Find Your Original Value Systems


This post is not about “individual” values and value systems that we all originally grew up with, and sometimes abandon on the way of life for whatever reason(s).

This post is more about that moral beacon of the “free” world, the U.S. and how it has been diluting its own original values and value systems over the years for convenience and monetary/business reasons. There are always plenty of reasons why a country would abandon its values, the most critical one being political and / or business expediency. Countries sacrifice their values to make money, or for national security purposes. There are thousands of reasons why such a sacrifice is always portrayed as warranted, especially to the domestic audience.

There are hundreds of instances when the U.S. preached from a high moral ground to other nations, but secretly or sometime openly, pursued national goals which were totally contrary to its founding values. I am not documenting in this single post all the very bad things that the U.S. did in South America, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and elsewhere. There must be plenty of academic research carried out on this topic by its own universities who do not shy away from such research even if it is damaging to the country where they are based, and that is sheer goodness.

In the current state of global affairs, time has come for the U.S. to reassess its seven decades old strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia, and this is the main thrust of this post. I am not writing this post as the consequence of Jamal Khashoggi’s brutal murder and dismemberment at a Saudi diplomatic facility, which is totally and utterly despicable. Such pre-meditated actions only demonstrate that most of the Middle East region is yet to get out of their revengeful tribal mindset and integrate with the rest of the world. There is nothing special or unique about Saudi Arabia or for that matter, the Middle East as a region. Every region of the world is the same with similar people eking out a living. The governments make the difference.

My view is that Saudi Arabia is not going to change its ways, and the U.S. is going to be forever subservient to Saudi interests, simply because of two things: access to unlimited oil wealth and as a strong counterweight to Iran. For whatever reason, the U.S. continues to hate Iran, and is not going to reconcile with Iran. And, given that Iran is also a very proud nation dating back thousands of years of civilization, it is apparent that scores will be settled one day or the other between the two countries. In such eventuality, Saudi Arabia will be a key ally for the U.S. to count upon, and will take the brunt of any potential war with people and money.

But, in the process, both countries have seriously departed from their respective founding values. Apart from the known case of Khashoggi’s murder, the brutal war on Yemen which has unnecessarily killed thousands of innocent men, women and children, is a direct result of the planned collusion between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Where is the morality? Where is the human conscience? And, where is that useless organization that we are all funding called the United Nations?

The U.S. cannot be complicit in the execution of what can easily be determined as war crimes. It should stay well above such actions, and demonstrate its moral values in any part of the world. No point in arguing against Myanmar government for murdering the Rohingya Muslims on the one hand, but assisting Saudi Arabia to bomb civilian areas of Yemen on the other hand. What kind of value system is this and why are the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, as well as the U.S. citizens, not protesting against such egregious violations of human rights?

What applies at home should apply anywhere else as well. The U.S. needs to learn that every human life that it helps to kill in the name of even a “righteous” war (which it is not in the case of Yemen) would cause irreparable and severe damage to its own value systems; and as many believe, would come back to haunt it, like what happened with Vietnam.

We cannot and should not forget our roots – where we came from, what value we were born with, what values we grew up with, what kind of moral and social systems that we have imbibed, etc., Likewise, nations cannot and should not forget their own value systems, in the name of national security or strategic alliances, etc., If those issues are causing concern, there must be ways to tackle the same with the same firm value systems, and demand that every constituent or participant adhere to some basic common values as well. If the U.S. cannot or will not demand such compliance from its strategic partners, then it has no right to demand that other nations should adhere to its values either. There will be no moral high ground from which it can preach its values while destroying the same underneath the ground for its own benefit.

In a nutshell, my concern is that values are fast disappearing from international discourse and diplomacy. Every country is becoming short sighted. Every country stands ready to dilute its values. Every country is willing to sacrifice values in the altar of expediency. And, no country can be pointed out or blamed, since the high priest itself is engaging in similar activities.

Is this wrong? Absolutely.

Is this morally correct? Absolutely not.

Can such things be done in the name of national security? Surely not. There are other ways.

So friends, judge for yourself. Have a great week ahead,

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan

09 December 2018

 

 

Avoidable Deaths in Unnecessary Conflicts


I came across the following “Costs of War” website run by Watson Institute for International & Public Affairs of Brown University, U.S.

“Costs of War”

It is worthwhile spending some time on the reports published at this site, which have not been covered widely in the international media. The various analyses are revealing data that many of us do not have access to. The overall figure of deaths in the Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan related war on terror conducted by the U.S. and its allies is at least over a million, considering the casualties inflicted by diseases and infrastructural deficiencies caused by war in these underdeveloped countries.

I am not delving into the statistics at this site (which I strongly encourage my readers to go through anyway), but more into the human misery caused by wars such as this war on terror. Wars are always the result of misjudgements or forced error-prone judgements by civilian officials in governments who are susceptible to pressures from the military-intelligence nexus thirsting for war anywhere they deem it necessary. We know this from the historical evidence gathered in the aftermath of the Vietnam War which was caused by false information from a U.S. warship sent to the U.S. Defence Secretary and the Iraqi War on Terror based on false data presented to the U.N. Security Council by Colin Powell. Rarely has a serious conflict been caused by real evidence of attack by an enemy from the field (except the World Wars I & II). What powerful countries look for is a justification to launch a war based on any kind of provocation or any kind of false data.

