$1B SBI Loan - Benefit of Doubt to Modiji

Lot of criticism has erupted as Adani Mining the Australian Subsidiary of Adani Enterprisesigned an MOU with SBI for a loan upto $1 Billion.  As I browsed through the morning papers this is the sense I could make out. Those of you not interested in technical fact based posts may avoid reading this one. :-)

First, let's collect some facts
1. Debt Position
As on Sep 30, 2014, the long term debt of the company : Rs 55,364.94 crore. 
The short term debt : Rs 17,267.43 crore. 
Hence, the total debt : Rs 72,632.37 crore.

The total debt of the company has shot up by Rs 7653.33 crore in a last six months.

2. Loan Repayment Ability
The total operating profit over the last four quarters : Rs 8999.92 crore. 
The interest paid on its debt in the last four quarters : 5,733.77 crore. 
This means an interest coverage ratio of around 1.57
However, the Interest Coverage is deteriorating over the last four qrtrs.  at 2.67 in march, at 1.58, in June 1.12 in Sep 2014.

Another unconfirmed figure that is doing the round in discussion is that the total asset value of adani enterprises is $72 B. (please note I could not confirm this figure - however this does not look like impossible).
So, the company does look like an over leveraged one even if on a solid asset base.
And at the same time the company does not like it is going down the drain. Banks offer loans to much worse balance sheets - not always because there are paybacks - but also because thats what they are supposed to do - take calculated risks.

3. Viability
Globally, coal prices have been on a downtrend in the last three years and are at the lowest levels since 2009. Prices of steam coal, a slightly lower grade that is used in power generation, have halved since 2011 to $62 per tonne now. The prices have fallen 30% and are expected to remain low for a few years according to many leading analysts.

In fact, Much bigger coal rivals, like BHP Billiton and Glencore, have also shelved coal developments in Queensland at a time when a third of Australia's coal output is making losses.
This does raise a question mark on viability of the project too.
A business standard article neatly sums up the risks in the project here.

How risky is it?
Depending on which side of the fence are you on, these figures may look as a risky bet to offer loan to - or it may appear to be an acceptable risk.

Now I am no financial wizard to opine authentically on the above numbers and yet to my sense - a company that is into projects like mining which are long term projects at least at this stage it does not look so dangerously risky. Specially because the company seems to be backed by the Govt. of the day.

What does SBI have to say on this?
Read this article - "SBI defends loan to Adani"
well as always - a misleading headline it is. There is no defence built by SBI chairperson Arundhati Bhattacharya, instead she explained the current position on the MOU. A better story to read is in The Economic Times - here 

Lets summarise the main points 
1. At present the bank has only entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the group. 

2. It will do "proper due diligence" before sanctioning the $1-billion (about Rs 6,000 crore) loan to Adani Mining  

3. If the board approves the loan, SBI's net exposure would be to the tune of $200 million, as there will be some repayments also from the company. 

 So, she makes it sound as if the Loan can still be cancelled. Technically true. But I guess its a forgone conclusion when announced in this manner. One can be easily forgiven to conclude that what SBI was doing by signing the MOU at the time when Adani was in Australia along with the PM, was that it was giving positive signals to authorities in Australia. It would be naive to believe that the PMO does not have a hand in it.

And yet there are three things to note

One, there is nothing wrong in a Bank signing an MOU subject to due diligence - even if just to help improve the client's chance to clinch a deal - if it believes that will reduce the risk in the project. In fact Banks are supposed to support ventures which in their view have fair degree of chance to succeed. (That they should do so for small entrepreneurs as well is another story - another post - another time)

Two, the Bank has let the deal be open to closer scrutiny by the media as well. So the Bank's intention should be viewed with less scepticism.

Third, the net exposure has to increase by much lesser (200 million) according to SBI chair person. If so, this may be a deft step in managing NPAs by getting the group to repay a large portion of earlier loan and starting a fresh credit line with fresh safeguards.

