Sunday, May 31, 2009

Interview with CK Prahalad

C K Prahalad, a name known for some of the most innovative ideas like bottom of pyramid and co-creation, is widely recognised as the world's leading management guru. He is one of the greatest alumni of Loyola College, Chennai where I am pursuing management education.

Thinkers50.com conducts a biennial survey of worlds leading management thinkers. The 2009 results are expected sometimes later this year. For the first time 2007 ranking saw an Indian, CK Prahald, getting into the top slot pushing Michael Porter down to the third position. Other Indians in the ranking are CEO coach Ram Charan(22), Vijay Govindarajan(23), Tuck Business School, Rakesh Kurana(45), HBS.

Here is the transcript of CK's exclusive interview to guruchannel.com. Here he discusses many issues like indian advantage, co-creation, innovation, strategy, N=1, R=G, democratising commerce and so on.

The following text has been created from the video interview. Suitable modifications have been made without any prejudice to the original version to improve readability. 'Int' refers to the interviewer and 'CK' to Professor Prahalad.

Int : Can I begin by asking you what it is like being the #1 management thinker in the world?

CK : First I would say, I am happy to be in that slot. If one is in that list it is better to be #1. But it is a very humbling situation because when one is ranked #1 people think that he knows the answers to everything. One must have the humility to say “No, I don’t”. Therefore I think I have become a lot more humble. And more importantly a lot more cautious on what I say. Therefore I would say it is more a burden.

Int: You grew up in India andI understand you were one of nine children. You worked with Union Carbide at the age of nineteen. How do feel that those early experiences have influenced your thinking?

CK: I think growing up in India is a very extraordinary preparation for management and thinking about management for three reasons. One, you grow up in large families so you always have to make comprises. You have to learn to accommodate. India is a very diverse culture, in terms of languages, religions, income levels. So you start adjusting and coping with diversity at a very personal level, even as a child. So you cannot say “I don’t like this” as you might not have had any choice on whom you have to work with in school and whom you want sit next to in school. It is not a monoculture. Therefore if you have to have some interpersonal competence and inter-cultural competence, it (India) is a very good laboratory for doing it.

I was also very lucky because my parents were very academically oriented. My father was a judge and he was also a great scholar. So he told us very early in life that there is only one thing which when you give more you would have more. If you have lot of money and you give money away you would have less for yourself. On the other hand knowledge is the only thing which when you share more you get more. So that has stuck with me because I saw him using his scholarship in a very profound personal way. So that has rubbed on for a long time. So the early experiences were great.

When I worked in the plant in Union Carbide I had to work with communist unions. I learnt a tremendous amount from the union Stewarts. I had to set rates. I was an young industrial engineer. Negotiating rates with the unions taught me a lot. Contrary to what people think they are very smart people. They are very thoughtful. And if you are fair and honest you could deal with them in an interesting way. So it taught me that don’t think of these groups as adversaries but collaborate, be honest and be fair.

Int: In your new book 'The new age of Innovation', you talk about a transformation that is going across industries right across the globe. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

CK: I think it is based upon two very simple principles. One, treat individuals as unique, allow them to create their personalized experiences. That is the source of value. We just call it N=1. Just look at Netfalkes, Google, Starbox or iPod. You create your own portfolio of music. That is N=1.

On the second hand if you look at Apple. Apple doesn’t produce the content, it doesn’t even produce the device. It just designs it. Somebody in China makes it, the LCD’s come from Japan, semiconductors from Korea or Taiwan. It is assembled and sent to us in the US. And if you actually turn it around, it says that it is proudly designed in California. None of the content is produced by Apple. That is you are getting a multi-institutional collaboration to create the resources that I uniquely can access. Therefore we say resources are becoming multi-institutional and that is R=G.

N=1 is the shorthand for one person creating his own personalized experience. R=G is the shorthand for saying resources to serve that one person uniquely may have to be accessed from multiple institutions. That is the whole theory behind the book. It is quite simple. Sometimes N=1 and R=G appear to be complicated. It is very simple. Think Apple. Think Google. It is very easy.

Int: At the heart of last couple of books, has been the idea of co-creation. Can you explain what co-creation is?

CK: I think co-creation is an important idea. What it say is, we need two joint-problem-solvers and not one. Typically firms perceive a firm-centric world where the firm is the unit of analysis. In innovation, quality, ERP systems firm is the center of the system. What I am arguing is, the firm was the center of the universe in the industrial system, but when you move to a new age the consumers have the opportunity to have dialogue and be active. Therefore they can shape their own personal experiences.

