James Risen. A journalist worth idolizing!

This was a intriguing account of the James Risen case in USA. (Click here)

In short, the story is about how easily can government get access to information about an individual and use the same to stifle the journalists' sources and intimidate people in such a way that there are no "future leaks" from the government, no matter how wrong is the government.

After reading through this article and looking through various others, my conclusion is that perhaps we need to re-look at spirit with which the founders of any democracy had hoped or wanted to set as precedent.

The solution, in USA's case, would be to create a new witness protection program run and linking it to new laws which will give full sanctuary to whistle blowers. If it sounds complicated let me explain with an example.

In this case where,

The moment the story was blown and cases came in-front of judges. Each case had to be looked from the following aspect --
1. Was the government wrong not by current law but when their actions and reactions are measured against the 'Declaration of Independance'?
2. Did the people try to take down a government which was corrupt?* There is an old adage, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

*But when a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.


If the answer, as it looks in this case, is 'Yes'. Then the case is not admissible and it should be thrown out. Also a strict action should be taken against the prosecutor or the one leading the case. As far as the witness or the corroborator is concerned then s/he be put under the witness and whistle blower program and their safety should be guaranteed.

Opinion on "The Senate Committee's Report on the CIA's Use of Torture"

Ever since "The Senate Committee's Report on the CIA's Use of Torture" has come out in the public domain there are two extreme views that I see. Those who would be saying the reports stand that torture was not required and it was extremism and compromised on humanity etc. The other's who would characteristically say the report is wrong, and it was because of the torture that many lives were saved.

I believe the truth is perhaps somewhere in between. Till now I was avoiding to write on it, but now at-least there is one expert who thinks on the same lines although they have left some questions in their article. Obviously since it seems like an American author so I wouldn't get into the details of his biases.

Now coming back, before getting into the moral questions lets try and recall what had happened. In India it was approx 9 in the evening in India when America was attacked.

It was typically a situation that was 1. Not anticipated. 2. And no one had any clue. 3. The top management, in this case the bureaucrats and the politicians who were perhaps thinking they were back in the wild wild west, where everything is my-way or the highway. And hence what followed next was more of a logical conclusion

Stratfor has perhaps got the entire thing closest to reality that most people while are calm now, were jittery then. They correctly diagnosed the problem: "The use of torture was not part of a competent intelligence effort, but a response to a massive intelligence failure."

On torture and what went wrong with US was perhaps quoted by the report as: "The problem with torture — as with other exceptional measures — is that it is useful, at best, in extraordinary situations. The problem with all such techniques in the hands of bureaucracies is that the extraordinary in due course becomes the routine, and torture as a desperate stopgap measure becomes a routine part of the intelligence interrogator's tool kit."

As far as the moral dilemma is concerned. There is a time when you don't know anything, so you get people who deliver with perhaps dubious means and then you build capability and transfer to achieve things in the right way.

This could have sound counter-intuitive and extremely grey. But we need to accept, not everything in life is in black or white. Many things are out-rightly in between.

A Selfie World

After more than two years I was travelling home around a festival time. And the new trend that caught my attention was that many people were taking selfies’ and perhaps capturing their moment. Although I have no clue what that moment would be as in a selfie you rarely manage to capture anything outside your face.

I have nothing personal against it. It’s just that sometimes I find it amusing.

Some of the people on this flight were perhaps a bit over-enthusiastic and actually trying to capture all their moments; like a gentleman went on clicking pictures when his son and the wife coming from the toilet. Which sort of led me to think if I should ask the gentleman, if he was trying to capture the family’s ease of pressure or was it how they walk from loo to the seat on an airplane? But then I thought my inquisitiveness could be taken as rudeness, since I am most of the time inept in handling social conversations.

Anyways, selfie is a relatively new word in the English language. In the oxford online dictionary, selfie has been described as an informal word describing a ‘photograph that one has taken of oneself, typically one taken with a smartphone or webcam and shared via social media.’ Though my observation is that not all selfie find their way to social media, some just are shared within family members or as display pictures for the messaging applications.

Apparently now there are also selfie competitions that are held and awards distributed like here. 

Among the various famous selfies that I managed to see in the process, the following are the best:

Most dangerous selfie ever. That happened.

Fan Thrilling. Smart move for upping popularity.

Example 1 - Beyonce

Example 2 - Pope

It is interesting to know that although selfie as word has come about and entered the usage only since 2002. Though Wikipedia says, that the first ever selfie was perhaps taken by Robert Cornelius in 1839!!! 

.... taking it forward ...

Recently through a FaceBook post I came across this interesting piece by Aftab Ahmed. 

To give you a small summary, he has correctly interpreted the concept of 'halal' and 'haram' income and its usage and then he has put up his view on the Babri-Masjid why it doesn't matter, and yet it matters. 

Although he is partially correct that, "Any big or small event where even it seemed remotely that they are being man-handled they (Muslims) erupt." But the truth is its slightly more complicated. 

There is a vision of India. It is of a democratic and multi-cultural country with no single religion being the state's religion -- Nehru's version of India. And that religion should be practiced in the house in a religious place etc. In short religion and state are different. These are people who call themselves 'secular'  and they believe in being diverse. 

Now there is another vision for India. This calls for a single country with homogeneity, as thought by RSS. It has some contradictions but we will not get into it as of now. In this thought process, religion has a very important role, which to an extent is the seed of the conflict.  Watch this video for more clarity on the type of ideology they propagate.

And if anyone is actually interested then they must read the speeches, books, etc. written by M. S. Golwalkar, the second "Sarsanghchalak" (Supreme chief) of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. (wiki link).

If that seems like a lot of work then you can read: "TERRIFYING VISION — M.S. Golwalkar, the RSS and India" by Jyotirmaya Sharma. The work is quite scholarly, sometimes dry but worthy of reading for anyone who wants to understand why the Babri-Masjid is more of a Nehru's vs Gowalkar's vision of India. All normal people irrespective of being a Hindu, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Tribal, religions will only be pawns in this ideological game.

p.s. I think Gandhiji and Swami Viekanand too would have sided with Nehru. But then I have not read much of their work and would love to see some light being shown on them.

Organisations and Leadership

Defining organisations and leadership is important and there are many ways in which it can be done. This is just one of that I think best defines the genes in terms of expectation. 

1 – Organisation of Opportunists

There is an organisation where the dominant behaviour is governed by only one objective, “My well being”. This is an organisation, where a number of individuals have come together to look after their personal benefit! 

