Uniform Civil Code – caught between Politics and Practice

 Article 15 of the Constitution of India clearly mentions that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds of race, religion, caste, sex, and place of birth.

Article 25 of the Constitution lays down that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely practice, and propagate religion subject to public order, morality and health, while Article 26 says that all denominations can manage their own affairs in matters of religion.

The singular issue that is always preventing the Uniform Civil Code from being implemented as a law, is the objection to the above issues by members of the Muslim community with the support of those who define themselves as backwards castes, or more specifically; those who believe that they are entitled to special privileges at all times, at any cost. Both communities reject the very concept of UCC because it disrupts their political strategy of special status in society.

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) will bring all citizens onto a single civil platform where they have to abide by the Constitution of India, regardless of their religion, caste and social standing. The status of men, women and transgender will be legally equal in the eyes of the law as well as policies, while promoting equality and justice.

And therein lay the problems.

For the Muslims, the Constitution of India will supersede Sharia law. This means that Muslims will have to register their marriages in civil court, the men can only marry one woman at any given time and divorce will be subject to civil laws and not Sharia. Essentially, the Muslim woman will be uplifted to the same status as the men; in all areas including marriage, divorce, inheritance, legal rights and equality in relationship with everybody.

The same will apply for those who define themselves by their caste status. They will lose their “right” to reservations in government service, in higher education institutions and in preferential treatment accorded to them for lower standards of performance. They will also be subject to the same laws of marriage and inheritance as all other citizens.

Essentially; UCC will bring merit to the forefront.  From seats in higher educational facilities to jobs in Government to payment of taxes, citizens will have to compete on one single platform of equality. This is not favored by most political parties, because it will destroy the concept of the vote-bank.

We know that the very concept of ‘reservations’ is bad for our social and financial progress. In this 21^st century, a small number of tax-payers cannot be made to keep on bearing the burden of a large number of social dependents who are not, in any way, required to improve their individual efforts towards self-progress, just because they considered as people of “special” category. For our country to be powerful in every field; economic power being the most important, the removal of the quota and reservations system is a necessity.

The Uniform Civil Code will guarantee this. Social equality by law means that individuals can no longer claim special privileges. Each of us will have to succeed through open and unrestricted competition, a process that will allow the brightest from every section of society to succeed to their full potential. UCC will overcome the very concept of differentiation and ensure equality of all.

No doubt, that even the current government will look for loop-holes through which they can still undertake vote bank politics. Regardless of their public posturing on UCC, they also want to keep surviving politically. There is no doubt that our country will soon be governed by a version of a Uniform Civil Code that will ensure some changes to social norms, but whether a diluted version of UCC will be effective in practice would have to be experienced in reality. 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Citizens as Political Auditors

 Since 2014, the political scenario in India has changed drastically. While the Bharatiya Janata Party [BJP] under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is in complete majority in the Lok Sabha (lower house of the Parliament) and has a wafer-thin majority in the Rajya Sabha (upper house of the Parliament), as of November 2022, the BJP is in power in 14 States of India (out of 28) and with Jammu & Kashmir under the President’s Rule, the BJP can be said to have a greater influence there. The balance states are ruled by a hodge-podge coalition of local political parties with the notable exceptions of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in Delhi and Punjab, TMC in Bengal and the Communists in Kerala.

 Essentially, at both levels; Union (federal) Government and State governments, there is no real opposition party to observe or oversee the performance of the government in power. It’s very necessary in an active and vibrant democracy that there should be a powerful opposition (or shadow government) to have oversight on the government in power. Unfortunately this is not the case in India. Without strong opposition parties, our democracy has become weak and there are dangers that it may head to autocracy in the future years.

With the political parties in disarray, it’s the responsibility of voters and citizens to assume the role and responsibility of keeping a watch over the government. For sake of simplicity, let us name this activity as ‘Citizens Audit & Responsibility Oversight’ [CARO]. This should ideally start at block levels and work its way up to State and Union level. The function of CARO should be to determine facts about government policies and present it to the voters in a non-partisan manner. It will take time for an effort like CARO to become influential and powerful, but if there is enough long-term, non-partisan contribution by the citizens in this effort, then it can achieve much more that can be imagined today.

