Saina vs Sania

The debate would go on whether Saina Nehwal would ever be given the same status as that of Sania Mirza in India? Undoubtedly Sania has done far more than any other female tennis player from India and she deserves all the attentions and accolades. But would that justify that she keeps on hogging all the limelight inspite of not being able to repeat the performances. The past two years have been a pretty average for her and apart from technique; it’s her fitness that is to be blamed for her debacle. She is far more off the court due to her injury than on the court. From as high as 30th rank, she has slipped below 100. And she has not made a single major mark which is worth mentioning. And during the same course of time, Saina Nehwal has gone from strength to strength. She has been performing consistently and has reached atleast quarters of every other tournament she has played. She added jewel in her crown by reaching the quarter-finals in Olympics. The icing on the cake was her recent win of a Super Series Tournament. It would have been great that she also received the same adulations as that of Sania Mirza courtsy her series of achievements. But that is not to be. For her achievements, on one hand, Sania receives full page story and on the other hand Saina has to satisfy with a para mention.
Let’s find out some of the reasons for such biased reactions to these two individuals. Some of the factors are:
1. Fan following – The popularity of Tennis is far more than that of Badminton. So the treatment meted out to players in both the games is going to be different. It’s the same Cricket vs Hockey story.
2. Glamour Quotient – Sania brings glamour quotient in to the game. It’s of no hidden secret that the popularity of Sania is next only to Maria Sharapova (in terms of glamour).
3. Tennis catches eyeball – Tennis is one sport where “the length of skirt is inversely proportional to the popularity of the player”. And add the glamour and controversy and Voila you get page 3 news.
4. Media – It’s of no hidden secret that media worldwide (esp in India) shows what is sold. And we all know what is sold in India.
I don’t foresee that in near future Saina Nehwal is going to get the accolades and adulations as she deserve until or unless one of the above points changes. And till that time sports lover like me would wonder: “Why an overrated Sania’s 1st round victory is is always given far more importance than an underrated Saina’s appearance in the final of a Super Series Tournament?”

Are we becoming beasts???

The recent Surat gangrape made me wonder... Are we increasingly turning into an insensitive, inhumane and immoral society? What else would explain the recent spurt in rape cases that is getting highlighted in this country? Undoubtedly, the reason could be that nowadays the media is getting more involved in bringing them out sensationalising them, which in a way has helped us to ask ourselves such questions.
But what are the causes for increase in rape cases in India? Some might say that it is the belief that people can get away with. Most of the time women are afraid to come out because of the backward notion that many places it is considered to be women’s fault (even if they are young children). The fear of going public is there because many times the society shuns them away and it becomes difficult to find suitable match for them. And if everything is fine then the slowness with which they get justice means that they undergo harassment by people looking at her and showing contemptuous sympathy. Animals take advantage of all these factors and go on committing one of the most heinous crimes ever known to mankind.
What should be done to make sure that these cases are brought to limelight and people gets justice? First of all I feel that a strong precedent should be sent across everyone that these things would not be taken lightly. The amount of interest shown by Maharashtra’s CM in Shiney Ahuja’s case is commendable but the same swiftness should be shown in another rape cases also as all the rape victims undergo same agonising pain. When I talk of strong precedent should be sent across I mean that the punishment should be such a way that people should think twice before committing such crimes. A stricter law in itself wouldn’t serve purpose; there is a greater need for making sure that the guilty are punished and punished fast. There has been a far larger debate on whether to use death penalty as a deterrent. But until or unless such strict measures are taken and people understand the gravity of this crime, it’s going to be very difficult for us to stop this crime. Human Rights commission people might come and speak against such laws. But where are these people when these girls are raped? And would they still oppose if their own relatives undergo such trauma?One thing that we need to keep in mind is that rape is one of the most heinous crimes that can be committed by a human being. The importance of a stricter law can be gauged from the fact that “A woman who is murdered dies once but a woman who is raped dies everyday”.

Will rate cuts stimulate demand?

Another round of rate cuts by RBI and again economist are discussing whether this will stimulate demand by the public. But will it??? Or government needs to do something more??? Let’s go the basic of this situation. 

