development
Neo-liberal
Mobilisation
Sustainable
Accountable
Community
Participation
Gate-keeper
Activist
Capacity building
Globalisation
Micro-enterprise
Attribution
Programmatic
Impact
Empowerment
Appropriate technology
One of the requirements of a life in the development sector is the ability to sit through long and boring meetings. In my early years, I had the God-given gift of being able to sleep with my eyes wide open, scoring goals in world cup finals and acknowledging the cheers of crowds while people around me pontificated endlessly. This, combined with an inventory of three semi-intelligent things to say in case some dickhead suddenly went ‘So, Chaudhuri, what are your views on this?’ ensured survival. Later, when I moved up the food chain, I simply cut out attending meetings from my work profile. Things that go round come around, they say, and I am being punished for past misdemeanours by now having to a) attend more meetings (profile building, my bosses call it), and b) contribute to the discussion, i.e. no more sleeping.
This is where Bullshit Bingo comes in! For those of you who are uninitiated, the rules are that you prepare a list of 25 commonly used terms, put them 5 by 5 in a table as above in different orders, and then share these with like-minded participants to the meeting. When a speaker uses one of the terms, you cross it on your table. When you complete a column, row or diagonal of crosses, you get up and say something pre-ordained – it’s supposed to be a loud ‘BULLSHIT’ but, as that may not be appropriate to profile building or contribution, it can be something lighter like ‘I deeply regret my inability to agree with that last contention!’ Ditto with a full house! Needless to add, participants are not allowed to use any of the terms until after someone else.
Playing BB increases concentration powers and enables one to listen carefully to the most mundane of discussions. Be warned, though, that this requires the presence of somewhat like-minded participants to the meeting.
How does one identify them? Remember that ‘many a dumb blonde is actually a smart brunette’ and look for grey beards, khadi attire, and conspicuous commitment to poverty alleviation – these are invariably pointers to the most enthusiastic participants to BB. Stay away from the visiting card flashers, those who introduce themselves with their position (thank you, designation inflation!), and those who inform others of their presence at the pre-lunch post-tea session only because of multiple commitments and busy schedules.
Have a good game, oops sorry, meeting!
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
ON VARIOUS TRILEMMAS
ON VARIOUS TRILEMMAS
A 2-Pager by Ajit Chaudhuri
July 2010
Most of us are familiar with the concept of a ‘trilemma’. I for one, in college, wanted to do well in studies, cavort with beautiful women and play football. I learned soon enough that, at best, I had to pick two out of three and by doing so I would forego the third (and my second division is a tribute to my choices). The gastronomic trilemma (good food, served quickly, easy on the pocket, choose any two) is another that we all commonly face. The Government of Delhi has faced an engineering trilemma (to specification, on time, within budget, choose any two) vis-à-vis the Commonwealth Games and is well on course to make an international shame of a billion Indians.
Which brings me to the policy trilemma that is so much in the news these days thanks to the coverage of the economic downturn. It goes like this – a nation’s economic policy makers would like to achieve three objectives.
The first is to have an independent monetary policy, which translates to the central bank being able to use tools such as interest rates and money supply to stabilise the nation’s economy (and thereby deal with inflation, bubbles, depressions, overheating, and whatnot).
The second is to maintain stability in the nation’s currency exchange rate, thereby making it easier for households and business to engage with the world economy and plan for the future.
The third is to have an open capital market that allows for international flows of money, thereby enabling citizens to diversify their holdings by investing abroad and encouraging foreign investors to bring in resources and expertise.
And herein lies the trilemma – policy makers can at best choose two of the three objectives – by doing so, they lose control of the third. If they decide on an independent monetary policy and a fixed exchange rate, like China, they have to control the flow of capital in and out of the country. If they decide on a stable exchange rate and an open capital market, they cannot use monetary policy to address economic disruptions – the example of countries within the European Union, and Argentina in 1991, come to mind. And if they decide on an independent monetary policy and free flow of capital, such as the US and the UK, the currency has to float.
This helps to explain certain things. An economic downturn combined with high public debt has different implications for the UK, who can inflate away their debt and also enable a cheaper currency to stir exports, compared with those for the PIGS (i.e. Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, for whom neither policy option is available and cutting public expenditure and begging for handouts from Germany are the only ways ahead). China is reluctant to let its currency float (despite considerable pressure from the US) because of its implications on monetary policy and controlled capital flows as well as on the more obvious exports competitiveness of its economy.
There are two criticisms to the policy trilemma . The first relates to the validity of the objectives. There are arguments in favour of including employment creation and inequality reduction as explicit policy objectives for central banks. There are also arguments against the free flow of capital as an objective, and examples (Chile, Malaysia) wherein capital controls are seen to have contributed to greater policy autonomy. The second relates to its ‘all or nothing’ approach, with arguments in favour of adopting intermediate options in the three policy domains, such as capital account management through selective controls and managed currency exchange rates.
Which brings me to the final trilemma of this paper – the donor trilemma. In this era of extra-ordinary donor power and domination within the Indian non-governmental development sector, I find that most of the better donors have three (not always explicit) objectives for their NGO funding policy.
• To work with and support NGOs that are excellent – that lead the way, that develop models for others to replicate, that have a single-minded focus on working with the poorest, that influence policy, etc.
• To work with NGOs that are honest – that put their (the NGOs) intended beneficiaries at the centre of their work, that reflect on efficacy and the change they actually bring about, that develop rigorous and transparent systems and procedures, that are accountable to their stakeholders, etc.
• To get their NGO partners to do what they (the donors) want and/or think is right – on what is done, how, where, who for, and why.
The donor trilemma is that any NGO that meets two of the objectives is thereby unable to meet the third. Excellent and honest NGOs are genetically incapable of being driven primarily by donor priorities, and there is only so much that they will do to meet donor demands. Honest butt-kissers will at best be mediocre in their work. And excellent NGOs that also kowtow around to their donors will have difficulty in being true to themselves.
Development funding agencies would do well to understand the implications of the donor trilemma. One, no NGO partner can meet all three objectives. Two, the choice of which objective you are willing to let go should be critical to your choice of NGO partners. And three, any NGO that adheres to your every command is compromising on either excellence or on honesty.