When they keep saying different things and sometimes contrary to what they have been recommending but all their actions result in benefiting them, well that’s a classic opportunist. Everyone knows such people can’t be trusted.

With time and observation, it dawns on us that most opportunists are myopic in their vision and understanding of the world. These people cannot bring new thinking and it is above them to rise to situations where leadership and courage is required.

Most of all they cannot develop a thought, these opportunist are only good in terms of riding the momentum of public emotions. When the followers/associates become sentimental they will not come over to bring calm around them, rather they will use that moment and try to build strength. Time and again they will remain opportunist.

2 – Organisation of an Ideology

This organization believes in some fact or fiction or story or whatever. They have a belief, an ideology for which they work. Members here will put their personal needs and wants in second place to the ideology.  

Well, here you are dealing with an orgnisation where the basis to achieve a common goal. The goal is made or prepared considering their ideology, it is based on some principal -- right or wrong is always debatable but there is an underlying motto. .

Leaders with ideology can be people with exceptional ability.

If the organization is driven by the ideology such as --"Justice and Equality for all (and not limited to a certain set of people), if not of past, but for present & future" -- and its members are actually able to implement it then the people can consider themselves as blessed. 

When such organisations is working properly and is fair then you will see many leaders emerging. It can groom a good leader who can evolve to the caliber level of Mahatma Gandhi and Mandela. These days, such people are hard to find but more than that such organisations are difficult to find.

Otherwise it is extremely important to understand what is the core idea or the vision that one would end up supporting. Because it can be as distorted as the KKK, Black Panthers, Taliban, etc. (there are couple of Indian versions as well on all sides -- regional level, religion, caste, sub-caste, etc. ).

But allow me to put a little caveat. One must understand that with time and experience, since humans as a species also evolve, individuals will also change and organisations are made up of individuals.

Leadership : Bucketing individual leaders

Broadly there are four types of leaders. I have marked them as Type 1, 2, 3 and 4 for ease of reference:

Type 1: They want power and feel like a king. Power is their only ambition. At times such leaders can be so much of a control freak that they will go to length to discredit their opponents, especially those whom they consider as strong competitors. These are also mostly opportunists who transform into tyrannical. Type 1 does not have any grand plans. And they cannot think beyond 1-to-5 years (in democracy) or whatever period they fancy (dictator). And also they do not evolve in their message to the need of the people or the process of evolvement is too slow.

Type 2: Leaders that want position of power to profit only. From a leadership point these are opportunists. This may sound similar to Type 1, but there is a subtle difference, they don’t care of being a king or king maker or whatever, for them it’s not about positions its money/power or anything that they are aiming for constantly.

When opportunists become leaders they cannot bring radical changes nor will they rise up to a situation when people in general are sentimental. When the public in its emotional moments demand blood, these leaders will become brutal, but they will not dominate continuously by being brutal, that capacity these individuals do not have.

Since they understand their potential they will not aim for the highest office but the second highest or the council that supports the highest office. This is the lot which would shift between power broker and being in position of leadership like a governor, CM, MoS etc.

Type 3: Leaders, who want power in order to write history. It’s not money or power that is the driving factor here. It could be leaving a legacy, or creating history. Usually such people either create institutions or mold an institution to their vision. Off all the characteristic there is one that are crucial here if they are not only in power but they are also the face of power — Good debater/speaker – they will give speech to capture imagination.

If leadership is split between front face and party organizer, and the true leader is more of a party organizer and not in the leader chair himself/herself, then it would be completely ideological driven. There are also times that such leaders, when they get a taste of power, then ideology goes out of the window and they become Type 1 leader i.e. a tyrannical, power hungry leader.

Differentiating the two would be a challenge but I think the easiest way would be to see how they handle the day to day activity and keep an eye on their past actions. That should give you a glimpse of what type the leader is – Mahatma Gandhi/Mandela or Hitler/Chavez.

Type 4: People who are propelled to leadership position and their target is simple one, to stay in that position for as long as they can, even if they have no ability and/or appetite to deliver results for which the power was bestowed upon them. In either case such leadership is usually week

Speak Up or Shut Up!!!

Came across this very interesting article that Reliance Industries has sent a legal notice to TV channels for covering a press conference-- http://www.newslaundry.com/2013/01/itna-sannata-kyun-hai-bhai/  --, now all of the channels are cowing down.

Ideally one would expect them to shout that they have been sent a legal notice and this is against freedom of speech. If anyone has to be sent a legal notice then it should be the people who had called for the press conference. Where is "India demands to know" - Arnab Goswami. This is a national interest story, and perfect for TRP if played properly!

TV channels are only a medium of information, they should not be held accountable for the information as long as "it is not their people (reporters and anchors) who are talking and their is no smart editing".

A reporter or an anchor can misinterpret an information in which case there is a possibility of a defamation. Also using the tools of editing, views can be twisted leading to misinformation, again raising a possibility of defamation. But when the medium is showing the view of an individual or an organisation then that medium cannot be held to accountability.

Its funny and extremely dangerous trend,  it is this kind of media that people tend to take serious and as a gospel of truth!!

Therefore, maybe it would be the best in the interest of the larger people if we put government regulation in all over the media space.

The plus point of having a full fledged govt controlled media section is that most people would know 'The Usual Suspects' if the media is not honest in its job. Behind the garb of freedom of expression and this entire self regulation talk, if the media is not forthcoming with information and frank in its expression then we have a failing fourth estate.

Either now is one of those moments when TV channels should speak up once again on freedom of expression and self-regulation or shut up and let the government regulate it.

Would love to hear some counter views. 

Some steps the government should take to protect woman!

I have been reading different stories and perspective on the rape case and the reactions. What amazes me is that the government is so slow on its response and the inefficiency with which the concerned senior most bureaucrats are working.

The government should bring in some immediate plans and then others should be worked upon over a period of time.

Short-term & Immediate Actions: 

1. Get officers like IPS offers' like SP Shivdeep Waman Lande in Delhi who give absolute result.

You can read about Lande here

2. Few possible options

(a)  Bring the entire NCR area under the control of Delhi police and make them responsible for crime in all of these areas.

Or

Additional paper work will not be required to pursue criminal perpetrator across any state, jurisdictional police have to help on a priority basis in order to apprehend  such criminals.

(The state's ruling parties would oppose it, in which case they should either improve their police response system in their cities and prioritize nabbing inter-state criminals)

(b) Also the police department in Delhi will report to the Delhi CM (under current arrangement the Police Department reports to the Home Ministry, Central Government. These officials can look into how NYPD handles the city and the the flurry of UN officials in New York.)