You can create systems where the firms and the individuals work together. It is not consumer-orientation, it is not customer-realtionship management where it is still firm-centric view of the consumer. I am saying, let us establish a dialogue so the consumers can personalize their own experiences and the firm can benefit. This is becoming much more common and possible today. Therefore I think the idea is going to take roots. Activist consumers, firms that understand the needs of consumers have to help consumers to co-create their own personal experiences. This is going to be the common practice.

Int : So what will be an example of that?

CK: Let us take Google. It is also an interesting example as everybody googles now. If I look at Google, they don’t tell me how to use the system. I can personalize my own page. I can create iGoogle. I decide what I want.

On one hand Google provides a platform. Therefore Google understands that it can have hundred million consumers but each one can do what they want with their platform. That is an extreme case of personalized co-created value.

On the other hand Google doesn’t produce the content at all. The content comes from a large number of idividuals and institutions around the world. They aggregate it and make it available to me. This is the spirit of co-creation in the new book which says one consumer co-creates experience at a time, even when you have hundred million consumers. Resources are not contained within the firm and they are accessed from a wide variety of institutions. Therefore resources are global.

Int: Now in the book you talk about traditional industries as well as high-tech companies like Google. You apply it to teaching and various other industries. Can you give us an example of that?

CK: Let us take tyres. The rust-belt industry, which has been around for a hundred years selling tyres especially to fleets, is a very well established industry.The channels are known, the product is very clear. So you could think about a company selling tyres to a fleet owner. It is typically called a B2B. You need to see the term business-to-business. Business is the starting point.

So instead of selling tyres, if you just ask the question,why can't I just sell the usage. I only charge you for kilometers of usage. Because people drive trucks differently. Some are short-haul trucks, some are long-haul trucks there are wide variations. So I say that 'I accept that you have multiple usages and I will charge you only for kilometers of usage'. All that I have to do is measure how many kilometers. But I can go one step further and put some sensors on the tyres so I know the tyre pressure, I know the breaking speeds, the terrain in which you drive and so on. And with the GPS I can also say what routes you take.

So now I have a much better understanding of how you use the tyres. So now I can tell you, please check your tyre pressure, rotate your tyres. Because tyre pressure and rotation can dramatically improve the usage. It reduces the cost for you as the fleet owner. It gives me tremendous amount of knowledge on how people really use the tyres or run their vehicles.

Int : And that is how you co-create value.

CK: We are co-creating value. But I can go one step further and say, fleet owner has five hundred drivers and let me take Joe as a driver and look at his driving habits. I can give him advice on improving safety, usage and make him a better driver. So what used to start with a transaction, arms-length one, mostly based on price, now can be converted into personal relationship with the driver and the company or the fleet owner. You provide extraordinary service and get compensated very well. Because you get compensated for usage and also get tremendous idea for product development. Because now you have real-time data instead of focus groups' coming to you.

Int: What about public sector organizations in health service like the National Health Service in the UK. How the ideas of N=1 and R=G apply to the NHS?

CK: Each one of us is unique. We have our own history of good health, bad health, problems etc. So I have the data with me personally. There is nothing that stops the doctors who treat me to take me aside and start discussing about the risks and benefits of following a certain regimen. For example, if people are a little bit obese, to alert them that they are susceptible to diabetes, cardiovascular complications, blood pressure and other issues they have to worry about. That can be done today. That means you and I use the same information like the medical records, my test reports, my episodes of illness and then say to each other, if you follow this regimen you will keep health. That is a co-created regimen.

You cannot tell me, ‘take a walk everyday for four miles' when I am living in an run-down area. That may not be very wise. On the other hand you can make an arrangement for me to go to a gym where I can go and exercise. So I follow this regimen and you keep track of me.

Let us assume that I go to the next step. Let us assume that I am a heart patient and I a have a pace-maker. They can say, ‘ alright these are the bandwidth in which your system must operate and we will remotely monitor you with your permission'. But when something goes wrong we will send you a message either through your cell-phone or PC or regular phone or even send somebody to you to say, ‘get to the hospital, we need to treat you or just relax and take rest for two days'.

So I can become your personal friend. But in order to do that the first step is co-created experience. You can create the N=1 situation quite easily. Health is so important to all of us that it is critical that we get into N=1. Do not treat patients like in an assembly line.

Int: You mentioned the word ‘uniqueness’, a couple of times. How important is that concept in this notion of individualism, not just in the west but on a global level?

CK: There is not a single person I know who thinks he is not unique. And it is important for us to treat them that way. In other words the old idea was efficiency of manufacturing and managing resources. That is the 'model T' world. You can have any colour as long as it is black, organising the factory to make it cheap and available. It is an efficiency orientation. That was perfectly okay when the industrial revolution started. It was okay with Colt Revolver, Single sewing machine or the Model T.