A 2-Pager by Ajit Chaudhuri
July 2010
Most of us are familiar with the concept of a ‘trilemma’. I for one, in college, wanted to do well in studies, cavort with beautiful women and play football. I learned soon enough that, at best, I had to pick two out of three and by doing so I would forego the third (and my second division is a tribute to my choices). The gastronomic trilemma (good food, served quickly, easy on the pocket, choose any two) is another that we all commonly face. The Government of Delhi has faced an engineering trilemma (to specification, on time, within budget, choose any two) vis-à-vis the Commonwealth Games and is well on course to make an international shame of a billion Indians.
Which brings me to the policy trilemma that is so much in the news these days thanks to the coverage of the economic downturn. It goes like this – a nation’s economic policy makers would like to achieve three objectives.
The first is to have an independent monetary policy, which translates to the central bank being able to use tools such as interest rates and money supply to stabilise the nation’s economy (and thereby deal with inflation, bubbles, depressions, overheating, and whatnot).
The second is to maintain stability in the nation’s currency exchange rate, thereby making it easier for households and business to engage with the world economy and plan for the future.
The third is to have an open capital market that allows for international flows of money, thereby enabling citizens to diversify their holdings by investing abroad and encouraging foreign investors to bring in resources and expertise.
And herein lies the trilemma – policy makers can at best choose two of the three objectives – by doing so, they lose control of the third. If they decide on an independent monetary policy and a fixed exchange rate, like China, they have to control the flow of capital in and out of the country. If they decide on a stable exchange rate and an open capital market, they cannot use monetary policy to address economic disruptions – the example of countries within the European Union, and Argentina in 1991, come to mind. And if they decide on an independent monetary policy and free flow of capital, such as the US and the UK, the currency has to float.
This helps to explain certain things. An economic downturn combined with high public debt has different implications for the UK, who can inflate away their debt and also enable a cheaper currency to stir exports, compared with those for the PIGS (i.e. Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, for whom neither policy option is available and cutting public expenditure and begging for handouts from Germany are the only ways ahead). China is reluctant to let its currency float (despite considerable pressure from the US) because of its implications on monetary policy and controlled capital flows as well as on the more obvious exports competitiveness of its economy.
There are two criticisms to the policy trilemma . The first relates to the validity of the objectives. There are arguments in favour of including employment creation and inequality reduction as explicit policy objectives for central banks. There are also arguments against the free flow of capital as an objective, and examples (Chile, Malaysia) wherein capital controls are seen to have contributed to greater policy autonomy. The second relates to its ‘all or nothing’ approach, with arguments in favour of adopting intermediate options in the three policy domains, such as capital account management through selective controls and managed currency exchange rates.
Which brings me to the final trilemma of this paper – the donor trilemma. In this era of extra-ordinary donor power and domination within the Indian non-governmental development sector, I find that most of the better donors have three (not always explicit) objectives for their NGO funding policy.
• To work with and support NGOs that are excellent – that lead the way, that develop models for others to replicate, that have a single-minded focus on working with the poorest, that influence policy, etc.
• To work with NGOs that are honest – that put their (the NGOs) intended beneficiaries at the centre of their work, that reflect on efficacy and the change they actually bring about, that develop rigorous and transparent systems and procedures, that are accountable to their stakeholders, etc.
• To get their NGO partners to do what they (the donors) want and/or think is right – on what is done, how, where, who for, and why.
The donor trilemma is that any NGO that meets two of the objectives is thereby unable to meet the third. Excellent and honest NGOs are genetically incapable of being driven primarily by donor priorities, and there is only so much that they will do to meet donor demands. Honest butt-kissers will at best be mediocre in their work. And excellent NGOs that also kowtow around to their donors will have difficulty in being true to themselves.
Development funding agencies would do well to understand the implications of the donor trilemma. One, no NGO partner can meet all three objectives. Two, the choice of which objective you are willing to let go should be critical to your choice of NGO partners. And three, any NGO that adheres to your every command is compromising on either excellence or on honesty.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
GET RICH GUIDE
THE GET RICH GUIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SECTOR
A 2-Pager by Ajit Chaudhuri
People looking to make big bucks quickly and easily generally tend to avoid the development sector – their preferred career choices are investment banking, government service and spiritualism. They are making a mistake! Do not be misled by talks of sacrifice and penury, there is plenty of money to be made in poverty eradication. Here’s how it’s done!
Start your own NGO: The Trusts Act is structured so that the NGO and all its assets are in effect the property of its owner (in legal parlance, the settler) – which is why no matter how many UN jobs with tax free dollar salaries are dangled in front of their faces, NGO bosses never leave. There is little point in working your way up the hierarchy – no. 2s are synonymous with peons. So don’t waste time – start your own NGO, and then work to multiply its assets and infrastructure. Be sure to pack the governing body with friends and relatives. Have one ‘name’ there as well – someone from within the sector who sits in a lot of governing boards and contributes to none of them. Get a pliable statutory auditor – like the ‘name’, they too are a dime a dozen. Get one of your adult children in as second line management cum inheritor of the organisation, and ensure that s/he uses a different surname – Kumar is the surname of choice for boss’ children cum Deputy Directors.
Work the donor circuit: Speak English, practise that wearied sigh that combines exasperation and hope, and focus conversation on the misdeeds of the government. Nod appreciatively when donors describe their philosophies and policies, and commend their wisdom. Be suitably obsequious, and do not hesitate to equate their views with those of Einstein and/or Keynes. Ply them with bullshit about having followed your inner calling to work with the poor instead of joining the corporate sector. Do not ever get drawn into topics such as – if you have spent twenty years working here (and used lots of money in the process), why is it that the tribal/dalit/woman/child/farmer/whatever is in the same situation as when you began. And do not forget – these people tend to equate tailoring and table manners with intelligence and integrity.
Once you own an NGO and get the money, you need to ensure that it goes where it is supposed to go. The best ways of ensuring this are –
Overstate and underpay salaries: Most grants have money for salaries. Have fictitious employees earning fat salaries (who taught this to Satyam?), pay those who do exist less than the amount budgeted and pocket the differential, and hey presto, about 70 percent of the salary component of the grant can be in your pocket. If you are queried, say that it was towards a staff welfare fund that will enable the organisation to pay salaries when project funds are not available. Or, that you are forced to pay ‘tax’ to the Maoists. Some staff members are vocal about not liking it? Kick them out!