3. Irrespective of the status of the person start pronouncing strong verdicts against such criminals. Send such criminals to prisons in other states, not their home states nor in states where they grew up, rather in places where they would be ineffectual behind prisons. This should also be followed in other states.

4. Any officer not able to attend to his duty in future in accordance with the constitution will be prosecuted. For non-cooperation their photographs should be placed online. When such officers are under review for promotions the incidents of not fulfilling their duty should be taken seriously.

Long-Term and continuous effort

1. Leaders need to stand-up and change the current notion of treatment of women in states bordering Delhi -- UP & Haryana. These two states by its culture do not have high regards for the ladies of their states. This should also extend to other parts of the country where there are similar problems. Therefore, its a cultural problem and this can be resolved only when leaders' rise to the call of leadership. Rather than cowing out as most of the MPs did on the Khap tragedy, the leaders need to learn from Raja Ram Mohan, Gandhi, Nehru, Mandela and the likes who convinced people to change their outlook over years. They were not successful immediately but retrospect their work was for the better of their country.

2. A simple act that can give more teeth to vigilance department. Rooting out corruption is important because even crimes are also associated with corruption. Corrupt officers will definitely let go of criminals. Therefore, the effort to go after corruption is imperative in order to make it safe for all.

Censor Board for awareness

Few days ago I was having a conversation with my friends. And I made a remark that the govt's idea of placing a tobacco warning ad is not important in movies, in the way its being made, because it doesn't look good aesthetically. And to an extent the visual appeal can be lost as well. My friend's argument was these advertisements' are necessary as they are for awareness so that people would take care of themselves.

So this actually got me thinking. Does it actually change behavior of individuals? I don't know. But if that is the line of idea then I have many suggestion that the govt of India should do.

In all movies, they should put up a disclaimer that giving and taking bribe is a criminal offence, in the same way as they do for tobacco smoking! That will bring awareness regarding bribes.

All movies do take a certification in terms of the violence and parental guidance, which is fine, honestly its a good thing. But then if the censor board wants to take this influencing the people seriously then I believe they should also take some measure in the do the same for TV news channels. That would be essential, like a little disclaimer running under all News Anchor's who are over enthusiastic during debates. The disclaimer should be something on the lines stating: "He is shouting to gain TRPs, please read and understand the issue at discussion before forming your opinion."

In fact all TV news channels should state a disclaimer, and this should be stated by the person conducting the debate or reporter who is reporting, something on the lines 'Please read up on the issue before coming out with your opinion. We are merely trying to build your interest.' Or at least this should run as a ticker at the bottom!!

My view is that the best way of awareness is to make a sensible advertisement and playing it between breaks or before the actual commencement of the movie. An advertisement like this -- click here --could have more impact than putting up the disclaimers that they are doing as of now. If the idea is awareness then perhaps this is a better option. If the idea to actually lookout for the benefit of the people then the other way around it would be to increase the excise duty every year by 10 per cent and see the result at the end of five years.

As far as the news channels are concerned, I am pretty serious over there. They should run a disclaimer. If they can't keep up with journalism then they might rescue themselves with disclaimers.

Changing Education Sector

I have just typed some of my thought. My views are not very concrete, its changing based on new input that I come across with time. Anyways read ahead and share your opinion.

There has been a new dawn in the education sector or segment what ever may please you. Its called open online education system.

The reason for writing it down is to clear my own head about my understanding. For last few months I have been following the stories of MOOC (Massive Open Online Courses). The concept is simple while education is being given to people in schools/colleges for paid. Make everything available to those who would like to learn, have the capacity, patience and all other virtues etc etc but cannot afford it.

The classes are put up by some of the best faculties in the world for free. Anyone can learn from it. The downside is they will not be given any certification from the university or by the professor, this is because it will remain free.

What is more important to understand is that the world's education system might change. There are few things that may actually take place over the next few years, 5 or less is my guess.

During my father's time. being a graduate was a big deal. Over the last few years, I see that most people are doing and Masters and its becoming mandatory to hold some Master's degree. Fancy names are also good but better brands have an edge. A generation ago bachelors degree was good. Now a masters is considered as essential. And then PhD will become a norm..

In the next few years what will become more important is the practical or real life implementation of the course and how fast can you implement your learning. Innovation will be paid more focus that making things lean and being bothered about lean. Flux management and change management will see more role being played. Educational qualification will not be a problem then usability of learning, and understanding what Steve jobs meant by "Stay hungry, Stay foolish" will become the new mantra.

Or my entire understanding could be wrong. In which case. I think there would be more jobless people.

Anyways things either change too soon or too slow. It will be interesting to see what changes shall take place.

'Ode to Nice Guys'

This is one of the best piece in my list of suggested essays' because its stereotypical. Before going further, let me set on record, my view on this article: "I don't agree with the logic of this essay." You will find my full view at the end of the essay. **

Ode to the Nice Guys 

This rant was written for the Wharton Undergraduate Journal

This is a tribute to the nice guys. The nice guys that finish last, that never become more than friends, that endure hours of whining and bitching about what assholes guys are, while disproving the very point. This is dedicated to those guys who always provide a shoulder to lean on but restrain themselves to tentative hugs, those guys who hold open doors and give reassuring pats on the back and sit patiently outside the changing room at department stores. This is in honor of the guys that obligingly reiterate how cute/ beautiful/ smart/ funny /sexy their female friends are at the appropriate moment, because they know most girls need that litany of support. This is in honor of the guys with open minds, with laid-back attitudes, with honest concern. This is in honor of the guys who respect a girl’s every facet, from her privacy to her theology to her clothing style.

This is for the guys who escort their drunk, bewildered female friends back from parties and never take advantage once they’re at her door, for the guys who accompany girls to bars as buffers against the rest of the creepy male population, for the guys who know a girl is fishing for compliments but give them out anyway, for the guys who always play by the rules in a game where the rules favor cheaters, for the guys who are accredited as boyfriend material but somehow don’t end up being boyfriends, for all the nice guys who are overlooked, underestimated, and unappreciated, for all the nice guys who are manipulated, misled, and unjustly abandoned, this is for you.

