World record browsers: lessons for Opera

[This post is less about software than it is about the business and appeal of software]

Firefox, the world's second most popular browser, released its third avatar this week, and decided to have some pizzazz to go along with it. The world record (for the maximum number of software downloads in 24 hours) was bound to be achieved, since the record had never been set before. But Mozilla (the makers of the browser) more than achieved their target figure of 5 million, in just around half the time. They eventually hovered around 8 million by the end of the 24 hour deadline.

Of course, the fact that Adobe Flash player accounts for 12 million downloads per day does make it that record a little less unprecedented. But the fact that a browser that was largely unknown just four years back is now posing a legitimate challenge to Big Brother's (you know who that is) bloated browser, is indeed impressive.

Predictably though, Firefox's attempt at the world record did peeve a lot of Opera fans. This is truly the dark horse of the browser wars. I'm regarded by many as an unabashed Firefox fan, and I do earn the label by virtue of the fact that I was motivating many friends to help set the record. Yet the one thing I do agree is that Opera has indeed been an extremely impressive browser.

Simply put, most of the innovations you see that have changed browsing in the last 8 years or so, were Opera inventions. Tabbed browsing, for which a lot of people wrongly give credit to Firefox, were introduced by Opera in 2000. Firefox got it only in 2001. Of course, Big Brother introduced them only in 2006 (which was its first browser version since 2001) and had the temerity to pretend like it was their idea. Adding the search bar at the top of the browser, in the toolbar, was an Opera idea. It was also the first browser to block pop-up ads, again something that Firefox gets credit for inventing.

Even today, Opera offers inbuilt features that leave Firefox way behind. For example, a torrent download client. An ability to save sessions, which is something even Firefox 3 does not have.

The truth is, Firefox never invented many of the features that they are praised for, they just popularized them. And that, for many in the Opera community believe that Firefox has simply been playing catch-up and perhaps even stealing Opera's thunder. On most forums, a praise of Firefox is guaranteed to generate at least one comment on Opera's superiority.

The trouble is that a lot of this bitterness is unjustified. Though Opera and Firefox are two good browsers, browser choice is quite personal and not everyone might like Opera or Firefox. I'd say that Firefox has been a godsend for Opera. After the demise of Netscape, Firefox was the first browser to give any serious competition to Big Brother. Without Firefox, Big Brother would have virtually owned the internet and filled it with proprietary code. With its well-earned reputation of being a shark, Big Brother would have either bought out or stomped all over Opera.

Firefox has done a favor to not only its own users and Opera's who need to thank the makers of the browser, but also the users of Big Brother's bloated browser. Without Firefox, that browser would never have innovated. Even though it is abomination of a browser, at least its users have something more advanced than a stone-age non-tabbed browser.

Like I said, browser choice is quite personal. Yet, there has to be a reason why the same features didn't get Opera landslides of users while they did for Firefox. Why did Firefox become more successful despite being the less innovative browser?

The answer, in my view, is usability, simplicity and customisability. Firefox has long been the browser with the largest add-on or extension community. You can probably get a Firefox extension that will make you a sandwich. Now a lot of Opera users speak out at this and say most of Firefox's extensions, and then some, are already available in Opera. Does Firefox have a torrent downloader, they ask.

And that is exactly where Opera lost the plot.

Most people browsing on the net aren't really interested in all the extra features you have. For example, the torrent client. I certainly do use torrents to download Linux distros and would need a torrent client, but most people I know wouldn't know what a torrent was, let alone wanting a client. And even though I want a client, I wouldn't consider it a significant bonus to have it in my browser. It's not too much work for me to go download a dedicated client like Azureus which gives me more control and more info about my torrents than Opera. Certainly, the fact that Opera features a torrent client would hardly be a consideration for me to download it.

Another add-on in Firefox is the stupendously popular (among web designers) Firebug. I use it quite regularly, and I think its the best add-on I've ever used. In fact, its one of the finest pieces of software anywhere that I've used. But would I be very thrilled if they included Firebug in Firefox 4 by default? Nope. Because again, it doesn't take much to install it anyway. Yet, this is exactly what Opera have done in their latest version 9.5. They've added a new feature called Dragonfly which looks pretty similar to Firebug. And that is one of their biggest mistakes.

Why? For the same reason that RGV Ki Aag was a mistake. When you try to imitate a legend, a cult, you better have something that is at least 95% as good as the original if you want to just avoid the brickbats. Dragonfly is not as bad as Aag, but it doesn't have one of the most important capabilities that made Firebug a legend: CSS editing. To boot, its also clunkier to use. Result? People are going to compare it with Firebug, and since it doesn't come up to scratch, they're going to trash it anyway.

Will features like Dragonfly help Opera? I think not. Because most users aren't interested in things like Dragonfly/Firebug, and those who are, would not mind downloading a specialized and possibly better add-on. This is true for most of the extra features that exist in Opera but not in Firefox. People don't really mind downloading an add-on - if anything, it gives them a feeling of control and makes them feel like its their personal browser.

So what has Firefox done right? Most of the things that matter to users, in my view. A very important attribuete for a browser is to have a look consistent with the OS. Though no one can look entirely like Big Brother's browser, I've found that Firefox adopts the look of its environment to quite a large extent. Opera, though, has an entirely unique look and feel. The dialog boxes, the menus, all look entirely different from the OS you use. It's beyond just the looks - its also in the the interaction with the user.

Back when Big Brother was not so big, and was actually lagging in the spreadsheet market behind Lotus 1-2-3, they made a decision that would be one of their best designs decisions at that time. Senior people at Big Inc. were not impressed by the "battleship style" A1, B1, C3 notations of Lotus 1-2-3. They preferred the L1C1 format. They finally decided to include the A1, B1 naming and have L1C1 format as an option. The result? People using Lotus 1-2-3 did not find it hard to migrate to Big Inc's spreadsheet. By not making it harder for Lotus users to make a shift, Big Inc. just increased their chances of breaking the stranglehold of 1-2-3.

There is a lesson for Opera in this - it's not the features that are paramount. It is how you allow users to access those features. If you want to open a link in a new tab, Shift-Click is no less illogical than Ctrl-Click. But Ctrl-Click has become the de facto standard today. Like it or not, that is the fact. It's like, in India, people drive on the left side of the road, and so buy right-hand drive cars. There is nothing more logical about right-hand drives than there is about left-hand drives, but if someone introduces a left-hand drive in India, it won't do as well as a right-hand drive.

A very good example of where Opera (and all other browsers, including Mr Big's) lost out is the humble Find, or Ctrl-F.