Why do they do such a thing as start an armed struggle which they know would cause unnecessary casualties on either side, or serious civilian collateral damage, even if they know they would win the war? The U.S. lost the war in Vietnam, it was defeated and humiliated by the Communist North Vietnam in 1975, though it was already a super power. Did it not learn its lessons from that war? Why send finely trained soldiers into war and lose them for good? Why spend so much of taxpayer money (USD 5.6 T in the war on terror till 2017) which could have been invested within the U.S. for the benefit of the people of the U.S.?

At the end of the day, the purpose is to “teach an unforgettable lesson” to the enemies or terrorists who attacked the U.S. in 2001. Terrorism has not gone away and has not been eliminated as a result of the “war on terror”. What we know for sure is that more than USD 5 T has been spent, more than half a million people are dead for sure, more enemies have been created on the ground in the Middle East, the Syrian & Yemen conflicts are not even counted in the above war on terror, and so on and so forth. If the purpose is to teach a strong lesson to aspiring terrorists, and also to eliminate every existing terrorist, then that purpose has not been accomplished. “Mission Accomplished” by George W Bush was a falsity as the world knew even then.

Targeted elimination of specific terrorists is very challenging and may not be possible at all. While that objective has to be pursued without any doubt, the unnecessary killing of suffering civilians in these countries need to stop. Need to totally stop. Will the Western countries allow such killings in their countries if the reverse scenario had happened, or even otherwise? No, not at all.

Human life has to be respected and human misery needs to be addressed.

Imagine spending USD 5.6 T on eliminating poverty in the world. Imagine eliminating homelessness and providing a healthcare safety net with that kind of money. Imagine so many good things that could have been achieved over the past 17 years with such serious amount of funding, if not for the world, at least for the U.S. How about drastically reducing the U.S. budget deficit with that kind of money?

Well, no easy answers. The military – intelligence – government – industry nexus will continue to serve the needs of war, while providing rationale for starting wars. I would think Asian countries are more circumspect when it comes to starting wars. We have seen standoffs between China & India, China & Vietnam, China & Taiwan, China & Japan, etc., but such conflicts are managed well without ever firing a shot, as Asia understands the potential costs of war which could completely derail the “Asian Century”.

One of the biggest results of the war on terror is continuing human misery and migration (displacement of people). This continues and is proving to be a huge challenge to many Western countries. How do they integrate these migrants (who they really do not want) into their respective societies?.

Overall, the conclusion is simple: the war on terror should have been very specific and very localized to specific regions of countries, instead of establishing a country-wide war zone in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should have had specific purposes which should have been accomplished by now (after so many years of conflict). Instead, we see meetings being scheduled between the U.S. and the terrorists they shunned all this while!!!

In the meanwhile, the various war zones operate (almost all in the unlucky Middle East region) and conflicts rage as usual. The Military-Industrial complex is salivating at the potential U.S. – Iran conflict, which will generate huge business for them of the order of USD trillions again, while killing innocent people in hundred of thousands for sure.

Welcome again to the World of Ever-present Conflicts, Unnecessary Wars, and Totally Avoidable Deaths!

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan

10th November 2018

 

Value of Human Life


It is a shame to see how worthless your life can be, if you are born and living in a Third World country.

In this context, as you rightly guessed, I am going to mention Africa, India, Middle East, some Asian countries, and China. May be there are plenty others, but as examples the above will do.

If you are born in a Western country, you can more or less rest assured that your country will fight to save you if you are incarcerated in any other country. If you are in your own country, you can be sure that no one is just going to take away your rights and your own right to your own life that easily (of course, here I have to mention rather strongly about how easy it is to take away a life in the most developed country on the planet – I mean the U.S. where the proliferation of guns has led to anarchy in most down town areas of large cities and elsewhere as well – like Churches, pubs and most of all, schools). However, notwithstanding such occurrences, the Western nations protect their own citizens wherever they are living, in general, at least by representing the case in a foreign court of law, and persuading foreign governments in the cause of their citizens.

Contrast that with the absolutely indifferent attitudes that governments of Third World nations depict towards their own citizens, specifically those still living within the respective borders. Human Life is simply worthless, and can easily be sacrificed in thousands of situations, which in general, won’t be tolerated in Western nations.

Look at the casual manner in which a Saudi journalist was murdered and dismembered in his own country’s Consulate in Istanbul couple of weeks ago, because he did not toe the line of the Saudi ruler. Look at the way in which China arrested a leading, well-known actress and the President of Interpol on the pretext of tax evasion or corruption, without a public hearing. Look at the way India treats its journalists and TV channels. Look at how easy it was for a train driver to kill 60 people celebrating a festival with fire crackers in North India couple of days ago – where lies the responsibility and where is the accountability?