We still suffer from the legacy of that thinking. Nobody runs a company like the Model T. But the legacy still exists in the form of firm-centric, product-centeric view of the world. But we are moving dramatically to a very different age. I think that there are four key drivers that are doing this. One is connectivity. For the first time in the human history three billion people are connected with wireless or PC or some combination. It will be four billion soon. It has never happened before.

Second the cost of technology is going down dramatically. I can get an eight gigabyte USB drive for $25. This means that technology is not the differentiator between the rich and the poor. Everybody can have one. One can have a $25 cellphone. So technology is not the unique differentiator any longer.

Third it is the convergence of the industry boundaries and limits. I can take my cellphone and ask a simple question. Is it a phone or a computer or a radio or a TV or a camera or an atlas? It is all the above.

Fourth is the social networks. The dramatic increase in social networking. If you put the four together with globalization, it is going to change the fundamental relation between the consumer and the company. That is the spirit. So now today I can have a dialogue with my consumers, my consumers can have an interaction with each other. Therefore the whole dynamic of the relationship between the consumer and the firm has shifted. The consumer is not powerless. The consumer has as much power as the firm. So it is the realignment of the power equation between the consumer and the firm that is going to require serious thinking on the part of the managers.

Int: The new book is called 'The new age of Innovation' and you described a part of that transformation. What is that new age of innovation mean for managers?

CK: I think three very important transitions are taking place in thinking. One, from the firm-centric view to accept the centrality of the individual. That is a very important first transition.

Second is the inter-dependence of the institutions, that you donot try to do everything by yourself. You cannot. Even when you are IBM or GE or P&G or Unilever, you still have to depend on a large number of people. Therefore eco-systems compete, not individual companies. This second principle is R=G.

Third transition, an interesting one, is that value is jointly created and not by the company alone. In fact when you look at people using terms like the value-chain it is actually a sequential cost-built. But we simply call it value chain because we assume we create value in the firm and exchanging it with the consumer. On the other hand when the consumer is involved in co-creating value you separate the cost-bill from the value that is created at the point of interaction. That is the third transition.

These are not difficult transitions. You must have a point of view if you want to transform your company. That doesn’t mean that you have to go from point A to B in fell swoop. You can migrate systematically by initiating small directionally consistent steps. That is what companies need to take.

Int: We talked about management. What about leadership?

CK: There are several very important distinctions. One, leaders must lead. You cannot lead unless you are future oriented. Leadership is about the future. Leadership is about a point-of-view about that future. And leasdership is about hope. I cannot say I am a great leader but no-change folks. That makes no sense.

Leadership is about change and future. The first thing is we must have a distinct point of view not about our current affairs but about how the world can be ten years from now. That is the first principle of a good leader. I am arguing that strategy and leadership are not about extrapolating the current situation into the future but imagining the future and folding the future in. That means leaders must have a point of view about how our system can operate and what the underlying principles ought to be. That is the critical part of the book. N=1 and R=G are the parts of the fundamental view how the future can be. Not necessarily everybody is there but that is how it should be.

I call it democratizing commerce. Lok at what we are doing. Every person has the opportunity to have a share of voice in how they consume, what they consume and how much they will pay for it. That doesn’t mean that the company has to give them what they want at the price they want but they have to accept it. So that is the first principle.

The second, the metaphor I would like to use is that of a sheep dog. The sheep dog has to follow some rules. One, you are always behind. Two, you can bark a lot but don’t bite and don’t lose any sheep. But you better know where you are going. This seems to be a better metaphor than a shepherd because a shepherd can be anywhere and most of the times ahead of the herd. The reason why I say this is that when talent becomes a critical resource for the company and when the talent is distributed around the world, inter-personnel competence, inter-cultural competence, the capacity to get people from different parts of the world like China, India, Germany, UK, US, Brazil and make all to work together requires the ability of a good sheep dog.

How to talk to people constantly, how to motivate them, how to get them to see the tasks on hand and how to reduce the frictional losses in pulling people together from multiple cultures becomes a dominant theme. So it is not the great man view of leadership. It is somebody who can make you as good as you can be.

Int : Your previous book ‘Fortunes at the Bottom of the Pyramid’ discussed how business including large businesses can work in the emerging markets and in doing so alleviate some poverty. How does that fit with your new ideas of innovation?

CK: If you look at the opportunities for the companies, I make three simple points in all the three books. One, look at six billion people as your market and not one. Look at six billion people as the potential micro-producers and micro-consumers and not just a billion people at the top of the pyramid. Today people are starting to say, including the Unilever of UK, that we want to straddle the pyramid not only being at the top or at the bottom. We can take our products like the Dove or Sunsilk all the way from the top to the bottom. Give it in a sachet for people who can afford only a small piece and more frequent users can have large bottles. So straddling the pyramid is becoming a fairly common idea.