This is how Opera reacts when you try to find some text.

See? You need to type the whole search word, in this case "Lenovo". There may be no word starting with "Len" in the whole page, but you wouldn't know unless you typed the whole search word, clicked "Find" and were told it doesn't exist.



Now this is how Firefox deals with it.

You fire Ctrl-F, and a bar appears at the bottom for you to type the search word. It searches as you type. So if there is no word starting with "Len" in the page, you won't need to waste your time typing the whole word. The browser will inform you immediately that there is no such word.

As one commenter on a site said, Ctrl-F alone is enough to put paid to all claims by Mr Big and Opera. That's exaggeration, but it has a point. The thing most users require won't be torrent downloaders or Dragonflies. What they need is instant accessibility to your features. This functonality alone goes a long way to show that Opera have faltered in trying to be a technically centred browser while entirely ignoring the ease of use. Incidentally, this is also the mistake Linux distros have made, a mistake that distros like Ubuntu are slowly trying to correct.

All that I've said may look like small niggles, not major problems. But I feel it is these small problems that hold Opera back.

Firefox understood this. They mimick the OS look - their latest versions go one step further and customise themselves to look very much like a "native" app. They also try to mimick the shortcuts and the interface of Big Brother's browser. And yet in that, they end up providing most of the features that even though Opera provided earlier, could not effectively use to pump up its popularity. Which is why Firefox introduces features later but makes it easier to use them.

I'm considered a Firefox fan, but I do wish for Opera to understand this and do really well. Because the last thing I want is for Firefox developers to sit on their laurels. Big Brother provides a very pathetic browser that millions use only because it is bundled with their equally bloated and slow OS. Big Bro is indeed the biggest and most fierce opponent to Firefox. But it is Opera that blazes the trail for all others to follow.

Without Firefox, the internet would be in Big Brother's clutches, in other words, dead. Without Opera, innovation would certainly slow down. Just as Firefox's success benefited Big Bro's users, Opera's success too is important for Firefox users.

Sarvatra Izzat-O-Iqbal

Warning: Long Post

I recently got a forwarded article by Admiral (retd) Arun Prakash, on the 6th Pay Commission and the raw deal it gives to the forces. Arun Prakash was the Chief of the Navy from July 2004 to Oct 2006. I felt the article quite sincere and well-presented.

This is the content of the letter.

The country-wide demonstrations by ex-Servicemen (ESM) on 26th April and 7th May 08 to protest against the 6th Pay Commission report, were, by all accounts, conducted in a dignified and orderly manner; and that is exactly how it should have been. Now one hears some talk of a "hunger strike" by ESM, but it is my fervent hope that this will not come to pass.

I have a nagging feeling that by these uncharacteristic and extraordinary gestures we, the ESM, have diminished ourselves in the eyes of our countrymen. One can just visualize people who have never had the privilege of wearing uniform or of serving the nation's tricolour, smugly saying to themselves: "We always knew that their attitude of soldierly discipline and fortitude was only a facade. Deep down they are just like any of us."

I am aware that these remark are likely to upset many of our Veterans who, despite advancing years, are going to great lengths to make a dramatic gesture on behalf of their comrades-in- arms. To them, let me just say that my criticism is directed, not so much at their actions, As at the insensitive and callous system which has driven them, in Extremis, to such an unfortunate step.

An Ungrateful Nation?

In civilized nations the world over, the soldier, sailor and airman –and more so the Veteran – is an object of spontaneous respect, affection, admiration and the highest public esteem. These sentiments are made manifest by the people and the government of a grateful nation, in countless ways, in thought word and deed. There are monuments celebrating victories, statues of military heroes, war memorials for those who fell on the field of battle, avenues and squares named after soldiers and concessions for Servicemen in every sphere. Above all, Servicemen receive warm respect, affection and consideration from the general public as well as the media. None of this exists in India today.

I have no doubt whatsoever, that in cities like London, Paris, Washington or Moscow the dismal spectacle of Veterans reduced to "demonstrating" in public to ask for their dues, would have wrought agony in their countrymen. The citizens of New Delhi, God bless them, chose to ignore this "cry from the heart" of old warriors. The media, otherwise so intrusive and inquisitive, and so proud of their "independence" almost completely blacked out this significant gesture by the Veterans. The one TV channel which planned to air a related programme chickened out at the last minute. We can only speculate about the reasons for the media's sudden coyness.

From Major Som Nath Sharma who died fighting the Pakistani tribals in Badgam in 1947, to Captain Vikram Batra who laid down his life in the icy wastes of Kargil in 1999 there is a long Roll of Honour which lists the heroes and battle-casualties of the Indian Armed Forces. Just reading about their exploits of valour and self-sacrifice is enough to give one goose pimples. It is the inspiration provided by such brave men which motivates our Armed Forces to great heights of dedication and commitment to the motherland. But does anyone else in the country remember their sacrifice? Or care?

Not even a decade has passed since Tiger Hill and Tololing were won back by our soldiers in the face of intense enemy opposition at a horrific cost in lives. But our citizens do not have the time to even light a candle in memory of those who fell in Kargil, or a hundred other battles, because their adulation seems to be reserved exclusively for cricketers, cine stars and politicians. One often wonders if patriotic young soldiers should be shedding blood for the safety and well being of a society as ungrateful as ours?

"Izzat-O-Iqbal" ?

Let us not be fooled by the razzmatazz that economists are feeding us about India's 9% GDP growth, or get carried away by the fabulous salaries offered by MNCs to young IIT and IIM graduates. As Indians, let us instead firmly bear in mind that 400-500 million of our brothers and sisters still survive on less than 40 rupees a day. I personally think that within the means available to the nation, the Armed Forces, and most of the ESM are paid enough. I say this without prejudice to the perfectly justified protest of the Armed Forces against the insidious manner in which the IAS has been steadily propelling itself upward to their detriment.

Really, it is not the money that bothers us. What the Serviceman and the Veteran find inexplicable and galling is something altogether different. They wonder why there has been a steady and continuing erosion in the soldier's position and status in society while the responsibilities, hardships and hazards of soldiering have grown over the years.

Apart from their crucial role in defending the nation against every threat and calamity, the Armed Forces are making a vital contribution to the country's social fabric. It is they who have promoted the ideals of integrity, discipline, professionalism and excellence, sadly lacking in every other walk of life. In the midst of prevailing chaos, the Armed Forces have remained an embodiment of order and discipline, and have faithfully upheld India's secular and democratic traditions. There just isn't any group, organization or set of individuals which has sustained the integrity, security and stability of the Indian state, with the steadfastness and loyalty demonstrated by the Indian Armed Forces.

