I am really happy today over the Delhi High Court ruling parts of Section 377 unconstitutional. The ruling is available in PDF format here. The entire judgement is awesome. The judges did not restrict themselves to narrow legal issues, but spoke overwhelmingly about broad constitutional issues such as privacy, dignity and equality.

In the run up to the court case there was a lot of discussion about homosexuals accelerating the spread of HIV/AIDS, and that was one argument for same-sex intercourse to remain illegal. I was always baffled by such discussion and to me the issue was about privacy and individual liberties in a democratic society. It was clear to me as day, that Section 377 is unconstitutional. I am glad that the Judges spoke about civil liberties in no uncertain terms.

Here are a few nuggets from the ruling:

• The ruling cites court cases from various countries including Lawrence v. Texas which struck down sodomy laws in the United States.
• I did not know that the Indian Constitution (like the United States Constitution) does not have an explicit "Right to Privacy." On the issue of privacy there are mentions of Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

• The Court went above and beyond what it was called to do. In a single stroke, it accorded protection against discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation." I found this really surprising.

  We hold that sexual orientation is a ground analogous to sex and that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not permitted by Article 15. Further, Article 15(2) incorporates the notion of horizontal application of rights. In other words, it even prohibits discrimination of one citizen by another in matters of access to public spaces. In our view, discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation is impermissible even on the horizontal application of the right enshrined under Article 15.

• The Court clearly understands that a Government or a Constitution cannot grant fundamental rights to people. Sweet :)

  In the present case, the two constitutional rights relied upon i.e. 'right to personal liberty' and 'right to equality' are fundamental human rights which belong to individuals simply by virtue of their humanity, independent of any utilitarian consideration. A Bill of Rights does not 'confer' fundamental human rights. It confirms their existence and accords them protection.

Kudos and thanks to Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar.

Today, the Delhi High Court stuck down discriminatory provisions of Section 377 which criminalized homosexual behavior. This is not too late, compared to what happened in the United States. It was only six years ago, on June 26, 2003, that United States Supreme Court struck down sodomy law in Texas. The case is Lawrence v. Texas and was ruled 6-3. Add a couple of Scalias and Thomases to the court and they'd have ruled against freedom.

The Delhi High Court ruling talks clearly about liberty and equality guaranteed by the Constitution of India. A win for human rights.

A couple of days ago I visited Doordarshan's Chennai studios for a recording. After I left, I couldn't help but think about gender roles and women in the workplace.

Nearly every person I encountered was a male. When we entered the studio room, there were a coterie of about ten men, whiling away their time (which I guess is typical of a state-run enterprise, but let us not get to it now). Security personnel at the gate, a group of people collecting information on who enters or leaves the place, camera crew, sound engineers, and the show's producer were all men. Employees in the make-up room were all women, reinforcing gender stereotypes. There was one woman in the studio who checked the sound level, and two there were two female janitors.

I am curious to know why there were no male employees in the makeup room. Or, why all cameramen, light operators, studio foreman and the producer were all men. Is this because women were denied opportunities by their own families, or because society discriminated against them?

My final score on election night (Nov. 4, 2008) is 2-3 (won 2, lost 3).

Al Franken has finally won the Minnesota Senate race after the state's Supreme Court ruled in his favor. I like Al Franken for this video, where he rips stupidity (aka Fox News) apart.

Government-owned businesses are running huge losses. Air India is Rs 10,000 crores in the red. Tamil Nadu's transport corporations lost Rs 700 crore last year. Whenever privatization is mentioned as a solution, politicians oppose it strongly. Tamil Nadu's Minister for Transportation recently said that state owned transport corporations "would never be privatised, whatever the losses they incurred and they would continue to function as government undertakings." J Jayalalitha is organizing protests in Neyveli opposing any move on the part of the central government to divest itself of stake in Neyveli Lignite Corporation.

I am sure there are good arguments from both sides of this issue. What surprises me most is why parties exhibit no ambivalence. After all, they present a strong case for privatization, when it comes to Tamil TV channels. The leading parties in Tamil Nadu all "have their own" private TV channels. The DMK family owns Sun TV, Jayalalitha owns Jaya TV, PMK owns Makkal TV. These channels are all successful. So are private channels without any political affiliation. Hardly any one watches state-run Podhigai.

Tamil Nadu's citizens overwhelmingly view and support private TV channels. If privatization can work for TV channels, why can't it work for a transport corporation?

Stop saying "Girls outshine boys," because they don't. It is this time of the year, and board exam results across the county are announced. The recurring theme is girls do better than guys. I was always puzzled on how this could be possible. The data is crying out loud asking someone to take a look. Where are all the anti-Larry Summers of India?