Middle East and Africa have a whole lot of human rights violations, and that includes Israel’s unacceptable actions against unarmed Palestinian civilians. I like Israel as a nation with incredible human talent, but the way it treats non-Jewish folks needs urgent remediation. It has to think about the larger human tragedy at its borders which is not going to disappear. The tribal nature of many Middle East and African countries is hampering their development and integration into the global society. Economic integration might happen, but social connectivity will be very hard if they do not mend their ways and approach towards the critical importance of human life, human talent, and human contributions, irrespective of cultural angles and long-held customs. You can see some of these same tribal culture in North India in several states.

Look at how Myanmar has treated its Rohingya ethnic Muslim minority (I have written about this very sad situation) and is now struggling to take them back from Bangladesh, which demonstrated incredible humanity by hosting the Rohingyas in temporary camps and provided them with food.

Look at how President Duterte of the Philippines has tried to eradicate the drug menace in his country by simply choosing the option of murdering the drug addicts, drug peddlers, and innocent bystanders by brute police force. No elected official is a god, and remember, he has killed more than 12,000 citizens in a short span of 30 months or so in a highly religious, Catholic country.

The international community is weak in its protestations and actions against most of the above atrocities. What can it do, when sovereign nations make unfathomable, illegal and non-humanitarian decisions? Not much, you may think.

There is of course, a lot the international community can do, with the support of the Western nations. However, if the U.S. does not show strong commitment towards firmly eradicating some of the more egregious actions, then the world will continue to discount the value of human life.

The right to life needs to be strongly enshrined and promoted irrespective of political or sovereign affiliations. What is the difference between one human life in a Third World country and another in a Western country? None, in my opinion. No dollar value can be ascribed to any human life.

Well, that might sound moralistic, but it is not. The idea that someone’s life is only worth USD 20,000 in India at the bottom ladder of society, whereas that same life is worth USD 300,000 in another country doing similar work with similar family situation, only cries for a better and more non-judgemental view of life on this planet.

Looks like the pen is not stopping – I can write another couple of pages, I guess. This is a topic which has come to my mind quite often, and I wouldn’t be surprised if you also start thinking seriously. If the famous MBA schools cannot address this generic problem of evaluating and assessing the value of human life, then do you think that the MBA students are getting a real education for running their own lives?

THINK!

Cheers

Vijay Srinivasan

20th October 2018

The inhibitions of society


Are you making an intelligent guess on what this topic could be about?

You would probably guess it right, I guess.

This post is about the historic, game-changing verdict by the Supreme Court of India on abolishing the British era Section 377 which penalized sexual acts between adults of the same gender. This was a much awaited verdict by the LGBT community.

I am not going into the moral dimensions of the issue or the verdict itself.

It is all about the society in which we live in. For a long long time, the society shunned and ostracized people belonging to the LGBT community, irrespective of any other factors. So the community kept to itself, and operated in secrecy to avoid facing the society and more importantly, the “moral” policing which occurred in many parts of India.

The main premise of the society (which happens to be largely conservative) was always that homosexuality and lesbianism were against the natural order of living. Many a time, there were religious links to the stand taken by the society – it was that God had ordained procreation to occur exclusively between man and woman, and any other form of sexual relationships were anti-religion and immoral. And so on, and so forth.

Society’s worry is about things which are unknown – which it does not understand, it does not know why a different union is required, etc., It is scared.

Obviously, as members of the same society, we had two compulsions: (a) that the society does not approve of such modes of cross-gender living together; and, (b) that non-conformance to the majority view (in excess of 99%) would put even sympathizers into grave difficulties while trying to pursue normal lives. These constructs would challenge any person even if he or she does not belong to the LGBT community, but sympathizes with their cause and right to live in any which way they prefer with any kind of sexual orientation. The society also worried about the impact of such orientation on children and teenagers of impressionable age groups.

If someone asks me straight about my support or lack of support for such societal restrictions, it would be difficult for me to respond. Obviously, I do not wish to take a stand, but that is also timid and smacks of conformance where none is called for. I cannot and do not differentiate against any such orientations if I encounter such people in my business life, as it does not matter to me. I have actually not encountered anyone belonging explicitly to the LGBT community and it is my strong presumption that they are no different from me or my other friends (the “Straight Ones”! – this will no longer be a politically correct expression!!). When there is no impact on business life or corporate situations, why should one bother about social life situations?

Introduction to such a community member in a social context or business networking context is surely not going to affect my view of that person – it should not. However, would I engage with such a person in a family get-together kind of situation – meaning would I invite him/her for a social get-together at my home?

I do not see why not. Of course, I would surely have a challenge if a same-sex couple turned up at my home or for a private function, as I have not experienced such a situation till today. How would I welcome the couple or introduce them as a couple to my family members and other friends?

I am sure I will figure a way out of such a challenge. The key thing is to invite them. Personally, it is a big challenge as I grapple with the acceptance myself. I have to convince myself that nature provides for a variation in sexual orientations amongst the citizens of the world, and there is nothing inherently wrong or immoral for two people of the same sex discovering joy in their union. I will not be able to understand such a union intimately, however, and I am not going to deny it or deny my lack of understanding. But I can appreciate.

