Thursday, September 27, 2007

Winds of Change in Burma

Burma's military dictatorship has so far reacted with less ferocity than expected at the massive pro-democracy protests led by Buddhist monks and nuns. While the world has pretty unanimously voiced its indignation at whatever violence the government has inflicted on the protesters, and puppet master China has called for restraint, one gets the feeling that the worst is yet to come. Daw Ang San Suu Kyi who has been a prisoner of conscience for a long time, said many years ago that it is fear, not power, that corrupts. When you fear losing power, you become corrupt. As of now the Burmese government is repressive because it fears its people.

What is interesting in the question of Burma is the attitudes of other countries. China has long supported the military rulers in Burma. Having unleashed violence on its own people in 1989, China knows well that civil uprisings are tough and has always encouraged Burma with military and economic aid. Besides China has always counted Burma as a hedge against India. A democratic Burma has no value as a hedge.

India has always been supportive of the pro-democracy movement in Burma. Recently though the thinking in New Delhi has shifted considerably. It is as though India has grown tired of playing the pacifist and renounced its moral high horse position. Today Indian policy toward Burme is one of realpolitik, of curbing the influx of narcotics and arms from Burma into India's volatile North East, rife as it is with Chinese propaganda. India, though supportive of democracy, has been developing economic relationships with Burma, and engaging them in dialogue, thereby winning the government over to crackdown on the narcotics and arms trade. And to make it clear from the outset, to me this is the best bet from both a practical and humane angle. I will explain why shortly.

The ASEAN has also been engaging Burma in trade, admitting the country into its association in 1997. The Philippines recently decried the violence in Burma, surprisingly and unprecedently upping the ante against the military rule. But in general these nations have not imposed sanctions on Burma like the West has.

The West has imposed sanctions on Burma and has reached out to Burma's neighbours to do the same. The sanctions have had no effect as China has supported Burma mightily through thick and thin. Besides, India, realizing late that its interests in the region are compromised by the sanctions, and knowing that a foothold in the energy-rich nation is essential to meet its exploding demand for energy, is involved in a race with China to secure its place in Burma. The South East nations have siezed the opportunity to trade with Burma in the face of Western sanctions. At the same time, the West has not done anything in Burma other than the ineffective sanctions. Their focus has been on the Middle East and Latin America.

Samuel Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations' theory posits that the Western world acts in its own interests- a fact borne out by numerous incidents. Individuals within the Western world are independent agents and hold their own opinions, but their governments always act in their own interests. Thus they may turn a deaf ear to massacres in Srebrenica, but act quickly in Cuba or Nicaragua. They may support military rulership in Pakistan and decry the same thing in Burma.

The West also tried to influence other nations and cultures with its line of thinking. Take Russia, for instance. Pressured to alienate Iran, Russia does not want to create an unfriendly neighbour. There is no toeing the Western line there. Unlike the West, these Asian/Eurasian nations do not usually cry themselves hoarse about repressive nations that the West supports, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, because they are not united in their opinions and/or they do not want to compromise their own relationship with these nations. Thus the US states freely that India and Pakistan are both allies, but the fact remains that Pakistan is ruled by a dictator who initiaited a war with India and whose nation is clearly in the wrong as far as exporting terrorism to India is concerned. The recent revelations of nuclear technology transfer from Pakistan to North Korea have rattled the West enough to censure Pakistan, but this bears out the fact that democracy outside of the West interests the West only when it is beneficial to the West. If a dictatorship is similarly beneficial then the West usually supports it. In China's case there has been recently a turn of events- some call it political maturity, others call it the result of affluence or economic integration with the world. China could and did ignore world opinion on a lot of matters in the past. The massacre at Tianenmen square was an example. Its actions today are markedly more benign. Could this be India's nuclear capability? Could it be that world opinions matter now for attracting investment in China, especially now that India and other nations have become as hungry and ready for it? Could it be that Beijing is accomplishing a facelift, of which its newly gleaming cities and the Olympics next year are examples? For whatever reason, one finds that China reacts considerably differently to events such as the Maoist threat in Nepal and North Korean nuclear ambitions. So it is with the protests in Burma. This represents an opportunity for the West to push their agenda (at least a little) in some of these nations.

