ஆங்கில இழை - ஆங்கிலத்தில் வந்த கட்டுரைகள், பேட்டிகள், செய்திகள்....
ஸ் பெ
Setting a target can be the most limiting thing: TCS CEO and MD N. Chandrasekaran
On a relaxed Saturday morning at his home-office in Mumbai, N.
Chandrasekaran, CEO and Managing Director of Tata Consultancy Services
settled down to talk at length to Goutam Das. Edited
excerpts:
Q: Tell us something about the people who influenced
you.
A: One of the early influences on me was my father Srinivasan
Natarajan. He said whenever you spend some money, write it down. And you have to
be honest about it. Simple things he taught me include reflecting, frugality,
being honest in terms of what I do. I grew up in a small town. Every time I
wanted to do something, he would ask if I was committing myself for the
long-term or was it for the short-term. He would say whenever you have to do
one-off things, you don't have to think much about them. Long-term commitments
have to be thought through. From him I learnt perseverance, thinking beforehand
become committing.
Then I have also been influenced by my teachers. I
still remember when I was moving from the sixth to the seventh standard, I could
not attend classes for two and half months because I had to go through a small
surgery. My class teacher, Kannammal, kept complete notes of every subject for
me.
I was a good student, a class topper. This was in the government
school in Mohanur. In a way, it had an influence - what it is to look after
people. The teacher didn't have to do that. I didn't think about it so much at
that time. Many of these things come to my mind now. Now, I think about what it
means to care about people. You work in a team. Somebody or the other will
always need help. It is importnant to spend the time to solve his problem.
Q: What did your father do?
A: My father was a lawyer by
profession but then he came back to manage our family farm because my
grandfather died at the age of 55. We were six siblings. We all grew up together
and all my brothers and sisters have had a huge influence on me too. For
instance, my eldest sister was exceptionally good in Maths and English. That was
an influence. I saw her scoring 100 out of 100 every time. My eldest brother was
extremely hard working. I wouldn't say I worked very hard.
Q: You did
not?
A: I worked okay, but not very hard.
Q: Where are
your siblings now?
A: One of my brothers is in the software
industry, the other brother is a CFO. Sisters are all housewives.
Q:
What happened after school?
A: I went to Trichi to do my plus two
because I wanted to switch from the Tamil medium to English medium. The
government school was a Tamil medium school. Then I went to Coimbatore to do a
course in applied sciences and then to Regional Engineering College.
Q: Were you a good communicator back in those days?
A:
Since my school was a Tamil medium school, most of the communication was in
Tamil. I used to participate in debates. I was good in communication. I gave up
participating in debates when I moved to the English medium school because the
debates there were in English. So I was not comfortable. I could communicate in
English but was not very eloquent. I had great interest in Tamil literature. I
still read Tamil literature, but once in a while. I would have been extremely
happy studying Tamil literature.
Q: Why didn't you do that?
A:(Laughs) You are always told to do Maths and Science. My father
wanted me to do a graduate programme and then come back and do agriculture. So I
did my science degree (applied sciences), moved back home and tried agriculture
for six months.
Q: Agriculture?
A:I managed the farm. I
went with my father in the morning. We grew bananas, rice and sugarcane. I tried
it for six months but I was not happy. So I decided to pursue studies and went
to REC to do my Masters progamme in Computer Applications. During my last year,
I came to TCS to do my college project. Then I was interviewed by F.C. Kohli.
Q: What were your influences at TCS in the early stages of your
career?
A: I enjoyed every project I worked on. I had a lot of
influences from among the clients. In 1993, I worked on a very large federal
government programme and we did a spectacular job. The first phase of the
programme was completed. The second phase was completed and was going to go
live.
That morning, the client manager who was my interface came and
said he wanted to go for lunch. I told him that the system was going live now
and I had to stay. But he insisted we go for the lunch. I was very restless in
the car. There were no mobile phones those days either so no one could reach me.
He said we have done a fabulous job but he needed to find the guy who could step
into my shoes. By taking me to lunch, he would find out because somebody would
handle the job when I wasn't around. It is about taking risks, trusting people -
so this guy had a big influence on me.
Q:Was there a moment during
your career when you had the inking you would land the top job?
A:
There has never been a dull moment. I know I was doing very well. But it was not
that I had to be this or that. But in the last two-three years before I became a
CEO... I was appointed as the COO in 2007. Then you know you are one of the
candidates.
Q: At that point of time did you have any weaknesses
which you worked on?
A: Not consciously. As you grow, every year you
improve in some aspect or the other. I started running around that time, in
2007. One of the things I would say is that I became a little more patient
during that period. I was always a man in a hurry. Maybe it was a combination of
taking up running (and other things). Running has had a lot of influence on me.
I have become a lot more observant after I started running. I notice things much
more now.
Perseverance has increased. I have also become a much better
listener. If you go back to my early years, probably I was not that good a
listener. I don't know if it was only due to running or running plus the fact
that I was shouldering more responsibility. In fact, contrary to what you would
think, I really feel that I am not tense at all now. I used to be more tense as
the COO and in my earlier years.
Q: Was that an anxiety to
deliver?
A: No…. you think I have no anxiety now? Now I am in the
public eye and everything is being debated and written about. I think it's
partly my growing up and handling more responsibility and partly my running. I
give a lot of credit to running, boss. I have become much calmer, a better
listener, I don't get tense at all.
Q: Your friends tell me you
hardly lose your temper. Is that true?
A: When you are not under
pressure, where is the question of losing your temper (laughs)? I have never
been angry with individuals. I have only been upset with situations. Over the
years, I have also learnt that if I get upset, it is my problem, it is not
somebody else's problems. It is not a question of you getting upset with
somebody. If I know simple things that we should have done and we didn't do, I
will be very upset. I will be very critical of it and I will sit down with the
team and question it. But I have never been angry or upset at an individual.
Q: What did you mean when you said you were always a man in a hurry?
A: I want to finish things, I want to move. I like meetings,
collaborations, etc but at the same time, one can't be endlessly debating. We
need to move on.
Q: There are two kinds of leaders. There are those
who have the broad vision and then there are those who micromanage. Some say you
blend both these styles very well. Is that a good way of describing your style?
A: The way to look at it is that I work with a lot of people.
Everyone has strengths. Everyone has a style. Over the years, I have learnt that
one way is to impose your style on people - tell them I am responsible, I like
it done this way, etc, and everybody has to do it that way. But this puts a lot
of pressure on people. People will not be themselves. Some will need you being
in touch with them on a frequent basis. Some people will get very worked up if
you are in touch with them frequently. So I balance it. Since I came from the
ground up, I understand the business and am hands on. I am a technical guy, so I
understand the business quite well and stay in touch with what is going on in
the industry. But I agree on what needs to be done, the rules of the game and
what is the path we want to take - I communicate that very clearly. After that,
I let them be. But I am always available.
Q: So it is a personalised
way of dealing with people?
A: It is not personalized to the extent
that there are 20 different models. It is a band and you got to move in that
band. It is very important to give people the space. For me it is not about
micromanaging or not micromanaging. It is the need for me to give the space for
people to operate in the way they want to operate.
Q: The other thing
that came out in discussions with your executives is that you are never happy
with the targets they set for themselves. You often give them a cricketing
analogy, from T20.
A: Absolutely. Many times I feel that setting a
target can be the most limiting thing. You go into a pitch in the morning and
say this is a good pitch for 160 runs. But for all you know the pitch could be
good for 220 runs. So once you set your mind on a target, you are kind of
limited by that target.
Q: So how does TCS go about setting targets?
A: So the first thing I say is that you've got to aspire. I allow
them the freedom to come out with unreasonable goals and then go for it. But I
don't criticise them if they fail or fail miserably. It is fine with me. But we
are also operating in the market so we know based on the data that we have how
much we are likely to achieve. That becomes the target from a quarterly point of
view but everyone knows that's soft.
Q: Another thing that comes
across when we speak to executives is your phenomenal memory for people. Someone
told me you know 5000 people by name in the organization...
A: I have
not counted but I know a lot of people.
Q: How do you remember
someone working on a particular technology in a specific project from among the
thousands at TCS?