This year, 82.28% of girls cleared the CBSE exams while only 71.29% of boys did. In this article from 2004,

[Educator Rita Kaul] feels that "the methodology of CBSE exams is more suited to the girls who find cramming easier. Boys, on the other hand, do better in entrance exams that are application-based."

Great. Thanks for sharing your feeling.

Everyone conveniently ignores the most important story here. Only 41% of candidates in this year's CBSE exams are girls. Girls do not get educated as much as boys do. (I know this is just one board, but after cursory glance at numbers in state boards exhibit the same disparity. World Bank development indicators convey the same.) It is likely that underperforming girls drop out at higher rates than underperforming boys.

People and the media either want to ignore this, or think it is just the norm and not newsworthy. At the very least the media can afford some attention to this fact and get people thinking for a moment before they go back to discussing IPL's closing ceremony.

The seemingly never-ending battle between religion and science in the United States reached a federal court once again in the Dover trial, a case pitting the theory of Intelligent Design (ID) against Darwin's theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. For those who don't know, ID is a relatively new concept that contends that living organisms we see around us today are too complex to have come about by evolution and must have been "designed" to take their present form by their "designer". ID makes no attempt explain who the designer is, or what mechanism the designer employs. At the surface it sounds like a good idea and hence the debate in school boards around the US that students should be exposed to alternate views.

What is not well known is that intelligent design itself is simply a substitute for Creationism as described in Genesis, with all references to God replaced with designer and creation replaced with intelligent design. In fact, the primary text book for ID Of Pandas and People is a find-and-replace job on a creationist text book. A draft of the book even had the term "crintelligent designism", a result of a poor find-and-replace.

The trial in Dover was specifically about whether or not ID is religious propaganda and whether teaching it would be a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the US constitution. I originally came to know about the details behind the trial from this talk by Ken Miller, who is a professor of Biology at Brown University and who testified during the trial.

In the library here, I came across a copy of The Devil in Dover by Lauri Lebo stacked among other newly released books. I was hesitant to pick up this book since I already knew a lot about the trial. But I am glad I did. The book is very well written. The author has brought a dull courtroom battle to life. In addition to the trial, the book illustrates attitudes and actions in the small town, lies and hypocrisy amongst the school board, the conservative movement using social issues as a wedge to retain power, and parents and teachers' resolve to stand up for truth, science and the US constitution. Throughout the narration, the author intertwines her own personal conflict of faith with her father. It is a gripping book and I could not put it down.

Here, a couple of quotes. Mr Callahan's testifying how much he cares about the US constitution:

[PLAINTIFF COUNSEL]: [...] Mr. Callahan, do you feel that, as a Plaintiff in this case, you've been harmed by the actions of the Dover Area School District [...]

[PLAINTIFF]: Yes.

[PLAINTIFF COUNSEL]: And can you tell us how you've been harmed?

[PLAINTIFF]: I think it goes to the heart of the complaint. It's a constitutional issue. I'm a tax payer in Dover. I'm a citizen of Dover. I'm a citizen of this country. [...]

And, you know, I've been -- there have been letters written about the Plaintiffs. We've been called atheists, which we're not. I don't think that matters to the Court, but we're not. We're said to be intolerant of other views.

Well, what am I supposed to tolerate? A small encroachment on my First Amendment rights? Well, I'm not going to. I think this is clear what these people have done. And it outrages me.

The best line was from Judge Jones to conclude the trial:

[DEFENCE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I have one question, and that's this: By my reckoning, this is the 40th day since the trial began and tonight will be the 40th night, and I would like to know if you did that on purpose.

THE COURT: Mr. Gillen, that is an interesting coincidence, but it was not by design.

My friends know I was clearly excited on the day the votes in India's parliamentary elections were counted. I was very nervous that voters might return a fractured verdict. Voters proved all the pundits wrong by voting for stability with a clear preference for the leading coalitions UPA and NDA and rejecting the "parking lots." and showed how smart they were. Rural voters thrashing NDA's India Shining campaign is still fresh in memory. India's voters have come of age. This is a great time for India's democracy. It makes me so proud to be an Indian.

We just have to look at our neighbors to understand how lucky we are --- Burma, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. I was watching Fareed Zakaria interviewing Pervez Musharraf on CNN and startled to hear this exchange.

ZAKARIA: Do you believe that the Pakistani military is a professional military, in control of the nuclear weapons, dedicated to fighting the Taliban? Or is there a need for some transition? Is there a need for a strategic mind shift?