What about Burma? Or specifically what can India and the US do (separately) about Burma? India cannot march in and crush the junta as the consequences of a sustained war and a proxy-war with China are unthinkable. Already the lessons from Sri Lanka are fresh in Indian minds. India cannot impose sanctions as they are not only ineffective but counter-productive to the confidence building measures and economic relationship fostered painstakingly over the last decade. India cannot as its policy arm militants as it has been itself a victim of such export of terror. India can incentivize a return to democracy and freedom by establishing economic cooperation. Besides the shabby treatment of Daw Ang San Suu Kyi and the pro-democracy movement by the junta has always worsened when it felt threatened. Democracy imposed from the outside is never a true democracy, as Solzhenitsyn recently remarked about the US remaking of the Iraqi government.

The US is the most serious player in this equation. In its war against terror the US has a moral responsibility to oppose regimes such as Pakistan and Burma, but experience with other Asian countries must have taught the US that democracy imposed from without is of no use. The US too must begin constructive dialogue with Burma. It must help Burma move on from being an international pariah to economic powerhouse that it is entitled to be, given its rich resources and people. A nation like Singapore is a US ally without being a true democracy- why not Burma? What prevents this is (1) US fear over Chinese influence on Burma; and (2) the prevailing mistrust in Burma towards the US. These are tough to overcome, but absolutely necessary to create a peaceful Burma. The US must take the lead in bringing both the junta and the pro-democracy leaders to the negotiating table. As all dictatorships do, Burma's will fall one day. To prevent the spillage of blood in the meantime, there needs to be a give and take as Burma becomes stronger and integrated with the world.

One can hope for the pro-democracy movement to succeed in Burma, and if it does, it is good news indeed. Hopefully it will result in a good plan and action towards democracy and join India as the only true grassroots democracies in Asia. If it doesn't, the best other nations can do is to help integrate that nation with the rest of the world.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Security Breaches in IT

Interesting new item here-

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/09/ct_accenture.html

The state of Connecticut is suing technology consulting company Accenture over the loss of a data tape containing personal information on 58 taxpayers and nearly 460 state bank accounts.

"Accenture deserves censure -- to be held accountable for allowing valuable secret data to be stolen and putting at risk state taxpayers, bank accounts and purchasing cards," Blumenthal said.

"Transferring this data to Ohio is inexplicable and inexcusable," Blumenthal said. "Confidential information can have the value of cash -- especially in the wrong hands -- but Accenture treated it like scrap paper. Its breach of contract and negligence exposed state taxpayers to identity theft and other harm."



A $98 million contract to develop this payroll, inventory and accounting system ought to have been better monitored for security. Even with security measures that are robust and mature in place such as at most Indian or global IT giants' offshore delivery centers,occasional slip-ups such as the breach at MPhasis are a major concern for clients. Incidents such as the Accenture-Connecticut case point to such breaches even when the information is kept onshore; and call into question giving away contracts upwards of $5 million without ensuring necessary conditions against breach, such as the inadmissibility of storage devices in associates' laptops, policies against accessing client resources except under monitoring or in a 'time and material' billing without attached SLAs and so on.

Friday, September 14, 2007

Christian Charity in Jane Austen's Works

Christian morals have come from so many writers in such varied forms, that each reader has his or her opinion about what an acceptable form should be. CS Lewis writes his Narnia novels in an unmistakably allegorical form; JRR Tolkien's Rings are much more subtle and relies so much on the myths of his culture's Germanic and Norse roots to make points that square with the Christian ethos. Johanna Spyri portrays the effect of Christianity and a child's innocence on hardened hearts in Heidi, notably through that life-transforming, astonishing little parable of the prodigal son. Patricia St. John's very similar work, Treasures of the Snow sees itself as a children's novella that ties together concepts like God's sovereignty, beneficence, power to transform lives, heal relationships and sickness.

Among these great writers also stands tall Jane Austen, as this article by Dr. Jerram Barrs titled 'Jane Austen- Great Christian Novelist' explains. His explanation covers these five points:

1. Austen was no romantic- I find this very true. Unlike the Bronte sisters who have criticized Austen for her gentle treatment of her characters' personalities (compared to the molten passions of their own novels' characters), Austen treated relationships with wisdom and a lightness that settles nicely on them so the reader participates with the author in giving them a circumference that he or she can relate to. Austen never gives us a climactic fairytale ending or a Hardy-esque bitter end (which I believe is another form of romanticism- for such ends are ironical only because expectations are set wrongly). Her endings satisfy because they are right, not because they are what the protagonists have desired all along. Indeed in Sense and Sensibility, as Dr. Barrs explains, the effects of unbridled passion are demonstrated to be unsatisfying.