Is it then surprising if the Soldier agonizes over the fact that in spite of his huge contribution to the nation, his Izzat has been Deliberately denuded by vested interests, and Iqbal denied to him by His countrymen?

I do not claim to have answers to the Soldier's dilemma, but I think that the issues involved have assumed such importance that they need to be examined in some depth. Let me place before the reader, four factors which I think have contributed to the steady and ongoing erosion of the soldier's image, and the degradation of his status in Indian society, with consequential effects.

Political Antipathy

Mahatma Gandhi's firm adherence to the noble principle of non-violence throughout India's independence struggle has no parallel in history. He was a great man with profound values, but misinterpretation of his unique vision led to the emergence of two surreal perceptions amongst India's political leadership.

For one they were convinced that since a non-violent India would have No enemies, the armed forces would become redundant after independence. Their second conviction was that the Indian Army was a mercenary force which had been used as a tool by the British to suppress the freedom movement, and deserved to be shown its place. They were utterly wrong on both counts, and such myths need to be demolished, because a man in uniform can today sense the cognitive lack of empathy, if not antipathy, to his cause in the in the political establishment of all shades.

Major General KM Cariappa (later the first Indian Commander-in- chief) called on Gandhiji in December 1947 and sought his advice on how he should put across the concept of ahimsa to his soldiers whose dharma was to fight for the nation. The Mahatma pondered over the question and replied: "I am still groping in the dark for the answer. I will find it and give it to you one day." A month later he fell to an assassin's bullet, and Cariappa never received an answer. But by then the first of our illusions had already been shattered in October 1947, when Pakistani hordes came pouring into Baramulla and it was only the Indian Army's gallantry which saved the Valley.

The politicians were right that the British Indian Army, true to its salt, had served the King-Emperor loyally in both World Wars. But after the string of early British defeats in WW II, Indian prisoners of war (PoWs) in Singapore, Germany and Italy were confronted with the most awesome moral dilemma that a soldier can ever face; a choice between the oath they had given to the King and the chance to fight for freedom of the motherland, being offered by Netaji Subhash Bose.

After agonizing over this veritable dharma sankat and fully recognizing the terrible consequences of either option, many Indian officers and jawans decided for their motherland, with the result that:

• 3000 Indian PoWs were formed into the Legion Freies Indien or Free Indian Legion as a unit of the German Wehrmacht.
• A unit named the Battaglione Azad Hindoustan was formed out of Indian PoWs in Italy.
• 40,000 out of 45,000 PoWs in Singapore joined the Azad Hind Fauj or INA as it was commonly known.
  

The story of these expatriate Indian warriors is a romantic but forgotten chapter in India's freedom struggle. Suffice it to say that the Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind (Provisional Government of Free India) formed in Singapore by Bose in 1943 declared war on the British Empire, and the INA units fought a bitter campaign against them in Burma with "Dilli Chalo" as their inspiring slogan.

In early 1946, ratings of the Royal Indian Navy mutinied, and the insurrection spread right across the country, with units of the RIAF, Army Signal Corps and EME joining their naval comrades in revolt. These events not only inspired and galvanized the freedom movement in India, but also struck fear into British hearts. General Wavell, the C-in-C admitted in a secret report: "It is no use shutting one's eye to the fact that any Indian soldier worth his salt is a Nationalist…"

Disciplined Services never dwell on mutinies, regardless of the cause, and that is why these events rarely find mention in our Armed Forces, But the powerful impact on the British Sarkar of these acts of great moral courage, must not be disparaged, belittled or forgotten. So anyone who says that the Indian soldier did not contribute to India's freedom movement is either ignorant or deliberately suppressing the truth.

The phase immediately post-Independence too, was extremely difficult for our fledgling nation. To forget the sterling role played by the Armed Forces during the violence and turbulence of partition, and in integrating the recalcitrant princely states would be an act of rank ingratitude. Over the years, as our glaring strategic naiveté repeatedly led to adventurism by our neighbours in 1947, 1962, 1965 and 1999, it was invariably the gallantry and patriotism of the Armed Forces which saved the nation from disintegration and dishonour.

The Bureaucracy Strikes

From many post-Independence historical accounts it appears that the politician possibly felt not only ill at ease with the soldier, but also disdained the "military intellect". This was an ideal situation for the civil servants to exploit to the hilt.

Although the British had devised a workable interim organizational structure for the divided Indian armed forces, it fell to the bureaucracy to work out the nuts and bolts, and to implement it. Showing the Armed Forces "their place" was simple for the mandarins of the Indian Civil Service (ICS). Possibly holding out the spectre of a military coup to the gullible politician, and deliberately misinterpreting the principle of "civilian control", they created a structure which suited them ideally, and brought the Armed Forces under bureaucratic control.

In the UK the Navy, Army and Air Force were then run respectively by The Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry. Each of these were ministries, headed by a Minister of Cabinet rank designated by convention as the "Secretary of State for…" and often referred to as just "Secretary". In India the ICS created a unique structure with a "Ministry of Defence" composed of a number of Departments, manned exclusively by itinerant civilian generalists, and headed by a bureaucrat of Secretary rank. External to the MoD and subordinate to the Department of Defence they created three "Attached Offices" one each for the Army, Navy and Air Force HQs.

So at one fell swoop, the bureaucracy had:

• Placed the Service HQs well outside the Government of India, whom they could only approach through the MoD.
• Effectively subordinated the Service Chiefs to decision-making at the lowest rungs of the MoD, since every file "submitted" by the Service HQ had to be routed bottom-upwards in the MoD, starting at Under-Secretary level.
• Kept the Service Chiefs and the Defence Minister safely distanced from each other.
• The political establishment of the day was probably informed that the affairs of the Services were being run by a Secretary, "just like in the UK" and they must have been relieved to have the bureaucracy manage complex defence matters for them. The military leadership of the time was probably too naïve and inexperienced to even realize the iniquity of the system imposed on them. The feeble noises that we have made thereafter, have naturally fallen on the deaf ears of the IAS bureaucracy; successor service to the "heaven born" ICS.

No one seems to have pointed out the fact that in the best and oldest democracies of the world, "civilian control" over the Armed Forces is best exercised by the simple expedient of having the head of the Armed Forces (be it a CDS, Chairman Joint Chiefs or Chef d'Etat Majeur) as the right hand of the President or the Prime Minister, and charged with rendering advice on strategic/military matters.