MUSHARRAF: Five hundred percent, there is no need of any mind shift. These aspersions are caused by those who want to weaken Pakistan. Pakistan's strength is its army. And anyone who wants to weaken Pakistan attacks the Pakistan army and the ISI. And unfortunately, I...

ZAKARIA: And you stand by both, the ISI and the army?

MUSHARRAF: Yes, yes. Yes, indeed. So, I personally think that there is some vicious campaign going on against Pakistan. Because if anyone wants to weaken Pakistan, attack these two institutions ...

Musharraf is indeed correct. Pakistan's strength is its army. I feel bad for our neighbors. And I feel so fortunate to be able to say my country's strength is its democracy.

Great job India. In the land of elephants and cell phones, India's Election Commission has done an outstanding job conducting fair elections and with prompt results (I'm looking at you Minnesota).

Overall result I wanted a clear mandate and I was not too concerned which party won. I favored the UPA over NDA. Glad that they won. Surprised at the resounding positive verdict in favor of UPA.

The left's rout has been the sweetest part of this elections. I view them pretty much like Republicans in the US now. In the latter part of the previous Lok Sabha, all they did was oppose. Their policies hurt the poor people they claim to stand for. Dead because of their brain-dead opposition to the nuclear deal and their screw up in Nandigram. Good riddance.

Hindutva seems to have been kept at bay, at least for now. The BJP ran stupid personal attacks against Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Did you know that building a temple at Ayodhya was a part of their manifesto? And throw in Varun Gandhi. Thank Lord Rama, they failed.

Nice tweet by thecomicproject

@b50 I believe in pulling out all stops to win, but BJP whined..and whined. I guess a country wants winners not whiners.

The incumbents won. Looks like India is rewarding NREGA, farmer loan waiver, "inclusive growth", and a clean leader in Dr. Singh. I like the clear message from India. Congress by itself has 200 seats, the highest by any single party since 1991.

Karunanidhi has come out on top yet again. This man is shrewd. Some thanks should go to Captain Vijayakanth for taking votes from AIADMK. PMK is fully routed. Sweet :)

3 for the price of 4 Laloo Prasad Yadav offered Congress only three seats as part of its seat-sharing. Congress went alone in Bihar. Laloo's RJD now has only 4 seats in all. And, two of these are won by Laloo himself. He has to give up one. "3 for the price of 4" heard on NDTV.

ECI's website is down on this day :(

Here's a small moment of fame. My tweet and EliLake's reply are mentioned in Glenn Greenwald's blog.

Glenn Greenwald wrote an article pointing out the US mainstream media's silence in covering US arrests of journalists while covering similar behavior on the part of Iran. It is in his usual style --- long, well-researched with lots of pointers, presenting his arguments in a way that would convinces most rational thinkers. The article also showed screenshot of a tweet by Eli Lake. I was amused at this comment and asked Eli Lake' what his response was. His response,

@mssnlayam Apples and oranges. Roxanne Saberi wasn't using her press card as cover for terror. Also it's moral idiocy to equate US and Iran

I tweeted back deconstructing his argument:

@EliLake Implying journalists mentioned in the story to have been jailed by the US (and released w/o charge) are terrorists? Any evidence?

and

@EliLake "moral idiocy to equate US and Iran" No one did. I see US the leading light for freedom. I also recognize hypocrisy when I see it.

Greenwald himself has a detailed response on his blog.

Eli Lake finally had this to say:

To all the lefties rushing to Greenwald's defense. Yes our government is more lawful, civilized and humane than Iran's. I stand by that.

I find it funny how people totally move away from the pertinent discussion and talk about something totall unrelated. Instead of commenting on the actual cases of journalists arrested (and later released without charge) that Greenwald has pointed out, Lake goes on a tangent babbling on what he likes about the US. Nice strategy: set up a strawman (Greenwald and lefties), pretend that they claim Iran is more lawful, civilized, and humane than the US, and beat down the strawman.

I understand Twitter is not suited for talking about complex issues, but not points for totally evading the question. I am really curious to see if Lake has a coherent response.

In the past I have effused on how much I liked Ron Paul. He is one (probably the only) politician who is consistent, honest and speaks his mind. More importantly, he is smart and rational. Though I don't always agree with him, I have had no difficulty understanding why he comes to a particular policy position.

Few will disagree that Ron Paul is an idealist. He focuses not on nitty-gritty practical details but on broad philosophical issues. It is however a problem when he tries to argue on the practical implications of his policy positions. Like most people, he observes what happens around him and highlights instances that affirm his ideology. Which is fine except that sometimes he tries to have it both ways. For instance, his comments on Hurricane Katrina and the recent H1N1 swine flu outbreak to present is limited government philosophy.