I belong to the 99% majority I referred to above, though I am a “liberal” with open views (as you might have seen in this blog). I am a non-conformance specialist, as my opinions are usually contrarian to those of the majority, simply because I spend time thinking for myself on issues and do not just depend on others’ views or those propounded by a religion, sect, or government. When I think through issues, I discover facts or perspectives which are not truly reflected in the majority discussions. While I respect the society in which I live, I am not going to accept the majority view in matters of public importance. So, I usually look at the conclusions of the legal system, rather than at conclusions made by an elected government which could come under popular pressure. It is also true that many a time, an elected government does not bother about popular opinion and makes decisions which it thinks are appropriate or required for a meaningful resolution of the issue at hand. Hence, I cannot be blamed for running my own thought process and respecting myself for making decisions or conclusions, which I retain within myself, or publish on this blog. It does not mean that I do not respect the majority view, or the minority view, or the religious view, or the government view. But in the pecking order, my conclusions reign supreme at #1.

So, in conclusion, while I do not understand the physiological or biological mandate for same sex union, I do understand the preference and sexual orientation of one human being towards another that he or she likes or loves. That is perfectly fine, and should be fine with the larger society as well, though there will continue to be challenges as we saw in several court cases in the U.S. (recall the case of the bakery owner who refused to serve the same-sex couple). I am sure there will be similar challenges in India.

There should be no rationale to discriminate against the LGBT community members – any such discrimination should be prosecuted as per law in force. They have their own right to privacy and human rights in equal measure. As the Supreme Court of India said in its judgement “Morality cannot be martyred at the altar of social morality. Only constitutional morality exists in our country” – Dipak Misra, Chief Justice of India.

Hence, the only conclusion is to accept the LGBT community members as full-fledged members of the same society that we all live in, and not discriminate against them in any form, and slowly integrate them into the social context with open arms while educating our own family members to pursue an understanding reminiscent of the maturity that the human race has already attained.

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan

9th September 2018

Fauda


“Fauda” in Arabic means “chaos” or “riot”.

I just completed viewing the two Seasons of the Netflix Serial “Fauda”, fascinated by my recent visit to Israel.

Fauda is based on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Being an Israeli Serial, it shows mostly the Israeli version of tackling terrorism from the eyes of an elite counter terrorism unit of the Israeli Defense Forces. The creators of the show came from that unit. While there seems to be a sincere attempt to depict the normal lives of Palestinians living on the West Bank, it does not come through effectively. The rationale for why Palestinians would even pursue an armed conflict against the much more well-armed Israeli soldiers beats me when the average Palestinian would want to lead as normal a life as an average Israeli.

But then, I am talking from far away. I do not understand the complex history of the Middle East or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the countless battles that have harmed both sides since 1948 when Israel was established. My visit to Israel clarified some of my queries, especially when I visited the Yitzhak Rabin Centre in Tel Aviv. The story of Israel is indeed fascinating to any foreigner – its emergence from nowhere as a country of around 8.5M today with some world-beating technologies and an incredible intelligence service. In fact, I was more impressed about the Israeli tech startups and the infrastructure they have put in place to nurture these startups at several key locations around this rather small country.

I had mostly positive impressions about Israel all these years, though occasionally I used to be disturbed by the radical statements made by Israeli government ministers and the brutal attacks against unarmed Palestinian civilians. I also did not empathize with the need for Israeli government to build settlements in occupied territories.

However, it is pertinent here to note that Israel has helped countries like India in countless ways – a good example being agriculture. The drip irrigation system developed by Israel has fostered astounding agricultural innovations. Israel has also provided much-needed advanced military equipment to India. Overall, Israel is viewed positively in India, I would say. The government-to-government cooperation is deepening every year.

Given all this background, seeing the Fauda serial on Netflix provided me with the much needed context, though I do not agree with everything that was shown or to be accurate, not shown. I liked the show overall – it was thrilling in many sequences, and weaves almost a real-life kind of story and human emotions into what should strictly be a military operation. I do not know whether it reflects reality – it may not. However, it is good to see the story flow seamlessly in Season I of the Serial which appeared to be more interesting than the Season II. The transformation of the elite unit members to support one special operative in sorting out his personal enmity is not that believable, and I do not think it is feasible to violate orders of the Commander of the unit. The tolerance shown towards the main actor (who is the special operative, Doron) is reflective of the empathy that the hardened special unit members develop over long years of working together.

Israel has had a huge challenge these past 7 decades managing its borders and the security of its citizens. But the cost incurred is prohibitive. Young people are wasted away in tough fighting assignments wherein they are forced to fire at civilians. They develop post traumatic stress syndrome, and find it difficult to lead normal lives. Some of these struggles can be seen in Fauda.

The mutual recriminations between the Israelis and Palestinians are interspersed with harmless banter between senior intelligence officers from both sides. Even when tough action is going to be taken, the Israeli officer meets with the Palestinian officer in his office, and is offered coffee! The culture is almost the same, the ethnicity and the affiliation to the land are the same. It is the armed conflict which is destroying the lives of people on both sides, coupled with unnecessary belligerence on the political side.