A: Because either I have reviewed the project or I
have heard about that particular project. Many people who have worked with me
are still in the company. It is very important for me to know the new things we
are working on. So I keep track. If there is something interesting, I meet a few
people working in that area. So I remember. If you are present in a meeting,
even if it is a two-minute meeting, you don't forget the person or what was
discussed. But if you are not present, even if it was a one hour meeting, I
don't think you would remember anything. I try my best to be present.
Q: How is your connect with the bottom of the pyramid people, the
freshers or the 'three-years of experience' employee?
A: It is
becoming harder (to have a connect) because we are very large. I used to do a
lot of reviews five - six years before. I used to go to each location and spend
a day, morning to evening. So I used to meet a lot of people, project teams,
meet high potentials, walk the floor. Today, I can't do all these to the extent
that I cover the entire company. Now I am thinking of adopting social media in a
big way. That's my goal for next year.
Q: What is it like to be a
Tata group CEO?
A: It is two things. The group is professionally
managed so I get to run the show. For me it is the enormous freedom to operate
and accountability. Then there is the strong value system of the group.
Q: There is a legacy you inherited when you became CEO …
A: A fantastic platform. Both the CEOs before me had long innings.
The company's DNA, the delivery mindset, is extremely strong.
Q: TCS
has got used to long stints at the top. You are 50 and so you can have a long
stint as well. Is that the way forward for TCS?
A: As long as there
is energy in you and as long as you are delivering performance, strategically
building the company for sustainable long-term growth, providing the right
leadership, and people below you are looking up to your leadership, it is good
to carry on.
Q: While the going is good, something must be giving you
sleepless nights …
A: I generally sleep well (laughs). But I worry
about a lot of things. We have an unique opportunity and if we don't exploit
that, that will be a problem. We are operating on a very huge scale. We will
continue to scale up. How do we manage that scale, the complexity, the
diversity?
On one side, you have to leverage it and on the other side,
you have to manage it. And then, what future business models will evolve? We are
talking platforms, products, non-linear etc. but there will be an evolution of
this industry. So we have either to lead that or whenever we miss it, we have to
be fast in catching up.
So we have got to be observant, attentive, we
should not become risk averse, we should make bets, should be willing to fail.
We have got to maintain that culture. These are the things I think about all the
time. I don't know if I worry about it.
Q: What is next for TCS?
A: Nobody knows the future. But I would say there are a lot more
opportunities going ahead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ஸ் பெ
ஸ் பெ
FDI in Retail
Can we find Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid?
“Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him. Will he gain anything by it? Will it restore him to a control over his own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj for the hungry and spiritually starving millions?” - Gandhi Ji
There has been a raging debate on the pros and cons of allowing FDI in organised retail. As a nation, we are in doubt. There will be a few un-doubting naysayers as well as believers of course! They can move ahead without reading! But for those of us in doubt, we should answer Gandhi Ji's questions and act as Gandhi Ji advised us. That is the primary question this post seeks to answer.
The Table below itself is quite revealing.
|
Country |
Total Retail Sales (USD) |
Share of Organized Retail (%) | Share of Unorganized Retail (%) |
Argentina | $53,000,000,000 | 40% | 60% |
Brazil | $284,000,000,000 | 36% | 64% |
China | $785,000,000,000 | 20% | 80% |
Czech Republic | $34,000,000,000 | 30% | 70% |
France | $436,000,000,000 | 80% | 20% |
Germany | $421,000,000,000 | 80% | 20% |
Hungary | $24,000,000,000 | 30% | 70% |
India | $322,000,000,000 | 4% | 96% |
Indonesia | $150,000,000,000 | 30% | 70% |
Japan | $1,182,000,000,000 | 66% | 34% |
Malaysia | $34,000,000,000 | 55% | 45% |
Pakistan | $67,000,000,000 | 1% | 99% |
Philippines | $51,000,000,000 | 35% | 65% |
Poland | $120,000,000,000 | 20% | 80% |
Russia | $276,000,000,000 | 33% | 67% |
South Korea | $201,000,000,000 | 15% | 85% |
Thailand | $68,000,000,000 | 40% | 60% |
United Kingdom | $475,000,000,000 | 80% | 20% |
USA | $2,983,000,000,000 | 85% | 15% |
Vietnam | $26,000,000,000 | 22% | 78% |
Source: http://www.icrier.org/pdf/Working_Paper222.pdf via Reurbanist: http://reurbanist.com/2012/08/unorganized-and-organized-retail-a-global-comparison/
The share of Organised Retail in India is at 4%. Compare that to the US (85%) on one hand and an Asian Tiger South Korea (15%) on the other. A developing country like Vietnam - a country similar to India in many respects - is at 22%. Well-developed large economies range from Japan (66%), and UK, France and Germany (all at 80%).
It is quite clear that the size of the economy has little or no correlation to the share of Organised Retail. This in itself destroys the presupposition that Organised retail WILL KILL the neighborhood kirana shop and take away jobs, as the economy grows. This has been the primary, possibly the ONLY argument offered against allowing FDI in retail. If anything can be concluded at all, the social milieu of the country has a far higher impact on share of organised retail (South Korea for example)
On the other hand, it is China infact that has transformed Walmart, not the other way around!
At the very outset, before we start posing the issues and answering Gandhi Jis's question, we must note an anomaly. If Indian Organised Retail has not been able to destroy jobs so far, how will FDI in Retail destroy them? What are the arguments for allowing Indian Organised Retail, but not FDI? I have not got a single logical answer this question so far. I am more than happy to be educated by the readers on this issue! This post therefore focuses on the issue of Organised retail per se, rather than only FDI in Retail...
Question No 1: Will Organised Retail take away jobs ? (Primary question of naysayers)
Yes, it will take away some. But it will create many more too. These new jobs are going to be created for a range of skills, leading to higher incomes as well (including for unskilled/ semi-skilled labour). And those kirana shops, that adapt to the new environment, will infact thrive. My experience may be anecdotal, but is substantiated by the experiences of many of my friends that i have talked to. I live in neighborhood, where there was no organised retail until two years ago. The number of mom and pop shops has increased as the population of the neighbourhood grew. Despite a large format Organised Retail store opening up two years back! Our share of the wallet to the mom and mop shop stores have not decreased. In fact the choices in the mom and pop stores as have the number of employees in these shops. It appears to me therefore, that Organised Retail, and as a corollary FDI in Retail, will only increase the overall size of the pie, not eat away somebody's share!
Answering Gandhi Jis question: Positive. The "poor" employees of kirana stores will find alternate employment as cleaners, helpers, delivery boys etc. The kirana store owners may not. And i am not bothered. If they cannnot adapt as many of their peers have shown, they have no right to be in business in the first place! They can go and find jobs in organised retail! They dont fall under the category of Gandhi Ji's benchmark!
Question No 2: Will the poor farmer (producer) be affected ? Will it lead to exploitation of the poor farmer?
To answer this for the benefit of the poor farmer, India will need to evolve and incentivize its own model of Organised Retail. Especially Food Retailing (food has always had a major share of organised retail). Dr Jayaprakash Narayan and Lok Satta have been long arguing and fighting for for agriculture liberalization and removing artificial controls. The APMC Act must GO! Period. Lok Satta has also been fighting for genuine cooperative reforms. Initial success has been achieved through the 97th constitutional amendment relating to cooperatives (especially genuine farmer cooperatives, not the current prevalent ones dominated by politicians and ministers like Sharad Pawar)Can we now easily develop a hundred Amuls? The answer is YES. Not only, we can, but we must! We cannot let 35-40% of our fruits and vegetable produce go wasted! This was the percentage of waste two decades ago. Two decades hence, the situation is almost exactly the same! In a country, where the poor farmer is struggling to eke out a subsistence livelihood on one hand, and where we have deep rooted hunger and malnutrition on the other, this is a crime, that cannot and must not be allowed to continue! We must incentivize agriculture processing (cold storage and value added processing) by declaring it as a priority sunrise sector. A tax holiday for 10 or 20 years, easy and affordable access to funding are policy measures that must be part of agriculture reforms.
Answering Gandhi Jis question: Positive. The poor farmer will definitely benefit. The notorious commission agents will now need to find other ways of generating income. Let them!