Get into revolving funds: This money is given to you to pass on as loans to beneficiaries who pay it back so that it can be passed on as loans again to a new set of people and so on, therefore revolving. Sell the concept to donors as enabling the money to ‘macro-benefit’. The beauty of this is that, when it is first returned, it can revolve into your pocket. You can even apply the concept to all money provided for activities. For example, you have raised funds to provide goats to people. Buy the goats, and thereby book the expenditure, but pass them on as a loan or at half payment. Ensure that the beneficiaries are willing colluders so that, when the donor comes, there are goats, grateful faces and no mention of payment or loans. If caught, make an argument combining concepts of neo-liberalism, community institution building, and the enhanced value people ascribe to a product when they pay something for it.
Use multiple funds: Get many donors to support the same thing. That community water tank could have been bought with X’s money or Y’s, who is to know. Vouchers can be easily relocated from one donor’s file to another (you have to ensure that you avoid the practise of marking the voucher as pertaining to a particular donor). And temporary signage expressing the community’s gratefulness to X can be easily organised. The donor wants permanent signage, such as a marble slab built into the wall? Express your concern at the trend of donors acquiring cheap publicity for themselves.
Enable over-invoicing via empowerment: This business of schools, hospitals, water tanks, goats, etc., requires someone to do some work. The beauty of the ‘rights mode’ approach is that nobody has to do anything – you merely have to organise people to demand services from the government by having meetings. Budgeting for meetings is easy, so many people into so much per person for food, transportation, and lodging. There is no way for the donor to check whether you actually held the meetings and, if you did, how many people actually came and how much was actually spent on food. Ensure that you maintain a book containing unintelligible minutes in some local language followed by a series of thumbprints. And don’t worry, this is not expected to show results – nobody seriously believes that the government does things because some NGO organises people.
Get your assets to work for you: You have (oops, read as ‘your NGO has’) a nice SUV, office and training centre. Get these to generate funds by hiring them out to projects at a price that, as both the client and the service provider, you decide. And yes, build in a fat budget within the grant for training hall hire and transportation. Take this concept a step further by building in a huge consulting fee for experts and use this to pay yourself. You are caught? Say that you are not paid a salary from the project, but as it does absorb considerable amounts of your time and draws on your expertise you do need to be compensated in some way, and at a rate that the UN would have paid had they sent you to New York to take over as Secretary General.
Take up pimping: When you get tired of all the small time wheeling and dealing described above, you can consider the next stage in the hierarchy – the middleman. Donors want to work in poor areas, but don’t have the ability and the systems to do so. Offer services as a ‘resource organisation’, wherein your NGO does the unpleasant work of identifying NGOs and projects, monitoring them, providing training and expertise, and enabling the work to synergise at the district/state/national level. Ensure that this involves the pleasant work of receiving the funds and routing it to small time operators at a 25 percent operational charge and an additional bottom-up kickback.
Become a Guru! How long can this last? There is a saying – you can fool one person all the time, or you can fool all the people once, but you can’t fool all the people all the time. The development sector does not provide an exception. But herein lies the beauty of the system. Once you are revealed for what you are, with nice cars, jazzy properties, kids in expensive schools and colleges, latest communication equipment, etc., while undertaking poverty alleviation work on a token salary so as to ‘feel the pain of the poor’ – donors will flock to you for more of the same. You can increase the above activities fourfold while hitting the development conference circuit as a motivational speaker and receiving awards for your services to the poor.
Let me add that this is not everyone’s cup of tea. The same requirements for making big money everywhere else – of vision, intelligence, diligence, ruthlessness and a zero sense of ethics – are required here. If you don’t combine these, the development sector can be a cruel place in the long term and you may be better off trying to actually do good work for the poor.
A 2-Pager by Ajit Chaudhuri
People looking to make big bucks quickly and easily generally tend to avoid the development sector – their preferred career choices are investment banking, government service and spiritualism. They are making a mistake! Do not be misled by talks of sacrifice and penury, there is plenty of money to be made in poverty eradication. Here’s how it’s done!
Start your own NGO: The Trusts Act is structured so that the NGO and all its assets are in effect the property of its owner (in legal parlance, the settler) – which is why no matter how many UN jobs with tax free dollar salaries are dangled in front of their faces, NGO bosses never leave. There is little point in working your way up the hierarchy – no. 2s are synonymous with peons. So don’t waste time – start your own NGO, and then work to multiply its assets and infrastructure. Be sure to pack the governing body with friends and relatives. Have one ‘name’ there as well – someone from within the sector who sits in a lot of governing boards and contributes to none of them. Get a pliable statutory auditor – like the ‘name’, they too are a dime a dozen. Get one of your adult children in as second line management cum inheritor of the organisation, and ensure that s/he uses a different surname – Kumar is the surname of choice for boss’ children cum Deputy Directors.
Work the donor circuit: Speak English, practise that wearied sigh that combines exasperation and hope, and focus conversation on the misdeeds of the government. Nod appreciatively when donors describe their philosophies and policies, and commend their wisdom. Be suitably obsequious, and do not hesitate to equate their views with those of Einstein and/or Keynes. Ply them with bullshit about having followed your inner calling to work with the poor instead of joining the corporate sector. Do not ever get drawn into topics such as – if you have spent twenty years working here (and used lots of money in the process), why is it that the tribal/dalit/woman/child/farmer/whatever is in the same situation as when you began. And do not forget – these people tend to equate tailoring and table manners with intelligence and integrity.
Once you own an NGO and get the money, you need to ensure that it goes where it is supposed to go. The best ways of ensuring this are –
Overstate and underpay salaries: Most grants have money for salaries. Have fictitious employees earning fat salaries (who taught this to Satyam?), pay those who do exist less than the amount budgeted and pocket the differential, and hey presto, about 70 percent of the salary component of the grant can be in your pocket. If you are queried, say that it was towards a staff welfare fund that will enable the organisation to pay salaries when project funds are not available. Or, that you are forced to pay ‘tax’ to the Maoists. Some staff members are vocal about not liking it? Kick them out!