According to Ron Paul, big government is bad. A big federal government is unconstitutional (I am not capable of reasoning whether or not something is unconstitutional, so I will not get into that discussion.) A bloated federal government cannot well serve its people.

Here are his arguments (paraphrased):

• Hurricane Katrina was a fiasco because people expected the federal government to act. And oh, have I not already said that the federal government is inept?
• The Obama Administration is blowing out of proportion the possibility of the swine flu pandemic. They want to accumulate more power by making use of this opportunity.

This bugs me. He can't blame the government for both acting and not acting (in different situations). Imagine if swine flu really becomes a pandemic with consequences much worse than Katrina? And Ron Paul, if alive, will then be claiming "I told you so. Federal government inaction caused this pandemic." He can't have it both ways.

By making such naive reflexive arguments, Ron Paul risks sounding more and more like the other morons on the right.

PS: I still like him.

I have been working really hard the past few months. I slowed down a bit last week to cool down, recharge and become active again. In this post, I will write how I morphed from an procrastinating grad student to a productive one.

I know from my conversations with my friends that grad students waste a lot of time. They usually operate in bursts --- they scramble the month before a paper deadline, but otherwise spend a lot of time being idle. They spend a lot of time consuming blogs on various topics. Want to find an expert on the torture memos, the stimulus package, NFL draft prospects, the Indian Premier League, or fivethirtyeight.com's poll numbers? Ask around for grad students and you are sure to find intelligent grad students well-versed in these various topics.

On top of this, they usually live in a persistent state of guilt, because they do not do what they are supposed to. They cannot allocate a Saturday to read a book they badly want to. Why? Because they do not want to feel guilty of not working on a Saturday. Instead they will choose to spend the entire day idle doing nothing.

I was one such student. I could be easily distracted away from my work. I used to procrastinate a lot. I wanted to break free, focus on work, and work hard at that. I have say, I succeeded and here is how it happened.

Economist article on why people procrastinate

I read an article in the Economist that was kind of stating the obvious, but it had a profound impact on me. The crux of the article is that people procrastinate when they are tasked with huge abstract tasks. The problems that I am trying to solve in grad school are vast open-ended problems with no end in sight. It is easy to get bogged down thinking about accomplishing an enormous task and make no progress as a result. The key is to understand this, split your problem into small concrete sub-tasks, and device a course of action that you can evaluate every couple of days.

For instance, we are beginning to work on an idea for PLDI submission (due in November). We have absolutely now clue how it will pan out nor what we need to do to get there. Nevertheless, we have a rough roadmap, and I have an immediate task at hand that should take me two to three days. I can evaluate at the end of three days where I am, but during that time I can think just about this task and not be saddled by the big picture.

Scrum for research

Early last Fall, our research group starting using "Scrum for Research" as suggested by our friend over at Maryland. Our group meets thrice a week, MWF. Each meeting that lasts about 15-20 minutes. Each person gets to speak for two minutes on what they did in the two days prior to the meeting and their plan for the next two days. While this can seem like a very demanding environment to work in, we really like it. Trying to come up with tangible goals that we can reach in two days makes us efficient and productive. If you are doing systems research, you should try to incorporate scrum into your research workflow.

Aftermath

I have become very organized outside of work as well. I pursue my other interests without feeling guilty, have great weekends and eagerly look forward to going to school early on Mondays.

It is election time in India. There are so many parties and factions and coming up with whom I would endorse has been an intense though experiment. I have finally found a winner. My support goes to the Samajwadi Party (SP) led by Mulayam Singh Yadav.

Parties promise free electricity for farmers, free rice and so on. No party has managed to match SP's vision. SP promises to invent a time machine and will take us all to a future time where things will be dramatically different. People will no longer be divided on the basis of religion or caste. They will no longer die of old age. There will be no more unemployment. Every one will be employed in hunting and gathering.

More from the party manifesto:

The Samajwadi Party has vowed to work against the use of English in education. [...] Wherever work can be done by hand, computers would be abolished. [...] The SP has also come out against mechanized farming [...]

Women in Kerala staged a demonstration demanding that the government pay them a salary for having sex with their husband. They claimed that they play a vital role in ensuring the well-being of the nation --- keeping their husbands off other women and enabling them to be productive at work.

Men in Kerala, wanting not to be left behind wanted their share of the government pie too. "After all," claimed a leader of a trade union of men, "we provide sex too and want to be paid for it."