The second thing is if you want to get a very good way of serving the consumer and therefore retain consumers then you have to understand the uniqueness of each one and create a unique personalized experience. Just don’t give them a product and think of it as a transaction. Build a relationship that is more enduring. That is the whole co-creation idea. In the new age of innovation, I take these forward and show how these things can be done operationally.

Thirdly what is the glue? The glue is information architecture or IT architecture, social values or the social architecture in terms of skill, training, approach to talent and so on. Binding them all together as a glue is resilient adaptive business processes and unique analytics. I believe that we are on the verge of a largest growth opportunity that any firm has ever seen.

Int: What is co-creation for CK? How does that work?

CK: I have been personally very lucky to be able to spot very, very bright and talented people like Yves Doz, Gary Hamel, Venkat Ramaswamy, MS Krishnan. If you notice what I do, I work with them, write several articles, write a book which is a statement of a point-of-view. Then I move on. I go on to the next idea. I leave them alone to pursue whatever they want. So my job has been to work with the most talented people, co-create a piece of work that has an enduring quality.

The idea of core competence is still there. Very few people recognize that global integration and local resposiveness are the products of my co-creation with Doz. It has been massaged and managed into ideas like glocal and so on. But fundamentally the tension between global integration and local responsiveness has endured.

So my goal is to get enduring set of ideas, co-create with them and then move on to next. So I have maintained the same pattern. It has been very good because it gives my co-authors the opportunity to express themselves in ways that they want. It allows me to refresh myself by not being tied to the same set of ideas and people.

Int: So what is next for CK?

CK: I think the essence of the next wave of managing or looking at the institution of the firm which has been the most dominant institution in our soceity is to say how do we democratize commerce. What does it mean? I think that is an important question for us to ask.

The last century was about political freedom. This century must be about economic freedom. I recognize that political freedom is just work in process.We haven’t done it. But the core ideas and the aspirations are well set around the world. Even people who are living under dictatorial regimes recognize they need to have political freedom. It is just a matter of time. But we need to ask the next question as to what is the agenda for humanity. It sounds an audacious goal. I don’t see it that way. If you look at co-creation, it is the starting idea of how to democratize commerce, how to get a share of voice for the consumers and the consumer groups not in an adversarial way but in a collaborative way with the firm. If you look at the bottom of the pyramid it is about how to make it inclusive, thoughtful capitalism, profitable for you and profitable for them, improving their quality of life and certainly makes you richer.

So when you look at inclusive capitalism, co-creation, respect for the individual and now the uniqueness of N=1 you can realise them as the building blocks to think about how to democratise commerce. I don’t know when will I be able to put all the pieces together. But that is the hidden journey of all the past three books. Now it is no more hidden as I have told you.

Int: We look forward to continue the journey with you. Thank you CK.

CK : Thank you.

References:

Thinkers 50 - Official site

CK's Interview - Video

Thinkers50.com 2007 Results



Saturday, May 30, 2009

Guerdon and Laodicean : The Indian Buzzzz…

Ergasia diacoele blancmange huisache hydragyrum isagoge phoresy’. Hey people please wait. I am still speaking English. If you cant make sense (I couldn’t )ask Kavya Shivashankran, Speeling Bee champ. Kavya, a 13 year old from Kansas, is a veteran of the sorts in the Scripps National Spelling Bee Championship 2009. The opening line is just a random concatenation of the words that Kavya spelled flawlessly to lift the prestigious championship. The Jai-Ho word for Kavya was ‘laodicean’ which means indifferent or lukewarm specially in religious affairs. Kavya has strengthened the Indian-origin stranglehold by becoming the 9th Indian-origin champ. This is the third time Indian-origins are wining the title back to back. Last summer it was 13 year old Sameer Mishra and his title-clincher was guerdon (which means a reward).


Spelling Bee, one of the most famous national juvenile events, gets media coverage on par with any other events. The main sponsor for the event is E.W.Scripps Company, a diversified media firm operating out of Cincinnati. The event aims to improve school-going kids’ spelling skills, vocabulary and help them develop proper English usage.

The 82nd edition of the championship had 293 spellers making it to the final showdown in Washington D.C. Of these 32 kids were of Indian-origin. Kavya was one among the 41 who made it to the semi-final round. The words which she successful decoded in her journey to the acme were
  • ergasia - integrated activity of both mental and physiological components
  • kurta - long-sleeved shirt worn by Indian men
  • escritoire - writing table of a secretary
  • hydragyrum - mercury
  • blancmange - a sweet pudding made of milk
  • baignoire - a box of lowest tier in a theatre
  • huisache - a tropical shrub with fragrant deep-yellow flowers
  • ecossaise - a country-dance in quick duple meter
  • diacoele - sorry people couldn’t find the meaning
  • bouquiniste - used-book seller
  • isagoge - a scholarly introduction to a field of study or research
  • phoresy - zoological term meaning a non-parasitic relationship in which one species is carried about by the other
  • laodicean.