The Damage Inflicted by Media

Possibly the greatest damage to the public image of the Armed Forces as well as to their self-esteem has been inflicted by the Indian media. This predatory beast finds, in the Armed Forces, instant gratification and tremendous payback for very little effort. They see an institution, and a set of people who set for themselves, extraordinarily high standards of conduct, and when accused of misdemeanor, react with pain and anguish. What can be more satisfying for the slavering media hounds?

That their uniformed victim is bound and gagged, and unable to respond, is even better for them because he can then be maligned with impunity for the sake of mindless sensationalism. Regrettably, many of the young media-persons are neither well informed about the Armed Forces, nor do they undertake serious study of the subject.

It is for this reason that one rarely sees serious, well-researched and thought provoking articles on defence matters. On the other hand it appears that every trivial issue relating to the Armed Forces has to be either a sensational "scam", "cover-up" or "serious embarrassment" , otherwise it is perhaps not considered news-worthy by the editors. The hostile attitude of the media towards the only institution in the country which undertakes quick investigation and fixation of accountability, and metes out swift justice is inexplicable.

Today any disgruntled person, vested interest or even agent of a foreign power can entice the India media with the promise of a "defence scandal", and they will happily proceed to malign the Armed Forces. Neither the good name and reputation of its leadership, nor morale of the rank and file of the Armed Forces, nor indeed any concern for the truth are matters of slightest concern for the irresponsible journalists or their arrogant editors.

Having done their best to denigrate the nation's Armed Forces in the public eye, the media will then report with great glee, the number of unfilled vacancies in National Defence Academy and Indian Military Academy. Need the Armed Forces look any further? The enemy is within.

The Inner Discord

Such is the power of Jointmanship, that whenever the Chairman COSC has occasion to use the phrase, "the three Chiefs are of the view…" whether in writing or verbally, all obstacles in the MoD and elsewhere tended to melt away. Unfortunately, there are not too many instances when this phrase can actually be used.

Disagreements between the Chiefs on professional issues will take place, and can be resolved in the COSC room, but it is discord among the three Services more than any other factor that is exploited to the fullest by the political establishment and the bureaucracy, and which has led to the devaluation which we lament today. On any difficult issue taken up by the Armed Forces the attempt by the MoD will be to strike separate bargains with the Services and defuse the issue.

So if the Services keep sliding down the Warrant of Precedence, or one rank one pay is denied to ESM, or the War Memorial is kept in limbo, the Services have only their own disunity to blame.

This is a subject on which volumes could be written to the delight of our detractors, and therefore need not be discussed here. In the context under discussion, suffice it to say that a sea change can come about, if the Service Chiefs, placing the larger interests of the Armed Forces above all other considerations, jointly request the government to take forward the process of integration to implement the following at the earliest:

A full time Chairman COSC who can devote 100% of his time to common issues affecting the three Services, and then spend as much time as Required in pursuing them with the Government.

Actual integration of the Service HQ with the MoD (the current term "Integrated HQ of MoD" is a complete charade), so that civilian and Uniformed functionaries can be deployed interchangeably in the Ministry.

These are by no means magic mantras and will neither end discord nor bring harmony into the Services overnight. But they are the first steps to ensure that the Armed Forces speak with one voice and thus protect themselves against exploitation.

The 6th Pay Commission

I come finally to the burning issue of the day, the 6th Pay Commission, because the Internet is rife with disinformation today.

Setting out at great length, the historical and contemporary reasons for his request, on 12th April 2006 the Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC) wrote a letter to the Raksha Mantri (RM), seeking his "…personal intervention for the appointment of a Service Officer as a constituted member of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, likely to be announced shortly." The letter went on to remind the RM that, "…while the first two Pay Commissions were dedicated exclusively to the Armed Forces, from the third CPC onwards, the emoluments of the Armed Forces became just one more issue to be examine, but a lack of Service representation was perhaps one of the main reasons for the dissatisfaction expressed by the Services post 5th CPC award."

Four weeks later, on 16th June 2006, the Chairman followed up this Letter with a reminder, forwarding the names of three serving and two retired officers as possible candidates, with the request that, 'the RM may like to have the panel vetted by the MoD in order to select the best qualified candidate" to serve on the 6th Pay Commission.

During frequent discussions that took place in the three months that remained to him as RM, the Minister did convey to the Chiefs that he was experiencing difficulties in convincing his cabinet colleagues regarding this issue, but expressed optimism that he would find a way for the CPC to receive a direct input from the Services.

It is a tradition in the MoD not to respond to any communication from the Service Chiefs in writing, and therefore the Service HQs will have no record of what transpired within the MoD. However, a letter from the Chairman COSC has to be placed on file and discussed at length between the bureaucracy before a recommendation is made to the Minister. At this juncture, only a request to the MoD under the RTI can bring out the record on file, as to what the MoD recommended and why this request was denied.

The fact however remains that for the sixth time in succession, the Armed Forces remained unrepresented on a Pay Commission. The resulting unhappiness amongst the Services and the ESM was a foregone
conclusion.

Conclusion

Bitterly recounting poetic verse about soldiers "slighted" or "ignored" by an ungrateful nation is not going to stir many consciences in India. Also one cannot help having serious reservations About public protests through the medium of marches, dharnas or hunger-strikes by ESM. Whether they have the desired impact or not (many states imposed Section 144 in affected towns) such displays of "trade unionism" will erase the last distinction between the proud ethos of the Armed Forces/ESM and the rest; both in our own minds as well as in the minds of our countrymen.

It is rightly said that there is nothing easier than for Veterans, free of any responsibility, to render advice to their serving comrades From the safety and security of retirement. Therefore, having drawn attention to the factors which need to be tackled by the Services with resolve and unity, I shall refrain from adding anything further.

Except to quote a few lines from the autobiography of General Lord Ismay, in the hope that they will be read by those at the helm of the nation: "A country may have powerful armed forces, led by brilliant commanders; it may have statesmen of great competence; it may have immense wealth; it may have industries which are most efficiently run; but unless the statesmen and soldiers at the summit work together in a spirit of mutual esteem, the essential coordination will be lacking, and there is bound to be deadly waste of blood and treasure."

General Ismay should know; he was Churchill's Chief of Staff, confidante and alter ego right through World War II.

** "Sarvatra Izzat-O-Iqbal" is the hybrid Sanskrit-Persian post-Independence motto of the Regiment of Artillery, which means: "Honour and Esteem Everywhere".