This is for that time she left 40 urgent messages on your cell phone, and when you called her back, she spent three hours painstakingly dissecting two sentences her boyfriend said to her over dinner. And even though you thought her boyfriend was a chump and a jerk, you assured her that it was all ok and she shouldn’t worry about it. This is for that time she interrupted the best killing spree you’d ever orchestrated in GTA3 to rant about a rumor that romantically linked her and the guy she thinks is the most repulsive person in the world. And even though you thought it was immature and you had nothing against the guy, you paused the game for two hours and helped her concoct a counter-rumor to spread around the floor. This is also for that time she didn’t have a date, so after numerous vows that there was nothing “serious” between the two of you, she dragged you to a party where you knew nobody, the beer was awful, and she flirted shamelessly with you, justifying each fit of reckless teasing by announcing to everyone: “oh, but we’re just friends!” And even though you were invited purely as a symbolic warm body for her ego, you went anyways. Because you’re nice like that.

The nice guys don’t often get credit where credit is due. And perhaps more disturbing, the nice guys don’t seem to get laid as often as they should. And I wish I could logically explain this trend, but I can’t. From what I have observed on campus and what I have learned from talking to friends at other schools and in the workplace, the only conclusion I can form is that many girls are just illogical, manipulative bitches. Many of them claim they just want to date a nice guy, but when presented with such a specimen, they say irrational, confusing things such as “oh, he’s too nice to date” or “he would be a good boyfriend but he’s not for me” or “he already puts up with so much from me, I couldn’t possibly ask him out!” or the most frustrating of all: “no, it would ruin our friendship.” Yet, they continue to lament the lack of datable men in the world, and they expect their too-nice-to-date male friends to sympathize and apologize for the men that are jerks. Sorry, guys, girls like that are beyond my ability to fathom. I can’t figure out why the connection breaks down between what they say (I want a nice guy!) and what they do (I’m going to sleep with this complete ass now!). But one thing I can do, is say that the nice-guy-finishes-last phenomenon doesn’t last forever. There are definitely many girls who grow out of that train of thought and realize they should be dating the nice guys, not taking them for granted. The tricky part is finding those girls, and even trickier, finding the ones that are single.

So, until those girls are found, I propose a toast to all the nice guys. You know who you are, and I know you’re sick of hearing yourself described as ubiquitously nice. But the truth of the matter is, the world needs your patience in the department store, your holding open of doors, your party escorting services, your propensity to be a sucker for a pretty smile. For all the crazy, inane, absurd things you tolerate, for all the situations where you are the faceless, nameless hero, my accolades, my acknowledgement, and my gratitude go out to you. You do have credibility in this society, and your well deserved vindication is coming.

Fu-zu Jen, SEAS/WH, 2003



**As I have stated at the beginning, I don't agree with the view of the author but its good dark humor.

The truth is most of the girls and guys end up finishing last, or lets say get treated harshly despite not deserving so. The biggest recent example would be the case of 'Amanda Todd'.  

So to say that only one gender or kind of human being always get the wrong end of the line, is a sign of "victim's mentality". It can happen to anyone irrespective of their gender, looks etc.

Now coming back to this essay "Ode to the Nice Guys". The reason I find it excellent or insightful is that it reflects a bias for those guys who are not interactive and they tend to live away from the limelight. Lack of skills in social interaction and with limited friend circle its difficult to get through to many people.

Who has not heard of Warren Buffet? If you haven't then search about him online.

In one of the articles that Warren Buffet has written "The super-investors of Graham-and-Doddsville", he has mentioned 10 names in it. All of these gentleman were students of Graham, same as Warren Buffett.

Now Buffett's went on telling about people making a case that he, Warren Buffett, is not the only one to have grown rich by investing (in a particular style). But if you try and search their photographs or media interaction or anything about them, you will not have similar success as in finding about Buffett.

One of the major difference between Buffett and other 10 students of Graham is that they have stayed away from limelight, from being popular. Being rich is contributory, another successful money manager is Peter Lynch (google him as well and there is plethora of article on this guy).

The differentiation between Buffett, Lynch and others equally successful but not so famous is the difference between how often they had been in media or communicating en-masse.

So my understanding is that these good guys and girls are shy, and sometimes they also have bad luck, doesn't mean they should consider themselves as 'Victims'. I was once told by one of elders in the family, 'In life every moment is unique, and as humans we will make mistakes. The important point is to learn from them and not repeating them and learning from them.'

Human beings greatest gift is that they can change and there is always someone kind enough to help you: family, friends, counselors, sometimes random strangers but don't take it for granted and don't expect them to be always there.

Democracy & Crony Capitalism -- III (The Debate)

Continued from 


Critic – Anonymous ‘M’

To respond to your suggestions/comments, while they sound pretty logical and even achievable, I am afraid in reality it is a lot more complex than what they seem on paper. For instance, 'When the Enforcement Directorate, Income Tax and CBI are run by the right people" is a huge challenge that can take decades although at this point, to me, a century seems like a realistic time! How Shoaib, are the 'right people' to be identified? Is 'efficiency' or 'honesty' going to be the hallmark of the 'right people'? If you say both, is it realistic to expect such people to entangle themselves in the web of bureaucracy? I for one, think I am efficient and sure I am honest, but whatever the incentive I would never get into a government establishment, although my parents and extended family are entrenched in the government!

Now, if bureaucracy is simplified and cleaned up, perhaps. But it is a chicken and egg situation. It is not possible to get rid of the people now manning the government organisations and appoint people with a different mindset and unless there are people with a different mindset, things are not going to change! So, frankly I do not see a way out. And no, I am not willing to blame the politicians for the entire mess. I think the bureaucrats are also responsible for it, and in a major way.

As for the TN politicians, the problem is not one of unity. I do not want them to stick together. I think democracy is all about diversity and that includes diversity in ideas/thoughts as well. But what pains me is their ineptitude and inability to make the right choices. When democracy is about short-term populism, then there is little that can be done. What is required is statesmanship and leaders with foresight which Indian democracy does not allow. 

Now to 'functioning democracy', I disagree with the definition. I think it is too simplistic. Yes, I have the right to vote out Karunanidhi but if all I can do is opt for Jayalalithaa (who won by an incredible margin), then it is not democracy in the true sense. To choose one rogue over another is no choice at all. You are basing the definition on the process and ignoring the many complexities that renders the process superficial. And we are still electing a person rejected by the majority of the electorate. I brought in Kashmir merely as an example of how just because a method is followed we beat our breasts and claim to be a great democracy. Agreed Kashmir is a festering wound and needs a lot more thought. But there are many places in which elections are just that, a mere process that is held to signal democracy. I do not see any merit in this.

