Internationalism - the need of the hour?

Wikipedia defines Internationalism thus

Internationalism is a political principle which advocates a greater political or economic cooperation among nations and peoples, and whose ideological roots can be traced to both socialism and liberalism.

While I have subscribed to many -isms, Internationalism is fairly new and quite at its nascent form. It has grown on me increasingly in recent years as I saw governments and citizens become more Nationalistic. Nationalism, per-se, is a noble quality that helps in uniting a Nation, propelling it to greater heights, through a healthy competition, with peer Nations. But the current, right wing, almost militaristic Nationalism which shoves down ideas down throats and labels anyone who protests the shoving as an anti-national is something I have grown to detest and Internationalism seems to be a viable alternate on many fronts.

I have a Dream...

...And this dream sums up an ideal world based on Internationalism. The dream is about the United Federal States of Earth (UFSE), a fantasy country-planet (modeled around city-state) maybe a reality in an Alternate Universe.

UFSE has no Central Government. Only a Supreme Council with elected representatives from every federal state. Monetary policy is managed by a committee of bankers with representation of the federal states and the economy left to the individual states. The federal states are partitioned based on language, race or whichever way the people want themselves to be identified. The Supreme Council vets applications requesting for statehood to create such states and helps in creating new federal states when the demand arise. A constitution guarantees the basic rights to all citizens and gives legality to the committees, councils and a Supreme Court helps in upholding the constitution and laws.

The federal states are free to have their own system of governance and bureaucracy. However, law and order are not the state's subject. Since there are no defense personnel and other associated military expenditures, the police force is strong and well organized. They are constrained by law and report to the Supreme Council. Given the diversity in race, language and ethnicity among the police force there are no biases in dealing with law and order. The Supreme committee headed by representatives operate in an open and transparent manner and given the lack of incentives in capturing power ensures that the police is not misused to bring down the federal setup. The federal setup together has a representative committee called the Federal committee with nominated members.

The Federal committee, Supreme Council and the Supreme Court act as the pillars of the union with the fourth pillar provided by an open and enthusiastic media with greater social participation leveraging the Information and Communication technologies.

Such a world would be more at peace with itself, the environment and the universe. And this is not that difficult to bring to fruition. Even the worst of the enemies have come together to form unions (European Union) and even nuclear neighbors (India and Pakistan) still have a lot in common between themselves than differences. People to people contact helps healing wounds and the all powerful police force can bring under control the worst of the riots given their abilities. Education can be unbiased and development would be to the benefit of humanity. Religion would be constrained to personal beliefs and while religion could still be the basis for a federal state, the fanaticism based on religion will be dealt with by the strong arm of the global police. Economic equality, equality in opportunities and a true, free market would be a reality.

Are we prepared for a Robotic Armageddon?

This post is not about

• The predicted doom because of Artificial Intelligence (AI) vying for world domination.
• A war with the Decepticons on one side and Earthlings and Autobots on the other.
• The havoc to be unleashed by the 'Jarvis' that Mark Zuckerberg is going to build which may take control of FaceBook and dictate 'free basics' terms to the poor.

This post is about (well sort of) the emergence of Automation, AI, Advanced robots and 3D printing and what it means to the world and its workforce which has an effect on the social, political and economical landscape of the countries, especially India.

This, I believe, would be the biggest 'Disruptor' (if I may borrow the jargon that most of the business world is looking up to these days!) of the century if not the decade. It has implications to disrupt both manufacturing and services and lives up to the name by creating and unlocking huge value. However, we have one huge problem. They don't disrupt other not-so-efficient, middlemen-infested, traditional, change-averse, brick-and-mortar-based and not-agile businesses. But rather disrupt and replace humans from their jobs and in turn their lives, social structure and the world as we know it. After all, humans are, err, just humans!

Companies today evidently are moving away from human resources to robotic, machine-based resources. This was necessitated by many factors including quality, quantity, stagnation of technical innovation, financial innovation and rising costs and even demography. Robots were able to deliver the best quality consistently unlike humans, the machines could run 24x7 to meet sudden surge in demand and except for regular maintenance, overhaul and the other overheads associated with the robots there was no significant costs unlike humans where labor costs go up as the standard of living improves. And when demand falls they can be just switched off unlike humans who can't be fired and had to be paid.