Question No 3: Will the poor consumer (who needs FSB!) suffer and be exploited by FDI or Organized Retail (naysayers don't even seem to be asking this question, but I will anyways pose it as it deserves our attention)
It is clear to me that if we can reform our agricultural sector and increase efficiencies as well as minimise waste, prices for the end consumer can only come down. this is not rocket science. The current 300%-400% markups between the journey from the farm gate to the kitchen are mostly due to the non-value adding commission agents and layers of middle men. Various studies have extensively established that on an average, there are between 5-7 layers of middlemen between the producer and the end consumer. They add absolutely ZERO value. The recent onion price fiasco is fresh in everybody's mind and i need not repeat it here!
Answering Gandhi Jis question: Positive. The poor consumer can only benefit. The non-value adding middlemen and unproductive middle layers will be eliminated. Good Riddance!
It is therefore clear, that if you were to apply Gandhi Ji's yardstick, that the answer for allowing FDI and incentivizing Food Retailing (both Indian and FDI) is in the positive The policy measure that have been outlines needs to accompany this decision..
India must not shy way. We cannot afford to. We must increase the prosperity of more than 55% of our population that are engaged in extremely unremunerative agricultural activities presently!
We, the AAM AADMI and AURAT must now unequivocally protest against the recent decision of the new AAP Delhi Government to disallow FDI in Retail! India cannot afford to succumb to vote mongering again! New Politics has taken root. In this New Politics, you are not a rightist or leftist. You are one who has the courage of conviction to do what is RIGHT for INDIA!
You have to have the courage to act according to Gandhi Ji's Question!!!
Posted by Ram Ramdas in blog.loksatta.org
ஸ் பெ
Karunanidhi's response came in an interview to one of the leading Tamil dailies 'Dinamalar,' in which the 90 year-old DMK patriarch also refrained from commenting on a possible tie-up with the saffronBSE 0.00 % party post-elections.
"The hectic election campaign by Modi shows he is a hardworker. He is also a good friend of mine," he sai ..
மோரு
இணையதள உபிகளுக்கு கட்டம் சரியில்ல போல இருக்கு ;-)
அன்போடு
மோரு
”சதையும் செங்குருதியும் எலும்பும் இவ்வுயிரும் படைத்தவன் பொற்பாதம் பணிந்தேன்.....”
Jaisankar Jaganathan
Ahamed Zubair A
ஸ் பெ
Top 10 Unsolved Mysteries of Science
June 25, 2014 | by Lisa Winter
photo credit: NASA, ESA, CFHT, CXO, M.J. Jee (University of California, Davis), and A. Mahdavi (San Francisco State University)
Despite what cable news may tell you, scientists don’t really squabble over if evolution is real (it is) or if the climate is changing faster than can be explained by naturally-occurring phenomena (it is) or if vaccines are regarded as safe and recommended for most children (they are). Sure, there may be fine points within those categories that are debatable, but not to the extent that is commonly described by talking heads on TV. However, that’s not to say that scientists perfectly understand everything about the ways of the Universe.
Physicist Brian Cox once said: “I'm comfortable with the unknown—that’s the point of science. There are places out there, billions of places out there, that we know nothing about. And the fact that we know nothing about them excites me, and I want to go out and find out about them. And that's what science is. So I think if you’re not comfortable with the unknown, then it’s difficult to be a scientist… I don’t need an answer. I don’t need answers to everything. I want to have answers to find.”
So what are some of the top mysteries keeping scientists busy? Here’s our top ten:
Why is there more matter than antimatter?
According to our current understanding of particle physics, matter and antimatter are equal but opposite. When they meet, they should destroy one another and leave nothing left over, and most of those annihilations should have occurred early in the Universe. However, there was enough matter left over to make the billions and billions of galaxies, stars, planets, and everything else. Various explanations surround mesons, which are short-lived subatomic particles made of one quark and one antiquark. B-mesons decay more slowly than anti-B-mesons, which could have resulted in enough B-mesons surviving the interaction to create all of the matter in the Universe. Additionally, B-, D-, and K-mesons can oscillate and become antiparticles and then back again. Studies have suggested that mesons are more likely to assume the normal state, which may also be why regular particles outnumber antiparticles.
Where is all the lithium?
Early in the Universe when temperatures were incredibly high, isotopes of hydrogen, helium, and lithium were synthesized in abundance. Hydrogen and helium are still incredibly abundant and make up nearly all of the mass in the Universe, though there is only about a third of the lithium-7 that we should see. There are a wide variety of explanations for why this might have happened, including some hypotheses involving hypothetical bosons known as axions, and others believe it is trapped in the core of stars, which our current telescopes and instruments can’t detect. However, there are currently no clear front running theories to explain this absence of lithium in the Universe.
Why do we sleep?
While we do know that the human body is regulated by a circadian clock that keeps humans on a sleep/wake cycle, we don’t really know why. Sleep is the time when our bodies repair tissues and perform other maintenance activities, and we spend nearly a third of our lives snoozing. Some other organisms don’t need to sleep at all, so why do we? There are a few different ideas out there, but none seem to solidly answer the question. Some theorize that animals who are able to sleep have evolved the ability to hide from predators, while others who need to remain more alert are able to rest and regenerate in other ways without fully going to sleep. While scientists don’t quite know why we do it, they are starting to learn more about why it is important, and how sleep impacts important things like brain plasticity.
How does gravity work?
We all know that gravity from the moon causes tides, Earth’s gravity holds us to the surface, and the sun’s gravity keeps our planet in orbit, but how much do we really understand it? This powerful force is generated from matter, and more massive objects therefore have a greater ability to attract other objects. While scientists do understand a great deal about how gravity acts, they aren’t really sure why it exists. Why are atoms mostly empty space? Why is the force that holds atoms together different from gravity? Is gravity actually a particle? These are answers that we really just can’t answer with our current understand of physics.
Where is everyone?
The observable Universe is 13.7 billion light-years in diameter, filled with billions of galaxies with stars and planets, yet the only evidence of any life anywhere is right here on Earth. Statistically, the odds of us actually being the only living beings in the Universe are impossibly low, so why the hell haven’t we connected with anyone else yet? This is known as the Fermi Paradox, and there have been dozens of suggestions to explain why we haven’t encountered extraterrestrial life; some more plausible than others. We could probably talk about all of the different possibilities for days about whether or not we’re just missing signals, if they’ve actually been here and we didn’t know it, they can’t/don’t want to talk to us, or—the extremely unlikely scenario—if Earth is the only planet with life ever.
What is dark matter made of?
About 80% of all mass in the Universe is made of dark matter. Dark matter is pretty peculiar stuff, as it doesn’t emit any light. Though it was first theorized about 60 years ago, there isn’t any direct evidence of its existence. Many scientists believe dark matter is comprised of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs), which could be up to 100 times more massive than a proton, but doesn’t readily interact with the baryonic matter our instruments were designed to detect. Other candidates for dark matter’s composition include axions, neutralinos, and photinos.
How did life begin?
Where did life on Earth come from? How did it happen? Those who believe in the Primordial Soup model believe that a nutrient-rich early Earth eventually formed increasingly-complex molecules that gave rise to life. This could have taken place in the deep ocean vents, in clay, or under ice. Different models also give variable levels of importance to the presence of lightning or volcanic activity for the spawn of life. While DNA is the predominant basis for life on Earth now, it has been suggested that RNA could have dominated the first lifeforms. Additionally, other scientists question whether other nucleic acids aside from RNA or DNA may have once existed. Did life spawn just once, or is it possible that is was created, wiped out, and then restarted? Some believe in panspermia, in which microbial life was brought to Earth via meteorites or comets. Even if that is true, it doesn’t answer the question of how that life originated.
How do plate tectonics work?
It might sound surprising, but the theory of continental plates moving around, rearranging continents and causing earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and even forming mountains, has only received widespread support relatively recently. Though it was first postulated back around 1500 that the continents may have once fit together (it’s not really a stretch for anyone who has looked at a map), the idea didn’t gain a lot of traction until the 1960s when the hypothesis of sea-floor spreading, where rocks are pulled into the mantle of the Earth, recycled, and brought back to the surface as magma, was backed up by physical evidence. However, scientists aren’t entirely sure on what drives this movement or exactly how plate boundaries were created. There are many theories, but none of them completely address all aspects of this activity.
How do animals migrate?