The tall and composed Kavya was confidence personified during the whole of the on-stage rounds. She is one of the four four-timers in the competition and this was also her last attempt. In all her earlier attempts she finished in the top 10. Not even a trace of pressure was visible on her face as she stood facing the ‘Head Pronouncer ‘ reading out the title-clinching word . When asked later how she felt at that moment, she said ‘ Ya I knew the word and I was excited’. Kavya aspires to become a neuro-surgeon. Wish her all the very best in all her future endeavours.

Kavya is the 9th Indian-origin person to lift the championship. Chicago’s Balu Natarajan opened the Indian-origin tally in 1985. In the last ten years Indian-origin kids have won the title six times. The Indian stranglehold on the title is strengthening every year. Afterall what could be the secret behind this pattern. A popular joke says ‘ if your name is sivaramakrishnamoorthiyengar you can pretty well spell any word’.

In fact it is the parents’ pressure and peer pressure that are driving the Indian parents and children to come out and prove their mettle in such national events. Many immigrant communities of America have shone well in many endeavours like the Kenyans in a long-range athletics, Dominicians in baseball and so on. This shows that there is a cultural tinge to success. The North-South Foundation, a non-profit organisation based in Illinois, has done tremendous job in supporting the immigrants' children in their academic excellence. They have put in place alter-Spelling-Bee platform with more than 60 chapters across the nation. It conducts this event just like a full-dress rehearsal. This years champ Kavya was the 2004 NSF champ. The NSF also holds such mock competitions for other famous children championships like Mathcounts and National Geographic Bee.

It is more than just a coincidence or cultural advantage or gene expression. It is sustained and coordinated efforts of an immigrant community. It is immigrant vigour personified. Because an immigrant community always faces the constant pressure to prove its merit in order to gain and sustain the acceptance of a larger soceity.

Spelling Bee has its fair share of criticism. Probably the most glaring one is that this competition compels the children to learn hundreds of words in an artificial way. For instance many medical terms, Spanish and Japanese words are supposedly learnt mostly out of their context. Such learning may not make any constructive contribution to the kids’ vocabulary and usage skills. The undue pressure exerted on the kids during the preparation and competition is something that is potentially damaging.

Spelling Bee, nevertheless plays an important role as a showcase of Indian talents. It seems that an Indian age is not too far and the role of diaspora would be crucial. Mark Twain said, ‘I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way’. Think a correction is on the cards.

References :





Sunday, May 24, 2009

SOS... Pediatric HIV...

Nkosi Johnson said, “Care for us and accept us - we are all human beings. We are normal. We have hands. We have feet. We can walk, we can talk, we have needs just like everyone else - don't be afraid of us - we are all the same!"

The pin drop silence that filled the auditorium was broken by a thundering applause of the International AIDS Conference’s dignitaries at Durban in 2000 [1]. Johnson, a SouthAfrican boy who died at the age of 12, was yet another kid to fall victim to the dreaded and often stigmatized disease called AIDS. Although he died, his legacy lives on and continues to inspire millions of positive people and social workers to unite hands for the children [2]. Pediatric HIV is an issue that is crying for attention.. 1st June being his remembrance day, I dedicate this post in his honour.






Nkosi Johnson was born to a HIV infected mother in South Africa. He got infected with HIV in utero. The boy shot into headlines when a public school in SouthAfrica turned his admission application on medical grounds. Nkosi along with his foster mother Gail Johnson, resolved to fight out the school. In the process they stirred an entire nation’s conscience vis-à-vis pediatric HIV. The mother-son duo went on to found Nkosi’s Haven, a home dedicated to take care of HIV infected mothers and their kids. Nkosi Johnson became the torch-bearer for the cause of pediatric HIV/AIDS. When he died on June 1, 2001 he was the longest surviving person born infected with HIV.

The issue of pediatric HIV often receives a little lesser attention than what it deserves. A quick glance at the statistics can explain why it is so. Worldwide there are more than 35 million people living with HIV. This includes about 2.1 million children (aged less than 15 years)[3]. Of these 2.1 million children about 2 million live in the sub-Saharan Africa. The 2008 Epidemiological Factsheet on HIV and AIDS prepared by WHO puts the number of pediatric HIV victims in India at 8867 based on the reports of registrations in government-run health centers. The report also states there could be as many as 64000 pregnant mothers living with HIV. Of these only about 8816 mothers are under treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission of the virus. Thus the real picture could be more frightening. Of the 6 million people living with HIV, pediatric victims represent only a miniscule proportion.