Everybody is aware that this financial crisis began due to the bubble burst of property market, which had been growing at an exponential rate. This burst led to the bankruptcy of many banks and let to the bloodbath in the share market across the globe and resulted in credit crunch across the globe. What this has done is that it has directly affected the demand (consumption expenditure) of the public. With so little of money into the system, banks are not in a position to lend money. In order to inject more money into the system the government either goes for expansionary fiscal or expansionary monetary policy. Whereas expansionary fiscal policy involves tax cut, more transfer payments or more investment from the government side, the expansionary monetary policy involves reduction in CRR, SLR, repo rate and reverse repo rates. With these monetary policies more money is injected into the system by providing more money into the banking system. But does this mean the same money is transferred to general public in forms of loans? The answer is NO. Since the crisis happened due to bad investment and bad loans on the banks part, it takes more than rates cut to induce banks to transfer the benefit to the public. This time the banks are very sceptical in giving loans. They already have suffered the brunt of giving too much too soon in hope of better returns. So they are reluctant in transferring the money to the general public. And until or unless the amount of money injected into the system goes into the hand of public we can’t expect increase in demand. So government and RBI have to take some other steps apart from these monetary policies for inducing demand. 

Only GOD can save Pakistan now

While returning to hostel, after my Economics exam, I got the news of Terrorist attack in Pakistan. It’s not new to hear about such attacks especially in the sub-continent but this was something unheard of in the recent past. The terrorists attacked the visiting Sri-Lanka team, which was playing a series in Pakistan after other teams had backed out citing security reasons. The attack is bound to have serious repercussions as to how Pakistan will be perceived hereafter. It’s been more than a decade that India has been proposing that Pakistan be declared a terrorist state. With fundamentalists getting support from the ISI and government officials, democracy is as good as dead in Pakistan. The deadly combination of Pakistan, being a nuclear possessing state, and hardcore terrorist outfits having a major say, is a sure recipe of disaster for the world peace. The future of Pakistan looks very bleak and only GOD can save it from becoming a failed state with terrorist organizations having a major stake.

US Presidential Election Campaign: Mindless Flank gets one shot point blank

(Following article is courtesy Manish Kumar, Batch of 2010, FMS)

The US-presidential ad campaign between the rivals Barack Obama and John McCain has been one of the classic examples of aggressive flank attack strategy mostly pursued by McCain and to some extent by Obama side too. The main idea of these ads was to attack the competitor in the unexpected areas to catch them by surprise. It involved a lot of creative manipulation (mostly negative) of facts and principles to churn out limitations and the misfits of the competitor for the presidential seat. The ads developed and widely distributed during the campaign revolved around demeaning the rival candidate by projecting an undignified image unworthy for president ship. The deprecation in the campaign especially from McCain's side stooped to unprecedented low proportions and the ads started a virtual mudslinging from unforeseen angles.

"Dangerous... Not truthful... Hypocrite... Disrespectful..Not ready to lead."  were the warnings that McCain and the Republican National Committee aired about Obama."Out of touch... No maverick... Same failed policies... Sleazy ads... John McCain doesn't get it." Obama's campaign aired these warnings about McCain.

In a glaring example of flanking attack, in a particular McCain campaign ad, present in the report submitted, Obama was projected as a limelight hogging celebrity in the leagues of Paris Hilton and Britney spears questioning his integrity. So basically, his popularity which was an asset was misrepresented as a negative attribute not aligned with presidential virtues.

But in strategic marketing as in real life, a mindless excess of everything, almost invariably, tends to boomerang to one's debacle. The same holds true for flanking strategy, as was bluntly experienced by John McCain. After a certain limit , the flanking attack tends to nullify its effect by raising suspicion in the minds of the target audience about its genuineness, especially when the strategy is all focused on conjuring the weaknesses of the competitor instead of highlighting one's own selling proposition. The word was that 100% of McCain's ads were negative compared to 34% in case of Obama. The election results speak for themselves.

Sub-prime Crisis - Layman's Language

What is a sub-prime loan?

In the US, borrowers are rated either as 'prime' - indicating that they have a good credit rating based on their track record - or as 'sub-prime', meaning their track record in repaying loans has been below par. Loans given to sub-prime borrowers, something banks would normally be reluctant to do, are categorised as sub-prime loans. Typically, it is the poor and the young who form the bulk of sub-prime borrowers.