This is not a fad associated with manufacturing alone. When someone says services industry in India what immediately comes to mind is the Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) centres using Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) to attend to customer calls from across the world. However, Artificial Intelligence is making huge strides that this industry could be completely taken over by them. One need not look far to be convinced for this. Our AI assistants in today's smartphones - Google Now in Android, Siri in iOS and Cortana in Microsoft could do many things with just voice commands. Going forward programs like Eugene Goostman would better their Turing test scores and start vying for the BPO jobs that helped bring many out of poverty in Asia.

Neither manufacturing nor service industry is immune to this phenomena. However, this won't happen overnight and that is the consoling part - that humans would evolve to face it. But will it be slow enough for countries with huge population like China and India is the hard question. In India alone it is said that there are millions of new graduates graduating every year and government promote policies -  #MakeInIndia, #SkillIndia, #StartUpIndia, #StandUpIndia, labor policy overhauls, et cetera - to absorb them into the workforce. However, this may be too late, too little. 

Today India and the rest of the world is not able to compete with China on price. This is because they are able to keep their currency low and pay their workers even lower in sweat shops where they toil like animals. Tomorrow if they replace their workers with machines, their costs would go down further and we wouldn't be able to compete with the best and cheapest workforce. What we need is a highly skilled and competitive workforce which we may not be building.

An idle brain is a devil's workshop is an age old proverb. When livelihoods are lost, the societal and political structures may be challenged. Inequality would rear its ugly head. The World as a whole cannot afford such a situation. The solution, as I see it, would hinge on greater collaboration, technology sharing, knowledge transfer and the likes. Hope humanity wakes up to the challenges and comes out with an apt solution.

Putin - Savior or Tyrant?

I and an uncle of mine, who has varied interests and great knowledge on middle east, had a discussion on Russia's action in the middle east, especially Syria, where the Russians under Putin had taken the fight to ISIS and the Syrian rebels in support of President Bashar al-Assad. While I agree with his assessment that what Russia does is noble and good, I didn't necessarily subscribe to his view that Russia would emerge the next super power from the ashes of World War 3.

It is rather ironic (not that much, this Wired article claims it is common at this time of the year and gives tips on how to win) that the discussion happened on Christmas when the whole world celebrated the birth of Jesus Christ, prince of peace (Oops, not the whole world, many Russian Orthodox churches celebrate it in January). So is Putin a Savior who would restore Russia to former glory or a tyrant who would run Russia to the ground. I have my own reasons, which I discuss below, as to why the latter is more likely to happen though I would love the possibility of the former happening. Who doesn't like a triumphant, underdog story?

Economy

Russia is no longer the heavy weight it used to be among the BRICS nations. In fact most nations including Brazil and China are fighting high inflation and severe slowdown in their economies. The sanctions imposed by the European Union and the USA after the Crimean annexation and subsequent play in Ukraine is also having a negative effect on the Russian economy.

The fall in oil prices, whether it is being orchestrated by Washington, Riyadh or Moscow itself, the fact remains that Russia is suffering along with the other oil economies. Saudi Arabia is likely to raise debt which would help them fill in the void left behind by the plunging oil in their treasuries. Alaska is also proposing to bring in higher income tax rates after nearly three decades to plug dwindling oil revenues. Saudi Arabia (AA-) is better placed than Russia (BB+) in ratings by S&P and hence would have a clear advantage here.

The allies also play an important role here. On Russia's side we have got Syria, Iran and Iraq for now. Syria is still battling ISIS and have conceded large swathes of land to the self proclaimed Caliphate. Iran recently won a diplomatic victory in getting the West remove crippling sanctions against it by agreeing to go slow on its nuclear weapons program and is unlikely to antagonize them again. Iraq is still rebuilding itself from the invasion by the United States and subsequent IS menace. There are other countries such as China on the fence, which is battling its own financial crisis at home and also concerned about USA's involvement with its regional rivals. The other countries are too small or economically weak to bring anything substantial to the table.