The Political Angle

So we inexplicably reach that aspect which is the biggest concern. The politics behind this loan. It is an open secret that Adani is a close connect of Modiji. Most ardent supporters of Modiji will also not disagree that, the media jamboree that Modiji has been able to generate and sustain has been possible because of the open flood of resource made available by the likes of Adani. So one may be easily forgiven to conclude that this is payback time.

Hence the cries of crony capitalism, back door kick backs etc. How do we make sense in this clutter? Most supporters like a asst. prof at the respected XLRI or a respected economist/author in Mumbai and many others have had less concrete things to say. Some glimpses
1. This is not yet sactioned loan. It is just an MOU.
weak retort this is. An intent to offer the loan is anyway good enough. Is SBI expected to decline now.

2. SBI has offered such loans earlier too and to  likes of Tatas, Birlas and Jindals
Again very Bhakt like response. Does the above truth make this loan fine. The intent of the current Government was to clean the UPA mess. If they hide behind the logic "they also did it" then where is the change. 
A mere point of distinction (equally bad an argument though) is that at least Tatas & Birlas weren't such all out supporters of UPA/Congress as Adani has been to Modiji.

3. the cries of crony capitalism rest on a form of guilt by association.
Correct, but then do you wish us to bring concrete evidence admissible in the court. Comeon - the UPA/Congress also has maintained all the time that they had no hand - did the bhakts listen then. The facts are too good to ignore. Adani's close links to Modiji, He present in australia along with the PM, deal inked in Australia, MOU signed in India. Come on too naive to accept that these are "mutually exclusive independent" events just to borrow a phrase from mathematical probability.

If at all Bhakts want these criticism to be wished away they should ask Modiji to clearly state that his Media circus is not funded by the likes of Adaniji. Till he does that, the Guilt by association, though not legally tenable, is very compelling otherwise.

4. The PM has a role in forwarding Indian Interest - even if it   benefits a few individuals and companies.
By far the strongest argument in favour of Modiji. 
Well historically, PMs and Presidents of countries have been instrumental in bringing about deals and projects which shall in the long run lead to development. One can argue whether this project is one such. But the fact is Energy security is a Big issue for our country. Our country is a net importer of Coal and is expected to remain so for years. So if such deals are happening - even with little help from the PM - its fine.

Having said that - there is one difference. The imagery is compelling. As I explained earlier, the guilt by association logic strongly suggests that the tax payers money has been put to risk for funding the media exercise to bolster Modiji's image.

Further, Earlier PMs and Presidents took a host of industrialists on board to benefit from such interactions and initiatives of the Govt. This one looks pretty biased.

5. The Govt. of Queensland also has promised financial support to the Project
True and thats more dangerous. First the Govt. of Queensland has committed an undisclosed amount. Going by the inclination for hyperbole now a days - the real figure could be the proverbial 20% (as it turns out in most cases attached to modiji :-) ) 
Further, what this means is that in case of default the recovery cases will have two parties the Queensland Govt. and the SBI. The case would most probably be tried in an Australian court. The chances of SBI recovering its loan are anybody's guess under the circumstances.

However, my criticism is also technical. The australian Govt. committing its bit certainly leads more credibility to the project.

On the other hand Congress and others opposed to Modiji call this the worst case of crony capitalism. BJP says they don't have a hand in this loan. 

Here is what I think - Modiji/BJP have been criticising crony capitalism for last decade but once in power they look simply a saffron copy of the earlier dispensation.
On the other hand - Congress who raises the bogey of crony capitalism now has probably been one of the worst offenders on the issue.

So where does this all leave the General Public - US.
Bhakts should continue to be dismayed as the drama unfolds and they realise that Modiji is just like many other politicians, although he is a more active and visible PM on the world scene.

In this case however we should give the benefit of doubt to Modiji. If as a country we installed him as a PM to change the way things are. His intentions will have to be trusted for some time. Yes, he seems to have been biased and yet every PM will require his trusted aides to bring about change.