Just because the proportion of pediatric HIV is ‘insignificant’, they cannot be ignored. The issue of pediatric HIV is complicated in itself. The issue is further complicated by the children who are orphaned when their HIV infected parents die. These are the kids who are sentenced to death for no sins of theirs. The worst part of the story is that all these can almost be completely prevented. Although children born with HIV infection can be made a thing of past, we still watching it with our hands folded.

The issue has two sides. One is the supply-side. Medical treatments are available to prevent mother to child transmission(MTCT) of the virus. This means that even when a pregnant mother is infected with HIV, she can give birth to a healthy HIV-negative child. The rate of MTCT infection has been brought down to as low as 2%. But this needs constant medical care of the pregnant mother often from the first trimester of pregnancy. After child birth, the new born needs anti-HIV treatment upto 12 weeks or even more till their HIV status is confirmed. When this is done on a massive-scale consistently birth of HIV infected infants can be prevented almost wholly.

The demand-side of the problem is more complicated and delicate. Going by WHO statistics we have over 2 million children living with HIV out of which around 10,000 children live in India. Apart from these there are also children who have lost their parents to AIDS and thus have been orphaned. They need protection, medical care, education, nutrition and above all love and affection of the society. The opening words of this blog resonates this idea. Recent medical advancements have enabled people living with HIV to postpone onset of AIDS to as long as 15 years or even more. Thus children born infected can think of living into their 20’s and 30’s. These children need education and other support which any ordinary kid is entitled to. This would go a long way in making their short lives more useful ones.

There have been efforts from governments across the globe to address both supply-side and demand-side issues. India is one country where almost 100% of the pregnant mothers are scanned for HIV. Once diagnosed with HIV, they are put under AntiRetroViral(ARV) treatment. Private sector has come up with some solid efforts in this area. Several organizations across the globe have taken interest in pediatric HIV and done constructive work. Nkosi’s Haven and Clinton Foundation are some prominent example. In India, organizations like Hope Foundation, Desire Society, Prathyasha project of Mellow Circle have done some solid work towards this issue[4].

Still not all are okay. There is an urgent need to step up efforts in the area of pediatric HIV. One major obstacle has been the cost of ARV treatment. Most of the private initiatives are also solely dependent on the government-sponsored medicines. Like-minded people should unite to form powerful lobbies that can influence governments and pharmaceutical majors to come up with cheaper medicines. Funds need to be raised to support more private initiatives.

An AIDS free generation is not far away if ever we shall resolve to fight it.

Unite for Children. Unite against AIDS[5].

References:

[1] Nkosi Johnson’s speech :
http://www.nkosishaven.co.za/

[2] Nkosi Johnson Page:
http://zar.co.za/nkosi.htm

[3]
http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/catsr_2008_en.pdf

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Death Marketing

Marketers have not left any stone unturned in their quest to market. It is in fact surprising to find spirited efforts to market products like renaissance urn, x-ray friendly vessels, green burial sites and other death-related products. Marketing death related product may not be a great business idea afterall. Has anyone ever tried to market a person’s death itself? Yes someone has.


The great marketing idea came from an unexpected quarter. A Carnegie Mellon professor has added a new chapter in the book of marketing by marketing his own death. Randy Pausch’s ‘The Last Lecture ‘ is that piece of marketing. A dying man writing about living was a heady mix and many couldn’t resist that. The blogger himself is one such victim.

Monday, May 18, 2009

49-0 : A Demoratic Cleanser ?

Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR)[1] in its press release on 17 May 2009 observed that the nation has elected a more “criminally tainted” LokSabha this time. The release states that 15th LokSabha will have 150 of its members with criminal cases pending against them. Of these 73 members are charged with serious criminal charges. The corresponding figures for 14th LokSabha were 128 and 55. [2]

In the recent times section 49-O of the The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 [3] has caught the imagination of many reform-minded electors. In the 15th General Election many voters invoked this ‘rule’. For quite some time there has been a demand to introduce ‘none of the above’ option on the electronic voting machine. Now voters have taken to rule 49-O as a proxy for ‘none of the above’ choice. What would happen if ‘none of the above’ option or rule 49-O polls maximum votes? Can the candidates be banned from electoral politics, at least temporarily? Will the political parties that fielded such candidates in the first place learn the lessons? These are some questions that are sought to be answered in this post.



Section 49-O under Part IV of The Conduct Of Elections Rules, 1961 provides that “If an elector, after his electoral roll number has been duly entered in the register of voters in Form 17A and has put his signature or thumb impression thereon as required under sub-rule (1) of rule 49L, decided not to record his vote, a remark to this effect shall be made against the said entry in Form 17A by the presiding officer and the signature or thumb impression of the elector shall be obtained against such remark.”