Okay, I made those up. Prompted by a Rediff.com article (HT: smitanaik).

The daily grind of looking after their children and families, albeit with no remuneration, has led housewives in Kerala to form a trade union, demanding that the government pay them a fixed salary and old-age pension for the services being rendered.

Thursday (Feb 12, 2009) is the 200th birth anniversaries of Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln. Last year, Newsweek ran an article about the two asking who was more important. It is an interesting article that goes through the lives of these two great men. I am not going to compare the two. I will however mention what I learnt of Darwin.

BBC is running a series "Darwin, The Genius of Evolution" to celebrate is life. I watched some parts and learned how phenomenal he was. Darwin is known mainly for the theory of evolution by natural selection. But, he was first and foremost a naturalist. And a highly successful one at that. He spent decades observing species, learning about them, cataloging and categorizing them. He drew inferences from these observations and wanted to build a general framework to explain these observations. His book was backed by the meticulous detail of his observations and his stature as a scientist.

This is something students of science like me should take inspiration from.

A couple of days ago, Wikileaks released thousands of reports prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The CRS is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. Its reports are highly regarded as "in-depth, accurate, objective, and timely." The leaked documents cover a whole range of topics.

I glanced through a few reports about India and found them very objective and thorough. Here are a couple of interesting snippets. About India's relationship with Iran:

India's growing energy needs and its relatively benign view of Iran's intentions will likely cause policy differences between New Delhi and Washington. India seeks positive ties with Iran and is unlikely to downgrade its relationship with Tehran at the behest of external powers, but it is unlikely that the two will develop a broad and deep strategic alliance. India-Iran relations are also unlikely to derail the further development of close and productive U.S.-India relations on a number of fronts.

A look at what the US might expect then, after the 2004 general elections in India.

U.S. relations with India depend largely on Indias political leadership. India's 2004 national elections ended governance by the center-right coalition headed by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and brought in a new center-left coalition led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. [...] As Finance Minister from 1991-1996, Singh was the architect of major Indian economic reform and liberalization efforts. [...] A coalition of communist parties supports the UPA, but New Delhis economic, foreign, and security policies are not expected to be significantly altered. The new government has vowed to continue close and positive engagement with the United States in all areas.

Here is the list of reports related to the sub-continent.