Get into revolving funds: This money is given to you to pass on as loans to beneficiaries who pay it back so that it can be passed on as loans again to a new set of people and so on, therefore revolving. Sell the concept to donors as enabling the money to ‘macro-benefit’. The beauty of this is that, when it is first returned, it can revolve into your pocket. You can even apply the concept to all money provided for activities. For example, you have raised funds to provide goats to people. Buy the goats, and thereby book the expenditure, but pass them on as a loan or at half payment. Ensure that the beneficiaries are willing colluders so that, when the donor comes, there are goats, grateful faces and no mention of payment or loans. If caught, make an argument combining concepts of neo-liberalism, community institution building, and the enhanced value people ascribe to a product when they pay something for it.
Use multiple funds: Get many donors to support the same thing. That community water tank could have been bought with X’s money or Y’s, who is to know. Vouchers can be easily relocated from one donor’s file to another (you have to ensure that you avoid the practise of marking the voucher as pertaining to a particular donor). And temporary signage expressing the community’s gratefulness to X can be easily organised. The donor wants permanent signage, such as a marble slab built into the wall? Express your concern at the trend of donors acquiring cheap publicity for themselves.
Enable over-invoicing via empowerment: This business of schools, hospitals, water tanks, goats, etc., requires someone to do some work. The beauty of the ‘rights mode’ approach is that nobody has to do anything – you merely have to organise people to demand services from the government by having meetings. Budgeting for meetings is easy, so many people into so much per person for food, transportation, and lodging. There is no way for the donor to check whether you actually held the meetings and, if you did, how many people actually came and how much was actually spent on food. Ensure that you maintain a book containing unintelligible minutes in some local language followed by a series of thumbprints. And don’t worry, this is not expected to show results – nobody seriously believes that the government does things because some NGO organises people.
Get your assets to work for you: You have (oops, read as ‘your NGO has’) a nice SUV, office and training centre. Get these to generate funds by hiring them out to projects at a price that, as both the client and the service provider, you decide. And yes, build in a fat budget within the grant for training hall hire and transportation. Take this concept a step further by building in a huge consulting fee for experts and use this to pay yourself. You are caught? Say that you are not paid a salary from the project, but as it does absorb considerable amounts of your time and draws on your expertise you do need to be compensated in some way, and at a rate that the UN would have paid had they sent you to New York to take over as Secretary General.
Take up pimping: When you get tired of all the small time wheeling and dealing described above, you can consider the next stage in the hierarchy – the middleman. Donors want to work in poor areas, but don’t have the ability and the systems to do so. Offer services as a ‘resource organisation’, wherein your NGO does the unpleasant work of identifying NGOs and projects, monitoring them, providing training and expertise, and enabling the work to synergise at the district/state/national level. Ensure that this involves the pleasant work of receiving the funds and routing it to small time operators at a 25 percent operational charge and an additional bottom-up kickback.
Become a Guru! How long can this last? There is a saying – you can fool one person all the time, or you can fool all the people once, but you can’t fool all the people all the time. The development sector does not provide an exception. But herein lies the beauty of the system. Once you are revealed for what you are, with nice cars, jazzy properties, kids in expensive schools and colleges, latest communication equipment, etc., while undertaking poverty alleviation work on a token salary so as to ‘feel the pain of the poor’ – donors will flock to you for more of the same. You can increase the above activities fourfold while hitting the development conference circuit as a motivational speaker and receiving awards for your services to the poor.
Let me add that this is not everyone’s cup of tea. The same requirements for making big money everywhere else – of vision, intelligence, diligence, ruthlessness and a zero sense of ethics – are required here. If you don’t combine these, the development sector can be a cruel place in the long term and you may be better off trying to actually do good work for the poor.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Married But Available
MARRIED BUT AVAILABLE
A 2-Pager by Ajit Chaudhuri
Are you an MBA? The correct answer to this one depends upon what MBA stands for – there are imbeciles around who claim that it is an acronym for ‘married but available’ and replying in the affirmative raises a few cackles among them. But others, who do equate it with a Masters in Business Administration, are also asking – what does an MBA stand for? Today’s economic quagmire has many villains – investment banks, big business, credit rating agencies – and one among the institutions that society has lost confidence in is the business school. Is it a mere coincidence that so many of the greedy bastards that screwed the world are products of these places, or is there something deeply flawed with the B-School as an institution of learning? What is it about management education that has led people to believe that B-Schools foster self-interested, unethical and even illegal behaviour? Why are MBAs considered part of the problem rather than the solution?
A recent article in the Harvard Business Review addresses some of these questions. Joel Podolny, its author, was the Dean at Yale School of Management and, before that, a Professor at Harvard Business School and Stanford Graduate School of Business – and therefore his views are those of an insider. This paper summarises his views on what is wrong and what needs to be done to address the problems at B-Schools, and then tries to apply the learnings to the Indian B-School environment.
He makes several observations. The first is that B-Schools pay little attention to ethics and to the teaching of value based leadership. The second is on the way B-Schools teach management, carving up the subject into disciplinary silos that leave MBAs without a holistic appreciation for the challenges that they will confront. The third is that many academics at B-Schools are not curious as to what really goes on in companies, and prefer to develop theoretical models that obscure rather than clarify the way organisations work.
About 50 years ago, a study of business education in the US (by, among others, the Ford Foundation) concluded that the quality of scholarship was quote terrible unquote and recommended hiring academics trained in traditional disciplines that emphasise quantitative methods. Today, faculty relying on mathematical models and whatnot outnumber those emphasising qualitative techniques. This has produced greater rigour – but also fragmented the study of management challenges as problems were carved up to fit academics’ areas of expertise. This has had two consequences –
One, B-Schools ignored the study of values and ethics. Those who do teach ethics (and there was a move towards this after the Enron and WorldCom fiascos) do so in a vacuum. And one of the consequences of this is that many MBA students regard right and wrong as defined by the norm, i.e. if many others are doing it then it is right. And yes, there are surveys to back this up.