My grouse is with the understanding of democracy as the Westminster model and transposing it onto countries like India and expecting it to work. While I would not support the regressive policies of Singapore, what I would like is to adapt the Westminster model taking into account the peculiarities of India and then implementing it. That requires intellectual discussion which I do not think we are capable of now. May be, after my lifetime. But frankly Shoaib, looking at the new generation, I have lost hope. When they are bred on populism and learn to appreciate and come to expect it then intellectual deliberation is never going to happen!

Sorry to end this on such a hopeless note!

-------------------------

I completely agree with the fact that they will not be easy to achieve. The barriers would be numerous.    

The first problem would be to establish who would be the right person; this is next to impossible in daily life. And many times our conclusions are proved wrong in hindsight. Everyone thought Manmohan Singh would be a great Prime Minister but he is highly disappointing, as he has no idea of politics. He is a successful technocrat and a failed politician. 

Before getting to the response, allow me to first explain about my perceptions and things that we will have to agree to irrespective of our liking. My perception is that there are three fold problems that we need to correct. 

1. Problem of not being a citizen 

Unless we do not participate, how can the country be fixed? It is fine that I don’t want to be a politician but then do I try and support the candidates that are good enough for the job? Did I try and help them? 

If we ask ourselves such kind of questions then the answer is usually negative. I hardly get time to meet people but after online search and talking to some people while in Bangalore, I found that Loksatta party is good. And talking with some of my friends who are aware of Telegu politics it seems that the founder of the party JP Narayan is a genuine person. So I make my political donations to his party. Though I agree that there presence is limited, but at least there is a reason to have hope that it can grow. Similarly I find Navin Jindal a decent politician, although the same opinion is not there for the congress party. 

If there are no candidates then we should either get into it or find someone to enter it, again not an easy task nonetheless it is fairly possible.  

Individuals' will need to show that they have a stake in the country. Authority and privileges are derived by fulfilling the responsibilities. 

2. The problem of incentives. The question of efficiency, honesty etc.  

I completely agree with you, that there is no way of finding the right person. 

Recently, Patna had a new SP, Shivdeep Lande. Now this gentleman took a measure that in a short period the crime rate and problem of eve-teasing in the city came down. Therefore, he is being transferred! This is atrocious. There are at least a dozen senior officials about whom I have read, they were transferred because they did the job in the right way. Else, the government created special posts with no powers, no specific work and then transferred these people there. A politician once talking to his friend admitted that many officers are given quick promotions and then placed behind desks so that they can be less harmful to the ‘usual’ business.

Then there was a report that some IAS officer's name was suggested to be on the board of SEBI. Later it came to light that this IAS was a relative of the Finance Secretary that is why other officials who had more experience and precise expertise were not favored by the ministry. 

To stop such transfers and promotions, some sort of check and balances needs to be built in the system. I did think of few things but there could be practical problems there. Besides I have not had the opportunity to see these institutions from close quarters therefore it is extremely difficult to suggest anything as of now. 

I did come across a report few months back that was prepared by some government committee. They had suggested reviewing the achievements and policy making of all IAS and IPS on completion of 20 years of service. Based on which their retirement or further promotion be assessed. I liked this idea. Because 20 years a long time. It’s easy to judge policies that may have been unpopular at the time but did great work over the years. 

Therefore, it is my view that to some extent we can find the right people. Not always, maybe not even most of the times but definitely enough times to make sure that the country manages to do well and not reach the precipice of abyss. 

One interesting article written by an IAS on what to change in the system -- http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-04-17/all-that-matters/29427639_1_ias-officers-civil-service-evaluation

Future saviour or savor finder

Once this is achieved then, miscreants should be dissuaded from joining the system by changing the incentive methodologies. 

Few of my school friends are preparing for Civil Services in Delhi. So, once I met them and they introduced me to other aspirants as well. After listening to them for few hours, the conclusion was some of these people are preparing and intend to join the system to exploit only! 

Why? Because they all know people who exploit it and nothing happens to such officers. This attitude needs to change. 

To clean up bureaucracy, the politics needs to change. Because that is how corruption came. Inefficient and dishonest people were promoted, the people who have the power to make such changes need to change else it is difficult to correct. That is the way it will go. (Rather than Lokpal bill if Anna and team can fix this then it’s worth it else it’s just another bureaucratic layer.)

3.  The problem of Patience 

Looking at history closely reveals that corruption at the state and higher level took roots around late 1960s' and 1970s' in politics and bureaucracy. Then it was in 1980s and 1990s when it became a common phenomenon. After 2000 it has been rampant, very much a part of our lives, and we have all accepted it. It took us approximately 30 years to become blatantly corrupt. That is roughly a time-frame when a new officer would have risen to the very top of the system and perhaps retired or would be nearing retirement. We are now living in an era where people who will be taking over the reins of the country, at top level, were born around the time when corruption at high places started blooming. 

To expect that it will get solved in a year or within a decade is wrong.  I wouldn't say that in such a short time a change so radical is not possible but the stakes will be too high. It requires a major catalyst for results in short period, usually what historians later label as revolution. We will have to wait for a generation to grow with the determination to bring about changes.     

     

Response

Finding the right people: Addressed in "2. The problem of incentives. The question of efficiency, honesty etc"

Getting into government establishment: Participate. I can think of two ways for now -

1. You can also work for the government on a consultation basis. Planning commission regularly has openings regarding consultants across various fields. Perhaps other government organization will also be looking for consultation services. If you have friends and family then through them participate.

2. Also think of a pioneering service like: http://www.prsindia.org/ .

One of the founders of PRS Legislative comes from Bank of America. http://www.livemint.com/2011/12/04201606/Switcheroo.html

Responsibility of bureaucrats or politicians: They are both responsible. But the onus shall lay with the law framer more than the implementer.

Diversity, Democracy and Statesmanship: I agree with you completely. Democracy is diversity. But in the name of diversity it does not mean we become a nuisance instigator. That is something that politicians will need to take care of more than normal people. Statesmanship is a difficult job and looking over a long period is not easy for most people. It is complex. To create statesman will require change of perception by the people, who choose them. And those who are able to see and bring change will have to come forward. 

The problem of choice: Participate or find someone worthy and ask him/her to participate. There is no way around it. Agreed in some places it may not work. Then change places. If Azharuddin can move from Hyderabad to UP, Karan Singh can come down from J&K to Lucknow, then why not move away for the moment and the come back. For the sake of argument I will agree the process is flawed in 60 percent of the places. But 40 per cent is an open and fair ground where changes can be brought about.