There is a very thin line between quick and decisive decision making (what Modi stands for) and passing favours to close aides, friends and relatives (what long bureaucratic decision makings tends to avoid). Its a tight rope walk and the jury on Modiji is still out. This is just the start of the Firework. My suggestion is to hold the broadside till more details of the deal/loan/political connect emerges. 

CAT changes colours yet again - should you be worried

More than a decade and a half ago when we used to prepare for CAT we used to practice on a large variety of mock patterns because every one with some know how will say one thing without fail - expect surprises from CAT. That was then - today life has transformed in more ways than one can imagine - including the fact that the CAT throws surprises three months in advance.

The structure of CAT has undergone some important changes as announced by the IIMs yesterday. So I decided to write a post on understanding those changes, how they impact preparation & strategies of a sincere CAT aspirant.

Change 1

The CAT this year will happen on just two days (16^th Nov. and 22^nd Nov.) unlike a 20-25 day span in the last two years.

Impact

if you are a student you must smile at this development. This means that you have almost a month more to prepare.

Second reason to smile is that conduction of test in just four slots (two on each day) means the test can now be more or less of same mix and toughness levels in all the slots. Last year many students felt that they were unfairly treated because of varying toughness levels and mix of questions across the slots followed by an esoteric standardization process that few understood and most doubted because of some pretty weird results. It is to be expected that a more standardized test would automatically make the test a fairer one.

Change 2

Duration of the examination has been increased to 170 minutes from the existing limit of 140 minutes.

Change 3

The questions in each section Quantitative Ability & Data Interpretation, Verbal Ability & Logical Reasoning have been increased to 50 in each section from the existing 30 questions.

Change 4

Candidates have the flexibility for devoting more or less time to each section according to their ability and they can switch over from one section to another section during the examination timing.

Impact

The above are by far the most important changes made to CAT from student’s perspective.

A close to three hours test means it’s going to get more exhausting. Improve on your stamina to sit for long hours in front of a computer screen and concentrate. For those of you who get bored reading just one page of this post – this means extra hours of study every day in a single sitting. J

An increase of 66.66 percent (100 from 60 earlier) in number of questions and a disproportionate 21.5 percent increase in time means that you will have less time available per question than was available in the earlier format. So it is time to try and increase your speed of doing questions. This also means that eliminating options, working backwards or keen observations will get some advantage. 

Another possibility is that the general level of test could moderate a bit. If this happens it is good news for students especially those from the non-math background as one expects the higher mathematics portion to tone down a bit. This in simple terms means – arithmetic and geometry could again be in favour in the QA section and better approximation at DI can be very fruitful.

Flexibility to decide time distribution between sections is a double edged sword. When used well this could work to a great advantage to the sincere test taker. Because the Test Taking strategy can make a winning difference to one’s score. The flip side of this flexibility is  that  it is tempting to shuffle across the test and hence one could lose valuable time affecting performance adversely. Time for you to revisit your strategy when you attempt the CAT.

There is one more thing. A sixty question test had made accuracy very crucial. Even a couple more errors than normal used to weigh very heavily against a student in the earlier format. This pressure is a bit relaxed because in general the number of attempts will have to increase for a better score. What this means is that the probability of a bright student missing the bus because of a couple of incidental unforced errors has reduced. This is again good for all sincere CAT aspirants.

Change 5

The candidates have no option to prefer the dates. The dates will be allotted by CAT Centre 2014 on random basis.

Impact

While this has no direct impact on students. Some gyani had earlier theorized that appearing in CAT on certain days is more advantageous than on days like Sundays when many with work experience appear in the CAT. While the above was any way baseless – now there is absolutely no basis whatever for such unscientific assertions as the allotment of slots and days will be random.