Review: The 3 mistakes of my life

Chetan Bhagat, who the New York Times believes is India's best selling English novelist today, has released his third book, "The 3 Mistakes of My Life".

If Chetan Bhagat is India's best selling English novelist, I really wonder what other books Indians are reading, and for some reason it doesn't give me much to cheer about.

Now let's leave that aside and come to the book itself. First off, calling anything a spoiler in a CB book is an insult to the word spoiler because frankly, there is very little unpredictable in his books. But for the convenience of those who would not like me to "spoil the story", I'm putting the customary disclaimer.

** Mild spoilers begin **

The subtitle would have you believe that it is "A story about business, cricket and religion". Interesting combination, I thought as I picked up the book. Three hours and 258 pages later, I'm a bit wiser.

This story, to put it in a nutshell (and the space of a nutshell is all that is required to hold this story) is about three good friends and the girlfriend of the protagonist. Now, where have we heard that before? Did I just hear a voice saying "Five Point Someone"?

Now for the friends themselves. Loser-boy Alok from FPS turns into loser-boy Omi. The "hero" of the story, Govind is Hari Ver 2.0. And coincidence of coincidences, cool passionate nuts-and-bolts dude Ryan, the guy who doesn't get along with his parents, becomes cool passionate nuts-and-bolts dude Ish, the guy who doesn't get along with his parents. The last one had me flummoxed, because last time I heard, "Ish" was that annoying word Ash liked to use in that movie lemon, Devdas.

Just in case people started wondering if Bhagat had done a direct Ctrl-C Ctrl-V from FPS, the author pulls out the biggest innovative surprise of his career - namely, the girlfriend Neha, daughter of Cherian becomes the girlfriend Vidya, sister of Ish. Another innovation, loser-boy Alok, who had the slightly redeeming quality of being good with bookish knowledge, now loses that too in the transfomation to Omi, transferring it to Govind.

** Mild spoilers end **

Omi, Govind (the protagonist) and Ish are three 20-somethings in Ahmedabad, trying to start a business of their own. Govind, the guy who loves business and anything to do with numbers, is the mastermind behind the operation to start a cricket shop. Ish happens to be an ex-district level cricket player, which lends him an "expert advisor" status to the kids visiting the shop. Omi, an idiot (Govind's words) chips in with his only contribution - his family owns the temple in whose premises the shop opens. You can read the official synopsis here

So in case you were wondering where the tagline of "business, cricket and religion" came in, its because they run a cricket shop cum coaching business in temple premises.

When the tagline says "religion" and is set in Gujarat, you know its going to mention the riots. Indeed, the riots play in important part in the novel. But they are presented with such naivete that you begin to wonder whether CB has even done a cursory scanning of the newspapers.

Tackling a subject like the communal divide in India is not easy. All the more reason to take it seriously and not trivialise it like CB seems to have done. The characters involved in the religious turmoil are as unidimensional as it is possible to be.

The most ridiculous part is when he refers to a "secular party" and "communal party." OK, I know there can be legal issues when referring to actual parties in fiction, but calling them like this is so simplistic it makes me cringe. You can always give parties names or symbols. Of course, CB is nothing if not mind-numbingly simplistic. So we get a dose of the same old BJP-is-evil-Congress-is-angelic story that is repeated ad nauseam in the media.

Somewhere, CB does realise he is getting too one-sided and gives what he thinks is a more centrist view, but its obvious that he is out of his depth when discussing religion and politics, the same way he was out of his depth when dishing out his homemade (and undercooked) philosophy in his last outing, ON@TCC.

When FPS came out, people were quite impressed with the story and with a certain freshness that CB brought to the table. After his second novel, that gigantic lemon called One Night @ the Call Centre, perhaps CB thought that he better move to safer territory and try to redo the FPS formula.

The trouble is, the FPS formula worked because FPS was a college story. It would have worked for any college story or for a story of 20-somethings with rich dads. But not for middle-class 20-somethings who work two jobs to make ends meet. Just because a bikini-clad "size-zero" (I suppose it goes well with her IQ) Kareena Kapoor became the talk of the town, doesn't mean clothing Nirupa Roy in those clothes would have worked. Same problem here.

Maybe that's why the bindaas humor, which was the greatest strength of FPS, is missing here. It just doesn't go very well with the context. When he does indulge in it though, the jokes seem like they're getting tired of being told over and over again.

There is a serious problem of writers block when 4 years after his debut, an author publishes a book that seems entirely like a plagiarised version of his first novel. Indeed, if it didn't have CB's name on it, I would have thought it was a cheap imitation, much like Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag was to Sholay.

Chetan Bhagat, with this novel has made the second biggest mistake of his life (ON@TCC being the first). Perhaps he should leave aside the serious stuff like philosophy and really go back to the basics of the FPS formula.

Back to the drawing board, boy.

Flag Lapel Issues

I'm not very well-versed with the proposed policies of the three remaining individual candidates in the running for the Democratic and Republican nominations for the US Presidential elections, but I have been more than a bit impressed by one candidate - Barack Obama. Or as his detractors would prefer, Barack Hussein Obama.
`
I don't agree with all that he does, and behind his message of hope and change he could possibly be just another politician. But one quality that has really caught my attention is how Obama has managed to bring people face to face with their own prejudices.

One of his now lesser-talked-about stances is his insistence on not wearing the flag lapel. These little pins, painted in the colors of the American flag, have become almost a mandatory fashion accessory for presidential candidates and politicians to showcase their patriotism. Obama, though differs, claiming that flag lapels have become empty symbolism and a substitute for true patriotism.

Obama's view makes sense. Patriotism is not as simple as wearing a pin on your jacket. Wearing or not wearing a pin proves nothing about one's patriotism. Wearing a pin is an easy thing to do - real patriotism is far tougher.

Why am I mentioning all this here? Because I feel we Indians too have our own flag lapel issues, giving greater importance to mere symbols than actual achievements. Patriotism is coming to be judged, even in this country on such hollow grounds.

Case in point: NR Narayana Murthy. The Infosys icon and poster boy of India Inc was accused of having played an instrumental version of the national anthem at a function which the then President APJ Abdul Kalam was attending. This was done, as Murthy later explained, to prevent an embarrassment to some foreign delegates who were also present.