Many animals and insects migrate throughout the year in order to escape changing seasonal temperatures and the waning resources that come with it or to find mates. Some of these migrations can reach thousands of kilometers in one direction, so how do they find their way there and back again year after year? Different animals use different navigational tools, including some who are able to tap into the Earth’s magnetic field and use themselves like a compass. However, scientists still don’t know how this trait evolved or how untrained animals know exactly where to go season after season.
What is dark energy?
Of all of the great mysteries of science, dark energy might be the most enigmatic of all. While dark matter makes up an estimated 80% of all mass, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy believed to make up around 70% of all content in the Universe. Dark energy has been implicated as the cause for the expansion of the Universe, though there is still a considerable amount of mystery regarding its supposed properties. First and foremost, what is it even made of? Is dark energy constant, or are there fluctuations throughout the expanse of space? Why does dark energy’s density appear to match the density of regular matter? Can dark energy be reconciled with Einstein’s theory of gravity, or does the theory need to be reevaluated?
Read more at http://www.iflscience.com/physics/top-10-unsolved-mysteries-science#LcvGYfeH6ZwEs3ij.99
ஸ் பெ
10 Hollywood movies you probably didn't know were a direct copy of Indian films
Bollywood movies have been rather infamous for lifting plots from Hollywood movies. From 'Satte Pe Satta' which was heavily inspired by 'Seven Brides for Seven Brothers' to 'God Tussi Great Ho' that was a complete rip-off of 'Bruce Almighty', every generation has seen Bollywood films that have been 'inspired' by Hollywood. It is frustrating every time you watch a Hindi movie and find scenes that bear a strong resemblance to scenes from Hollywood movies. But did you know Hollywood has also copied Indian movies on more than once occasions?
It may come as a surprise, but there are Hollywood movies that are direct copies of Indian movies. The most recent example of this is the Hollywood movie 'Leap Year' that instantly reminds you of the hugely popular Bollywood movie 'Jab We Met'. You'll be surprised to learn how many award-winning Hollywood movies have the same plot as a few Indian movies that were released way before them. We found 10 such examples here.
Pearl Harbour – Sangam: The Love Triangle Drama in a war-torn backdrop shown in ‘Pearl Harbor’ (2001) is horridly influenced from the Indian Classic ‘Sangam’ (1964). The Hollywood movie was heavily criticised for its misleading name as it was based on a love triangle rather than on the incident of Pearl Harbor itself.
Jab We Met – Leap year: The creators of ‘Leap Year (2010)’ claim it is not a remake of ‘Jab We Met (2007),’ but the plot and scenes are way too similar for us to believe it. Both are about a talkative, silly girl who is determined to get to her boyfriend so she can propose to him. Along the way, she has to get help from a young down-on-his-luck man. They argue. They stay at a hotel and have to share a room. They fall in love. They separate. Their lives are forever changed because of their brief time together. They reunite. The end. The only differences are that "Leap Year" takes place in Ireland and focuses on Irish tradition and "Jab We Met" has musical numbers.
A Wednesday – A Common Man: A Common Man is a 2013 thriller film starring Oscar Award winner Ben Kingsley and Ben Cross and directed by Sri Lankan film makerChandran Rutnam. The film is an official remake of the Indian thriller A Wednesday! (2008), but Rutnam reworked the screenplay of this highly suspenseful thriller. A Common Man is an award winning movie that won Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor awards at the Madrid International Film Festival and bronze medal in the Feature Films category at the New York Festivals’ International Television and Film Awards, three of the 119 Gold World Medals, 145 Silver, 104 Bronze, and 327 Finalist Certificates awarded that day.
Vicky Donor – Delivery man: The Delivery Man (2013) was loosely based on Vicky Donor (2012). Both the movies have the heroes donating their sperms for money and giving birth hundreds of kids. The central plot of the movies are the same.
Divorce invitation – Aahvaanam: Hollywood saw the 1997 Telegu film ‘Aahvaanam’ being remade into ‘Divorce Invitation’. Both the movies had the same director, SV Krishan Reddy. Who ventured into Hollywood with the 2012 English romantic comedy, Divorce Invitation.
Just Go With It – Maine Pyaar Kyu Kiya: ‘Just Go With It’ (2011), the Jen Anniston and Adam Sandler movie is a copy of ‘Maine Pyaar Kyun Kiya’ (2005)? Though both of them have been inspired ‘Cactus Flower’, they still differ from the original considerably. The resemblance between ‘Just Go With It’ and ‘Maine Pyaar Kyun Kiya’, however, is uncanny.
Darr- Fear: ‘Darr’ is one of Bollywood's biggest successes. Shah Rukh Khan created a character no one will copy. Only in ‘Darr’ do you wish the crazy stalker would win the girl and the protective husband would die. ‘Darr’ inspired ‘Fear,’ but many scenes are very similar. The biggest difference is the stalker becomes the boyfriend, whereas in ‘Darr’ the poor crazy stalker doesn't get a chance with the girl. The obvious proof that ‘Fear’ is a remake is when the stalker carves the girl's name on his chest, which famously originated in ‘Darr’.
Rangeela – Win A Date With Tad Hamilton: ‘Rangeela’ (1995) is about a lovable loser who can't compete with a famous actor when it comes to winning the affections of a certain girl. ‘Win a Date With Tad Hamilton’ (2004) is about the exact same thing. The biggest difference is that in ‘Win a Date With Tad Hamilton’ the girl wins a date with Tad Hamilton. In ‘Rangeela,’ the girl earns an audition for a part in the actor's new movie.
Hitch – Chhoti Si Baat: ‘Hitch’ (2005) was inspired by the Bollywood film ‘Chhoti Si Baat,’ although no one has said so publicly. ‘Chhoti Si Baat’ (1975) is about a shy man who wants to woo a certain woman. He tries to mimic a charming, suave ladies man, but fails hopelessly. He gets help from a man who makes it his business to help people change their lives. ‘Hitch’ takes the two characters supporting the lovelorn guy and turns them into one, played by Will Smith.
Kill Bill – Abhay: It seems Tarantino was inspired by the animation sequence in the 2001 Tamil film ‘Aalavanthan’ (Hindi: Abhay) . The Kill Bill ‘O-Ren Ishii Japanese’ animation sequence was adapted from that. Apparently Tarantino admitted in a private conversation with Anurag Kashyap that the celebrated animation-action sequence in Kill Bill was inspired from 2001 Tamil film, Kamal Haasan starrer, Aalavanthan. Kashyap says, ‘Yes, Sight and Sound critic Naman Ramchandran first told me this. So when I met Quentin in Venice I asked him whether the Manga sequence in Kill Bill was inspired from an Indian film and he excitedly remarked, ‘Yes, I saw this Indian serial-killer film which showed violence as animated.’’ Kashyap explains, ‘There is only one Indian serial-killer film which was made before Kill Bill where violence was animated, and that was Abhay/Aalavanthan.’
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/10-hollywood-movies-you-probably-didnt-know-were-a-direct-copy-of-indian-movies/484753-79.html
ஸ் பெ
A Father's Last Words To His Son Before He Killed Himself
South | Written by Uma Sudhir | Updated: July 15, 2014 14:05 IST
Tommy Hilfiger Sale -30% – 30% Rabatt im Tommy Hilfiger Store. Online bestellen – Gratis Versand.
Seven-year-old Vamshi's father came to see him at his school shortly before killing himself.
Seven-year-old Vamshi's father came to see him at his school in Rayavaram village of Medak district three weeks ago. He took the child to a tea-stall, bought him a bun and tea, gave him rupees five and told him to study hard. And then emphatically said that he must never be a farmer.
At the school gate on their return, they met Vamshi's teacher Krishna. "He wished me and asked me ensure Vamshi studies well. Then he said goodbye to his son and went away. Hardly half an hour later, we got the news that he had hanged himself to death,'' said Krishna.
In neighbouring Thimmakapally village, Bhulakshmi says she is happy her older son Sriramulu has migrated to Hyderabad, even if she will not get to see him for months now. Her husband, a farmer, drank poison and ended his life in December.
Ravi, her younger son says he too would like to go away, but is unable to do so right now as the family has big loans to repay. "Whatever we grow, we suffer losses. The loans only grow, never reduce," he says. In his statement of anguish he speaks for many farmers of the area in dire straits.