Why loans were given?

In roughly five years leading up to 2007, many banks started giving loans to sub-prime  borrowers, typically through subsidiaries. They did so because they believed that the real estate boom, which had more than doubled home prices in the US since 1997, would allow even people with dodgy credit backgrounds to repay on the loans they were taking to buy or build homes. Government also encouraged lenders to lend to sub-prime  borrowers, arguing that this would help even the poor and young to buy houses.

With stock markets booming and the system flush with liquidity, many big fund investors like hedge funds and mutual funds saw sub-prime loan portfolios as attractive investment opportunities. Hence, they bought such portfolios from the original lenders. This in turn meant the lenders had fresh funds to lend. The subprime loan market thus became a fast growing segment.

What was the interest rate on sub-prime loans?

Since the risk of default on such loans was higher, the interest rate charged on sub-prime loans was typically about two percentage points higher than the interest on prime loans. This, of course, only added to the risk of sub-prime borrowers defaulting. The repayment capacity of sub-prime borrowers was in any case doubtful. The higher interest rate additionally meant substantially higher EMIs than for prime borrowers, further raising the risk of default.

Further, lenders devised new instruments to reach out to more sub-prime borrowers. Being flush with funds they were willing to compromise on prudential norms. In one of the instruments they devised , they asked the borrowers to pay only the interest portion to begin with. The repayment of the principal portion was to start after two years.

How did this turn into a crisis?

The housing boom in the US started petering out in 2007. One major reason was that the boom had led to a massive increase in the supply of housing. Thus house prices started falling. This increased the default rate among subprime borrowers, many of whom were no longer able or willing to pay through their nose to buy a house that was declining in value.

Since in home loans in the US, the collateral is typically the home being bought, this increased the supply of houses for sale while lowering the demand, thereby lowering prices even further and setting off a vicious cycle. That this coincided with a slowdown in the US economy only made matters worse. Estimates are that US housing prices have dropped by almost 50% from their peak in 2006 in some cases. The declining value of the collateral means that lenders are left with less than the value of their loans and hence have to book losses.

How did this become a systemic crisis?

One major reason is that the original lenders had further sold their portfolios to other players in the market. There were also complex derivatives developed based on the loan portfolios, which were also sold to other players, some of whom then sold it on further and so on.

As a result, nobody is absolutely sure what the size of the losses will be when the dust ultimately settles down. Nobody is also very sure exactly who will take how much of a hit. It is also important to realise that the crisis has not affected only reckless lenders. For instance, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which owned or guaranteed more than half of the roughly $12 trillion outstanding in home mortgages in the US, were widely perceived as being more prudent than most in their lending practices. However, the housing bust meant that they too had to suffer losses — $14 billion combined in the last four quarters - because of declining prices for their collateral and increased default rates.

The forced retreat of these two mortgage giants from the market, of course, only adds to every other player's woes

What has been the impact of the crisis?

Global banks and brokerages have had to write off an estimated $512 billion in sub-prime losses so far, with the largest hits taken by Citigroup ($55.1 bn) and Merrill Lynch ($52.2 bn). A little more than half of these losses, or $260 bn, have been suffered by US-based firms, $227 billion by European firms and a relatively modest $24 bn by Asian ones. Despite efforts by the US Federal Reserve to offer some financial assistance to the beleaguered financial sector, it has led to the collapse of Bear Sterns, one of the world's largest investment banks and securities trading firm. Bear Sterns was bought out by JP Morgan Chase with some help from the Fed.

The crisis has also seen Lehman Brothers - the fourth largest investment bank in the US - file for bankruptcy. Merrill Lynch has been bought out by Bank of America. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have effectively been nationalised to prevent them from going under.

Reports suggest that insurance major AIG (American Insurance Group) is also under severe pressure and has asked for a $40 bn bridge loan to tide over the crisis. If AIG also collapses, that would really test the entire financial sector.

How is the rest of the world affected?

Apart from the fact that banks based in other parts of the world also suffered losses from the subprime market, there are two major ways in which the effect is felt across the globe. First, the US is the biggest borrower in the world since most countries hold their foreign exchange reserves in dollars and invest them in US securities.