Against Russia we have Saudi Arabia and Turkey, two of the most powerful countries in the middle east. Israel can also be counted in as also Pakistan. The United Arab Emirates can bankroll the fight for long. Though these countries are economically sound if push comes to the shove they can be backed by the Americans and the Europeans with their large purses miffed by age old Soviet adversity and recent Russian action in Ukraine and Syria.

Advantage: Anti-Russia coalition

Military

The Soviet Union was a formidable military power but the same cannot be said about the Russians. When the Russians battled Georgia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia their performance was assessed and found to be lacking by both International and Domestic experts. Though their performance had significantly improved during the Ukraine and Syrian conflicts, it is still not the kind that would upset the Anti-Russian coalition. Russia's allies are also not in a very strong position. Iran has dated weaponry and is dependent on Russia for its' supplies. So is Syria and most of their weapons fell into rebel hands when Syrian soldiers defected to join the rebel ranks.

China, who is sitting on the fence on Syria, if it decides to join would be a game changer. China has weapons that are either imported or copies of some of the world's most renowned. However, the question is whether they will enter the war. Chinese economy is already in a slowdown and being a trade economy heavily dependent on exports of finished goods, war is bad news. A slowing economy doesn't augur well for domestic politics either. But if they were to enter despite these they might be aggressively engaged more locally in the South China Sea, Tibet and India. Also entering the middle east in support of the Russians and the Shias against the Sunnis may lead to loss of relationship with the Pakistanis. Moreover, the Uighur problem in Xinjiang may peak considering the fact that Uighurs adhere to Sunni practices.

Contrast this with the Anti-Russia coalition. In the middle east we have Turkey, Saudi and Israel ready to defend against Russian action. The United States and its allies would be ready with arms and ammunition to back them up. Considering that Turkey is a NATO member, any attack on them would invite NATO ire which might affect Russia closer to home than in Syria. Probably the reason why Turkey downing a Russian fighter has more or less received muted response.

While Russian performance have significantly improved since 2008 it still doesn't match its opponent and allies.

Advantage: Anti-Russia coalition

Domestic Politics

A country need stability internally to project power externally. This is important, especially in this age, when the enemy actively uses internal disturbances as a policy to attack. Russia in this front has many active instability factors - separatists, drugs, demographics, corruption, mafia and oligarchs. The fact that Russia lacks any credible opposition to highlight excesses by the Government and most of the fourth estate being owned by the Government or state run companies doesn't help either. Divergent views aren't tolerated, be it from a Journalist, physicist or from that of a Chess Grand master, they are silenced either by assassination or intimidation. In a full scale war these can be put to maximum use to divert  Kremlin's attention from the battle field.

Iran too faced protests soon after elections in 2009 like Russia did after Putin came to power in 2012. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is still a central figure and a force to be reckoned with, known for his fierce anti-west tirade. Though the current Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, is a moderate, who was able to strike the deal with the west on Nuclear energy, he still is very much influenced by the Ayatollah is an open secret. There is a civil war going on in Syria and Iraq isn't exactly peaceful either.

China has a more complicated problem at hand. The bond that holds the Chinese people together is that the economy has been growing, providing opportunities, keeping them busy. So busy that they have never felt the need to fight for government services, labor incentives and freedom. The unraveling economy can have a cascading effect on the cheap labor which might make the local population to raise against the state in protest. Apart from this there is the restive province of Xinjiang with the muslim Uighurs who are fighting against the Han Chinese for autonomy. Tibetans too are protesting the presence of Chinese in their land. All this flash points could be activated if China decides to side with Russia in the war.

On the other side we have dictatorships too - UAE, Saudi Arabia, et cetera. However, these don't have an imminent threat of losing power. Turkey has a vibrant democracy so does Israel and Pakistan, at least on paper. The other American and European powers have a strong mature democracy and institutions to take care of internal issues freeing their leaders to concentrate on the war, should the need arise.

Advantage: Anti-Russia coalition

It is simple to dismiss all the above as western propaganda. But a propaganda targeting whom would be a valid question. If it is to shape public discourse to prepare them for a war then it is not happening. People today are more connected and war averse than before. And in this age of Wikileaks, Snowden, Anonymous and a free press, a propaganda of this scale, if it was one, would have been easily called out as one. Contrarily it is countries like Russia and Iran which have a press high on propaganda.