• Nuclear tests by India and Pakistan
  • CRS: Indian and Pakistani Nuclear Tests? Potential Test Ban Risks and Technical Benefits, July 17, 1996 (PDF, 6 pages)
  • CRS: U.S. INTELLIGENCE AND INDIA'S NUCLEAR TESTS: LESSONS LEARNED, August 11, 1998 (PDF, 6 pages)
  • CRS: INDIA-PAKISTAN NUCLEAR TESTS AND U.S. RESPONSE, November 24, 1998 (PDF, 40 pages)
  • CRS: BANK LOAN DENIAL FOR NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION UNDER SECTION 102(b) OF THE ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT AS APPLICABLE TO INDIA AND PAKISTAN, December 16, 1998 (PDF, 6 pages)
  • CRS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND BALLISTIC MISSILE PROLIFERATION IN INDIA AND PAKISTAN: ISSUES FOR CONGRESS, July 31, 2000 (PDF, 39 pages)
  • CRS: Nuclear Sanctions: Section 102(b) of the Arms Export Control Act and Its Application to Indian and Pakistan, October 5, 2001 (PDF, 22 pages)
• Kashmir
  • CRS: Kashmiri Separatists: Origins, Competing Ideologies, and Prospects for Resolution of the Conflict, September 30, 2002 (PDF, 43 pages)
  • CRS: Elections in Kashmir, December 5, 2002 (PDF, 6 pages)
• Terrorism
  • CRS: Pakistan-U.S. Anti-Terrorism Cooperation, March 28, 2003 (PDF, 27 pages)
  • CRS: Islamist Militancy in the Pakistan-Afghanistan Border Region and U.S. Policy, November 21, 2008 (PDF, 20 pages)
  • CRS: Terrorist Attacks in Mumbai, India, and Implications for U.S. Interests, December 19, 2009 (PDF, 24 pages)
  • CRS: Islamist Extremism in Bangladesh, January 31, 2007 (PDF, 6 pages)
  • CRS: Pakistan and Terrorism: A Summary, March 27, 2007 (PDF, 6 pages)
• Nuclear non-proliferation
  • CRS: Nuclear Threat Reduction Measures for India and Pakistan, February 17, 2005 (PDF, 30 pages)
  • CRS: Indian and Pakistani Nuclear Weapons Status, February 17, 2005 (PDF, 6 pages)
  • CRS: Pakistans Nuclear Proliferation Activities and the Recommendations of the 9,11 Commission: U.S. Policy Constraints and Options, May 24, 2005 (PDF, 52 pages)
  • CRS: Weapons of Mass Destruction: Trade Between North Korea and Pakistan, November 28, 2006 (PDF, 20 pages)
  • CRS: U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation: A Side-By-Side Comparison of Current Legislation, December 22, 2006 (PDF, 41 pages)
  • CRS: India's Nuclear Separation Plan: Issues and Views, December 22, 2006 (PDF, 27 pages)
  • CRS: India and Iran: WMD Proliferation Activities, November 8, 2006 (PDF, 6 pages)
  • CRS: U.S. Nuclear Cooperation With India: Issues for Congress, November 3, 2008 (PDF, 53 pages)
  • CRS: Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues, June 20, 2008 (PDF, 16 pages)
• Trade/sactions
  • CRS: India-U.S. Economic Relations, February 10, 2005 (PDF, 6 pages)
  • CRS: India and Pakistan: Current U.S. Economic Sanctions, February 3, 2003 (PDF, 6 pages)
  • CRS: India-U.S. Economic and Trade Relations, August 31, 2007 (PDF, 66 pages)
• Tsunami
  • CRS: Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami: Humanitarian Assistance and Relief Operations, March 21, 2005 (PDF, 58 pages)
  • CRS: Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunamis: Food Aid Needs and U.S. Response, April 8, 2005 (PDF, 6 pages)
• Elections results
  • CRS: Indias 2004 National Elections, July 12, 2004 (PDF, 12 pages)
  • CRS: Pakistan's Scheduled 2008 Election: Background, January 24, 2008 (PDF, 14 pages)
  • CRS: Pakistan's 2008 Elections: Results and Implications for U.S. Policy, April 9, 2008 (PDF, 22 pages)
• Domestic developments
  • CRS: Pakistans Domestic Political Developments, September 19, 2005 (PDF, 38 pages)
  • CRS: Pakistan: Chronology of Recent Events, January 29, 2007 (PDF, 6 pages)
  • CRS: India: Chronology of Recent Events, February 13, 2007 (PDF, 6 pages)
  • CRS: Pakistan: Significant Recent Events, March 26 - June 21, 2007, July 6, 2007 (PDF, 29 pages)
  • CRS: Pakistan's Political Crisis, January 3, 2008 (PDF, 25 pages)
  • CRS: Bangladesh: Political Turmoil and Transition, May 30, 2008 (PDF, 20 pages)
  • CRS: Pakistan's Capital Crisis: Implications for U.S. Policy, November 21, 2008 (PDF, 9 pages)
• Bilateral relations and strategy
  • CRS: U.S.-India Bilateral Agreements and 'Global Partnership', March 10, 2006 (PDF, 27 pages)
  • CRS: Nepal: Political Developments and Bilateral Relations with the United States, October 23, 2008 (PDF, 19 pages)
  • CRS: Nepal: Background and U.S. Relations, July 30, 2007 (PDF, 18 pages)
  • CRS: India-Iran Relations and U.S. Interests, August 6, 2007 (PDF, 6 pages)
  • CRS: Bangladesh: Background and U.S. Relations, August 2, 2007 (PDF, 18 pages)
  • CRS: U.S. Arms Sales to Pakistan, January 28, 2008 (PDF, 4 pages)
  • CRS: Sri Lanka: Background and U.S. Relations, January 22, 2008 (PDF, 38 pages)
  • CRS: Emerging Trends in the Security Architecture in Asia: Bilateral and Multilateral Ties Among the United States, Japan, Australia, and India, January 7, 2008 (PDF, 18 pages)
  • CRS: India-U.S. Relations, August 12, 2008 (PDF, 74 pages)
  • CRS: Pakistan-U.S. Relations, November 10, 2008 (PDF, 97 pages)
• Miscellaneous
  • CRS: Education Reform in Pakistan, December 23, 2004 (PDF, 6 pages)

Hats off to Barack H. Obama, the 44th President of the United States of America. (feels so good to say it)

He promised transparency in government and has started to deliver on day one. Obama welcomes senior staff in his administration, and the key message is ethics and transparency. It sounds surreal, and too good to be true. (I wanted to paste a few short snippets. But, it ended up this long.)

And you will receive an ethics briefing on what is required of you to make sure that our government is serving the people's interests, and nobody else's -- a briefing, I'm proud to say, I was the first member of this administration to receive last week.