Nothing very condemnable about it. Its easy to see where NRN is coming from - I've faced such a situation myself. In my college in Chennai, they used to end functions, with an ode to Tamil Nadu, known as the Tamil Thaivazhthu (not sure if that is the right spelling). The tune of the song was fairly melodius; not knowing the language, I can't comment upon its lyrics and their poetic value. And also, not knowing the language also meant that every time the song was sung, to be surrounded by people singing it with gusto felt a bit weird and uncomfortable. I can understand therefore why a foreigner would feel similarly about the Jana Gana Mana, though he may appreciate the musical quality. In light of all that, what Murthy did is not only all right, it is also a fine gesture of goodwill.

But predictably, our highly charged and "patriotic" leaders stepped in, aghast at Murthy's egregious "insult" to the national anthem. I've personally attended different functions of the navy, including two where the Governor of the state and the Chief of the Army Staff were presiding. And on all occassions without fail I have heard the instrumental version being played. It is definitely not an insult to the anthem to play it instru.

Let's leave that aside though, and ask the bigger question: does a man like Murthy need to prove his patriotism? That too, to politicians who are responsible for the rut we find ourselves in today? Murthy and his associates helped create an industry that brings revenue to this country, and provides jobs to large numbers engineering and science graduates. He's helped change the image of India from a land of snake charmers to a land of software engineers. Yes, even this image is flawed since it neglects the troubles of the farming sector, but it does not change the contribution that Murthy has made to this country and its economy.

Yet Murthy had a case slapped against him by the Karnataka police, and was made to apologise for something that never deserved an apology. Why did this need for symbolism trump the far bigger evidence of patriotism, the elephant in the room, so to speak?

The same thing happened with Sachin Tendulkar, who had a complaint lodged against him for cutting a cake in the colours of the Indian flag. That's right. Sachin Tendulkar, acknowledged as one of our greatest cricketers ever, the man who saved the Indian team the blushes on so many occassions, the man whose heroics won the Man of the Series in the ICC World Cup 2003, is a traitor, as our hyper-patriots would have us believe.

Its happened with Sania Mirza too. The case against her is actually non-existent. The photo with her feet near the flag is easily identified as a photo trick. I can produce the same effect, and I'm no photographer.

Interesingly, all the people who rushed in to condemn Murthy, Sachin and Sania have no qualms walking the streets on the 16th of August and 27th of January each year, when tricolors form a nice carpet on the roads. I have never seen a single one of these gung-ho patriots pick up even a single flag lying on the road. Does anyone then have the right to question the patriotism of people who have made significan achievements in their fields and put India on the map in those fields?

And that's where Obama's statements come in.

"I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

"You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. And you show your patriotism by being true to your values and ideals. And that's what we have to lead with, our values and ideals," Obama said.

I don't know how sincere or patriotic Obama is, but that captures the essence of patriotism better than any of our media patriots.

Flag lapel issues exist everywhere, even in our own backyard. And we need to reject such superficial claims of patriotism and see what people have actually done to claim themselves as patriotic, or brand others as unpatriotic.

Reviews: The Kite Runner and A Thousand Splendid Suns

I had heard a lot of good things about two novels published by a new Afghan author, and decided to try them out. When I began with the first novel, I expected a kind of quasi-documentary on Afghan history. As it turns out, I was wrong.

First things first. Khaled Hosseini, the author of the two novels is, as mentioned, an Afghan, settled in the US and is also a member of the UN refugee agency. His two novels are set in Afghanistan, and they tell two quite different stories in a breathtakingly powerful manner. The first novel is not a new one; but I got around to reading it only recently.

The Kite Runner is Hosseini's first novel. Beginning in the 1970s, it tells the story of two young boys, the narrator Amir, and his friend Hassan. They are nigh inseparable, the thickest of friends as you would suspect – but not quite. Hassan is not just a friend of Amir – he is also the son of Amir's servant. And a Hazara, a race that is considered a lower caste. For these reasons, Amir never really admits that Hassan is indeed his friend. Nor does he ever stand up for Hassan whenever other Pashtun kids jeer at his race.

The book's name comes from the kite-flying competition (something the Taliban later banned). Amir struggles to gain acceptance in the eyes of his strict father, who he knows admires Hassan more. Amir is no sportsman, though he is a gifted teller of stories and a poet, but his father appreciates neither. The only avenue left to gain his father's favor is to win the annual kite-flying competition. The competition is a game of skill, requiring participants to cut opponents' kites and be the last man standing. The kite runner is a boy who chases fallen kites and tries to catch them before other kite runners do. Hassan is renowned as one of the best kite runners, and when Amir finally wins the kite competition, it is Hassan who retrieves his last opponent's kite.

But Amir's cowardice culminates in an incident that will haunt him for the rest of his life. It is the beginning of what, for him, is a nagging feeling of guilt that demands redemption.

One of Hosseini's many gifts is the ability to seamlessly weave in real events with the events of his story, giving you the perspective of how those events altered the lives of real people in Afghanistan.

When the Russians invade, Amir and his father, who are among Kabul's elite, escape Afghanistan to land up in the US, where, years later, Amir becomes a famous writer. Yet the ghosts of the past continue to haunt him until one day in 2001, he receives a call that will send him back into the cauldron that Afghanistan has become thanks to the efforts of the Soviets, the Mujahideen and the Taliban.

It is to the author's credit that he does not make the Afghanistan trip look like an adventure. Instead, he focuses on showing a nation that has crumbled, been pummeled by history. No one has been left unscathed and unscarred by the years of battles is what Hosseni tries to say, and he succeeds at it.

The novel is dedicated to the children of Afghanistan. And the sheer terror that the Taliban has inspired is again shown very well. But the best part, the most gripping, is the depiction of the friendship between Amir and Hassan in the first half of the book.

The Kite Runner was a novel that I had difficulty believing was a first attempt. Hosseini deftly manages to put in enough pathos, history and tragedy without making it look forced for the most part. The one minor gripe I had with the book is that at some places, the flow wasn't too smooth, especially Amir's life in America. But perhaps that could be justified to show the contrast with life in Afghanistan.

I thought The Kite Runner was powerful stuff. It was indeed a very engaging story, told with every ounce of sensitivity and quite touching. But as good as it is, The Kite Runner is greatly overshadowed by the shining brilliance Hosseini's second attempt, A Thousand Splendid Suns.

As the cover suggests, this is a novel about the women of Afghanistan. It begins with the story of 15 year old Mariam, who is a harami, a bastard daughter of a rich man and his servant. The word, for obvious reasons, is one she hates, but it is the word that all around her use to describe her. Staying near the town of Herat with her epileptic mother, she longs to join the family of her father.

Tragedy strikes and her mother dies. Mariam's father, who never wanted her, is forced to take her into his household. This arrangement doesn't last for long though, and Mariam is hurriedly married of to Rashed, a man thirty years her senior. And an abusive husband to boot.