What Next?

If you still think none of this will work, then what is the other option? American System is also flawed. The population is too huge to put in place the mandatory participation or the systems followed in most of the Europe. Massive changes are not possible under current circumstances. So we don't have much of a chance to get away from the Westminster model.

But I am not hopeless; sometimes the reaction of my peers does dampen hope. But I have come to understand that the lack of intellectual capacity is because of media and lifestyle (My brother was in US, his narration of interaction with the locals does not show a pretty picture. They are good in their field of choice but a day in a life covers beyond professional hours). It is my understanding that this problem with modern generation is there all over the world. And given time and experience we will grow.

Critic – Anonymous ‘M’

Second, I like your optimism and I wish you all the best, although I do not share it. Shoaib, in my previous avatar (centuries ago) I was an idealist who even wanted to be the President of India in order to set it right! I find it so laughable because that is really what I would repeat to everyone in all seriousness in school and college. But what I am impressed with is that I used to say I will rule the country like Hitler!!!

I think that is really what we need. Not Hitler perhaps, but a benevolent despot. This democracy, people's verdict whatever, does not work for us. I think it was Rajaretnam in Singapore who said that South Asia has been ruled by monarchies for centuries and centuries and that is what people understand and appreciate. This Westminster type of democracy (which incidentally the British have changed and we hold on to its ruins, much like the education system we inherited) is not for us. I think there is something there, although as I said in the earlier mail, I do find Singapore policies too repressive and the people automatons!

I repose faith in a few who are keen on changing the society etc., but I am also anxious that they will be defeated by the system. At times I must own I have been defeated by the system and felt absolutely wretched. 

So for your sake and the sake of your generation I shall hope and pray things change.

Democracy & Crony Capitalism -- II (The Debate)

Continued from


Critic – Anonymous ‘M’

Interesting! And good methodology too. 

But I have some issues: now '(1) On bio and financial info of its elected leaders available to the public' does not signal anything. There is this whole system of 'benami' where someone totally unrelated can hold the person's assets. Almost all politicians resort to this and just knowing what organisations that relatives are associated with, will not solve the prob.

Step 3 will indicate connections to corporate houses or interests. But problems with democracy are more than just crony capitalism, isn't it? For instance, take the TN politicians' skewed arguments on backing the rebels in SL. That is detrimental to democracy but how do you explain their affinities by looking at just their corporate associations.

I also have a more fundamental problem: seriously how would you define a working democracy? Would simply holding elections periodically and getting people to cast their vote at gun point, like is done in Kashmir, suffice?

I do not think transparency amounts to anything much in countries in South Asia as we have a different idea of private life etc.

--------------

Response

"There is this whole system of 'Benami' where someone totally unrelated can hold the person's assets. Almost all politicians resort to this and just knowing what organisations that relatives are associated with, will not solve the prob."

I have thought a lot about 'Benami' problem though in an entirely different context. My understanding is that it will get solved with digitization and changes in election process procedure. The problem of 'benami' will be sorted when the parallel economy of black money is reined in. And that will happen over a period of time. There is no instant solution and this one requires a more top-bottom approach. When the Enforcement Directorate, Income Tax and CBI are run by the right people or let us say procedures are followed and Ministers do not have the authority to change the course of investigation. Current organization structure gives the ministers too much of power, the departments are run more at the mercy of politicians, hence making it difficult to curb the Benami and the black money problem.

I will make no claim that these measures will end the corruption but definitely compared to current levels it can be curbed by 90 per cent or more with just tweaking the reporting and appointment structure. This is why I am not for the lokpal bill for now but rather a tweak in the system for better authority and responsibility. 

"....For instance, take the TN politicians' skewed arguments on backing the rebels in SL. That is detrimental to democracy but how do you explain their affinities by looking at just their corporate associations."

This is a problem of power play and aspirations. There is a famous story that we all have been told: There was a farmer. He had five sons. They were always fighting. To teach them to stick together he gave each one of them a stick and asked them to break it. And they all managed to do so. Then he bundled the sticks together and asked his each one of his sons to try and break it. None of his sons' were successful at the task. Hence, the moral that if you stick together then no one will be able to break it. 

Now our dear politicians/leaders have taken this story to their heart and have re-written it the other way round. So they try and break the society on any possible ground and keep people in the dark in any way possible. This helps them keep in power. The part that is upsetting is that media, the fourth estate or the watchdog of democracy, is actually colluding with these politicians. While it is easy to break, compartmentalize and rule its tough to build a nation. For now I am short on ideas, on how can we fix this problem. Ultimately it will come down to people who choose and to those who decide to serve the nation as its leader. 

"I also have a more fundamental problem: seriously how would you define a working democracy? Would simply holding elections periodically and getting people to cast their vote at gun point, like is done in Kashmir, suffice?"

Actually this is a very good question but few, to my knowledge perhaps no one asks this question. But its simple: 

Any country where a government can be changed by means of non-violence and consensus building through voting fulfills the basic criteria of "democracy". 

A "functioning democracy" will be the one where the elected government has the authority to frame the laws of the land and the only way to challenge them should by either changing the government or by challenging it in the court of law that the new law is against the basic tenets of the country's foundation. This little criterion is important because though Pakistan and Thailand are democratic country but there governments are weak and hence they do not qualify for functioning democracy. With its last election Turkey will qualify for a functioning democracy before that they had a huge issue with the military as a major player in the politics. 

There are three prime examples good elections are: During the General Election in India, when Dr Karan Singh fought an election with AB Vajpayee in Lucknow, which though Vajpayee won but the margins were too narrow despite Lucknow being a safe constituency for Vajpayee. In the same General Elections Sushma Swaraj was fielded against Sonia Gandhi in Bellary (if I remember correct) and there too the margins were too narrow for Gandhi despite the constituency being considered safe for her. And on the state level when Shibhu Soren fought from a so called safe constituency to retain his position as the CM but he lost out to Raja Peters. (link: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2009-01-08/news/27634178_1_shibu-soren-raja-peter-jharkhand-chief-minister )

Now comes the Kashmir part. To allow secession, is out of the question its like removing the stick from the bundle. Everyone has too much to lose in such a situation. There are no gainers except the person who appoints himself or herself as the ruler/leader etc.

As for the state itself, there are two levels of problem there. One a consistent external fuel and second that our leaders don't accept mistakes and then try to correct them. 