Change 6

The purchase of offline Vouchers has been discontinued from this year and the candidates have to make the payment of Registration fee through online modes only by Credit Card, Debit Card or through Net Banking.

Impact

Once again no big impact here and ofcourse it has no academic relevance – except that many students may find it a bit difficult to arrange for a credit/debit card or net banking facility.

One thing has to be said however, since the time CAT has turned into a Computer Based Test (CBT) it is once again turning to be an elitiest test. it is an empirical truth that since the test became a CBT the greatest percentage drop in number of CAT takers have been in the states of MP, CG, Rajasthan where the Internet and Computers has not yet become a way of life for a majority. Now only online payment is one more step in alienating the sub urban rural masses of this country.

CAT has had this character of changing colours almost every two/three years. So to us watching it for last 20 years this is not surprising. All in all the changes in this year seem to be addressing some anomalies that have crept in the CAT process over the last few years. It is overall good news for most sincere CAT seekers. It is time for CAT aspirants to avoid the rumour mills that invariably start with such changes and to keep focus because like most changes in CAT this one also can be summed up in the phrase "old wine in new bottle"

It's actually "Competence v/s Loyalty"

Recently there has been quite a bit of debate on the issue of Smriti Irani becoming the HRD minister of India and it was amusing to see that people are concerned about the fact that she has barely completed her schooling.

Too much focus on her qualification is preventing a more crucial discussion that of whether competence should be preferred over loyalty by leaders. 

There is universal agreement on the fact that qualification and wisdom/intelligence are two separate issues and that they surely are not positively correlated. In simple terms a holder of multiple degrees could be equally dumb/incompetent as an illiterate person and ma
often illiterate people can be very wise and intelligent too. So one does not mind Smriti being tried as a minister even if her educational qualification does not match up to the task. Her sincerity needs to be watched before brushing her off in the seat of the HRD minister.

Lets shift focus to the central theme of this post - A more important question to ask is - Would Mrs. Sushma Swaraj have become a minister had she lost election in the same way as Smriti Irani and Arun Jaitley did. Here then lies the irony of the situation. Lets ask ourselves, What is more important in making a choice of team members - loyalty or competence. 


Lets start with a couple of examples - a very successful midsize software company the founder-CEO of which stays in the USA and manages business development leaves the operations and administration of his entire company in the hands of a rather mediocre Engineer who has been working with him since last 20 years and started as just an administration executive because he was unable to get a better job after his graduation. Over the years - the CEO found him to be a man he could trust with company information and also his stability was not under doubt unlike many other more competent people.

Another - a very influential and large newspaper  from one region starts its edition in another region pitching itself against the regional leader in the industry. But whom does it give the administrative control of the entire operations - to a rather old hand who has little understanding of either marketing or journalism - but the owner director of the company has full trust in his allegiance to himself. While the management appoints rather competent people in the editorial and marketing teams - they all report to the management through this rather mediocre COO.

I am sure you also know many such leaders/organisations where we wonder - why a rather mediocre and sometimes outright incompetent person holds a key responsibility. The only explanation is unflinching loyalty to the leader.

Back to the Modi Sarkar, There is validity in the argument that there are probably more competent people in BJP itself for the specific post of the HRD minister (which is true of  few others ministers as well notably Ram Vilas Paswan, Uma Bharti, Harsimrat Kaur Badal, Dr. Harshwardhan etc). And some people may feel surprised that a leader, who everyone hopes will change the face of India by hopefully delivering prosperity for all Indians, must depend on less competent people as his team to deliver. Yet, there is another side to the coin as it invariably always is the case.

Look around yourself. Most leaders (and not necessarily - political leaders alone) need a core team that is loyal to the leader sometimes to an extent that defies logic. These team members hold key responsibilities that may be far beyond their competence. The leader can easily afford better, more efficient people. And yet, people who are invariably loyal to the leader are preferred - whatever be their competence. The leader at times of crisis depends on them. They are ready to sacrifice themselves for his cause. Of course they get rewarded when the going gets good. Mr. Amit Shah or Anandi Ben Patel and now Smriti Irani are good examples of such followers of Modi (though mr. shah should in all fairness be considered highly competent for the jobs Modi gave him). 