Thus, any crisis in the US has a direct bearing on the other countries, particularly with large reserves like Japan, China and - to a lesser extent - India. Also, since global equity markets are closely interlinked through institutional investors, any crisis affecting these investors sees a contagion effect throughout the world.

Moral Policing – India isn’t Taliban yet!!!

The other day while watching news I came across a news report in which some 40 goons barged into a Pub in Mangalore and started beating the hell out of young men and women present in the pub. They justified the action by telling that in India women should restrain from going to pubs and follow Indian culture. This is the point wherein I disagree with them and would like to ask these people “Is it an Indian culture that you infringe upon someone’s personal life and property”? I would just like to ask these people who have made them the moral police to decide what to be done. We are a great nation because we are a democratic country and give respect to each other’s personal life. I am also of the opinion that some moral policing is required in this country but it needs to be proper and not for some silly reason like this. We should be happy that ours is not Taliban ruled country where some silly organisation can come and decide, on behalf of others, what needs to be done. And we should discourage these kinds of actions. Because these small things can take serious turns for which we will repent in future. 

Award Nights – How much is too much?

Last night I watched the Star Screen Award night. It has been a long time since I watched one of these awards shows as I was at home and on the Republic Day eve, I did not have anything better to do. So I thought let’s give this award shows one more chance. There are quite a few reasons for not watching these shows. First, I feel these awards shows are all fixed. One can easily make out by seeing that some of the well deserved people never get the awards and all the stars (yes I m not talking of actors here) get the award not for their acting but for being popular. Second reason being, over the past few years the standard of the jokes in these awards ceremony has gone from bad to worse. And yesterday I was appalled to see the standard of the jokes. Sajid, Farha and Shreyas co-hosted the evening. The whole evening the trio made fun of movies like Dostana and Fashion. It’s not that I liked these movies but then there is a limit upto which you can take any jokes. And most of the time the jokes were below the belt. Finally Ashutosh Gowarikar got chance and he spoke his mind condemning the way the award ceremony was being hosted. I feel that only those people have right to make fun of others who have the courage to face the criticism. The response from Sajid after the backlash of Ashutosh was uncalled for. It showed he couldn’t take the criticism.

But it’s not that all the non-deserving people received the award. Some of the excellent performances did not go unnoticed. A special mention to the movie “A Wednesday” should be given. This is the kind of movie which you normally won’t except to take any award because Indian awards shows are not for talent but for popular. Still it managed to receive some of the better awards offered during the night. But one thing I could still connect to my rationality of not seeing the awards ceremony for the above mentioned reasons. And after seeing the ceremony I have decided I would not see these awards ceremony again (Until or unless I am bored to death and have nothing else to do).

Search Engines – Are they doing more harm than good???

Krish: “Hey Gaurav!!! We need to do our assignment and the deadline is tomorrow”

Gaurav: “Why do you worry Krish? We have Google na. We can finish it anytime”.

 

Ram: “Arre yaar 10 questions aaj raat tak submit karne hain. Pata nahin kaise honge”.

Shyam: “Abe Yahoo hai na. Itni chinta kyun karta hai. 5 min mein saare answer mil jayenge. Chill maar yaar”

 

Teacher: “All you people have to submit a write up on Latest Development in Financial Market in the next class”

Students among themselves: “Not a big deal. It hardly takes 10 min to search a project or write-ups from net and then copy paste”

"What do all the above mentioned scenarios in common?" It’s the search engines courtesy latest technology. But seriously speaking have we ever wondered what they are doing to the current generation and what could be its implications in the future. It’s so easy to flow with the technology and go for the easiest route, not knowing about its implications. Search engines – undoubtedly one of the greatest inventions of our generations (It can be gauged from the number of hits in a day they generate). It has been such a revolution that one can get any data with a click of the mouse. But with it we tend to neglect its implications on us. Have we ever wondered how much harm it is doing to the current generation? We all are becoming so much dependent on search engines that we have stopped working hard to get our results. Earlier there were times when we would refer all the books for any assignments or run or grey cells everywhere to come out with some projects. But nowadays as soon as we get anything we go for the simplest route. We are not even bothered to come out with new ideas or refer a book. There are so many of the examples but I would like to quote a few of them:

1. When we get any project or assignment, we search for them in the net and then directly copy paste them.
2. Whenever we get any code error or system error, then instead of solving them we look out for answer on the net.
3. Infact we have become so much reliant on the search engines, that many a times we are not even bothered to type the correct spelling. We leave it to the search engines to get the correct spellings.