2. Austen literary ability was outstanding- Dr. Barr doesn't elaborate on this, but of course this is borne out by her time-tested works. Who would have expected them to remain at number 5 on a modern best-seller list of novels in the mid-1990s?

3. Austen sketches characters intimately- Once again, absolutely right. The humour, the wisdom, the unanswered questions, the courtesy- all of these give such depth to them, one is struck by the fact that the author doesn't get carried away by any one of these characteristics.

4. Austen's vision of moral and spiritual uprightness was profound- Countless instances prove this. In Emma, Mr. Knightley admonishes Emma Woodhouse with righteous indignation when she has thoughtlessly criticized Miss Bates. Miss Bates deserved Emma's compassion because she was poor. Emma's remorse that follows and the course of events after this set a moral tone to the novel that reaches out to us without seeming pontificatory. Mr. Knightley's ability to tolerate Frank Churchill's apparent courting of Emma is also lauded, as being typical of the parfait knight (as the play on name correctly indicates). Similarly in Sense and Sensibility, Elinor Dashwood similarly goes through a courteous and gracious if confused time of playing the understanding friend to Edward Ferrars who she hears is set to marry someone else. This is considered the 'sensibility' part of the title, and similarly lauded.

5. Austen wrote with a humour that also typifies many of her characters' personalities. This sets her apart from so many female authors of her time and subsequent ages. A modern novel like the God of Small Things for instance has the kind of humour about it that is ironical, vaguely forboding or sarcastic. In contrast, Austen's works have genuine humour that is beneficent and hearty without being annoying or foolish.

Among the other Christian writers, I believe Austen holds a special place in her treatment of everyday relationships, social equations, courtesy and self-control that flow from the considered Christian life.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

To be Known and Loved

It's a truism that history repeats itself. Often this adage is used in the context of people repeating mistakes that have been made often. The sins that easily ensnare us have been around from the beginning of human existence and written about in every creed, story, self-help book and court of law. We have been warned and taught at a young age to eschew lust, pride, greed and so on- but we are prone to fall victim to this troika as easily as we ever have been.

The latest celebrity life to be torn to shambles doesn't make us sit and reflect much nowadays, does it? One would be hard pressed to actually take a celebrity life, at least here in the US, and think about a life that has been relatively stable. Infidelity, divorce, suicidal tendencies, drugs-rehab-drug-drinks routine, parent-child clashes, property disputes, disputes over prenuptial agreements... the list goes on. The so-called sexual revolution and the enlightenment that followed it in the sixties were supposed to have freed us, but at long last we realize (even if we would not admit it) that there is no such thing as free love. Love demands a price of commitment and self-control. But this is nothing new. It has been repeated ad-nauseam through the ages. We are too busy to listen or too uncaring to slow down. What CS Lewis called chronological snobbery- the feeling that our time and age has the answers that previous ages did not- has blinded us to reality. We have never been a more confused mass of people about any topic under the sun- sexuality, civil rights, terrorism, crim and punishment, the status of the human embryo and the sanctity of life- the list goes on.

Coming back to the celebrity theme- going by the recent experiences of Owen Wilson (suicide) and Britney Spears (several traumatic incidents), is it wrong to aspire to be famous? Does fame necessarily bring a cup of woes? That would be a pretty categorical statement. A long time ago, when I was still an unbeliever, I read one of Dr. Wayne Dwyer's self-help books in which he decried approval-seeking behaviour. He exhorted the reader to not be bound by others' opinions about ourselves, be they our parents or siblings or coworkers. In reality, this is not entirely put to practice- just as history repeats itself, noone listens to advice like this. Indeed, I doubt if even Dr. Dwyer could do this on a 100 percent effective scale. Advice has been given as copiously and variedly, as Paul Johnson writes about Bertrand Russell's output of advice in his book Intellectuals, on topics ranging from naturalistic evolution to toothpaste. Very few listen. Fewer advisers are even worth listening to. That's why Jesus cannot be categorized as simply a moral teacher. He clearly stated what the human condition is all about. He teaches: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander" (Matthew 15:19). And as Jeremiah says: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9). Christ aims to have our natural man die and his character take over our lives in its purity and reconciled status with the Father. Until then all the laws of this world or the world to come will not change us.

The Bible talks about being known by God and rewarded by Him as our goal. All over Scripture is the exhortation to keep your prayer and your good deeds from other people but let them be between youself and your Father in heaven. He is the one who calls you "good and faithful servant". In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul talks about the glorious time when "we shall know just as we are known", not "as in a mirror but face to face". Could it be that our desire to be valued and known is a genuine desire? That it has been misdirected, and needs to be shifted in its focus to the One who put it there?