But the way to make a government responsible is not simply to enlist the services of responsible men and women, or to sign laws that ensure that they never stray. The way to make government responsible is to hold it accountable. And the way to make government accountable is make it transparent so that the American people can know exactly what decisions are being made, how they're being made, and whether their interests are being well served.

The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed. That era is now over. Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but those who seek to make it known.

I will also hold myself as President to a new standard of openness. Going forward, anytime the American people want to know something that I or a former President wants to withhold, we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the White House Counsel, whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law. Information will not be withheld just because I say so. It will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well grounded in the Constitution.

Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.

Our commitment to openness means more than simply informing the American people about how decisions are made. It means recognizing that government does not have all the answers, and that public officials need to draw on what citizens know. And that's why, as of today, I'm directing members of my administration to find new ways of tapping the knowledge and experience of ordinary Americans -- scientists and civic leaders, educators and entrepreneurs -- because the way to solve the problem of our time is -- the way to solve the problems of our time, as one nation, is by involving the American people in shaping the policies that affect their lives.

This is a series of posts about the change I would like India to embrace. These are simple to bring about. They cost very little money. They do not require people to alter their habits or attitudes. Which means a person in power can easily bring about these changes. And, in my opinion (though I might be wrong) these will have support from the common man if presented to them.

Update: I got a few unflattering comments offline. I will address them here.

• "The post is too high-level." Yes, it is meant to be high-level.
• "asserting a presidential type democracy as better than
  multiparty parlimentary democracy like india is questionable." The post does not call for a change to a Presidential system. It only asks for a rigid timetable in the current system.
• Ceremonial posts ... not India's burning problem." I agree. There is a problem however with Governors having the power to call for President's rule in a state. This current system is controversial. The post should have been more clear on that.
• "there are many who criticize the US approach of electing local justices." This post is high-level. Take it with a grain of salt. I agree electing judges is not a really good idea. But, electing school board members is. And referendums are much needed in India. People of Nandigram could have expressed their views democratically and enforced what they wanted.

A better democratic framework in India

India is the world's largest democracy. To many, it is a surprise that it is even one. While this is a positive, India is not a very good democracy. The Economist computes a Democracy Index for countries. India is ranked 35, with a score of 7.80/10.00 and is considered a "flawed democracy." We can and should do better.

Ramachandra Guha in his book "India after Gandhi" and on other occasions has talked about the challenges that India's democracy faces. Some challenges he outlines include:

The threat of religious bigotry on the right wing of the political spectrum, the rise of the Maoist movement in the heartland of central and eastern India on the left wing, corruption and corrosion of the established democratic order, policy incoherence caused by coalition governments, especially in economic development, and environmental degradation

These are challenges because of the way people think and act. It is going to be very difficult to change how people act, and who am I to say what is right and what others should do. My argument is that our democratic framework as provided by the Constitution and laws is by itself fundamentally flawed. Our system does not allow for citizens to express themselves in a robust manner. I would bring about the following changes to India's democratic system.

A rigid timetable

India should move to having a rigid timetable for elections. Look at the US. Election day is always the first Tuesday after Nov 1 of even-numbered years. When will the next President be elected? Nov 6, 2012 (the first Tuesday after Nov 1). When is the President's inauguration? Jan 20, every four years. That is how it is every time. The terms for representatives in the House (2 years), Presidents (4 years) and Senators (6 years) are set in stone.

Contrast this with India. We don't know for how long the administration in power will have the confidence of the Lok Sabha. We don't know when the Lok Sabha will be dissolved. We can have a Prime Minster who lasts only 13 days in office. We can have three back to back Prime Minsters who each last less than a year in office. How can we expect stability in such a system? In the US, each of the hundred senators can belong to a different party. Even then the wheels of government will move on.

Eliminate ceremonial posts

Why is it that we in India have no real say in electing the Head of State? And, why is it that we have a Head of State who is merely ceremonial? We might as well have a statue of Gandhi and call him our President for eternity. At least, that won't cost any money. And same is the case with governors. Jayalalitha used to block traffic every day on her way to work as Chief Minister in Chennai. They could have given the Governor's mansion to her.

Let people actually have a say

Why do we pretend that a population of 1.1 billion people can merely have 550 representatives, and call that system representative democracy? That is one representative per 2 million (20,00,000) citizens. How effective is that going to be? On top of that, all you get to do is elect a Lok Sabha MP, State MLA, possibly someone for Councillor or Mayor. After that, you have to shut up for the next five years.