The recent Economic Survey pointed out that the share of agriculture and allied sectors in the national gross domestic product (GDP) declined from 15.2% during the eleventh Plan to 13.9% in 2013-14. And yet it still accounts for 55% of total employment in the country. Experts say agriculture has become an unsustainable livelihood option.
School teacher Puliraju too says no parent wants his child to be a farmer. ''Even a labourer earns more because of schemes like NREGA, whereas a farmer is eternally indebted. If this perception and trend is not stopped, India will end up with a food shortage problem in the coming years,'' he says.
Between 2001 and 2011, the latest census shows, nearly 90 lakh people gave up farming. Among them is Satyam from Srikakulam, now in Hyderabad. "I was a farmer. There is no water there, no way to survive. So I came here, but there's no work here either,'' he says
http://www.ndtv.com/article/south/a-father-s-last-words-to-his-son-before-he-killed-himself-558750?pfrom=home-lateststories
ஸ் பெ
A belief that Jayalalithaa is invincible
Dhanya Rajendran| The News Minute| October 4, 2014| 5.00 pm IST
(Comment)
In 1997, when a special court was formed to conduct trial in the Jayalalithaa case, N Jothi, the lawyer representing Jayalalithaa, also an AIADMK functionary, waved the order copy at the judge’s face and asked, “Is this a court? Are you a judge?”
Again, in 1999 the same Jothi kicked up a ruckus in the Special Court, following a notification issued by Union Ministry nullifying special courts. Jothi told the court that it had ceased to exist and they were all just pall bearers.
This is the arrogance with which Jayalalithaa’s team of lawyers argued the case… Even as lawyers changed, the streak of arrogance prevailed, guided by a strong belief beneath, that their Amma was invincible.
Their unshakeable faith that she will reign supreme forever was a sentiment encouraged by Jayalalithaa’s own conduct and perhaps over confidence. Ironically, a decade later, the same N Jothi deserted the AIADMK in 2008 and joined the rival DMK – taking with him crucial knowledge about the loopholes in her case. Even then, Jayalalithaa’s legal team was confident, and they continued telling her and the world that she will emerge victorious eventually. Jayalalithaa believed them.
Jayalalithaa’s DA case is a saga of political rivalries where her advisers are fear-ridden sycophants, her defence team is drunk on arrogance and the AIADMK supremo herself, is high on political power.
For Indian politics, legislators defending charges of corruption in the court of law is a regular feature. Several significant political leaders in the past have faced such charges and defeated the prosecution, few have stood convicted. Jayalalithaa, alone has faced more than 40 cases, and was convicted by lower courts in at least 2 cases. She was later acquitted in most of the cases against her, including the two cases she was initially convicted for. But one unique aspect of the DA case which set it apart from the rest we have seen in Indian politics is the sheer number of people who were involved in the case. There were several financial victims to this case, people whose properties were snatched away and those who lost their assets overnight. These victims were happy to offer their services as crucial prosecution witnesses later.
But to those who have tracked the case for nearly two decades, it is the blind arrogance of her lawyers, ignorant of facts and fearless of consequences, which cost Jayalalithaa the case. They spread the usual canards that the case was only born out of political vendetta. The web of lies they had woven over the years was so dense that they started believing in it.
“From the beginning they didn’t approach this as a legal challenge; instead they had a confrontational attitude. They came to a conclusion that she will be acquitted, only based on extraneous factors. She is a strong politician, there will be a weak judge, the political atmosphere will help her… for years they believed these factors will help her,” says a senior journalist who has followed the case for years. The acquittal in the TANSI case, that too be a judge in Madras High Court, cemented this confidence even further.
There are embarrassing mistakes which are testimony to their carelessness, which in hindsight destroyed any defence Jayalalithaa claimed to have.
One pertinent example is the receipts of deposits received by Namadhu MGR, a publication run by Jayalalithaa and Sasikala. A bulk of the money in this case was claimed to be received as deposits by crores of AIADMK workers across the state, but when the court asked for the receipts, the lawyers said it had been stolen from a Tata Sumo car in 1997. In 2012, these receipts magically reappeared, making the judge ask in his order, “But surprisingly, the accused themselves have got the original application forms summoned from the office of the Income Tax Department in the year 2012.”
The alarm bells should have started ringing when in April 2014 Judge Michael Cunha refused to set aside the attachment of properties owned by 22 companies of which Jayalalithaa was suspected to have a stake in. That should have given an inkling to Jayalalalithaa's defence, the way the judge was thinking, that perhaps he was not convinced with their arguments that Jayalalithaa was not linked to the companies.
Instead till the day of the judgement, stories were spread in Tamil Nadu. While some talked about a 'deal', others said there was a ‘political compromise’.
“The lawyers told us we will be acquitted, Amma too strongly believed it. We were ready to go back that day,” someone who follows Jayalalithaa like a shadow told me. Another Jayalalithaa aide claims that 'someone in the thick of things' met Sasikala a few days before judgement day and categorically told her that it was going to be an acquittal.
Multiple people have confirmed that lawyers and even her own party leaders assured Jayalalithaa time and again that she would be acquitted. It is surprising that Jayalalithaa and Sasikala, known to be shrewd and smart players, actually believed that the mountain of evidence against them would be simply discarded by a judge.
And perhaps that was the cardinal mistake. Jayalalithaa, her political and defence team- all believed blindly that she was indomitable.
The confidence and what detractors term audacity was always evident in her decisions, the way in which she governed and even how her entourage moved.
Security men in safari suits, personal assistants and subservient party cadres who would accompany their leader, always enjoyed being in a position of power.
But in the last week a lot of that has changed. The same men who would shoo crowds with an air of confidence are hovering around the Bangalore Central jail. Her core team of around 10 to 15 people has not once moved from the spot. “We bathe in hotels or houses nearby, sleep in our cars,” one of them told me.
Last Sunday, her team was confident that she would get bail immediately, “Lawyers have assured us, Amma will be out soon,” one of them said.
One week later, the mood has changed significantly. There is fear and uncertainty looming in the air. “Do you think she will get bail? Or will this go to the Supreme Court?” that’s the question everyone close to Poes Garden is asking. With Jayalalithaa refusing to meet anyone in jail, information is scarce, and like the media, they too are dependent on small bits of info given by jail authorities.
Conversations with many of them reveal that they are worried about her age, what went wrong, and if someone mislead them willfully… But beneath all that worry is still a belief… that Amma will emerge untouched, that everything will be taken care of.
In the end it was not about what Jayalalithaa or her lawyers believed in, it was about a judge who saw evidence that he thought was strong enough to convict all accused. Evidence, that AIADMK pretended didn't exist. Perhaps, there are more lessons to be learnt.
Also read- "Jayalalithaa had an uncanny streak for self destruction"- Interview with Vaasanthi S
It's a political witch hunt, Jayalalithaa told the judge after he held her guilty in DA case
ஸ் பெ
“Manufacturing Dissent”: The Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites
The People's Movement has been Hijacked
This article was first published in 2010. The author’s introductory quote was first formulated in 2001 in the context of the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City which was held a few months before 9/11
“Everything the [Ford] Foundation did could be regarded as “making the World safe for capitalism”, reducing social tensions by helping to comfort the afflicted, provide safety valves for the angry, and improve the functioning of government(McGeorge Bundy, National Security Advisor to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (1961-1966), President of the Ford Foundation, (1966-1979))
“By providing the funding and the policy framework to many concerned and dedicated people working within the non-profit sector, the ruling class is able to co-opt leadership from grassroots communities, … and is able to make the funding, accounting, and evaluation components of the work so time consuming and onerous that social justice work is virtually impossible under these conditions” (Paul Kivel, You Call this Democracy, Who Benefits, Who Pays and Who Really Decides, 2004, p. 122 )
“Under the New World Order, the ritual of inviting “civil society” leaders into the inner circles of power –while simultaneously repressing the rank and file– serves several important functions. First, it says to the World that the critics of globalization “must make concessions” to earn the right to mingle. Second, it conveys the illusion that while the global elites should –under what is euphemistically called democracy– be subject to criticism, they nonetheless rule legitimately. And third, it says “there is no alternative” to globalization: fundamental change is not possible and the most we can hope is to engage with these rulers in an ineffective “give and take”.