After moving to Kabul with Rasheed, life quickly goes downhill for her, and at one point you think it just can't get worse. That is when Hosseini shows that the word "worse" has a different meaning for women in Afghanistan.

Because Laila, a neighbor of theirs, and a girl almost twenty years younger than Mariam is about to undergo a tragedy far worse than even Mariam. Laila is the direct opposite of Mariam. She is a literate girl, with a father whose ideas would be considered very progressive. He strongly believes in getting her an education and later a job – these were days when women could work in Afghanistan. With him, and her boyfriend Tariq, she visits the Bamiyan Buddhas, the same that the Taliban would later destroy.

It's too good to last though. As the war with the Soviets begins, Tariq and his family move to Pakistan, leaving Laila with her family. And her family do not stay long either. They are killed in a blast, of which she is the lone survivor. In these circumstances, Rasheed takes her in, and she is pressganged into marrying him as his second wife.

Predictably, this does not please Mariam, and a cold war begins. On this blog, it may sound the stuff of our dreary TV serials. But that impression couldn't be further from the truth, as you realize when you go further. The ordeal and hardships just get worse with the onset of the Communists, the Mujahideen, the warlords and finally, the Taliban. There was a real progression in barbarity in these successive regimes is used to full effect to show how it influences the lives of these two women.

The barbarity of the regimes is paralleled by the barbarity of Rasheed, which also increases in a similar progression. The women who began as adversaries soon find themselves befriending each other in a world where they have no other friends and no other options.

The novel begins on a slow note, but once the author has shown the contrasts between the two women's individual lives, and brought them together, the story simply becomes more heart wrenching with every chapter. Some points in the novel deserve special mention: the meeting that Laila has with Zaman, an orphanage director and one of the “few good men” left in Afghanistan; Mariam's interactions with Laila's children; Mariam's decision at the end of the book and Laila's reaction to it; and of course the ending itself, which I will not spoil.

While Laila's ordeal seems the harsher of the two, Mariam's role most closely mirrors of Hassan's in the previous novel, and her character simply wins all sympathies by the heartbreaking end.

The events may sometimes seem improbable – its often too barbaric that it may seem artificial. But many Afghan women have experiences that are arguably just as dramatic as as the one presented by Hosseini. Certainly, the barbarities that Laila and Mariam are subjected to, both at home and outside, are not something we've not heard, but stringing them together into one story that is more shattering and devastating than what we are normally used to. And while that may look unreal, we only need to read the Taliban's decrees to know that it was chillingly real.

The novel is not without its share of flaws – some parts in the beginning of Mariam's story are a bit melodramatic and Bollywood-ish, and the epilogue seems a bit too stretched, though a fervent message of hope redeems the final pages.

But in essence, Hosseni's second novel is gripping, extremely powerful and deeply touching. There have been very few novels I've come across that have been as moving as A Thousand Splendid Suns. It is indeed one of the most powerful and honest novels I've ever read.

Both the novels bring you face to face with a country which has been utterly destroyed, ruined and shattered, like the peace of mind of Amir and the lives of Mariam and Laila. But just as there is redemption for Amir in The Kite Runner and a new life for the women in A Thousand Splendid Suns, the novels raise a desperate hope that Afghanistan and its people will never have to again undergo what they have undergone these last thirty years.

...Lekin aap to santusht hain!

I was once watching a children's quiz on a regional channel. The participants were all in their early teens or younger, and one of the rounds involved asking the children the spelling of some common word. Up came an eager-looking kid who gave the spellings of words such as “excellent” excellently, though he did stumble at words like “hazardous”. Finally he was asked the spelling of the word “vacuum”. He seemed to be confused, but ended up answering “vacyum”. The correct answer, as the quiz master and the on-screen display said, was “vaccum”.

That reminded me of a quiz I had participated in many years ago. It was held on the eve of independence day, and students from 5^th to 10^th class were all participating. At the end there was a tie between our team and another, and the tie-breaker was the question: who was the iron man of India. We hit the buzzer and answered confidently, “Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel”, only to be told it was Lokmanya Tilak. All participants from the 5^th to the 10^th claimed it was Patel, but the quiz master (mistress?) batted for Tilak.

Of course, what had happened was that the quiz master had probably selected the questions from one of the handy quiz books and had by mistake, perhaps copied question 141 and answer 142. Or maybe the quiz book itself was wrong; because certainly every single book of history says it was Patel, not Tilak. And anyone familar with school textbook history would know why.

Now look at it in a bigger context – people conducting a spelling competition where the organizers don't know spellings themselves and their knowledge of Patel is weaker than those they are testing. “Vacuum” is an easy word to spell wrong, but if the organizers had just typed the word into MS Word, they would have seen a red underline below it. That was the bare minimum that was required to ensure quality for the quiz. The other quiz organizer could have referred to any history textbook before asking questions, but she didn't. And when all students from 5^th to 10^th class were saying unanimously that it was Patel, perhaps a fact check was in order. But that never happened. It was as though the allegation of inaccuracy did not even merit a verification! It sounds funny, a kind of “life is unfair” moment, and that's perfectly acceptable.

What is not acceptable though, is the total negligence of quality. A quiz that tests others should be first and foremost, impeccable in its own general knowledge and diction. But these quizzes weren't, and this disregard for quality isn't confined to quizzes. It is part of almost every dealing we've had in our lives.

Service for any internet provider is an example. In my own dealings with three prominent companies, I've seen that none of them have the slightest idea of the technicalities involved. Running my system on Linux, I was facing some problems which I tried to resolve with one of them. As it turned out, the tech support guys said they had no idea about Linux. Well, the moment a networking guy tells you he doesn't know Linux or Unix, you can be sure he's a fake. Networking is taught on these operating systems, yet people running an internet service have no idea about it. But as I later found out, I had been expecting too much from the company, because as it turned out, the customer service of the same company had no idea how their own company billed its customers – the very customers they were supposed to be servicing!

Be honest: when was the last time any Indian company floored you, as a customer, with its sheer service quality? Look all around you, from your internet to your cable TV provider, your telephone service to your passport agent, anywhere. When was the last time you could book a ticket online without a glitch? When was the last time you faced a technical problem that was solved in one call?

Is it because we Indians can't provide good service? No, that is simply not true. Good service is the reason why companies like Dell and HP and McAfee put their call centers in India. It is documented for many companies that technical and customer service available in Indian call centers is better qualitatively than support provided in China or Philippines or sometimes even the home country of the company itself! My own friends in some international call centers told me that if they were as clueless as the customer care in Indian companies, they would be fired from their jobs.