A plain reading of the above section shows that section 49-O was not originally envisaged to enable the voter to reject all the contestants. But reform-minded citizens have found an innovative use for this section. Thus the invocation of section 49-O by a voter would mean a valid vote polled that will not be counted against any of the contestants. As the government is yet to take a concrete decision regarding introducing ‘none of the above’ option to the voter, 49-O is serving as a proxy. The way people have taken to it definitely forms a strong case in favour of introducing such an option to the voter.

What will happen when votes polled under section 49-O outnumbers the votes garnered by any of the contestants? This is an interesting situation. One needs to get back to the basics of electoral system. The kind of electoral system that India follows is called the ‘first past the post plurality voting system’. To put it simply, the one who garners the maximum number of votes shall be declared the winner without any other constraints such as absolute majority etc.[4].


Section 64 of The Conduct Of Elections Rules, 1961 which states the ‘returning officer shall declare the candidate to whom the largest number of votes have been given, to be elected’. As ‘none of the above’ option cannot be interpreted as a candidate and atleast one candidate will have the next highest vote tally, such a candidate can be declared the winner. Hence 49-O cannot render the election null and void.

So if 49-O cannot nullify an election then what purpose does it serve? It does send out an important message to the political parties and the government at large that the voters are not satisfied with any of the candidates and they want better candidates. It is upto the parties and the government to read the writing on the wall. Banning such candidates is discretion of the parties concerned. The Representation of People Act 1951 provides for banning individuals with more than 2 years of imprisonment for criminal offences from contesting in any election for 6 years.

Why not ban candidates with criminal and corruption antecedents all together from contesting elections? Again there are some weak points in this course of action. Political parties may use such a law for the purpose of political retribution.

As of now rule 49-O is the light at the end of tunnel. A lot needs to be done on electoral reform front. There is a need to mobilise the support of reform-minded people in this country and strengthen the case for electoral reforms. The government should enable the introduction of ‘none of the above’ option. During the absence of such an arrangement, section 49-O could be used as a proxy. Organisations such as Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), National Election Watch (NEW) should be supported in pushing through electoral reforms. Last but not the least the younger generation should remain vigilant regarding politics and always find time to participate in one or the other forms. In my view politics is too important a matter to be left to the politicians.

References:

[1] : Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) is a non-profit, non-partisan, non-governmental organization founded by a group of IIM professors and alumini. This organization works for strengthening democracy and governance in India by focusing on fair and transparent electoral process. Read more about ADR at http://www.adrindia.org.



1) National Resurgence through Electoral Reforms – Subhash C Kashyap,
817541118X, Shipra Publications.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Voting and an Individual’s Right


Today I feel deeply satisfied as I just discharged my civic duty of exercising my right to vote. Hope my vote paves the path for a stable government which can manage the affairs of the state. Many events have some accompanying debates that resurface whenever the event occurs. One such recurrent debate associated with election is, whether voting should be made compulsory? In the opening line I point to this debate by describing voting as both a right and a duty. The gist of this post is to debate whether voting is a right or a duty.




Duty is a term that conveys a sense of moral/legal commitment to something or somebody [1]. While right is an entitlement or a permission which is of legal or moral nature [2]. Duty and right are two different things. One essential and decisive difference between the two is that the former has an element of compulsion while the latter is determined by free will.

Article 326 to the Constitution of India provides that election to the house of people and legislative assemblies shall be held on the basis of adult suffrage. Originally 21 years was considered as the age of majority for suffrage which was subsequently reduced to 18 in 1988. It is interesting to note that the Constitution doesn’t describe voting as a duty or a right.

So where from does this whole debate originate ? It may be said that a few ‘democratic’ minded citizens of this country are the authors of this debate. Rendering voting compulsory implicitly means that those who fail to comply with the law may be subjected to punitive measures such as fines, community service, imprisonment etc. A Wikipedia page discusses this issue thoroughly. [3]

In my view this could amount to gross violation of an individual’s free will. As a citizen one is given the freedom to choose his/her ruler. When in a public election if none of the contestants convince a particular voter, what is the recourse available to the voter? The voter cannot choose ‘no-one’ in the ballot sheet. The advent of electronic voting machines have rendered the opportunity of invalidating one’s vote impossible. So the voter will be under a duress to vote if at all voting is made compulsory.

Even when the above said operational difficulties are addressed, making voting a duty rather than leaving it a right may not be a wise idea. In a democracy the underlying assumption is that a citizen, in his ‘infinite’ wisdom, is always right. So if a voter doesn’t show up for a poll it cannot be held as a lapse leave alone guilt.