Fauda has a very good narrative, and excellent cast of actors, most of them from army background. It “feels” realistic, and shows the struggle in a somewhat oblique manner. It also demonstrates the good intentions of certain good folks on either side. At the end of it, I felt sad at the situation on the ground – I have seen the barricades, the army outposts, the metal detectors, the soldiers, almost everywhere. It appears Israelis are having peaceful coffee in nice cafes, but the insecurity is palpable. I am not surprised that people can get jittery even for the simplest of things. Unfortunate really.

You will enjoy Fauda, if you have not visited Israel; and you will enjoy it much more if you have visited Israel!

Have a good week ahead, folks.

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan

26th August 2018

Secular Life in Turmoil


I have written about secularism in the past.

Some of my previous blog posts are listed here:

Secularism under threat

The Debate on Secularism

Spirituality departing from the land of discovery

The rising intolerance

I am adding on to the above posts with some additional thoughts on a bright Sunday morning here in Singapore, as I gaze across the expanse of a water reservoir which is serene and calm. I am disturbed with the onset of these thoughts, so the calmness around me is surreal.

I believe no religion owns a country or a people, around the world. Religion is the creation of man and woman. For thousands of years, the religious faith of a group of people had provided to them a solid hold on their lives as well as guidance to lead their lives. Religions, unfortunately, had been the cause of wars between people and untold millions of deaths.

Religion is not a necessary prerequisite or condition for sustaining a faith on things which matter to you. It is nice to have a system of faith which is what a religion should provide to its followers. A religion cannot dictate what someone should do or should not do. Of course, these are my personal views (as always).

So, my point of view on secularism is rather simple – since no religion should own a sect of followers or people, no one religion can control a country. This surely and firmly applies to democracies (theocracies are not being discussed in this post as I have not understood their rationale for existence in this multi-religious, multi-ethnic, cosmopolitan world). This would mean that democracies should disown ALL religions, irrespective of the majority affiliation to any one religion.

What does this mean in practice? A Catholic country with majority of its people Catholics, cannot have Catholicism embodied in its constitution as the “state religion”, as long as it remains a secular democracy. The same applies to other religious denominations. Coming to the example of India, it is enshrined in the Constitution of India that India is a secular democracy, though over 85% of its population are Hindus who generally follow Hinduism as their religion. The founders of India did this with a clear purpose in mind – that India is a very diverse, multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multi-religious country even at the time of its Independence in 1947. A Hindu theocracy would have seriously impacted the emergence of a peaceful India as a nation-state.

Think about the wisdom of the founders and original thinkers of Indian Constitution. They were not ordinary folks, they were serious people who contributed to the formation of India. Were they wrong? Absolutely not.

The racism and the attendant violence that the U.S. witnesses every day is because the government and law enforcement are discriminating on colour of people and their ethnicity. European countries are having huge problems on absorbing new immigrants because their social integration into European societies has not been possible due to the differing customs and religious practices. India did not have many of these issues for several decades. In India, law enforcement did not shoot at people they do not like.

“Untouchables” – the class of people that Mahatma Gandhi tried hard to integrate into mainstream Indian society – are in a far better position today than at the beginning of the 20th Century. I would argue that they are in a better situation due to strong affirmative actions than the African-Americans in the U.S.

Given all this complexity in various large nations, the only solution is to maintain a religion-neutral, race-neutral, ethnicity-neutral, and colour-neutral system of governance and law enforcement. The argument that the majority religion is being neglected and more importance is being paid to minorities is not appropriate, as majority population can always elect a party that they want to run the government. Religious sects across a large country cannot easily integrate election voting, that is just a dream. Individual people vote according to their conscience mostly (at least the people who understand partisan politics which is dominant today everywhere in the world). Religion can never integrate a society, it can only disintegrate it.

So, in a nutshell, secularism is the only way forward for the world, at least for the democratic nations of the world. If a party or government is formed on theocratic principles, then that is doomed to fail in the medium term as the majority electorate would realize their folly in electing them in the first place. No religion can run a government, and no government can operate a people as though they are religious levers to be pulled up for convenience.

I am absolutely sure that many folks may not like what I am writing here, nevertheless I believe that it is very important to express one’s thoughts and discuss the same with folks who are interested in the global development of the world. Anger against a particular religion, majority people, or minority people is not going to solve any issue. Every one is equal in this world and secularism ensures that as far as religious faiths are concerned.

Have a wonderful weekend, and see you next weekend,

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan

29th July 2018

 

Ending Poverty Vs Military Spending


The world spent approximately USD 1.7T on military expenditures in 2017 as per data published by SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). A little over one-third was spent by the U.S., followed by China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and India among the top five military spenders in the world.

It has been estimated by SIPRI that just 10% of this expenditure is enough to end poverty around the world (more than 800M people are below the poverty line) in just 15 years, meeting the U.N. goal to end poverty and hunger by 2030.

Does the world need to spend around 2.2% of its GDP on military expenditures which does not have a measurable ROI apart from waging wars and killing people? Is it necessary to keep investing in military R&D and expansion of war machinery especially when the entire world is hungry for peace? Was there any tangible benefits reaped by mankind by conducting destructive wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen?