These are examples that our generation is becoming dependent on technology without knowing the consequences. It’s always advised not to become so much reliant on something but look what we have done to us. I am not telling that search engines are not useful but look what implications it can have in the new future. I would just propose that next time you want something then just try all the alternatives before using these tools. Let you control them than being controlled by them. 

Should India take lessons from Israel?

Past few days people like me have looked in amazement the way Israel has retaliated to the Hamas^* actions. Israel has virtually taken the attack to the Gaza^€ and have bombarded with flurry of rockets resulting in death of over 500 people (90% of them being Hamas militant). The question which came to everyone’s mind was: Did India blunder in not attacking militant’s camp in Pakistan?

Like every other patriotic Indian I would have loved to see India flushing out militants from Pakistani camps across the border. But I also know from India’s past history and political establishment that such kind of action would not take place.

But what could be the reasons that India isn’t Israel or Pakistan isn’t another Gaza? If a small state like Israel is able to hold its fortress against its big rich neighbours, then why a large state like India can’t replicate the same against a smaller country like Pakistan?

There might be so many parallels between  

1. Israel and India
2. Gaza and Pakistan &
3. Hamas and Lashkae-e-Taiba

but that doesn’t mean that actions can also be the same. There are other reasons also which determine a country’s actions.

Reason 1: Pakistan isn’t Gaza

In terms of military might between Israel and Gaza, it is the story of David vs Goliath. The military might of Pakistan is no way inferior to India the same way is that of Gaza against Israel. If India chooses to go for attack against Pakistan, then in retaliation Pakistan can go for nuclear attack against India (which is the last thing world needs).

Reason 2: Targets

It has been more than a month since the Mumbai attack, the militant would have shifted base by now. With whole of ISI backing the militants it’s not a tall order for them to move the base of the militants in the whole of Pakistan. The militants get their main support from the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI and after every such attack in India it has been a norm that militants shift their base.

Reason 3: It isn’t first for Israel

This isn’t the first time that Israel has orchestrated attacks against the militant camps across the border. Israel has been surrounded by its enemies and knows that in order to survive it needs to be proactive than just being reactive. Over so many years whenever the militants have intensified attack against Israeli citizens, Israel has reacted with such stern actions. This time also it has been of over two months of rocket barrages in Israeli territory, so the writing was clear that Israel would react.

Reason 4: US Approval

The whole world knows that the audacity of Israel while dealing with its neighbours is all due to the support it gets from US. The same kind of support India can’t hope to achieve from US. Furthermore, India can’t get the backing of US the way US extends to Israel. It is also no secret that Pakistan has got the backing of China which is another threat in India’s neighbour. So a full escalation war might result in the proxy support to Pakistan from China.

Reason 5: Political will

The most important reason that India won’t attack Pakistan is that India doesn’t have political will. The political bosses, for reasons known to them, won’t take action which might put them in bad light. This can be gauged from the fact that for the past few days there has been only war of words between Pakistan and India but no action from India’s side.

Conclusion:

One may feel very much agitated against the 26/11 attack but the truth is that India isn’t Israel and Pakistan isn’t Gaza. So military action is ruled out and diplomacy is to be adopted. But how long can this go? This has to end someday. And for that India needs to act tough. By tough one need not replicate Israel but then one need to show if such attacks don’t stop, then we might take action like Israeli’s do. And that day people like me would be proud of our country.

^* Hamas is a Palestinian Sunni paramilitary organization and political party which holds a majority of seats in the elected legislative council of the Palestinian National Authority. Hamas was created in 1987. It is notorious for its numerous suicide bombings and other attacks on Israeli civilians and security forces.

^€ Gaza Strip is about 41 km in length and 6-12 Km wide. It houses over 1.4 million Palestinians. The area is not recognized internationally as part of any sovereign country but is claimed by the Palestinian National Authority as part of the Palestinian territories. Israel governed the Gaza Strip from 1967-2005. Pursuant to the Oslo Accords signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, Israel maintains control of the strip's airspace, territorial waters, and offshore maritime access, as well as its side of the Gaza-Israel border.