Two, leadership and ethics courses are flawed, with faculty and students regarding them as ‘soft’ subjects that do not require detailed analysis. And the manner of teaching these subjects is such that students are allowed to regard the moral consequences of their actions as mere afterthoughts.
Doesn’t the case study methodology, with its emphasis on context, help overcome these problems? No, says Prof. Podolny! Cases can be a source of inter-disciplinary integration and a way to focus on various dimensions of leadership, but they rarely are. Faculty from the same discipline usually write a case, and the cases end up being function specific. And when students must read a dozen cases a week, they tend to believe that each one deals with an entirely separate issue. And the case methodology does not teach that being consistent in different situations and continuously paying attention to detail are among the most challenging aspects of leadership.
Another issue is rankings! These drive the competition for B-School students – not bad in itself, as market pressures should force Deans to keep improving curricula and teaching methods. But these factors influence rankings only in the long run, and curricula changes require faculty cooperation and time to iron out wrinkles. Deans therefore tend to focus on influencing the measures that change rankings quickly, such as getting graduates to place themselves in higher paying jobs. This means admitting students with more experience, who command higher starting salaries, and preparing them for higher paying industries such as consulting and financial services. It also means bringing in consultants to help students perform better at interviews, and thereby boosting the number of job offers each receives. Again, on the surface, nothing wrong! But when B-Schools use rankings and starting salaries as the basis by which to attract students, they lend credibility to students’ claims that a B-School’s primary goal is to get them a high paying job.
What do B-Schools need to do? First, accept that people don’t simply lack trust in B-Schools, they actively distrust them (and there is a huge difference). Second, show that they value what society values, that principles, ethics and attention to detail are important components of leadership, and they need to place emphasis on leaders’ responsibilities and not just their rewards. Third, foster greater integration among disciplines (possibly through the appointment of teaching teams rather than single faculty courses) and link analysis with values. Fourth, encourage qualitative research. Fifth, stop competing on rankings. Sixth, set up a code of conduct for MBAs (learn from other professions, lawyers, doctors) and revoke degrees of those who violate this.
Though obviously based upon the American experience, there is much that B-Schools in India can take from this article. We too have a mushrooming of institutions that provide an MBA, and students here too have a single expectation – that a two-year stint will increase their value in the job market by a factor of ten. Many spend a lot of money on their MBAs, and have borrowed to do so (and have to pay the money back with interest), and see the degree in pure return on investment terms – and B-Schools have cashed in on this. This is not an environment that encourages talk about ethics and values.
At the same time, the need for a focus on these matters, and on responsible leadership, is probably more in India where we see affronts in front of us every day of our lives and where the conflicts of interest that an MBA student has to deal with in the future are more basic. We do need a moral compass to guide us on difficult choices, and a B-School does need to play a role in providing us with the tools to formulate one.
I would like, at this stage, to hark back to Dr. Verghese Kurien – the founder of, among many institutions, the Institute of Rural Management in Anand (IRMA) where I did two years of swotting for an MBA back in the late 1980s and where I am privileged to occasionally visit now. I didn’t think too highly of him then – there is something off-putting about having someone’s photograph in every room while the person is still alive. But there was a sharp and clear focus on values within IRMA and a deep belief that this provided a cutting edge to its graduates. This has been eroded along with his loss of influence in the boardroom, and the absence of a vision for the institution is discernable.
There is a saying ‘never waste a disaster’! The same applies to economic downturns. This is a time for B-Schools to look at basics again – and to ask themselves a question. What does an MBA stand for?
A 2-Pager by Ajit Chaudhuri
Are you an MBA? The correct answer to this one depends upon what MBA stands for – there are imbeciles around who claim that it is an acronym for ‘married but available’ and replying in the affirmative raises a few cackles among them. But others, who do equate it with a Masters in Business Administration, are also asking – what does an MBA stand for? Today’s economic quagmire has many villains – investment banks, big business, credit rating agencies – and one among the institutions that society has lost confidence in is the business school. Is it a mere coincidence that so many of the greedy bastards that screwed the world are products of these places, or is there something deeply flawed with the B-School as an institution of learning? What is it about management education that has led people to believe that B-Schools foster self-interested, unethical and even illegal behaviour? Why are MBAs considered part of the problem rather than the solution?
A recent article in the Harvard Business Review addresses some of these questions. Joel Podolny, its author, was the Dean at Yale School of Management and, before that, a Professor at Harvard Business School and Stanford Graduate School of Business – and therefore his views are those of an insider. This paper summarises his views on what is wrong and what needs to be done to address the problems at B-Schools, and then tries to apply the learnings to the Indian B-School environment.
He makes several observations. The first is that B-Schools pay little attention to ethics and to the teaching of value based leadership. The second is on the way B-Schools teach management, carving up the subject into disciplinary silos that leave MBAs without a holistic appreciation for the challenges that they will confront. The third is that many academics at B-Schools are not curious as to what really goes on in companies, and prefer to develop theoretical models that obscure rather than clarify the way organisations work.
About 50 years ago, a study of business education in the US (by, among others, the Ford Foundation) concluded that the quality of scholarship was quote terrible unquote and recommended hiring academics trained in traditional disciplines that emphasise quantitative methods. Today, faculty relying on mathematical models and whatnot outnumber those emphasising qualitative techniques. This has produced greater rigour – but also fragmented the study of management challenges as problems were carved up to fit academics’ areas of expertise. This has had two consequences –
One, B-Schools ignored the study of values and ethics. Those who do teach ethics (and there was a move towards this after the Enron and WorldCom fiascos) do so in a vacuum. And one of the consequences of this is that many MBA students regard right and wrong as defined by the norm, i.e. if many others are doing it then it is right. And yes, there are surveys to back this up.
Two, leadership and ethics courses are flawed, with faculty and students regarding them as ‘soft’ subjects that do not require detailed analysis. And the manner of teaching these subjects is such that students are allowed to regard the moral consequences of their actions as mere afterthoughts.
Doesn’t the case study methodology, with its emphasis on context, help overcome these problems? No, says Prof. Podolny! Cases can be a source of inter-disciplinary integration and a way to focus on various dimensions of leadership, but they rarely are. Faculty from the same discipline usually write a case, and the cases end up being function specific. And when students must read a dozen cases a week, they tend to believe that each one deals with an entirely separate issue. And the case methodology does not teach that being consistent in different situations and continuously paying attention to detail are among the most challenging aspects of leadership.