While the “Globalizers” may adopt a few progressive phrases to demonstrate they have good intentions, their fundamental goals are not challenged. And what this “civil society mingling” does is to reinforce the clutch of the corporate establishment while weakening and dividing the protest movement. An understanding of this process of co-optation is important, because tens of thousands of the most principled young people in Seattle, Prague and Quebec City [1999-2001] are involved in the anti-globalization protests because they reject the notion that money is everything, because they reject the impoverishment of millions and the destruction of fragile Earth so that a few may get richer.
This rank and file and some of their leaders as well, are to be applauded. But we need to go further. We need to challenge the right of the “Globalizers” to rule. This requires that we rethink the strategy of protest. Can we move to a higher plane, by launching mass movements in our respective countries, movements that bring the message of what globalization is doing, to ordinary people? For they are the force that must be mobilized to challenge those who plunder the Globe.” (Michel Chossudovsky, The Quebec Wall, April 2001)
“Manufactured Consent” vs. “Manufactured Dissent”
The term “manufacturing consent” was initially coined by Edward S Herman and Noam Chomsky.
“Manufacturing consent” describes a propaganda model used by the corporate media to sway public opinion and “inculcate individuals with values and beliefs…”:
The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda. (Manufacturing Consent by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky)
“Manufacturing consent” implies manipulating and shaping public opinion. It establishes conformity and acceptance to authority and social hierarchy. It seeks compliance to an established social order. “Manufacturing consent” describes the submission of public opinion to the mainstream media narrative, to its lies and fabrications.
In this article, we focus on a related concept, namely the subtle process of “manufacturing dissent” (rather than “consent”), which plays a decisive role in serving the interests of the ruling class.
Under contemporary capitalism, the illusion of democracy must prevail. It is in the interest of the corporate elites to accept dissent and protest as a feature of the system inasmuch as they do not threaten the established social order. The purpose is not to repress dissent, but, on the contrary, to shape and mould the protest movement, to set the outer limits of dissent.
To maintain their legitimacy, the economic elites favor limited and controlled forms of opposition, with a view to preventing the development of radical forms of protest, which might shake the very foundations and institutions of global capitalism. In other words, “manufacturing dissent” acts as a “safety valve”, which protects and sustains the New World Order.
To be effective, however, the process of “manufacturing dissent” must be carefully regulated and monitored by those who are the object of the protest movement.
“Funding Dissent”
How is the process of manufacturing dissent achieved?
Essentially by “funding dissent”, namely by channeling financial resources from those who are the object of the protest movement to those who are involved in organizing the protest movement.
Co-optation is not limited to buying the favors of politicians. The economic elites –which control major foundations– also oversee the funding of numerous NGOs and civil society organizations, which historically have been involved in the protest movement against the established economic and social order. The programs of many NGOs and people’s movements rely heavily on funding from both public as well as private foundations including the Ford, Rockefeller, McCarthy foundations, among others.
The anti-globalization movement is opposed to Wall Street and the Texas oil giants controlled by Rockefeller, et al. Yet the foundations and charities of Rockefeller et al will generously fund progressive anti-capitalist networks as well as environmentalists (opposed to Big Oil) with a view to ultimately overseeing and shaping their various activities.
The mechanisms of “manufacturing dissent” require a manipulative environment, a process of arm-twisting and subtle cooptation of individuals within progressive organizations, including anti-war coalitions, environmentalists and the anti-globalization movement.
Whereas the mainstream media “manufactures consent”, the complex network of NGOs (including segments of the alternative media) are used by the corporate elites to mould and manipulate the protest movement.
Following the deregulation of the global financial system in the 1990s and the rapid enrichment of the financial establishment, funding through foundations and charities has skyrocketed.
In a bitter irony, part of the fraudulent financial gains on Wall Street in recent years have been recycled to the elites’ tax exempt foundations and charities. These windfall financial gains have not only been used to buy out politicians, they have also been channelled to NGOs, research institutes, community centres, church groups, environmentalists, alternative media, human rights groups, etc. “Manufactured dissent” also applies to the “corporate left” and “progressive” media, funded by NGOs or directly by the foundations.
The inner objective is to “manufacture dissent” and establish the boundaries of a “politically correct” opposition. In turn, many NGOs are infiltrated by informants often acting on behalf of western intelligence agencies. Moreover, an increasingly large segment of the progressive alternative news media on the internet has become dependent on funding from corporate foundations and charities.
Piecemeal Activism
The objective of the corporate elites has been to fragment the people’s movement into a vast “do it yourself” mosaic. War and globalization are no longer in the forefront of civil society activism. Activism tends to be piecemeal. There is no integrated anti-globalization anti-war movement. The economic crisis is not seen as having a relationship to the US led war.
Dissent has been compartmentalized. Separate “issue oriented” protest movements (e.g. environment, anti-globalization, peace, women’s rights, climate change) are encouraged and generously funded as opposed to a cohesive mass movement. This mosaic was already prevalent in the counter G7 summits and People’s Summits of the 1990s.
The Anti-Globalization Movement
The Seattle 1999 counter-summit is invariably upheld as a triumph for the anti-globalization movement: “a historic coalition of activists shut down the World Trade Organization summit in Seattle, the spark that ignited a global anti-corporate movement.” (See Naomi Klein, Copenhagen: Seattle Grows Up, The Nation, November 13, 2009).
Seattle was an indeed an important crossroads in the history of the mass movement. Over 50,000 people from diverse backgrounds, civil society organizations, human rights, labor unions, environmentalists had come together in a common pursuit. Their goal was to forecefully dismantle the neoliberal agenda including its institutional base.
But Seattle also marked a major reversal. With mounting dissent from all sectors of society, the official WTO Summit desperately needed the token participation of civil society leaders “on the inside”, to give the appearance of being “democratic” “on the outside”.
While thousands of people had converged on Seattle, what occurred behind the scenes was a de facto victory for neoliberalism. A handful of civil society organizations, formally opposed to the WTO had contributed to legitimizing the WTO’s global trading architecture. Instead of challenging the WTO as an an illegal intergovernmental body, they agreed to a pre-summit dialogue with the WTO and Western governments. “Accredited NGO participants were invited to mingle in a friendly environment with ambassadors, trade ministers and Wall Street tycoons at several of the official events including the numerous cocktail parties and receptions.” (Michel Chossudovsky, Seattle and Beyond: Disarming the New World Order , Covert Action Quarterly, November 1999, See Ten Years Ago: “Manufacturing Dissent” in Seattle).
The hidden agenda was to weaken and divide the protest movement and orient the anti-globalization movement into areas that would not directly threaten the interests of the business establishment.
Funded by private foundations (including Ford, Rockefeller, Rockefeller Brothers, Charles Stewart Mott, The Foundation for Deep Ecology), these “accredited” civil society organizations had positioned themselves as lobby groups, acting formally on behalf of the people’s movement. Led by prominent and committed activists, their hands were tied. They ultimately contributed (unwittingly) to weakening the anti-globalization movement by accepting the legitimacy of what was essentially an illegal organization. (The 1994 Marrakech Summit agreement which led to the creation of the WTO on January 1, 1995). (Ibid)
The NGO leaders were fully aware as to where the money was coming from. Yet within the US and European NGO community, the foundations and charities are considered to be independent philanthropic bodies, separate from the corporations; namely the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, for instance, is considered to be separate and distinct from the Rockefeller family empire of banks and oil companies.
With salaries and operating expenses depending on private foundations, it became an accepted routine: In a twisted logic, the battle against corporate capitalism was to be fought using the funds from the tax exempt foundations owned by corporate capitalism.
The NGOs were caught in a straightjacket; their very existence depended on the foundations. Their activities were closely monitored. In a twisted logic, the very nature of anti-capitalist activism was indirectly controlled by the capitalists through their independent foundations.
“Progressive Watchdogs”
In this evolving saga, the corporate elites –whose interests are duly served by the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO– will readily fund (through their various foundations and charities) organizations which are at the forefront of the protest movement against the WTO and the Washington based international financial institutions.
Supported by foundation money, various “watchdogs” were set up by the NGOs to monitor the implementation of neoliberal policies, without however raising the broader issue of how the Bretton Woods twins and the WTO, through their policies, had contributed to the impoverishment of millions of people.
The Structural Adjustment Participatory Review Network (SAPRIN) was established by Development Gap, a USAID and World Bank funded NGO based in Washington DC.