So is a great war in the offing then? I would say, NO!

Russia, Europe and America are too smart for it. The great powers have more or less understood that war creates more problems than it solves. We have seen Europe, once the world's hot spot for conflicts, kick out all misunderstandings and merging together for good. Russia went ahead and created a trade union combining Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia into an Eurasian Customs Union. USA is consolidating its friendship with Mexico and Canada and is extending a hand of friendship to even former enemies such as Cuba.

So Putin - a savior or tyrant? A savior to his people thanks to the propaganda that is going on in Russia and among the Russian people. A tyrant to the west and all who view Russia as a threat including Ukraine, Georgia, et cetera. What Putin actually is a smart negotiator, a shrewd businessman and a sly fox. His negotiation skills came to the fore when Syria was to be punished by the policeman of the world. He means business when he says he would protect Russian interests (which include ethnic Russian population in other countries) under threat using force. When the heat is on him he turns around, withdraws to negotiate and concludes his business - the French saw it during Georgia, Germany and Europe in Ukraine and the United States probably would see it in Syria.

Disclosures:

• I am a big fan of Russia, the country that demonstrated how Communism (me a fanboi) can work (albeit for a short time with all the inefficiencies).
• I also like spies (have read most works of Tom Clancy, Robert Ludlum and watched most Bond movies) and hence Putin, the KGB agent, naturally commands my admiration.
• I understand that no one can be without bias but I am working on containing mine.

Is 'Uber'ization the answer?

Very few companies can boast of having become so famous that they ended up as verbs, mostly as a jargon in the business circles and a rare few officially. There is a term which defines this - Neologism.

Wikipedia had this to say on Neologism

A neologism (/niːˈɒlədʒɪzəm/; from Greek νέο- néo-, "new" and λόγος lógos, "speech, utterance") is the name for a relatively new or isolated term, word, or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been accepted into mainstream language.

Google was one among them with more people replacing the term 'searching' with 'googling'. It was added to the dictionary about a decade back. And Xerox was one of the earliest. Off late, a new word is in vogue -'Uberization'. As you probably know, it comes from Uber, the transportation company that infamously employs more developers of software than drivers of automobiles. Uberization means different things to different people. To some it is just disruption with new technology/processes and to others it is a service part of the nascent yet promising 'on-demand, sharing economy' driven by technological innovation. It is the latter definition I referred to while penning the below content.

Uber was successful in disrupting the market of good old taxis and works as an intermediary in connecting service providers (Cab drivers) and demand (Cab riders). Uber grew fairly quick, thanks to generous funds from the venture capitalists eager to identify the next Google. Incidentally, Google itself is a big investor in Uber through Google Ventures. Uber has been efficient as a service and cost effective too since the majority of the job is done by algorithm with little to no human intervention. They have also been quite aggressive in expanding as expansion to newer territories and scaling up operations took no or negligible effort. The ubiquitous technology infrastructure in the form of smartphones in the hands of the masses and the ability of computer hardware to more or less keep up with Moore's law has made sure the business model remains competitive.

The social reasons were compelling too. When Toyota brought in Just-in-time (JIT) manufacturing it was touted as a game changer and it did prove that it was an efficiency multiplier and waste eliminator. However, the credit for taking JIT from factory floors into personal lives goes to us, the Millennials. We called it On-Demand Services. This was partly because of the lack of patience. It is indeed ironic that we complain of a mundane, robot-like life when we are ready to adopt assembly line techniques in real life.

The logic behind on-demand services, however, is solid. Uber, for example, tries to address the transportation problem for the masses, especially in the USA, where the public transportation system is lackadaisical. Their argument primarily is this - Why own a car when you can demand one at any point of time. It makes massive economic sense for the consumer. A car would spend most of its time parked at home or in office and little time transporting. Moreover, there are also overhead expenses such as service costs, insurance, et cetera associated with ownership not to mention the physical and mental stress while driving. It also adds value in that a single car in the Uber world ends up transporting more people, many times than a single car in its whole life time when they were owned. And there are the usual arguments on pollution, traffic and the likes.