However - A leader can not do without competent people - how else would he/she deliver. The problem with a competent team often is that they become competitive as well. Individual intelligence does not let them easily accept collective wisdom. Each individual has strong opinions as well as strong conviction on one's own opinion and they would not balk down from openly disagreeing with the leader creating difficult situations for the leader. They sometimes are lured by the outsiders and they often switch sides because of either better growth prospects or by the promise of more authority/autonomy or because of that most dreaded reason, their leader facing tough times,even decline.

My experience, admittedly limited though, says there is a pattern. A good competent team led by an able motivating leader creates success - aim for the sky - Either differences between core team occurs or the they face tough times. Either ways the team gradually scatters away as individuals move away and differences become strong. The leader starts according premium to loyalty - competence is short changed - the team is into a downward spiral thereon.

The above sounds like the congress over the last few decades. Some might even like to say that AAP is a microcosm of the same pattern. Infosys, post Narayanmurthi and Nandan Nilkeni is showing some early signs of the same pattern. 

Mind you, I am not suggesting that this eventually will lead into degeneration or failure of the leader - on the contrary there are many examples of leaders who have remained successful despite their single minded preference to the loyal over the competent. The two examples of a software company and of the newspaper are cases. another great example is our own Birla group.

Of course for a leader to be consistently at the top - he/she needs a competent team as well as their unflinching loyalty for the leader. Such a leader is invincible. To some extent, Modi has been an example of this. ICICI's ex-chief Kamath is another such example who built a formidable team of cutting edge professionals who stuck with them till the very last of his days at the ICICI. 

But in the recent history, the only example of a leader who created a team of strong individual leaders and let them independently lead the group to great heights, has been J R D Tata. Under his leadership the Tata Group produced some of the all time best leaders (Sumant Molgaonkar, Nani Palkhiwala, ironically a modi too - Russi Modi) all of whom were absolutely competent and strong individuals in their own right - sometimes to the extent that they would differ in opinions with their leader too. 

There is no question that Modi has thrived on the loyalty of his team and there is no doubt that this cabinet is a stamp of approval for his loyalists. Posterity will judge whether Modi's  cabinet was a team of competent people too. If Modi finally turns out to be the leader that he has been painted into - the team better turns out to be competent. Only time will tell what type will Modi turn out to be. What do you think?

Has the India on social media gone Berserk?

What has been the most visible side effect of the unprecedented Modi wave that gave a Majority Govt. to India after a long time. Am I talking about the communal/secular debate? No. Am I talking about the complete lack of opposition in the parliament? No. No it is not even about the almost washout of Congress.

In fact - this is NOT yet another political analysis of the Modi wave and aftermath. So calm down. I am talking about almost a mad rush to be present and be heard on the three most active social media circuits - the facebook, the twitter and the whatsapp.

Yes, its almost mad - or am I being modest here. Take a few examples

A publicity hungry KRK - posts that he is already going to Pakistan because Modi has become the PM of the country and the entire generation of super heroes start spewing venom on poor SRK; many even brand him a traitor and anti national.

Since the time Modi won the election comprehensively - his supporters are digging anyone and everyone who might have expressed even the slightest disagreement with Modi in recent past - to score brownie points. To my amusement, I too received a " akash u know that i have strongly support mature person that is certified by whole country but immature people like pappu & ak 49 is badly rejected by whole nation, so 'always sit on right horse '"  from an old college friend.

Whatsapp is full of jokes mostly targetting Arvind Kejriwal, Rahul Gandhi and Dr. Manmohan Singh that vary from seriously funny and humourous to outrightly humiliating and crass.