Amply documented, the imposition of the IMF-World Bank Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) on developing countries constitutes a blatant form of interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states on behalf of creditor institutions.
Instead of challenging the legitimacy of the IMF-World Bank’s “deadly economic medicine”, SAPRIN’s core organization sought to establish a participatory role for the NGOs, working hand in glove with USAID and the World Bank. The objective was to give a “human face” to the neoliberal policy agenda, rather than reject the IMF-World Bank policy framework outright:
“SAPRIN is the global civil-society network that took its name from the Structural Adjustment Participatory Review Initiative (SAPRI), which it launched with the World Bank and its president, Jim Wolfensohn, in 1997.
SAPRI is designed as a tripartite exercise to bring together organizations of civil society, their governments and the World Bank in a joint review of structural adjustment programs (SAPs) and an exploration of new policy options. It is legitimizing an active role for civil society in economic decision-making, as it is designed to indicate areas in which changes in economic policies and in the economic-policymaking process are required. ( http://www.saprin.org/overview.htm SAPRIN website, emphasis added)
Similarly, The Trade Observatory (formerly WTO Watch), operating out of Geneva, is a project of the Minneapolis based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), which is generously funded by Ford, Rockefeller, Charles Stewart Mott among others. (see Table 1 below).
The Trade Observatory has a mandate to monitor the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA and the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). (IATP, About Trade Observatory, accessed September 2010).
The Trade Observatory is also to develop data and information as well as foster “governance” and “accountability”. Accountability to the victims of WTO policies or accountability to the protagonists of neoliberal reforms?
The Trade Observatory watchdog functions does not in any way threaten the WTO. Quite the opposite: the legitimacy of the trade organizations and agreements are never questioned.
Table 1 Minneapolis Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) largest donors
(for complete list click here)
Ford Foundation
$2,612,500.00
1994 – 2006
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
$2,320,000.00
1995 – 2005
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
$1,391,000.00
1994 – 2005
McKnight Foundation
$1,056,600.00
1995 – 2005
Joyce Foundation
$748,000.00
1996 – 2004
Bush Foundation
$610,000.00
2001 – 2006
Bauman Family Foundation
$600,000.00
1994 – 2006
Great Lakes Protection Fund
$580,000.00
1995 – 2000
John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
$554,100.00
1991 – 2003
John Merck Fund
$490,000.00
1992 – 2003
Harold K. Hochschild Foundation
$486,600.00
1997 – 2005
Foundation for Deep Ecology
$417,500.00
1991 – 2001
Jennifer Altman Foundation
$366,500.00
1992 – 2001
Rockefeller Foundation
$344,134.00
2000 – 2004
Soruce: http://activistcash.com/organization_financials.cfm/o/16-institute-for-agriculture-and-trade-policy
The World Economic Forum. “All Roads Lead to Davos”
The people’s movement has been hijacked. Selected intellectuals, trade union executives, and the leaders of civil society organizations (including Oxfam, Amnesty International, Greenpeace) are routinely invited to the Davos World Economic Forum, where they mingle with the World’s most powerful economic and political actors. This mingling of the World’s corporate elites with hand-picked “progressives” is part of the ritual underlying the process of “manufacturing dissent”.
The ploy is to selectively handpick civil society leaders “whom we can trust” and integrate them into a “dialogue”, cut them off from their rank and file, make them feel that they are “global citizens” acting on behalf of their fellow workers but make them act in a way which serves the interests of the corporate establishment:
“The participation of NGOs in the Annual Meeting in Davos is evidence of the fact that [we] purposely seek to integrate a broad spectrum of the major stakeholders in society in … defining and advancing the global agenda … We believe the [Davos] World Economic Forum provides the business community with the ideal framework for engaging in collaborative efforts with the other principal stakeholders [NGOs] of the global economy to “improve the state of the world,” which is the Forum’s mission. (World Economic Forum, Press Release 5 January 2001)
The WEF does not represent the broader business community. It is an elitist gathering: Its members are giant global corporations (with a minimum $5 billion annual turnover). The selected non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are viewed as partner “stakeholders” as well as a convenient “mouthpiece for the voiceless who are often left out of decision-making processes.” (World Economic Forum – Non-Governmental Organizations, 2010)
“They [the NGOs] play a variety of roles in partnering with the Forum to improve the state of the world, including serving as a bridge between business, government and civil society, connecting the policy makers to the grassroots, bringing practical solutions to the table…” (Ibid)
Civil society “partnering” with global corporations on behalf of “the voiceless”, who are “left out”?
Trade union executives are also co-opted to the detriment of workers’ rights. The leaders of the International Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU), the AFL-CIO, the European Trade Union Confederation, the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), among others, are routinely invited to attend both the annual WEF meetings in Davos, Switzerland as well as to the regional summits. They also participate in the WEF’s Labour Leaders Community which focuses on mutually acceptable patterns of behavior for the labor movement. The WEF “believes that the voice of Labour is important to dynamic dialogue on issues of globalisation, economic justice, transparency and accountability, and ensuring a healthy global financial system.”
“Ensuring a healthy global financial system” wrought by fraud and corruption? The issue of workers’ rights is not mentioned. (World Economic Forum – Labour Leaders, 2010).
The World Social Forum: “Another World Is Possible”
The 1999 Seattle counter-summit in many regards laid the foundations for the development of the World Social Forum.
The first gathering of the World Social Forum took place in January 2001, in Porto Alegre, Brazil. This international gathering involved the participation of tens of thousands of activists from grass-roots organizations and NGOs.
The WSF gathering of NGOs and progressive organizations is held simultaneously with the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF). It was intended to voice opposition and dissent to the World Economic Forum of corporate leaders and finance ministers.
The WSF at the outset was an initiative of France’s ATTAC and several Brazilian NGOs’:
“… In February 2000, Bernard Cassen, the head of a French NGO platform ATTAC, Oded Grajew, head of a Brazilian employers’ organisation, and Francisco Whitaker, head of an association of Brazilian NGOs, met to discuss a proposal for a “world civil society event”; by March 2000, they formally secured the support of the municipal government of Porto Alegre and the state government of Rio Grande do Sul, both controlled at the time by the Brazilian Workers’ Party (PT)…. A group of French NGOs, including ATTAC, Friends of L’Humanité, and Friends of Le Monde Diplomatique, sponsored an Alternative Social Forum in Paris titled “One Year after Seattle”, in order to prepare an agenda for the protests to be staged at the upcoming European Union summit at Nice. The speakers called for “reorienting certain international institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO… so as to create a globalization from below” and “building an international citizens’ movement, not to destroy the IMF but to reorient its missions.” (Research Unit For Political Economy,The Economics and Politics of the World Social Forum, Global Research, January 20, 2004)
From the outset in 2001, the WSF was supported by core funding from the Ford Foundation, which is known to have ties to the CIA going back to the 1950s: “The CIA uses philanthropic foundations as the most effective conduit to channel large sums of money to Agency projects without alerting the recipients to their source.” (James Petras, The Ford Foundation and the CIA, Global Research, September 18, 2002)
The same procedure of donor funded counter-summits or people’s summits which characterized the 1990s People’s Summits was embodied in the World Social Forum (WSF):
“… other WSF funders (or `partners’, as they are referred to in WSF terminology) included the Ford Foundation, — suffice it to say here that it has always operated in the closest collaboration with the US Central Intelligence Agency and US overall strategic interests; the Heinrich Boll Foundation, which is controlled by the German Greens party, a partner in the present [2003] German government and a supporter of the wars on Yugoslavia and Afghanistan (its leader Joschka Fischer is the [former] German foreign minister); and major funding agencies such as Oxfam (UK), Novib (Netherlands), ActionAid (UK), and so on.
Remarkably, an International Council member of the WSF reports that the “considerable funds” received from these agencies have “not hitherto awakened any significant debates [in the WSF bodies] on the possible relations of dependence it could generate.” Yet he admits that “in order to get funding from the Ford Foundation, the organisers had to convince the foundation that the Workers Party was not involved in the process.” Two points are worth noting here. First, this establishes that the funders were able to twist arms and determine the role of different forces in the WSF — they needed to be `convinced’ of the credentials of those who would be involved. Secondly, if the funders objected to the participation of the thoroughly domesticated Workers Party, they would all the more strenuously object to prominence being given to genuinely anti-imperialist forces. That they did so object will be become clear as we describe who was included and who excluded from the second and third meets of the WSF….