The efficiencies no wonder are making people call for the Uberization of the whole economy. However, that may be a bad idea.

Uber and most other on-demand services treat the service providing professional as a contractor and not an employee (except in California). This helps the company in running lean and also frees them from other conventional employee benefit related expenses. However, it restricts the company’s reach in controlling the contractor behavior. Experience shows such lack of a leash has been exploited to unleash terrible crimes on unsuspecting consumers.

It is likely that the quality of the service would suffer because of the above reason. A contractor is largely not bound by strict employee guidelines and is likely to deviate from moral and social responsibilities in which the company believes in. The market is expected to instill such guidelines through a network of feedback, leader boards which affect the reputation of the contractor but the ease of obtaining a pseudonymous identity would render it worthless. Just plain human tendencies of forgiveness screw the feedback mechanism too.

The contractor has the freedom to be online or go offline at their chosen hour. There are no fixed minimum hours of work expected out of them. While this gives the contractors the freedom it would break the whole system spreading the available resources too thin and insufficient. It would also result in what is known as surge pricing which is discussed below. This was experienced in the recent tragic Chennai floods when most taxi aggregators including Uber were not able to service all customers (though they need to be applauded for their relief efforts).

Demand and supply for a commodity or service affects all businesses. On-demand services try to make the most out of discrepancies in demand and supply. This is because when the demand is high and supply low, the emoluments are attractive and new suppliers get into the system and when the reverse happens, supply is high and demand low, the consumers get a better deal. Free market economics at work. However, Surge Pricing, as it is known, is not embraced by consumers who feel they are being exploited. Moreover, if not done properly any cost optimization achieved earlier may be lost due to surge pricing methodologies.

Surge pricing would also drive up inequality (related), which according to many, is the single greatest threat facing humanity. A free market is an economist's dream come true but very rarely are markets free and ideal. When the fares hit the roof only those with the ability to pay would be able to avail the service and the less fortunate would be left behind to fend for themselves. If the whole economy is Uberized and all services are to be delivered, on-demand with surge pricing then on a rainy day a low income household would probably lose all the saving they accumulated when the sun shone.

Thus I end my argument on why Uberization is not the answer. Comments welcome below.

Avengers

Apologies if you came here looking for something about the movie! This entry is not about the movie. I just borrowed the name since it looked quite apt. How? Well I will try to explain that towards the end, hopefully!

The planet and the landmass in it, with their many, man-made, disputed, virtual, borders, which we popularly refer to as countries, is going the right way. What is wrong in going the right way? Well it is not the ‘Right’ as in Right/Wrong, but, it is the ‘Right’ as in Right/Left. Still how is it wrong? I am not saying it is wrong, I am just worried that the Right way might be the wrong way.

Full Disclosure: So am I just another paranoid leftist (communist) advocating Karl Marx while enjoying the fruits of Adam Smith? Nope, I see myself more of a Centrist! A mixture of Amartya Sen and Jagdish Bhagwati, if you may.

The world, right from the Land of the Free, The United States of America to the other countries to its east ending with Land of the Rising Sun, Japan are already in or witnessing the steady rise of the Right. Agreed there are a few places where the Left are still left, most recent example being the Syriza in Greece and the Liberals in Canada. But the Right’s rise is what captivates and concerns me. Possibly because the most important countries are helmed by the conservatives or those with a conservative mindset.

Anyone who is following the US presidential election campaign would be familiar with the faces from the Conservative, Grand Old Party (GOP), The Republicans. This is the party that counts a lot of conservative leaders in its fold including Governor Bobby Jindal, the Indian-American who renounced his Indianness in as many words and Jeb Bush from the no-introduction-required Bush family.

And in comes Donald Trump who shook the conservative leaders and followers of the GOP through his Ultra-Conservatism. Trump, I learnt, was considered too conservative by some conservatives of the conservative party. Perhaps similar to how Islamic State was considered as too radical by the radicals at Al-qaeda. And guess what, the American public seems to like him. Considering the anti-incumbency of the Democrats in the White House, it is likely that the Republicans would be given the spectre and there is a chance, however slim, for Trump to be crowned Commander-in-Chief.