In other words, the world can reduce its military expenditure not just by 10%, but by half and still have a decent defense mechanism against enemies. If the world wants peace, where are the enemies anyway?

We are going to finish the second decade of the 21st Century in couple of years. It is a shame that there still are hungry people around the world. It is a big shame that many people still do not have a roof over their heads, or do not know where their next meal will come from. There are millions of children suffering from malnutrition due to lack of food and milk. Poor people exist even in developed countries as we can see them under bridges in many first world cities in the West – the homeless folks beyond even the fringes of the moving world economics and society.

The collective conscience of the world should be focused on solving this intractable problem of poverty and hunger, instead of focusing on increasing the possibility of conflicts and wars by spending more on military. Is there a ministry for resolving human hunger and ending poverty in the major countries around the world? We only see defense ministries who are drafting the next year’s budget with a potential 5 to 10% increase.

World leaders meeting in the U.N. should make a choice between ending poverty and increasing their military expenditures. Even if the regular annual increases are scrapped, enough money will be released to take specific actions in humanitarian relief. If the military budgets are cut by 10%, that would release USD 170B towards poverty alleviation. If this money could be targeted at helping poor children, that is going to create a healthy workforce for the future. Think about it.

It is highly irresponsible for countries to spend more than 2.5% of their GDP on defense expenditures, when the allocation for poverty alleviation projects is not even 0.5%. What are we talking here? What about allocation for education and healthcare? What about allocation for eliminating hunger? Why are governments not allocating enough of their budgets to address the needs of poor people?

For most of us in a secluded area of society, the impact of poverty and hopelessness and hunger hardly strikes home. We rarely ever think about these things. We are happy if the government reduces our tax burden, leaving more money in our hands to spend. So, how are we different from our own governments? Governments spend money on things that they prioritize, not what citizens wish for. Citizens of any country would want better quality of living, better transportation, better roads and infrastructure, better access to education and healthcare, less poverty and less hunger. Are governments providing for these things everywhere around the world?

Poor people do not worry about taxes or at other items of government expenditure. They are worried about getting through today and then tomorrow – day by day. Most of us are not looking at our lives with the same lens – we have been lucky and fortunate to get through life in an easier manner. Have you ever felt hunger with no access to any food at all? Never. That is not the case for poor and hungry children all around the world.

So, we as educated citizens of the world, need to push our own government to reduce military expenditure and redirect the released funds towards eliminating poverty and hunger from our societies. This is the most important thing that a government can do during its term of office. If it does everything else well, but not do this one thing, that would mean it is a heartless government which has wrecked its legacy.

We do not get many chances to address the problems of poor people. The focus is not on them. Let us try to bring it back towards the objectives outlined in this note. United Nations better take action immediately instead of just lecturing in its hallways.

Have a good weekend folks,

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan

14th July 2018

Soul of America


The U.S.A. is by far, the most preferred country for immigrants, beating the next 9 countries on the list of preferred countries for immigration as per a recent survey.

For decades, and even for more than couple of centuries, America has been welcoming new immigrants to its shores. Both immigrants and America have benefited from this continuous immigration from all over the world. America has become a multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic country, the closest example in Europe being the U.K. America has also been providing opportunities to create new wealth for all its people, and especially to talented immigrants, and examples of such cases abound and far too numerous to be captured in any article like this. America has become richer, diverse, more capable, and more dominant in the world due to immigration. Immigrants have gone on to win Nobel Prizes, more than 60% of PhD students in U.S. are foreigners, and more than 40% of students in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) are foreigners as well. There is no doubt about these facts which have been validated by data from many surveys.

For America to take a strong stand on an anti-immigration political platform compounded by some serious heavy-handed law enforcement actions separating immigrant parents from their children in the most recent episode along the border with Mexico, is rather unusual and challenging its soul itself. The administration of President Trump has pushed the limits on putting a complete stop to all kinds of illegal immigration, with or without the support of its own Republican Party, and with or without the support of the U.S. Congress.

Let us for a moment go back to the soul and heart of America. Americans have always been welcoming immigrants, and have built a meritocracy based on peoples’ talents rather than on their skin colour or religion. This is the reason why America’s technological, political, social and military dominance is complete with no challengers in sight, though it can be argued that China and Russia are bent on challenging the U.S. hegemony of late. However, the U.S. is by far superior in all facets of human endeavour, and while there are pockets of dominance all around the world, the U.S. offers the most complete package to potential immigrants who, if they are talented and skilled, would be on par with the local U.S. citizens. Such adaptability and flexibility in building an equitable society has paid off for America in the long run, and is a model for countries like Singapore which is also focused on building a multi-skilled, competent and knowledge-based society.

Given this background, the vicious action of Attorney General Jeff Sessions in separating children as young as 2 years old from their parents can only be considered cruel and far beneath the status of a generous, accepting and welcoming society that is the U.S. It is no wonder that President Trump came under huge pressure from his own party to stop the family separation, and he did that with an executive order that he issued with far less clarity than it should have exhibited. Nevertheless, it was a step in the right direction.