Another issue is rankings! These drive the competition for B-School students – not bad in itself, as market pressures should force Deans to keep improving curricula and teaching methods. But these factors influence rankings only in the long run, and curricula changes require faculty cooperation and time to iron out wrinkles. Deans therefore tend to focus on influencing the measures that change rankings quickly, such as getting graduates to place themselves in higher paying jobs. This means admitting students with more experience, who command higher starting salaries, and preparing them for higher paying industries such as consulting and financial services. It also means bringing in consultants to help students perform better at interviews, and thereby boosting the number of job offers each receives. Again, on the surface, nothing wrong! But when B-Schools use rankings and starting salaries as the basis by which to attract students, they lend credibility to students’ claims that a B-School’s primary goal is to get them a high paying job.
What do B-Schools need to do? First, accept that people don’t simply lack trust in B-Schools, they actively distrust them (and there is a huge difference). Second, show that they value what society values, that principles, ethics and attention to detail are important components of leadership, and they need to place emphasis on leaders’ responsibilities and not just their rewards. Third, foster greater integration among disciplines (possibly through the appointment of teaching teams rather than single faculty courses) and link analysis with values. Fourth, encourage qualitative research. Fifth, stop competing on rankings. Sixth, set up a code of conduct for MBAs (learn from other professions, lawyers, doctors) and revoke degrees of those who violate this.
Though obviously based upon the American experience, there is much that B-Schools in India can take from this article. We too have a mushrooming of institutions that provide an MBA, and students here too have a single expectation – that a two-year stint will increase their value in the job market by a factor of ten. Many spend a lot of money on their MBAs, and have borrowed to do so (and have to pay the money back with interest), and see the degree in pure return on investment terms – and B-Schools have cashed in on this. This is not an environment that encourages talk about ethics and values.
At the same time, the need for a focus on these matters, and on responsible leadership, is probably more in India where we see affronts in front of us every day of our lives and where the conflicts of interest that an MBA student has to deal with in the future are more basic. We do need a moral compass to guide us on difficult choices, and a B-School does need to play a role in providing us with the tools to formulate one.
I would like, at this stage, to hark back to Dr. Verghese Kurien – the founder of, among many institutions, the Institute of Rural Management in Anand (IRMA) where I did two years of swotting for an MBA back in the late 1980s and where I am privileged to occasionally visit now. I didn’t think too highly of him then – there is something off-putting about having someone’s photograph in every room while the person is still alive. But there was a sharp and clear focus on values within IRMA and a deep belief that this provided a cutting edge to its graduates. This has been eroded along with his loss of influence in the boardroom, and the absence of a vision for the institution is discernable.
There is a saying ‘never waste a disaster’! The same applies to economic downturns. This is a time for B-Schools to look at basics again – and to ask themselves a question. What does an MBA stand for?
Sunday, August 9, 2009
The Real Football Fan
THE REAL FOOTBALL FAN
By Ajit Chaudhuri
Football has become popular, and everyone and their aunts consider themselves a fan. How do you sift the genuine article from the bozos that are floating around in red t-shirts with ‘RONALDO’ emblazoned across the back? Here are some ways.
1. The real fan thinks that his/her baby’s first words were not ‘Mama’ or ‘Papa’ but a footballer’s name? Those first ‘mmmboo’s would have been mistaken for Emil Mboo Mboo, the midfielder from the Indomitable Lions of 1990 and 1994
2. The real fan does not associate the name ‘Schumacher’ with size, beauty or cars, but would instead think of a German goalkeeper who should have gone to jail for his assault on Patrick Battiston in the 1982 semi-final. Similarly, Socrates is not a philosopher, Wagner is not a musician, and Kiss is not a rock group.
3. The real fan cannot stand the German or Austrian national teams, even that winning German one of 1990 (grudging admiration, perhaps, at best). S/he always supports their opponents and is happy when they are kicked out of tournaments (Lechkov’s header in the 1994 quarter final was a particularly sweet moment, as was the ball dropping out of Kahn’s hands and on to Ronaldo’s feet in 2002). S/he would never, ever, forgive them for that fixed match they played in 1982 to keep Algeria out.
4. The real fan would associate the name ‘Bernd Schuster’ with that brilliant creative midfielder who refused to be part of the German team featured in point 3 above. Yes, he did go on to do other things.
5. The real fan knows that Diego Maradona is the best footballer that could ever have been. The mind does not change because he is not in a suit pimping for his country as a world cup destination or coaching some fancy team. He took two very ordinary teams to the world cup final (can you name any other player from either of those teams?), where he won one and lost one. Which other candidate for the ‘best ever’ tag did anything without brilliance all around in support. Pele in 1958 and 1970? Cruyff in 1974? The only one coming anywhere in the vicinity is Zidane in 2006.
6. The real fan watches women’s football for the football and not the women, and did not even consider a peek when Brandi Chastain took off her shirt to celebrate the USA’s victory in 1999. And yes, s/he loves Marta and Sun Wen.
7. The real fan follows the fortunes of teams out of the top four in the English and the top two in the Spanish leagues. S/he knows of Zenit St. Petersburg, Stadt Rennes, FC Tromso, Ruben Kazan and Almeria, and knows why teams don’t like to play away against FC Rosenborg in the Champions League in November.
8. The real fan does cry – but on select occasions such as when Cameroon lost that quarterfinal in 1990, or when Andres Escobar was murdered.
9. The real fan watches Indian football, and tries to do so in the stadium whenever possible.
10. The real fan starts smirking when the discussion turns to whether Cristiano Ronaldo has taken the best free kick ever. S/he has seen Michel Platini and Roberto Falcao take free kicks.
By Ajit Chaudhuri
Football has become popular, and everyone and their aunts consider themselves a fan. How do you sift the genuine article from the bozos that are floating around in red t-shirts with ‘RONALDO’ emblazoned across the back? Here are some ways.