Compulsory voting would result in voters thronging polling station out of fear for punishment. This can defeat the whole idea of a free and fair elections. So I think there is little compelling logic behind the argument for compulsory voting.

It would be beneficial for the nation to allow free will to be the determinant behind each and every vote polled. An element of compulsion could render voting a superficial legal ritual in the long run.


Dear proponents of compulsory voting, please don't kill democracy in the name of democracy.


References :

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting


Saturday, May 9, 2009

Sarath Babu And A Few Questions..

Mr Sarath Babu is the election sensation in Chennai. I hope I can safely extend the scope of field to the whole of Tamilnadu. He is creating ripples in the city with his 'revolutionary' electoral promises such as abolition of hunger etc. I have a couple of questions to ask him...


To the benefit of those who are not aware of Sarath here are a few pieces of background information. Born in a poor family in Chennai, he excelled in academics. This opened the gates of some of the finest educational institutes of India like the BITS Pillani and IIM Ahemedabad. After his management education he followed the footsteps of his mother and started a food chain named FoodKing (his mother had a small eatery preparing idlies). Now the comapny has more than Rs. 6 crore in topline and is doing well.

Sarath is running for the Parliament from the South Chennai Parliamentary constituency. This constituency has as many as 47 candidates in the fray including Sarath. Sarath has had the 'charisma' of attracting the educated youth to attend his political meetings and rallies. This segment of the voters is one of the most indifferent and hypocritical segment of voters (no offence intended). Most of them think that Indian politics has no future and consider their suffrage 'a post-dated cheque drawn on a failing bank' ( MK Gandhi's quote in a different context). They find it always very easy to criticise the system and seldom think of reforming the system.

Sarath should be appreciated on two accounts. One, being a member of the abovesaid indifferent segment he has sticked out his neck to do something inspiring. Secondly he is not alone as he is able to attract people from his native segment to the portals of politics. This is a very encouraging sign.

But is Sarath on the right track? I would rather argue he is not. On atleast two accounts I find him, in his present shape, not suitable for electoral politics. One is that he is an independent candidate. As an independent candiate, I think he can accomplish precious little. In the case of making it to the Parliament, he cannot contribute to anything substantial to the nation. He may have to take side sooner or later, negating the 'independent' tag of his candidature. In Indian Parliament it is going to be arithmetics more than anything else. Had he been a member of a party probably he can influence the national legislations by influencing his party's ideology.

The second ground is that he is a private entrepreneur. I assume he is an aggressive one too. This can land him in serious conflict of interest. Assume that when the Parliament votes on a legislation that apparently affects the 'well-being' of food chains in the nation but appears to be in 'national interest', which Sarath would vote? Is it the legislator Sarath or CEO Sarath? This is a simple hypothetical situations. In reality many such potential conflicts of interest exist. Many argue that most of the present politicians and legislators are themselves private businessmen. If such people can legislate then why not Sarath? Yes it is a good one, but there is logical fallacy I guess. The USP of Sarath is that he is a new generation politician. He is supposed to clearly show a break from the past politics. Again claiming innocence based on the fact that many are doing the same nonsense doesnt simply resonate in any rational voter's mind.

In my view Sarath's core competence is entrepreneurship. He should probably concenterate on his forte and expand his firm from a 6-crore company to a 6000-crore one. That is what is expected from an young entrepreneur like Sarath. If he feels that electoral politics is the place where he wants to be in, he should probably think of taking politics as his full-time job. Riding two horses is always a risky task, specially when the two horses have the tendency of entering into conflicts every now and then.

Anyways Sarath has his task cut out for him ans one should wait to see how does he fare in the general elections. In a democracy (only) people are always right and hence my views are subject to changes post May-16. :)

Summer in Chennai

Hi everybody. It has been a very long time since I last updated this blog. Summer in Chennai is just too much to bear. Although I am used to such a scortching sun, something makes this summer specially tough. Adding to the heat is the election heat. Just a few days to go for the 15th general elections, candidates in the fray are daring the hot sun. Many candidates have come up with fancy and at times flimsy electoral promises. This time, atleast in Tamilnadu, the electoral promises of freebies have taken a backseat.

Apart from election it is my summer project that keeps me occupied these days. My summer project is at Indian Oil Corporation's Regional Headquarters at Chennai. The project is all about working capital management at IOC. The project is more oriented towards theory than practice. I doubt any value addition from this experience, still experience remains.

Reading books has taken a new turn with new interest developed on classics. Right now I am reading those classics on which I can lay my hands. Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and Benjamin Graham's Security Analysis are the classics that are adorning my table now. One drama and other finance classic is a good combination, isnt it?

Meet you in the next post.