Omar Abdullah's point that Army should be kept to barracks or their authority should be curbed in places where they do not have any operations is correct by all standards but that is the problem no one is listening. I think a similar step of limiting the Army's role in north-east is also important. For such situations, I think it all comes down to leadership and how the states are being handled. Too many mistakes were done at the time of Independence 1. The partition 2. The formula of sharing lands/states during partition 3. The formation of states 4. By not disbanding the congress 5. Currently by not heeding to the CM. Since when did the Defence Minister and the Generals gain so much power to decide the administration capacity in a state? This is a blunder in making. (These are at the top of my list). 

"I do not think transparency amounts to anything much in countries in South Asia as we have a different idea of private life etc."

Agreed. But we did change a lot. And this concept will also change albeit with a lot of time. One of the disadvantage of being in the public life and being given the responsibility of using power is that there cannot be any of a private life and one shall always be under scrutiny. The politicians can accept it now else they will have to accept it 50 years later, provided democracy remains and the country does not disband itself. 


Continued to 

Taking a leak with 'wikileak'

The pun in the heading was intended! Don't bother if you didn't get it.

Anyways, it has been interesting to read the different aspects of wikileak stories, no pun or sarcasm intended here. I have been keenly following the wikileak stories just like most people, not taking anything seriously. Because not every information is worth demand attention.

Before starting out. Let me make it very clear. I am not trying to defend, accuse etc here. To the best of my ability its just an exercise of information classification or lets say understanding the value of information in the so called 'information age'. (Yeah, I know its three information in a single sentence but move on).

One needs to understand the importance along with the difference between Views, Truth & Facts. 

Although nearly everyone reading this will say they know it but its better that I state it in clear terms because I want to, and this is my blog so I will do it.

A "fact" is a reality that cannot be logically disputed or rejected. For example, fire is hot, and it can burn your skin, now you can think or believe what ever you like, but if you pan to dispute with this, then go visit a doctor.

"Truth" is usually derived from a fact, but primarily it is a matter of believe. For example, Bush is an idiot, now most would find this statement as the truth, but definitely many would say its not true. Same goes with the argument God exists! Many will find it as a statement telling us the truth and many won't.

Ah! now cometh the word "Opinion" or let us say view, it is usually an inference that we would have either derived or formed for some reason or perhaps no reason. A smart person justifies their opinion and then there are those who do not do so. Either way don't bother much about it.

Now coming back to business of wikileaks, the only part which I find (an opinion) important are facts, the rest of the parts which would come under truth or opinion is only good for some clarity but not worth unnecessary commotion.

Now the beauty of the leaked diplomatic cables from India is they all fall in the category of views or sometimes as truth.

Horse trading, not the literal one, buying votes for cash, is not new I guess we all have heard our share of the stories. The only proven case to my knowledge is of PV Narasimha Rao, that he had bribed MPs in 1990s to prove his majority on floor of the house. But in recent years its been a common trend that MLAs in states have been put up in expensive hotels with guards to ensure that no horse trading affects the floor voting pattern for the parties. The only way around it is to make sure that we choose better MPs in our elections and hope that they have the backbone that defines a leader. There is no amount of policy that can replace the individuals' who eventually take decisions and implement it through actions.

In India lobbying is not official. That doesn't mean it has not taken place in the past or does not take place at present and will not happen in the place. Its among the oldest tricks in the book at different points of time. Diplomats have always functioned as 'emissaries' and for ages they have also been involved in propaganda. 

So far the recent wikileaks have not have had anything that are startling revelations, most of them are mere truths and some are views of diplomats to the superiors. Something quite common and expected. So, I would prefer if a journalist or the media at large puts up some effort to dig for a startling information, a fact, rather than giving importance to frivolous information under the bizarre claims of new revelation of truth.

A conversation on history

Kid: what is your take on Indian History?? what do you think abt it?

Stupid fella: I don't have any view on any history... All are stories telling us about the past of that place or event... I always think the important question is 'what information do you want to derive out of your study of history?', and, 'how do you intend to use the information, i.e. the purpose of study?'

That is my approach.. What do you think of Indian history?

Kid: Pretty high opinions.

My approach however is to look for the ways to improve our present situation by learnin about our past. I think that is the aim of history, to tell you where have we gone wrong earlier. About what today as a nation we have lost or are losing.

Stupid fella: That's like deep philosophy... Even I do read it for similar reasons but not always, perhaps not even most of the time.. There is a simple reason for my stand...

The human nature has not changed in over centuries. The only thing that has changed is means to achieve it either because of technology or environment. People are still greedy, they still take steps out of pure ego rather than sensibilities and ratinality. Only those few who have managed to over come these natural problem are the ones who have managed to out do history.

So at a very simple level history does repeat itself and will so even in future. At a complex level, history never repeats itself, because there are many factors that affect any given situation and hence change it every time.

You must have read many times question in maths and other science subjects which start as "assuming everything constant, how does X affect Y?" We can make these assumptions in question papers and in academia but in real life, one can never be sure of what to assume. One will just have to take the decisions in the given situation be it on mere instincts or based on historic lessons. But either way you will come to know of the result after it has happened.

Kid: Two things of all that you said stood out to me, 'the world is greedy' and 'we can never know what to assume, in real life.'

Regarding the first, I couldn't have agreed more, the world, which includes all of us is greedy. I distinctly remember a quote which says 'never assume' because you will make an 'fool' outta 'you' and 'me'.

"Maoists butcher 74 Jawans"

On a hot Tuesday afternoon, (April 6, 2010), I went to the office pantry for lunch assuming it to be a normal day. But on entering I realised, that for a change, everyone was intensely watching the news channel.

The flash said, "Maoists butcher 74 Jawans". This was the breaking news that covered all the news channels, irrespective of the language -- english, hindi, bangla etc.

Since then I have been seeing many different opinion on the subject, in different style. From graphical images with timelines in print, to shouting journalist on TV, to serious tone of foreign print, debates on face book and columns and sarcastic blog -- http://thusspakehriday.blogspot.com/2010/04/smile-now-ms-roy.html -- (this was different to me).

There are few things that are difficult to understand seeing the various debate. Why don’t people try and move forward and look for a proper solution? Why get stuck to a single point of view and go around proving the other side is wrong? Why focus only on history and not look to future? Why look only at the future and not consider the history? And there are many other questions that we all have but lets not go there for now.

Factually, the thing none can deny is— a loss of human life is wrong.