1. The real fan thinks that his/her baby’s first words were not ‘Mama’ or ‘Papa’ but a footballer’s name? Those first ‘mmmboo’s would have been mistaken for Emil Mboo Mboo, the midfielder from the Indomitable Lions of 1990 and 1994
2. The real fan does not associate the name ‘Schumacher’ with size, beauty or cars, but would instead think of a German goalkeeper who should have gone to jail for his assault on Patrick Battiston in the 1982 semi-final. Similarly, Socrates is not a philosopher, Wagner is not a musician, and Kiss is not a rock group.
3. The real fan cannot stand the German or Austrian national teams, even that winning German one of 1990 (grudging admiration, perhaps, at best). S/he always supports their opponents and is happy when they are kicked out of tournaments (Lechkov’s header in the 1994 quarter final was a particularly sweet moment, as was the ball dropping out of Kahn’s hands and on to Ronaldo’s feet in 2002). S/he would never, ever, forgive them for that fixed match they played in 1982 to keep Algeria out.
4. The real fan would associate the name ‘Bernd Schuster’ with that brilliant creative midfielder who refused to be part of the German team featured in point 3 above. Yes, he did go on to do other things.
5. The real fan knows that Diego Maradona is the best footballer that could ever have been. The mind does not change because he is not in a suit pimping for his country as a world cup destination or coaching some fancy team. He took two very ordinary teams to the world cup final (can you name any other player from either of those teams?), where he won one and lost one. Which other candidate for the ‘best ever’ tag did anything without brilliance all around in support. Pele in 1958 and 1970? Cruyff in 1974? The only one coming anywhere in the vicinity is Zidane in 2006.
6. The real fan watches women’s football for the football and not the women, and did not even consider a peek when Brandi Chastain took off her shirt to celebrate the USA’s victory in 1999. And yes, s/he loves Marta and Sun Wen.
7. The real fan follows the fortunes of teams out of the top four in the English and the top two in the Spanish leagues. S/he knows of Zenit St. Petersburg, Stadt Rennes, FC Tromso, Ruben Kazan and Almeria, and knows why teams don’t like to play away against FC Rosenborg in the Champions League in November.
8. The real fan does cry – but on select occasions such as when Cameroon lost that quarterfinal in 1990, or when Andres Escobar was murdered.
9. The real fan watches Indian football, and tries to do so in the stadium whenever possible.
10. The real fan starts smirking when the discussion turns to whether Cristiano Ronaldo has taken the best free kick ever. S/he has seen Michel Platini and Roberto Falcao take free kicks.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
MORE ON TERROR
OH NO! NOT MORE ON TERROR!
A 2-Pager by Ajit Chaudhuri
‘Hagney jad aavey tho loto ro yaad aavey’
These days, I am at the receiving end of everyone’s outpourings on terror. Our PM is talking about a federal agency to deal with the scourge, our opposition about bashing Pakis, our chatterati about bashing politicians, and our media (and no doubt our phone companies) about sending messages in support of or against this that and the other. Some are linking the above average post-terrorist-strike noise with the fact that the English speaking elite got hit instead of the usual migrants from Bihar, others with elections being around the corner. And I am increasingly being reminded of the old Marwari saying featured above. And I too would like to add my piece to the rhetoric.
In sum, I would like to say what I have yet to hear – that we will have to live with terrorism until and unless we deal with corruption. And we will have corruption as long as our political system depends upon black money. And in all the rhetoric, there has been no mention of the need to address this and get the state to fund elections. This is because, for our political system, terrorism is a small price to pay for the spoils of office that high corruption allows, more so because the spoils accrue to the neta-babu-thekedar nexus and the price is paid by the aam aadmi. And expecting the nexus to change the rules in favour of honest and transparent governance is the equivalent of expecting Al-Qaeda to formulate rules for the US for better inland security. So – are you lukewarm about corruption? Do you think of it as an ‘enabler’? Do you see it as a wheel of the economy? If yes, do not crib about terrorism. You, like Lashkar-e-Toiba, are part of the problem. And yes, I do realise that my argument rests upon the link between terrorism and corruption, and this is what this paper is about. Please read on!
Allow me to take you back to class 6, when we learnt that fire required three ingredients – oxygen, fuel and a spark. A fire cannot begin without the presence of all three, and can be doused by removing any one of these. Terrorism too requires three ingredients to thrive. The first is the existence of a large number of very angry and aggrieved people in the general population. The second is the existence of organisations with the ability to motivate a core group of desperate young people into doing anything. The third is the ability to move people, weapons and explosives.
Much has been made of the fact that the US and the UK, unlike India, have dealt with that one terrorist attack in such a way as to ensure that there have been no others. Well, there are large numbers of people majorly pissed with the US and plenty of organisations willing to work on terrorist strikes against it – but they are all sitting in Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Middle East and North Africa. We have them next door, in every direction, and even within. The UK too has angry people and organisations – many sitting within, but procuring and moving weapons and explosives is so difficult that they find it easier to go to Pakistan and Afghanistan to vent.
It is the existence of all the ingredients that makes India particularly vulnerable. With politicians who should be in jail for crimes against humanity legitimately occupying high office, with a sclerotic legal system, and with opportunities available only to a miniscule minority, I think it is safe to say that we can be certain of large numbers of angry and aggrieved people in the foreseeable future. And as the old saying goes – you can fight history but you can’t fight geography – and we are stuck with the neighbours we have. As long as they remain chaotic basket cases for failed states, there will be space for non-state actors to go about their business of motivating and training disaffected youth and coordinating terrorist strikes. And they too will remain so in the foreseeable future. And our not seeing Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Nepali stability and prosperity as being in India’s strategic interest does not help the situation. It is the last piece of the triumvirate that can be worked upon – that it is so easy to procure and move weapons and explosives, to create identities, to establish safe houses and to generally go about the mundane activities that are necessary for intent to be converted into action. And this is where corruption is a critical factor.
Terrorist operations do not build logistical chains – these are usually too complicated. They merely adapt existing ones for their requirements, chains that have been built up for the illegal movement of drugs, hooch, contraband, and people (prostitutes, child labour, etc.). And these chains have political connections and police protection, if not ownership. They cannot operate without these. And if you look back at any terrorist act and dissect it, you will see the role of corruption as a critical enabler at every stage. Yes, the same corruption that we see around us all the time!