Not far across the Atlantic, the Americans’ old colonial masters who too in 2015 decided that they would like to be ruled by Conservatives rather than Labour much to the chagrin of the liberals. In a tightly fought election where pundits predicted a hung parliament rode the Conservative *White* knight with a majority of his own . Just like how in 2014 their former colony, the crown jewel of the British Empire, India, quite similarly elected the *Saffron* savior in the Hindu Nationalist party, the BJP, with a majority of its own contrary to what the pundits had predicted.

The Syrian refugee crisis brought the contention among European conservatives out in the open. Led by Hungary which conveniently sidetracked the whole humanitarian angle by claiming that the Government didn’t have the mandate to change the demographics which would be the outcome of letting in the Muslims, a charge often echoed in India by the far right though not backed by much empirical evidence. German conservative behavior was also blamed for the near collapse of the Greece bailout.

On the other side of Europe we have Russia led by Vladimir Putin, Tzar of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) who wanted to retain Russia’s buffer zone of the old soviet states. Russian adventurism in Ukraine and more recently in Syria brings back the cold war era to mind. Who knew when Obama and Putin spoke of the ‘Reset’ button they wanted cold war v2.0?

Shinzo Abe, author of the Abenomics and Prime Minister of Japan, is from the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and don’t let the liberal in the name fool you. The LDP is a major conservative political party in Japan. Abe has not only been credited with the small successes Japan has had in getting out of the decade old deflation, but, also been called ‘far more right than most of his predecessors’ and his interpretation of history has been controversial. No wonder the current ruling dispensation in India who also are quite vociferous of imperfections in history found a great friend in Abe and have moved ahead in forging a formidable alliance, economically and militarily.

This is not just evident in democracies across the world where people who have the power to elect their rulers have given overwhelming support to those who have promised to restore their past glory but also authoritarian regimes. China recently commemorated the 70th anniversary of defeat of Japanese forces in WW2 with a massive show of force. Its flexing of muscles with neighbors especially in South China Sea and India haven’t gone unnoticed.

So what are the common things that unite most of the conservatives. Well most resort to restoring the lost glory through re-writing history and AVENGE their imaginary enemies. The last time it happened it led to something called Holocaust. And that's what worries me!

NOTA, FTW !

A friend of mine recently drew my attention to a Frontline magazine article, albeit a dated one, in which Subash Kashyap, the former General Secretary of the Lok Sabha, talks about a few noted Supreme Court directives of that time. NOTA or None of the above option was one among them in which Mr. Kashyap dwells and expresses his views extensively.

NOTA, for the uninitiated, allows the disapproval of all the candidates in a voting list by the voter.

Though Mr. Kashyap has many valid points, he is not entirely convincing, at least to me. I am trying to list down the why.

NOTA helps to reduce Confirmation Bias

Confirmation Bias is the tendency to search or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. So when I vote for a particular party in an election, I would probably not critically analyze their policies for the term they are in power. Thus I fail my duty as a citizen in my democratic right to elect without bias and arrive at a rational decision in the consecutive elections.

I had written previously too on confirmation bias and how we need to get rid of the concept of party membership. Probably shows my bias in continually supporting the existence of confirmation bias.

NOTA helps in a more informed, non-acrimonious electorate

This is linked to the first point on confirmation bias. A lot of people without confirmation bias means a lot of well informed people who tend to share their knowledge through debates and editorials making the overall electorate aware of their political masters and their shortcomings. Journalists, for example, can use NOTA while voting so that they are not swayed by party loyalty while covering news.

We see a lot of personality driven leadership in parties today. And when the leadership fails in its duty it falls on its followers to defend the indefensible. NOTA would help in easing such constraints and help enjoy and involve oneself in debates based on what one believes in rather than party or personality loyalty.

NOTA helps in bypassing compulsory voting

Mr. Kashyap made an important point in the interview that NOTA was already allowed even before its introduction. The voter can reject the candidates by simply not voting. However, with recent talks of introduction of compulsory voting by governments, NOTA would probably be the only option through which the voter can reject all candidates.