We for the sake of simplicity have the habit of making things too simple and then not get anywhere. So below are given the different aspects and each is dealt separately. Because this issue is complex.

What is happening?

In the name of growth there is exploitation. Brands have failed in countries because they did not address the cultural factor. Similarly, industrial development without working on neither the sustainability front nor on understanding the culture of the place or working to bring the inclusive growth will not be real growth. it becomes exploitation.

To fight the exploitation there is extortion. There have been many reports that extortions are collected from the businesses/industrialist to run the naxalism. Coming to this point, how come naxalites don’t fight those who exploit nature in the form of cutting sandal trees? how is it that certain industries face the threat of naxal especially PSUs while others don't. It is common knowledge that coal and mining mafia are the biggest exploiters but how come they are not not under naxal threat, ever?

Politicians sharing the bed with Naxals. While Shibhu Soren was not keen in solving the naxals in Jharkand, as they had helped him win the elections. Many questions have been raised on Mamata’s covert support for the naxals -- remember the Rajdhani episode.

To deal with extortion, raging atrocities. While it is true, that there has been extortion at a local level also, where the naxals came and killed villagers for not supporting them but that does not justify the stand the government took by forming Salwa Judum who went about raping and killing (both covered in tehelka)

Settling scores in the garb of naxals. MCC, Ranvir Sena and PWG are treated as part of the naxals in the region of Bihar. Most of the killings done by these groups are not against the state as much as they are caste wars.

What will not solve the problem?

Bringing in military and air-force will not solve the problem. Because this is a different sort of warfare, this is not a conventional war where we are fighting a force that can easily be distinguished. Typical military can only deal with external threats better or with threats that do not involve the population from where the army is raised.

The other thing one must remember is, any approach where one expects the results to show up in matter of few weeks or months, will not work. The current generation of leaders would have seen this problem from their childhood or since their teens. Therefore, dealing with a brash mentality will not be easy. These people will not come to the table so fast. They have not seen peace long enough to believe in it.

What will work?

A strategy where all parties can be put on a similar platform be used. The local population should be given primacy; all the efforts of rehabilitating the tribal areas and securing them should be made. This is basically not an easy.

It be ensured that the local MP/MLA is present his/her area for min of 200 days a year (out of 365). Speeches and talks of leaders in the area are recorded, to ensure that if speeches are inflammatory then those politicians be remanded and disturbances are controlled. Choppers, para-military forces and technology should be used to provide them with cover and strength to deal with the naxals.

Any industrialisation in the area should include the tribals, other locals and special emphasis be laid on a company’s profit but the environmental and local population’s grievances.

Borders with Bangladesh and Nepal are manned as much as possible. Because banning ammunition is an important part to deal with them. If there is any logistics help from outside the border then that should be dealt with promptly. Similarly if ammunitions is traced to factories in India then loopholes should be plugged.

We must understand that a problem brewing for 40 years will not get solved in just 40 weeks. So lets not try and do that.

The point of Education!!

My friend asked me to read his blog on foreign education bill.

So in the least amount of words let me put my opinion on the foreign education bill as following--

Sibal is missing out the main point. The focus should be on primary school first. Without proper schooling who will qualify for college? That is what he should address and work to improve.

Competition is one of the best things to happen in a market. Don't you love the low tariff on mobile call rates? Isn’t the revolution of mobile good? Think about it. And if you consider that it is not then why use it, just throw away your mobile and don’t call other people on their mobile set either. Protest against it.

Once upon a time there were only government universities in India. But then the quality got deteriorated and hence it was open for private sector. The idea was also to bring about the changes at a faster pace to adjust the country and its huge population to modern day. There are definitely more people with college degrees now, than there used to be earlier and many things have got standardized in this way.

But how many colleges and institutes are teaching their students to think? I see so many colleges and so many people who are exceptional in their field but how many of them managed to mould their students in a way that they can out-smart their teachers? Not as many as, we would like to believe.

I think this is what Sibal is trying to achieve, create a competitive environment like mobile where each university tries to nourish the leaders of tomorrow. And in this race the people of India can benefit.

Though he is missing on the basic problem the primary education needs to improve. Without which there is no point in bringing any higher education.

I say, we should fear more of ignorance than brain drain, because it is ignorance and the lack of thought that can derive one to kill fellow people on behalf of those who call themselves our leader.

The right to primary education should be made compulsory and then there is nothing to fear. Reservation will not be required when the system ensures that everyone gets fair chance in primary education.

As far as monetary benefit is concerned that too can be fixed but it’s always better to work one step at a time. First the primary education, then second would be the requirement of more colleges to improve the standards. In the process of creating leaders and visionary the system will improve.

There will arise a different type of problem later but then I think we will cross that bridge when we come to it.

Desertion

Some time back, I was asked a question. "Why is it that when Muslims are beaten up in Israel or in some other country, then there is such hue and cry but the same is not reflected when China does it in Xinjiang’s?"

Well, to be frank, I don't have any straight answer. Although I tried reading and getting some answer somewhere. But there was no success. Based on personal observation there could be multiple factors or a certain combination of these factors.

First of all its not just Xinjiang, most of the countries where there is no freedom of press the report on carnage against the local population does not get limelight. How many countries with no freedom of press has done any reporting?

Then there is "presence factor" or "kinship factor". Allow me to explain with an example. The gulf countries have a sizeable population belonging to India. So even if something is not reported in the media for a few days the information will be transmitted through word of mouth. This may not generate public opinion at a very fast pace.

Similarly, while it is true that most countries claiming to represent the "Muslim Country" did nothing concrete, they did not even lodge a diplomatic protest or condemn it on the international front with the exception of "Turkey". The reason being, Xianjiang has a population which are partially turkic in regions and hence the public opinion of Turkey forced the government to react.

Also one needs to understand on how media covers. When BBC covered the wars in Bosnia or in Chechnya or when it covers Israel/Palestine, its their coverage that makes all the impact. Now in all of these places the reports said the fight is between XYZ and Muslims. If China's or any countries problem is not covered with the same intensity, the impact will not be the same, it mellows down. Add to it ignorance. How will there be any reaction.

There are geo-political mixed with a spice of economic reasons as well. For example, Iran and Pakistan cannot make any statements against China, since it is the Dragon state that protects the two in Security Council.

p.s. It would be a great pleasure if someone can point out other reasons that may have been overlooked

One reason which has not been pointed out or touched above is that of the drawback of the human nature i.e. pride, selfishness, envy, ignorance........