If I have convinced on the link between corruption and terrorism, let me take the argument a step further. There is no way of separating corruption relating to terrorism from corruption relating to crime, politics, extortion and speed money. If you want to curb one, you have to curb all. And curbing corruption is our only way of realistically preventing further terrorist attacks. However, curbing corruption is not easy. It is naïve to expect that individual citizens can do this by standing up and saying no – refusing to accept bribes and refusing to pay them – or by signing on to some media website. The root of the problem is that a politician does not have the option of honesty – s/he has to generate funds to pay for elections. And if the person at the top of the food chain has to generate a slush fund, there is no way of preventing lesser minnows doing the same. And the only way around this is to have the state meet the election expenses of all major political parties, thereby removing the top persons’ need for corruption. Unfortunately, this requires statesmanship – not a quality associated with our political establishment. It is easier to talk about creating more bureaucracy in the form of another agency, and of Paki bashing, and of uniting people against terror. And then to just forget about the whole thing! Until the next terrorist attack! And then do the same again! And again! As has been the case so far!
Acronyms etc.:
Aam-Aadmi Ordinary Person
Neta-Babu-Thekedar Politician-Bureaucrat-Contractor
PM Prime Minister
A 2-Pager by Ajit Chaudhuri
‘Hagney jad aavey tho loto ro yaad aavey’
These days, I am at the receiving end of everyone’s outpourings on terror. Our PM is talking about a federal agency to deal with the scourge, our opposition about bashing Pakis, our chatterati about bashing politicians, and our media (and no doubt our phone companies) about sending messages in support of or against this that and the other. Some are linking the above average post-terrorist-strike noise with the fact that the English speaking elite got hit instead of the usual migrants from Bihar, others with elections being around the corner. And I am increasingly being reminded of the old Marwari saying featured above. And I too would like to add my piece to the rhetoric.
In sum, I would like to say what I have yet to hear – that we will have to live with terrorism until and unless we deal with corruption. And we will have corruption as long as our political system depends upon black money. And in all the rhetoric, there has been no mention of the need to address this and get the state to fund elections. This is because, for our political system, terrorism is a small price to pay for the spoils of office that high corruption allows, more so because the spoils accrue to the neta-babu-thekedar nexus and the price is paid by the aam aadmi. And expecting the nexus to change the rules in favour of honest and transparent governance is the equivalent of expecting Al-Qaeda to formulate rules for the US for better inland security. So – are you lukewarm about corruption? Do you think of it as an ‘enabler’? Do you see it as a wheel of the economy? If yes, do not crib about terrorism. You, like Lashkar-e-Toiba, are part of the problem. And yes, I do realise that my argument rests upon the link between terrorism and corruption, and this is what this paper is about. Please read on!
Allow me to take you back to class 6, when we learnt that fire required three ingredients – oxygen, fuel and a spark. A fire cannot begin without the presence of all three, and can be doused by removing any one of these. Terrorism too requires three ingredients to thrive. The first is the existence of a large number of very angry and aggrieved people in the general population. The second is the existence of organisations with the ability to motivate a core group of desperate young people into doing anything. The third is the ability to move people, weapons and explosives.
Much has been made of the fact that the US and the UK, unlike India, have dealt with that one terrorist attack in such a way as to ensure that there have been no others. Well, there are large numbers of people majorly pissed with the US and plenty of organisations willing to work on terrorist strikes against it – but they are all sitting in Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Middle East and North Africa. We have them next door, in every direction, and even within. The UK too has angry people and organisations – many sitting within, but procuring and moving weapons and explosives is so difficult that they find it easier to go to Pakistan and Afghanistan to vent.
It is the existence of all the ingredients that makes India particularly vulnerable. With politicians who should be in jail for crimes against humanity legitimately occupying high office, with a sclerotic legal system, and with opportunities available only to a miniscule minority, I think it is safe to say that we can be certain of large numbers of angry and aggrieved people in the foreseeable future. And as the old saying goes – you can fight history but you can’t fight geography – and we are stuck with the neighbours we have. As long as they remain chaotic basket cases for failed states, there will be space for non-state actors to go about their business of motivating and training disaffected youth and coordinating terrorist strikes. And they too will remain so in the foreseeable future. And our not seeing Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Nepali stability and prosperity as being in India’s strategic interest does not help the situation. It is the last piece of the triumvirate that can be worked upon – that it is so easy to procure and move weapons and explosives, to create identities, to establish safe houses and to generally go about the mundane activities that are necessary for intent to be converted into action. And this is where corruption is a critical factor.
Terrorist operations do not build logistical chains – these are usually too complicated. They merely adapt existing ones for their requirements, chains that have been built up for the illegal movement of drugs, hooch, contraband, and people (prostitutes, child labour, etc.). And these chains have political connections and police protection, if not ownership. They cannot operate without these. And if you look back at any terrorist act and dissect it, you will see the role of corruption as a critical enabler at every stage. Yes, the same corruption that we see around us all the time!
If I have convinced on the link between corruption and terrorism, let me take the argument a step further. There is no way of separating corruption relating to terrorism from corruption relating to crime, politics, extortion and speed money. If you want to curb one, you have to curb all. And curbing corruption is our only way of realistically preventing further terrorist attacks. However, curbing corruption is not easy. It is naïve to expect that individual citizens can do this by standing up and saying no – refusing to accept bribes and refusing to pay them – or by signing on to some media website. The root of the problem is that a politician does not have the option of honesty – s/he has to generate funds to pay for elections. And if the person at the top of the food chain has to generate a slush fund, there is no way of preventing lesser minnows doing the same. And the only way around this is to have the state meet the election expenses of all major political parties, thereby removing the top persons’ need for corruption. Unfortunately, this requires statesmanship – not a quality associated with our political establishment. It is easier to talk about creating more bureaucracy in the form of another agency, and of Paki bashing, and of uniting people against terror. And then to just forget about the whole thing! Until the next terrorist attack! And then do the same again! And again! As has been the case so far!
Acronyms etc.:
Aam-Aadmi Ordinary Person
Neta-Babu-Thekedar Politician-Bureaucrat-Contractor
PM Prime Minister
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