You are sadly mistaken, if you think I am pained just because I am an Arvind Kejriwal sympathiser or Dr. Manmohan singh admirer (both of which I am - no luck for RG though). I see another race on the social media - to post something, somehow and in such volumes that people may like you - hate you - but cannot ignore you.

For Eg. how many of your friends on an average are shayars - yeah count. I am sure that number is as small as there are in my friend list - but why do I receive at least 20 odd shers everyday and almost every sher comes to me from 10 different friends/groups. Some of these shayaris are plainly "Bakwas" Neither are they funny - nor are they deep. But then so what.

I generally delete at least 70-80 images everyday from my phone simply wishing Good morning - add an equal number of Good night images. First people started sending images that wished me happy sundays - then some of them to score an advance win started sending an image wishing me Happy weekends. I thought the height is when my whatsapp group started informing me how bad a Monday is - but no someone just wished me a Happy Tuesday (and its not a text - its an image). Tuesday?? Really.

On mother's day - half of India in the social media turned emotional. Some smarter ones took a jibe at all these people sending overtly emotional poems, prose and essays on "माँ "

Do you get posts that asks you to click Like on the FB or to simply forward on the watsapp circuit because its new/latest.

And yes Hyperbole is the new cool. So either Modi is a superman who will change everything for good or he is a communal murderer anti-nationalist. Either Rahul Gandhi is the hero of the Congress or he is our version of George Bush. Either Arvind Kejriwal is a revolution that will change the face of the politics in this country or he is a "Bhagoda", "Dharna Ready", "Power Hungry" trumpet blowing his own whistle so loud that he fell flat by getting just 4 seats in the Lok Sabha seat as was predicted a few centuries ago by none other than Nostredumus. And I am sure you all received the Gadkari video talking tough against Pakistan as the proof that in a few days Modi would wrench Kashmir out of Pakistan and that they would be begging of Modi to leave Karachi on its own destiny. :-)

Also the social media is a tool to vent one's frustration in the weirdest possible ways. One of my friend from the IIM days sent me a link to a blog post which weaved the conspiracy theory that RG is a womaniser, drug addict who was in Myanmar making merry when he skipped the farewell get together of Dr. MMS.
Anoher one suggested that now that we have a strong Modi sarkar - the western press has ganged up to ensure that negative image of Modi is stressed which may eventually lead to his assassination (really ???###).

Whats going on? Are we such a repressed society that social media is used to vent all kinds of anger, frustration or simply for targetted leg pulling. The lines of distinction between humourous and slapstick, between free speech and defamation, between fact and opinions, between objective and biases are quickly forgotten and it becomes a game of numbers - majority rules. Volume will make an impact. Gossip is the new truth. Rumours are the new fact.

In fact if you enjoyed reading the last para - welcome to the new gen where the sensational sells. The good old maturity is shortchanged - its the world wide web of showoffs and attention seekers - welcome to the world of Social Media.

Why I Chose not to vote for Modi

Many of my friends in the social media (fb, twitter and Whatsapp) discussed vigorously whenever I commented or posted something on Modi (against Modi) trying to persuade me to vote for him or at least not criticize him. When I think about it all - it feels like presenting the Big picture on what I think - here it is.

A series of "Junta Maaf Nahi Karegi" campaign targeted at Congress misrule 

followed by

Another series of "Ab ki Baar Modi Sarkar" (and this one went over the board from humourous to slapstick to farcical to pornographical - I received every type on the whatsapp circuit)

followed by

Yet another series of "Acche Din Aane Wale Hai" 

Yes, this has been a season of a very clever campaign (in the words of P. Chidambram) by the BJP - craftily building a larger than life image of their Prime Ministerial candidate Mr. Narendra Modi. I agree wholeheartedly with the Finance Minister.

And Yet when I went to vote for the Lok Sabha Elections this April - despite my deciding that this time I wouldn't vote for the Congress and despite having voted BJP already in the MP Vidhan Sabha elections (for the first time, mind you) I could not press the Lotus Button. why?