Moreover, in this age when pseudo-nationalists run amok in every street corner, an unstained indelible ink fingered individual post election date is sacrilegious. NOTA could very well save the voter from the self proclaimed nationalists.

NOTA thus is uniquely placed to provide certain benefits and hence I see it go FTW!

Did Britain already pay reparations to India as Cs?

The speech by Dr. Shashi Tharoor, Member of Parliament, on whether Britain should pay reparations to India at the Oxford Union debate was well received. Both by his supporters and detractors, which, is a rarity in Indian politics. Indian political leaders typically play to the gallery that cheers them and ignore the others but Tharoor is distinctive in that he is a Liberal who proved he can become a darling of the conservatives overnight.

While I agree with all the points he made and do feel that Britain does need to pay reparations, I am willing to play a little Devil's advocate here for my own benefit to get a better understanding on why I agree with Dr. Tharoor. I would like to counter Tharoor's arguments through my own theory - Britain paid back the reparations in full, with Interest, not in Pounds but in Cs.

This video of Dr. Tharoor's eloquent speech on reparations can give a little context to those who haven't watched this before.

C for Cricket

I am not a big follower of the game, however, I do get all charged up when India plays against any country and especially if it was Pakistan. Very few events have matched Cricket's ability to bring together the country of a Billion people of various religion, language, caste and creed. This amazing sport was not native to India and even India's national sport is Hockey (until 2012?!). However, it is likely that any random Indian would recognize an Indian Cricketer better than a Hockey player of the Indian team. There are probably more coaches, stadiums, events, recognition, even sporting accessory brands for Cricket than Hockey. However, these are points for a different blog post.

The point here is this amazing game which brings together a billion Indian together was brought here by the British. In the speech Tharoor makes a point on Railway and Road Infrastructure. He very rightly says that Colonialism cannot take credit for bringing these to the country as there are countries which were not colonized able to develop these on their own. However that argument might fall flat in case of Cricket. Because we don't see Cricket famous outside the commonwealth. The most followed sport in the world currently is Football and not Cricket.

So now that we have made a point let us try to quantify like Dr. Tharoor did. Well we have the richest cricketing board in the world. We have millions who would pay an arm and a leg to watch and take selfies with the Cricketers. That with one of the fastest growing middle class in world sounds rather profitable. We even hold the International Cricket Council Chairmanship currently.

For me, however, the fact that the game can rally together a billion people alone is priceless.

C for Comprehension and Conversation.

India is a land of many tongues. A great many languages were spoken and we didn't need one more to add to the confusion. However, we all took to learning English since the Britishers spoke English. And probably because they sounded horrible speaking our languages or they were dim witted or plain lazy to learn ours. This ability to comprehend and converse in the lingua franca of the World opened our economies in ways we never comprehended.

Not many people would remember the protest against Hindi as a national language that broke out in many states, especially Tamil Nadu in late 1960s. Language can trigger dirty civil wars is a known fact which is a topic for another Blog post. People were open to the idea of seceding from India to protect their language against the invasion of Hindi. And it was finally left to English to save the day. Till today English remains an official language along with Hindi.

The Information Technology and associated services revolution wouldn't have occurred if not for this ability. Russia and Ukraine had better programmers, China had cheaper programmers while only India and a few other countries of the commonwealth had better, cheaper and English speaking programmers. Today the GDP contribution of these services industries is out there to make quantifying easy.

For me, however, the fact that this language of the Britishers played a role in keeping India together, united, is priceless.

C for Crown

Before Cricket and before English the one thing that held the people together, galvanized an entire sub continent on a massive civil disobedience movement was the Crown. Or to make it more clear - a hate for the crown and its excesses. Before the crown, India was largely non existent. It was a bunch of princely states fighting each other for power and influence. Thanks to the crown and its excesses we were united to fight them off and decided to stay united.

That again is priceless.

So my arguments have largely stated that Britain had already paid reparations. Right?

No! Like Dr. Tharoor says, reparations are not about the money, it is about principles. The British must take the opportunity to atone for their past misdeeds.