As we say, it is a torture to carry the guilt on a society’s heart and soul – examples again demonstrate the power of guilt. In Australia, the governments in the past have separated aboriginal children from their native parents and transferred these children to white foster parents. A similar thing happened in Canada. Many countries have inflicted cruelty on children – especially in Europe and Africa.

The U.S. need not and should not acquire and carry that guilt on its heart and soul. It is despicable, and completely out of character for a nation like the U.S.

Illegal immigration should be reduced but handled with care and compassion. People flee their countries mostly on economic grounds or political persecution. The U.S. is the most advanced country which is equipped to handle such immigrants, and is also the most capable in absorbing select immigrants – only the U.S. Congress has to enact legislation codifying the criteria that can be applied to such immigration.

Most European countries are trying to stop immigration. It has been a hot-button issue for elections in several countries such as Germany, Austria, Hungary and France. There is no perfect solution, especially when there is no common denominator on big factors such as language or religion which affect social and cultural integration of the immigrants into the respective societies. Such issues are less divisive in the U.S. as it has become a well-accepted melting pot of people from all over the world, working with each other and depending on each others’ services.

So, at the end of the day, the U.S. remains as the most preferred nation for potential immigrants from all over the world – even from other developed countries!

It is critical for the Executive and U.S. Congress to sit together and resolve matters pertaining to immigration policy. It is very critical for the future progress of the U.S. and cannot be ignored. The continued success and technological progress of the U.S. are based on immigrants continuing to flow into the U.S., of course on a controlled basis.

Kudos to America for being the most generous nation on planet earth!

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan

23rd June 2018

The fragility of human life


When I take a long walk (around 90 minutes) in the morning, I tend to do one of three things – either I walk in total silence focusing exclusively on the terrain ahead, or listen to my old-time favourite songs (almost always Abba or Carpenters or Lionel Ritchie or Michael Jackson, or sometimes Norah Jones), or engage in some serious thoughts with good clarity of mind in a very calm environment (there are very few people walking or jogging at the time I usually go in the morning).

I have always found that thinking hard is tough when I am stationary, or just at home doing mundane things. When I am on a solo walk, I tend to be able to think more vigorously. While there are strong positives for thinking in a calm manner while walking a long distance, there are also some downsides. For example, when the mind flies into the future (or into the past occasionally), I tend to be less careful on the terrain ahead, and have fallen down a few times because I failed to “see” some obstacle on the path (there are many stones before I reach the wood-tiled pathway around a lake that I usually go to). I realized that it is not a good idea to keep falling down and hurting myself (especially on the knees) at my age, so have improved my caution while walking which reduces the intensity of thinking somewhat. The other challenge usually is the speed at which some runners tend to overtake me on a narrow path, forcing me to move to the extreme edges of the pathway which could push me into the lake if I am not careful.

This post is however not about my walking per se. It is more about thinking. I always felt that I should have devoted more of my time in my life to thinking hard about every choice open in front of me, or to every issue in my life crying for my attention and resolution. I spent far less time on thinking, or took the easy short-cut of personal advisors, or fell back on just my previous experience.

I still take advice from others close to me, but I spend more times thinking about all issues and come back home with a clarity which is difficult to beat. The result is that I am able to engage with my family members in a calmer manner, and others in a more effective way. As I walk more, I think more. The latest issue surrounding my thought process is the fragility of human life.

We see death and destruction all around the world when ideologies clash and countries end up fighting unnecessary wars or engage in unwarranted conflicts. A beautiful life which existed yesterday with lot of hopes for its future, is suddenly gone today. The ability of man to pluck another life out of this world has only grown tremendously over the years, and that man continues his life without remorse under the guise of morality, the necessity of a “good” war over evil people, or the essential nature of law enforcement – I am sure there are hundreds of reasons that a man can devise for taking the life of another human being for which he needs to answer in his own after-life – such offenses cannot be hidden or explained away under the guise of moral explanations that a government or religion can provide to the man who is plucking the life away. There is no real serious explanation that can be offered for shooting a suspect twenty times all over his body, especially on his head and chest. There is no rationale for bombing a country with cluster or chemical weapons. There is absolutely no possible reason for trying out one country’s latest weaponry on a country which cannot defend itself against such attacks.

So, what could be the reasons why bad things continue to happen all around us establishing the total fragility of human life, which should have always had a “precious” status in humanity?

While no explanations could be acceptable, the lack of fierce responses from religious guardians is absolutely stunning. When defenceless countries and people are bombed, where is the question of religions taking sides with the perpetrators? Where is the neutrality of religious intervention to stop or deter such devious things from happening?

As I think more and more on such topics, it is not unusual for me to get depressed on our inability to stop or vote against such things – there is no possibility that poeple could question or challenge a conflict or a war, unless there is a direct referendum on the most serious matters affecting this planet as a whole. However, that is unlikely.