… The question of funding [of the WSF] does not even figure in the charter of principles of the WSF, adopted in June 2001. Marxists, being materialists, would point out that one should look at the material base of the forum to grasp its nature. (One indeed does not have to be a Marxist to understand that “he who pays the piper calls the tune”.) But the WSF does not agree. It can draw funds from imperialist institutions like Ford Foundation while fighting “domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism” (Research Unit For Political Economy, The Economics and Politics of the World Social Forum, Global Research, January 20, 2004)
The Ford Foundation provided core support to the WSF, with indirect contributions to participating “partner organizations” from the McArthur Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, The Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the European Commission, several European governments (including the Labour government of Tony Blair), the Canadian government, as well as a number of UN bodies (including UNESCO, UNICEF, UNDP, ILO and the FAO) .(Ibid).
In addition to initial core support from the Ford Foundation, many of the participating civil society organizations receive funding from major foundations and charities. In turn, the US and European based NGOs often operate as secondary funding agencies channelling Ford and Rockefeller money towards partner organizations in developing countries, including grassroots peasant and human rights movements.
The International Council (IC) of the WSF is made up of representatives from NGOs, trade unions, alternative media organizations, research institutes, many of which are heavily funded by foundations as well as governments. (See Fórum Social Mundial). The same trade unions, which are routinely invited to mingle with Wall Street CEOs at the Davos World Economic Forum (WSF) including the AFL-CIO, the European Trade Union Confederation and the Canadian Labor Congress (CLC) also sit on the WSF’s International Council (IC). Among NGOs funded by major foundations sitting on the WSF’s IC is the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) (see our analysis above) which oversees the Geneva based Trade Observatory.
The Funders Network on Trade and Globalization (FTNG), which has observer status on the WSF International Council plays a key role. While channelling financial support to the WSF, it acts as a clearing house for major foundations. The FTNG describes itself as “an alliance of grant makers committed to building just and sustainable communities around the world”. Members of this alliance are Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers, Heinrich Boell, C. S. Mott, Merck Family Foundation, Open Society Institute, Tides, among others. (For a complete list of FTNG funding agencies seeFNTG: Funders). FTNG acts as a fund raising entity on behalf of the WSF.
Western Governments Fund the Counter-Summits and Repress the Protest Movement
In a bitter irony, governments including the European Union grant money to fund progressive groups (including the WSF) involved in organizing protests against the very same governments which finance their activities:
“Governments, too, have been significant financiers of protest groups. The European Commission, for example, funded two groups who mobilised large numbers of people to protest at EU summits at Gothenburg and Nice. Britain’s national lottery, which is overseen by the government, helped fund a group at the heart of the British contingent at both protests.” (James Harding, Counter-capitalism, FT.com, October 15 2001)
We are dealing with a diabolical process: The host government finances the official summit as well as the NGOs actively involved in the Counter-Summit. It also funds the multimillion dollar anti-riot police operation which has a mandate to repress the grassroots participants of the Counter-Summit, including members of NGOs direcly funded by the government. .
The purpose of these combined operations, including violent actions of vandalism committed by undercover cops (Toronto G20, 2010) dressed up as activists, is to discredit the protest movement and intimidate its participants. The broader objective is to transform the counter-summit into a ritual of dissent, which serves to uphold the interests of the official summit and the host government. This logic has prevailed in numerous counter summits since the 1990s.
At the 2001 Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, funding from the Canadian federal government to mainstream NGOs and trade unions was granted under certain conditions. A large segment of the protest movement was de facto excluded from the People’s Summit. This in itself led to the formation of a second parallel People’s venue, which some observers described as a “a counter-People’s Summit. In turn, in an agreement with both the provincial and federal authorities, the organizers directed the protest march towards a remote location some 10 km out of town, rather than towards the historical downtown area were the official FTAA summit was being held behind a heavily guarded “security perimeter”.
“Rather than marching toward the perimeter fence and the Summit of the Americas meetings, march organizers chose a route that marched from the People’s Summit away from the fence, through largely empty residential areas to the parking lot of a stadium in a vacant area several miles away. Henri Masse, the president of the Federation des travailleurs et travailleuses du Quebec (FTQ), explained, “I deplore that we are so far from the center-city…. But it was a question of security.” One thousand marshals from the FTQ kept very tight control over the march. When the march came to the point where some activists planned to split off and go up the hill to the fence, FTQ marshals signalled the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) contingent walking behind CUPE to sit down and stop the march so that FTQ marshals could lock arms and prevent others from leaving the official march route.” (Katherine Dwyer, Lessons of Quebec City, International Socialist Review, June/July 2001)
Quebec City 2001, Building the Security fence
Security Perimeter, Quebec City 2001
The Summit of the Americas was held inside a four kilometer “bunker” made of concrete and galvanized steel fencing. The 10 feet high “Quebec Wall” encircled part of the historic city center including the parliamentary compound of the National Assembly, hotels and shopping areas.
Quebec City, April 2001
NGO Leaders versus their Grassroots
The establishment of the World Social Forum (WSF) in 2001 was unquestionably a historical landmark, bringing together tens of thousands of committed activists. It was an important venue which allowed for the exchange of ideas and the establishment of ties of solidarity.
What is at stake is the ambivalent role of the leaders of progressive organizations. Their cozy and polite relationship to the inner circles of power, to corporate and government funding, aid agencies, the World Bank, etc, undermines their relationship and responsibilities to their rank and file. The objective of manufactured dissent is precisely that: to distance the leaders from their rank and file as a means to effectively silencing and weakening grassroots actions.
Funding dissent is also a means of infiltrating the NGOs as well as acquiring inside information on strategies of protest and resistance of grass-roots movements.
Most of the grassroots participating organizations in the World Social Forum including peasant, workers’ and student organizations, firmly committed to combating neoliberalism were unaware of the WSF International Council’s relationship to corporate funding, negotiated behind their backs by a handful of NGO leaders with ties to both official and private funding agencies.
Funding to progressive organizations is not unconditional. Its purpose is to “pacify” and manipulate the protest movement. Precise conditionalities are set by the funding agencies. If they are not met, the disbursements are discontinued and the recipient NGO is driven into de facto bankruptcy due to lack of funds.
The WSF defines itself as “an open meeting place for reflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free exchange of experiences and inter-linking for effective action, by groups and movements of civil society that are opposed to neo-liberalism and to domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism, and are committed to building a society centred on the human person”. (See Fórum Social Mundial, accessed 2010).
The WSF is a mosaic of individual initiatives which does not directly threaten or challenge the legitimacy of global capitalism and its institutions. It meets annually. It is characterised by a multitude of sessions and workshops. In this regard, one of the features of the WSF was to retain the “do-it-yourself” framework, characteristic of the donor funded counter G7 People’s Summits of the 1990s.
This apparent disorganized structure is deliberate. While favoring debate on a number of individual topics, the WSF framework is not conducive to the articulation of a cohesive common platform and plan of action directed against global capitalism. Moreover, the US led war in the Middle East and Central Asia, which broke out a few months after the inaugural WSF venue in Porto Alegre in January 2001, has not been a central issue in forum discussions.
What prevails is a vast and intricate network of organizations. The recipient grassroots organizations in developing countries are invariably unaware that their partner NGOs in the United States or the European Union, which are providing them with financial support, are themselves funded by major foundations. The money trickles down, setting constraints on grassroots actions. Many of these NGO leaders are committed and well meaning individuals acting within a framework which sets the boundaries of dissent. The leaders of these movements are often co-opted, without even realizing that as a result of corporate funding their hands are tied.
Global capitalism finances anti-capitalism: an absurd and contradictory relationship.
“Another World is Possible”, but it cannot be meaningfully achieved under the present arrangement.
A shake-up of the World Social Forum, of its organizational structure, its funding arrangements and leadership is required.
There can be no meaningful mass movement when dissent is generously funded by those same corporate interests which are the target of the protest movement. In the words of McGeorge Bundy, president of the Ford Foundation (1966-1979),“Everything the [Ford] Foundation did could be regarded as ‘making the World safe for capitalism’”.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/manufacturing-dissent-the-anti-globalization-movement-is-funded-by-the-corporate-elites/21110