Take a look at this sample ballot from the US. In the US, you get to vote in Federal, State, County and City elections. You get to vote for President, Senator (like MP), Representative (like MP), Governor, State Senator (like MLA), State Representative (like MLA), Mayor, State Supreme Court judges, District judges, District attorney, Sheriff, Commissioner, and so on. Add to this the opportunity to vote on state and local referendums. In India, the referendum process is non-existent, and non-binding.

How can this change happen?

I assume that you and a overwhelming majority of citizens will support this idea. All that it takes is one politician in a position of power, say Manmohan Singh, to stand up and propose these changes. Bring it to a vote in the Lok Sabha, I can't see how it can be voted down.

Update: This is a series of posts about the change I would like India to embrace. These are simple to bring about. They cost very little money. They do not require people to alter their habits or attitudes. Which means a person in power can easily bring about these changes. And, in my opinion (though I might be wrong) these will have support from the common man if presented to them.

• A better democratic framework in India

Original article: We all have various complaints about what is wrong in our country. But, it is not an easy task to specify exactly what is wrong, to come up with a solution on paper, and to actually get it to work. It is very difficult to say what should tangibly be changed in India, and how to get it done.

One grand vision

A first approximation indicator of the state our country is the Human Development Index (HDI). (India's score is 0.609/1.000 and it's rank is 132). It is a single number that takes into account life expectancy at birth, literacy, and per capita GDP. I am impressed by how useful the life expectancy indicator is. It combines so many factors that improve or reduce lifespan, into a single number.

Do citizens have access to health care? Can citizens afford healthy meals everyday? Is the county often at war? Are there mass-murders? How effective is protection from natural calamities? How clean is the environment? How safe are industries? How safe is transportation? What is the crime rate? ...

To improve lifespans, a country must restrain factors that case death and boost those that prolong life. This is easier said than done. First there needs to exist a will to act. In addition, limited resources must be channeled towards improving various factors. Any person who wants to increase longevity (and by definition improve the state of development of a country) must look at such factors. These improvements require societal action, political will, and money.

One grand vision is to see India made great strides in these fronts and as a result improve the HDI rating of India. This is tangible, but not easy to achieve.

Policy changes that are easier to bring about

I would like to India make changes for the better on all these fronts and more, towards this vision. However, I lack knowledge, expertise and time to even begin to fathom how to bring about these changes. Instead, I will talk about changes that are simple to bring about. These cost very little money. They do not require people to alter their habits or attitudes. They do not directly address improving HDI but I feel will lay a foundation that will help us address such complex issues.

This is merely a thought exercise that I want to share with others. I will attempt to lay down what can be changed without a lot of money or societal action. Even a powerful leader can't will away xenophobia or religious fundamentalism or casteist bigotry. It is extremely difficult to imagine universal healthcare for all or universal education for all. To bring that we have to answer questions about how we plan to pay for it. More importantly, we need to figure how we can get enough quality doctors or teachers. So, I will not talk about such changes.

Positive change though simple legislation

I will instead present change that can be brought through a simple legislation. Such an instance in the past was the Right to Information Act (RTI). It took a few strong leaders to pass it, it cost very little or no money, and they had to convince no one to change their behavior. Whether people utilize the act is a different question. There is at least a tool for people to use and reform governance if they want to.

I'd like to express my thoughts and I hope others like it. Who knows, these thoughts might reach someone who can effect such changes.

There was a group known as the "Big Five." One of them died, and then there were four. What am I talking about? After the Enron scandal scandal broke, one of the leading auditing companies of that time Artur Andersen died. What happens to Pricewaterhouse Coopers, the auditing firm for Satyam?

That to me is the important question. What happens to the auditors who let this happen, and how did this happen? How many dropped the ball innocently? A CA attempts to answer this question (I do not fully understand what he says). I would be surprised if Ramalinga Raju is the only one who was aware that the numbers were made up.

Some heads will roll, but what about the investors now? Well, this is India's Enron, and if you invested money you lose. 80% overnight to be exact. Sorry for you, but move on.

Do I have money invested in Satyam? Indirectly, yes; though mutual funds. Do I care if it goes under? No. Satyam is one of several baskets that I have kept my eggs in. The stock market gave me returns that I played no (or a very minimal) role in. Similarly, it will also take away my money though no act of mine. Anyone investing in the stock market should be prepared for these turbulences. Diversify, diversify and diversify. You will be safe.

On a side note, Satyam's bad news yesterday, did not bode well for all other stocks in general. The BSE Sensex fell 7%, which to me is very good news. I am an investor who does not pay close attention to market fluctuations. Once in a while when I have some liquid cash, I dump it in the market. Today is probably a good time to do that. "Buy low" is the mantra.