Was it an emotional decision? No. Was it long lasting loyalty? No, again. So what was it? Here is the list.

1. He stands for Nothing in Particular and for Everything in General

So what does he stand for - Development, Anti-corruption, Hindutava, Secularism, Pro Women, Nationalist what? Actually he seems to be projected as being all of them. A superman who would do everything - and that too alone. 

What is the counter of most supporters of Modi to this criticism? Surprisingly - they say

** What does Rahul Gandhi stand for? Incompetence. or

** What does Kejriwal stand for? Dharna. or

** So what, even if he is able to achieve half of this India would progress. or

** For years you have believed in Congress - now Modi deserves a chance.

And they have no compunctions in making above responses. In fact, many do not see any flaws in the above responses and those who see them resolutely ignore them.

If someone were to read the rather belatedly published manifesto of the BJP - it is a list of in-competencies of the UPA govt. which they promise to remove somehow magically.

(For those who still do not see anything wrong in the above arguments - 1. and 2. are fallacious because they skirt the issue and assume that criticism of Modi by default is support for the other two. and 3. is fallacious because we are in a way supporting hype and are admitting that there is nothing wrong in promising the moon when no one knows what you intend to do actually. 4. is fallacious because it again fails to answer the question - what am I voting for?)

2. His style is dictatorial & non-transparent
I guess that comes with being a strong administrator. He has mootably administered Gujarat quite magnificently.  Here is the catch - India is no Gujarat its a potpourri of beliefs. He has silenced opposition within and outside. 

Even his supporters accept this style of his and presents it as a strength. Only certain amount of dadagiri can get some thing done in today's India they suggest. Another try to defend a stand by vindicating the less acceptable.

The best times of Indian Growth have been times with Prime Ministers at the helm who were remarkable at running consensual government - the three examples are Mr. Narsimha Rao, Mr. Atal Bihari Bajpai and in his first term Dr. Manmohan singh. I have been uncomfortable at the prospect of a PM who would rule with an Iron fist specially when he is not known to carry clear biases.

Transparency is another issue. We know very little on his plans of how he is going to deliver on his promises - he shies away from the aggressive media and is cosy only in a format that (most probably) have been stage managed by his backroom boys and girls. He does not face difficult questions about Ram Mandir, His election spending, His stand on Gays etc.

3. He is out to become prime minster at all cost
Here is the severest reason I finally did not vote for him. He wishes to become the PM by hook or by crook - principles be damned. 

The way he treated Advani, Jaswant and Sushma are well known. He promises to free India of corruption and in the same breath includes Yedurappas and Reddy Brothers to get a rather dubious hold in the south India, while he talks of economic development but has opposed FDI in multi brand retail to woo the trader votes, While he talks of including minorities in the growth agenda and yet stands by Girirajs, Togadia and Amit Shahs. I can go on and on - the nut shell is that the BJP under him has bent over its back to accommodate anyone who has the potential of garnering votes - without any compunction or ideology to stand by.

Thats not all - the way he has managed media to cultivate a superhuman image has made me hugely suspicious of him. Someone needs to understand a simple fact - why does companies like Coke, Pepsi or HUL have 100+ crores media budgets? The answer is to earn profits. Now ask the same question about a very high pitch - high frequency all media sweep of BJP communication and there is no surprise guessing here that such propaganda has to have a ROI equation somewhere.

Thats also not all - the content of his propaganda makes his supporters believe that he is one pill treatment to every ill that India has. He will remove corruption, unemployment, will build roads, will provide uninterrupted power, cheap fuel, excellent policing (security) will take care of women and will make India Terror free. It is impossible. Simple, he doesn't mean it when he promises all this.