Then why are we unable to provide the same world-class service to our own people? In fact, why is world-class different from the class offered to fellow Indians?

The free market should have solved this problem. The amount of choices we have today is drastically greater than the choices we had even 5 years ago. This should have meant, in theory, that market forces would have favored those companies that provided good service. But theory hasn't worked.

There was a recent ad by Shahrukh Khan which I think has the answer. Khan talks about how cable operators provide grainy coverage, fewer channels and paltry service, and he taunts the viewer sardonically, “... lekin aap to, santusht hain,” (but you guys are still satisfied). In other words, we are easily satisfied with even the poorest service that we get. We don't produce quality for our own countrymen because our own countrymen never demand it. We are, as Khan puts it so brilliantly, “santusht” with poor quality.

Which is why we have ATMs that don't work for a whole month in a city like Bangalore. We have customer support who don't know when, how and where a bill payment must be made. We have cable operators who put their phone off the hook because they say too many people complain about their services. And we have quiz masters not knowing who the iron man of India is or what the spelling of vacuum is.

The same ad also suggests a solution: “please, please and please, don't be santusht! Thoda aur wish karo.” Don't be satisfied with poor service. Don't be satisfied with people who don't know what they are doing. Wish for more and ask for more. Demand excellence.

There is a story about a shoemaker who provided the whole town with shoes. But the shoemaker himself, and his family, walked barefoot because he was never able to make shoes for any of them, because they never asked him to make shoes for them. So the question is, do you want to be that shoemaker's family?

Whats wrong with the loan waiver

The biggest news about the budget has been the Rs 60000 crores loan waiver. It's a brave move, we are told. The government, of course, would like us to believe that it is a silver bullet that will solve the problem of farmer suicides. But will it?

I'm no economist. But based on what I've been reading for the last few days, there are some things that I have tried to get a grip of on the subject. Now I'm not much concerned by the ideological argument that government should not interfere or that loan waivers encourage financial irresponsibility. If people are driven to commit suicide, I think we can forgo those considerations if it that will stop them from doing so. Besides, such freebies are given quite often to corporates in the form of SEZs, tax reliefs and the like. So the ideological opposition is moot. What I'm concerned with, is whether this waiver will actually serve its purpose.

To begin with, the loan waiver is only for those farmers who have 2 hectares. Those who have more have the option of having 25% of the loan waived if they pay the remaining 75%. That's where the trouble begins. Not all crops are the same. They don't have the same requirements of soil nutrients, land size etc. Nor do they have the same price. Some require more land, some less. For example, in Vidarbha, has been one of the most infamous for farmer suicides, average land holding is 3.5Ha.

But the waiver takes none of this into account and seems to assume that 2Ha of cotton is equal to 2Ha of sugarcane is equal to 2Ha of apples.. As P Sainath further explains in this article, even the timing is going to hit the farmers:

The cut-off date of March 31, 2007 works against even the small group of Vidarbha farmers who do benefit. Loans in the cotton regions are taken between April and June. In the cane growing regions, they are taken between January and March. This means the Vidarbha farmer has one less year of loans waived than the others.

Besides, there are a number of farmers all across India who are below the 2Ha limit, but not facing a crisis, such as in Kerala, as the article also points out. These people will also benefit from this waiver. Some of you may wonder why this is a problem. It is because, as Mohammad Yunus (Grameen Bank founder, micro-credit pioneer and Nobel Peace Price laureate) suggests, mixing the needy with not-so-needy within a programme leads to the not-so-needy driving the needy out of the benefits of the deal. In other words, the not-so-needy tend to dominate the benefits.

What's worse is the fact that loans from private moneylenders are not covered in this waiver. Why is this a bad thing? Because over three-fourths of people in MH alone are under loans from private moneylenders, as this report prepared by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences and tabled before the MH High Court, says.

The farmers took their first loan from banks (banks gave loan only once, with a further loan possible only after repayment of the outstanding loan). The later loans were from private parties to repay the bank loan (default of which would result in attachment of the land or mortgaged house). Even for those with an ability to get loan from the formal sector, access to informal sector loans was indispensable. Thus, over 75% of the farmers had loan commitments to non- formal sources.

And now comes probably the most dangerous aspect of the whole issue. On one hand we have a loan waiver that does not target the most important source of loans ie private loans, and on the other, we have the startling news that one rural commercial bank has been closed every day for the last 15 years.

The Reserve Bank of India’s Handbook of Statistics on the Indian Economy (2006-07) shows there were 30,639 rural branches of SCBs in 2007. That is, 4,750 less than the number in 1993. In other words, an average of 26 bank branches shut down each month, or one every working day.

However, branches in metros shot up from 5,753 to 11,826 in the same period. In other urban centres, the number climbed from 8,562 to 12,792 in this period, while also going up in semi-urban locations from 11,356 to 16,214.

And the rate, as that article further explains, was the highest in 2006, which was after the TISS report I mentioned earlier.

So putting these pieces together, we see that, rural commercial banks (whose loans are covered) have been closing down at an alarming rate while private moneylenders have been entering to fill their space, thereby worsening matters. This does not betray the intentions of a government serious about solving the problem of farmer suicides.

In short, the loan waiver suffers from a problem of targeting: its audience has not been targeted and nor has its timing.

Some people claim that, bad as it may be, it still is better than nothing. That is missing the point since, after all, the argument is not that nothing would be better. The point is that this loan waiver is not the best usage of the money the government has on its hands.

Farmer suicides is a complex crisis arising out of many factors. A research on these factors, and identifying which factors are most dominant in which areas would have yielded a policy which addressed specifically those points of concern. A loan waiver with terms tailored to meet the differing requirements, or maybe different smaller loan waivers, one for each concern area, would have proved a more effective use of taxpayer money.

The solution being offered by this blanket loan waiver is akin to a doctor who blindly gives Crocin to any and every patient who comes to him, ignoring the fact that the patient may actually in need of a tetanus injection or an antibiotic, or may even be having a fracture, all cases in which Crocin is hardly of any use.

In dealing with any complex problem, identification of its causes is the key and addressing those causes is how one proceeds. That is the practice used in engineering; it is the same practice that is lacking in this loan waiver.

As I said, I'm no economist. But as an engineer, as a citizen and a taxpayer, I refuse to believe that the best economists and researchers cannot come up with a solution that addresses the specifics of the factors causing suicides and utilizes public money in a more effective way. One size does not fit all