Our own lives are so fragile, that we are not in a position to devise suitable advance responses to what is happening to our own bodies as we age. Any amount of preparation or planning is not going to help when the inevitable thing eventually occurs in our lives. We go on steering our lives taking some precautions as and when we feel necessary, but one day the fragility of our own lives will be exposed in a natural manner.

So how do we get ready for such a 100% clear possibility at an unknown date?

Try to think of whatever you had ever wanted to do, but could not do or achieve. Create a “bucket” list of such things. Spend more and more time with your family members. Do some charity. Do not expect any returns, and do not think that you will get to heaven or hell. None of that sort might exist. At the end of the day, what matters is whether you have helped people around you, stood for some good cause, made your family members successful in their respective lives, and garnered respect and admiration from friends and relatives for your ability to successfully steer your life and contribute to society in a manner that you could. Forget about emulating other successful people, or investors, or businessmen. It does not matter.

Well, more in future posts on this topic.

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan

6th May 2018

The impotence of the global order


I return to one of my favourite topics after many months!

It took a serious struggle in the U.N. Security Council for the 15 members to agree to a humanitarian ceasefire for 30 days. What does that say about our global peacemaking council, and what does that say about armchair leaders in world capitals who dictate to their U.N. Ambassadors about how to vote for the Security Council resolution? After all, the 30 day truce was just for delivering food and medical aid to the suffering civilians who have been bombarded constantly.

It is OK for them that innocent civilians die every hour in Eastern Ghouta region near Damascus in Syria. While I am not fond of Nikki Haley’s vituperative outbursts every time she encounters Russia at the U.N. Security Council, I am now questioning the motives of Russia. It is collaborating with Syrian government in bombing the civilian areas in Eastern Ghouta, and apparently, the U.S. or allied forces cannot help the rebels holed up in this region as it will inevitably lead to a war with Russia. While I am also not supporting the misadventure of the U.S. in the Syrian struggle, I think wherever these two great nations have interfered, it has led to serious wars and bloodbaths such as in Afghanistan starting from the late Seventies. What do these countries gain? Of course, power and influence, the ability to maintain a naval or air base, and to counter each other in this global warfare. Unfortunately, the people who are dying are not the military forces of either side, but poor civilians long suffering under the brutal President Bashar al-Assad’s rule. President Bashar apparently likes to clean out his own countrymen along with the rebels fighting him. And, President Putin of Russia is his most ardent supporter.

For good measure, we have Turkey, Iran and Iraq also involved in this war in someway or the other. Turkey does not want the U.S. to collaborate with the Kurds who are helping in the fight against the ISIS in Syria. Iran seems to be having its own plans. In a nutshell, Syria is a total mess.

My suggestion would be to bring the entire country under the auspices of a U.N. Peacekeeping Force. This would require a hardcore negotiation with President Bashar, but Russia will stop any such initiative dead on its tracks, as it does not want any direct U.N. involvement. It suits Russia and the U.S. to directly get involved and oppose each other in a huge proxy battle with the Syrian civilians as the casualty. This is a total and abject failure of the U.N. system and the global leaders who are responsible to bring any genocide to a complete stop. Just because people live in a rebel-controlled area (they have always lived in the area) does not mean they are traitors to the Syrian government. This interpretation is totally wrong and completely objectionable. Where will these people go anyway in the face of continuous bombardment? Why should civilians suffer like this even in the 21st Century? The same is the case in Yemen, with Saudi Arabia bombarding the people there because it does not agree with the political situation in that country. Thousands of people are dead in the Yemen war.

There is no respite in the Middle East, which must be the most bombed region after the battles in the Second World War. The Western nations (the U.S., the U.K., France, Australia) have used all their latest ammunition in the Middle East wars over the past 17 years (and even before that in the Kuwait vs Iraq war). Russia is now trying out its latest gear in Syria to ensure all their equipment do indeed work, and also to demonstrate to Europe and to the U.S. that it has missiles and planes which can deliver big damage, so don’t mess with us………….

Unfortunately, the only global mechanism we have is the U.N. and its almost useless Security Council.

There is nothing much else that can be achieved if the big countries who hold veto power cannot see eye to eye. I also believe Nikki Haley should use her considerable negotiation tactics instead of just shouting at the Russians who simply ignore her. There is just no point – she needs to work with her allies to get Russia into backroom negotiations and offer sops to Russia like not enhancing the already stiff sanctions regime that has been imposed on Russia for its indiscretions in Ukraine and Crimea. One cannot keep punishing a global power continuously, and blaming it domestically for election interference all the time, while expecting cooperation on tough global war-like matters, like in Syria. What is the point? The manner in which Nikki Haley operates is inconsistent with her boss’s approach – and the boss is President Trump, who wants to “work with” Russia, of course.

So, in a nutshell, it all again goes back to super power rivalry. The U.S. diplomats may not like Russia or President Putin. The Western nations may not like them either. But, do they have a choice?

Absolutely not.

And, where is the other super power – I mean, China? Just behind Russia, all the time. You get not one veto, but two.

Negotiate in good faith and without the theatrics and drama.

And, achieve peace for all. Stop the bombing, and save the remaining people, all of them.

Stop the total failure of the U.N. system.

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan

25th February 2018