Let me end this with a simple fact - In the 2012 manifesto of BJP in Gujarat he promised to build five million houses in Gujarat, to make Agriculture the Biggest earner of Revenue and to make Gujarat the Textile Capital of India once again. All this was to be done in next five years that is by 2017. (Here is the story). So what do you expect the Government must have done by now to meet these ambitious targets. Check yourself. The answer is zilch - in more than a year and a half now the Gujarat Govt. has done nothing - not one house built, no policy initiative in the direction of Agriculture nor improving the Textile trade. So here you have it.

Well there is more to the story but I guess if you reached here then you get the Big Picture. So, that is why I could not make myself vote for the Modi  wave because I could simply not trust the guy. I know there is not much to trust the Congress as well (as if reading your thoughts as a reader) yet I could not vote for this guy.

Failed Crash Test !! Still Safe

Recently this news article caught my attention. It said the top five small cars of India failed crash test in the Euro NCAP test conducted in London. Many commentators lamented the lack of safety features in Indian cars that makes them less safe for driving. I wonder, if this is indeed the right position to take or even whether Indians need to worry about the results of these tests.

If we closely read about the test, its results and then the conclusions drawn by the "auto experts" of the west - it seems to me a marketing drive to sell safety airbags to Indian Manufacturers. Read this graphic detail of the article in the Gaurdian, arguing that the standard safety features will require only a few hundred dollars to the car's cost.

The crash tests in the west assumes Airbags availability as a standard safety feature in cars. No wonder, Indian small cars - all of them the basic entry versions failed. We need to understand a perspective here.

Every country has an environment of its own and hence its own needs. A small car is often the entry level car for an Indian Family that has been travelling on a much less safe two-wheeler (specially under the severe road and traffic conditions typical of India). For these families, the car takes them to a much higher levels of safety and comfort then they were used to. Quite unlike the Europe/America where the small car could be an individuals vehicle or even statement (the distinction that bikes currently carry in India).

In fact the Tata Nano was conceptualised by Mr. Ratan Tata as a safer transport than a two-wheeler for a family of 3-4. (Read this). And the day might not be far when this car while failing at more crash tests might be making lives of millions happier and safer.

So, Indians - don't worry about the crash test failure. It is another measure from another world - not relevant to us, at least currently. To those whom it matters and can afford there are better cars available with all the crash proof safety. We are evolving into safer times and lets create our own standards of safety.

Oratory is Overrated !! ?? !!

This post came out of a student recently discussing the impact of Aam Aadmi Party's evolving on the national political scene. He was of the opinion that India needed decisive leadership and only Narendra Modi could provide it.

Somewhere in the discussion I ended up making a simple statement - which I profoundly believe in. I said - "Don't misunderstand Great Oratory with great Leadership". Later I ended up ruminating about my own statement. Some thoughts.... :

Are we Indians too sentimental? Do we get aroused by speakers on the stage fervently inviting our passions to soar on issues that might be petty but have been blown out of proportion by craft oratory of the speaker on the stage. Is true leadership about getting millions to follow you? I don not possibly have clear answers to this question - as the jury is still out on this issue.


Look at a few examples :

Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Bill Gates, Narayan Murthy, Aung San Suu Kyi, Ratan Tata, JRD are NOT really great examples of exemplary orators but have been undoubtedly great leaders, in the sense that they brought fundamental change and successfully delivered on objectives.

On the other hand Jawahar Lal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, S. M. Dutta have been examples of good orators and excellent Leadership combined.

However, it is not uncommon to find that better Orators generally find themselves playing the role of arousing passion or pumping energy with their words symbolically leading, while the real work of leadership is done at the back-end by unsung heroes.

Personally, I see many people who were harbingers of real change or improvement that mattered but the credit of which is received by the more fiery or the one who has this "lead from the front style". Perceptions of course favour the Orators - people generally believe in the person leading from the front. It appears to me, that the Orator often ends up believing that he through his oratory skills is the real driver of change but in most cases the Orator ends up playing the role of a stand-up entertainer.

Would like to hear/read of your experiences/examples in the matter.