Friday, September 7, 2007

Summer of Discontent

Apple is now busy apologizing to iPhone owners over a price cut from $599 to $399 in 2 months. People who had rushed to buy the phone are chagrined about forking out $200 because of their eagerness to try the product out. Apple is trying to ease the situation by offering $100 store credit to early adopters. Yesterday an associate mentioned he'd bought a TomTom GPS navigation system last year for $700. Today its price is $399 and he is shaken by the price drop of almost 50 percent. A few months ago a sales trainer at our company gave us a lecture about early adopters of technology in the case of consumer electronics. He gave us his personal example. Being an enthusiast for all things electronic he is the kind of guy who would rush to buy a product when it hits the stands. Very possibly he has the iPhone but I will check and confirm with him. At the extreme end of this spectrum are the guys who wait and wait and wait until it has become so mature that it would be ludicrous to be without it. In this category falls this sales trainer's dad. Both these categories of extremes represent a small portion of the market for vendors. There are different categorizations in between them, but the overwhelming majority come in right after the early adopters who are willing to take some risks. Immediately after this, another large category that leans more to the later adopters' side but still more eager to buy than that miniscule category of sales-dampeners. I fall in that catgory, I think. The middle two broad categories are the product's mainstay. In the earlier adopters of the two the product is gaining acceptance and is growing in market share. In the later adopters the product is mature and stable and slowly begins to decline towards the end.

Of course all of this seems to imply that there is a long life cycle for a product. Today the last category of very late adopters and possibly even my category of later than average adopters would seem to be irrelevant, given the pace of innovation and competition. By the time the prices decline it has been 1 year and the market is competitive, fractious and another 'car that flies' begins to peep ominously from the horizon.

This article on the Apple set me thinking: It's Official: Apple is the New Microsoft

The author, Mike Elgan of Computerworld, whose family of 4 owns 12 iPods laments about Apple's unfair business practices such as bundling iTunes with iPod and iPod software, and the consequences it brings when you uninstall the clunky iTunes. In addition he laments that with the iPhone new monopolistics tendencies from Apple have manifested themselves- charging double the price for ringtones, non-portability of tunes from iPods to other players, needing the user-unfriendly iTunes for all downloads- for songs, videos and ringtones. He compares Apple to Microsoft's early reputation as a bully, and claims that Microsoft was better still as you could reformat your computer and install Linux in it, but you can't do that with an iPod. He further laments that where Apple's Mac O/S was the innovator and Microsoft Windows the copycat, today Microsoft's Zune came up with innovations like Wi-Fi 1 year before the iPod did.

It hurts me to say this, but Mike, you should have known this from the very beginning. Contrary to my nature I downloaded iTunes in early 2004 although I did not have an iPod (and still do not have one, much less do I intend to buy one). I paid up the money required to burn 3 CDs full of songs and uninstalled the application right away because it does not let the songs play on Windows Media Player. Besides the iTunes application was clumsy, clunky, unfriendly and automatically assigned default player privileges to Quicktime. I do not miss those songs- I rarely listen to them anyway except in my car.

It's true that competition makes an economy run and enthusiastic customers are needed, but to be contended is a great thing. Apple is a pampered company because people first lapped up its simple concept of putting music into a hard drive that you can walk around with. Is that such a great concept? An MP3 player did this a long time ago, albeit with fewer songs. Today there are so many features associated with portal digital music players that these are truly products that stand out, compared to iPod version 1.0. Especially with the iPhone hitting the market it is a product that one cannot ignore. My gripe though is this: other equally innovative products hardly get a second glance, such as Zune and Sansa, thus further perpetutating the myth of Apple superiority. Today NBC crawls and begs at Apple's door to have flexibility on pricing its shows in iPod because of Apple's dominant status in music players. To date any success that can achieved by media companies in the portable media market is on iPods. This is sad and will continue unless the market gets back to its senses and teach Apple a thing about the other fish in the sea.

If not, simply be contended being trend-agnostic as I try to be. Eventually Apple will get to be less haughty and price its products more reasonably. Am I the only one who is silly enough to resist the great Steve Jobs juggernaut? Apparently not. Here is Jonathan Weinberg writing from the UK in this excellent article: Are We Not Clever Enough to Withstand Apple's Spin ? In this he asks a question that has always hounded me; in capital letters, no less- DO YOU REALLY NEED IT? Good question.