The credibility of this model will be in its political neutrality and being apolitical in its work, with no connection to political parties, politicians or political philosophies. CARO has to work only towards nation-building, civil unity and social integration; and cannot depend on support or approval from the government at any level. Its disassociation from political parties would be its strength as an independent auditor.

The above stated idea is not new. CARO has existed in various forms over the last 250 years (maybe more), and our country has always been strong and powerful when citizen auditors are highly active. When the citizen’s participation wanes, CARO fails. In these present times, the responsibilities of CARO have been put onto activists active on social media and main stream media. Unfortunately, both these entities are no longer credible and are known to pursue their own agenda at the cost of reporting facts. 

Readers of this article may wish to start their own CARO efforts and become civil influencers in the near future.

Jai Hind. 

 

 

“The impossible dream” aka “why start-ups in India mostly fail”

 Starting up a new company for offering products or services, or both; to the market is nothing new. In these new times, concepts have changed with the rapid rise of technology and easy communications, but the basics of business remain the same as they have throughout centuries; a unique product or service, identification of customers, working partners to ensure seamless delivery and constant influx of capital.

 Start-up founders in general are people with stars in their eyes and they rarely make an effort to understand reality. An idea or a concept that they “feel” will change the way of life is rarely a “product” that can withstand the acid test of the marketplace. Majority of start-up founders are unaware that the markets that they wish to sell their goods or services in; is dependent on a variety of factors; cultural values being the most prominent, followed by acceptance of the value proposition (what will the customer get in return for his spending the money), competition in the market from similar or identical products and services, and most importantly, the financial resilience of the start-up founders.

 Most start-ups in India are technology based. And, start-up founders feel that the market will naturally absorb any and all tech based products without hesitation. That is where they make the first mistake. Technology offerings into the market require third-party validation, regardless whether it is software, hardware or system integration. Beyond the third-party validation, technologies require peer reviews, market reviews and finally customer reviews. Most Indian start-up founders refuse to get their products validated or reviewed since they believe that there will be Intellectual Property [IP] theft. This is a valid concern, but it’s a concern that can be controlled by having mechanisms in place to protect the product or service from concept to market.

 Second issue within start-ups is the lack the vision to define the market share. Before the idea can gain traction, even at test levels; the founders start the evaluation game. Evaluation game is basically a fraud, perpetuated by the financers (aka Venture capitalists) under the concept of the “greater fool”. We will come to this concept later down in the article. The potential ‘market share’ dominance of any product or service in the market will not exceed 17% of the total market on an average and 25% of the market in exceptional circumstances. And; achieving this market share requires a well-defined strategy, a great team of dedicated individuals across the required verticals (tech, admin, HR, PR, marketing, and sales). As an aside, most entrepreneurs confuse PR and marketing with sales. They are separate entities that need separate efforts and unique strategies, which interact with each other to gain the market share and thus adequate profits. Hence, it is vital for the start-up entrepreneurs to define their market share in number of customers or financial volume to be achieved within a specified time-line.

About the ‘greater fool’ theory. This theory suggests that initial investors into a product, service or financial instruments can achieve profits through the sales of over-valued assets with a purchase price drastically exceeding their intrinsic value, and the idea that those assets can later be resold later at an even higher price. In this context, one "fool" might pay for an overpriced asset, hoping that he/she can sell it to an even "greater fool" and make a profit. This only works as long as there are enough new "greater fools" willing to pay higher and higher prices for the asset. Eventually, investors can no longer deny that the price is out of touch with reality, at which point a sell-off can cause the price to drop significantly until it is closer to its fair value, which in some cases could be zero.

The greater fool theory leads to the formation of Unicorns. In today’s financial terminology, a “Unicorn” company is a private company with a valuation of at least US$1 billion. The key word here is ‘valuation’ and not turnover or value of real assets acquired. It is assumed by the founders and initial investors into the unicorn company that with a valuation of US$ 1 billion or more, their company is too big to fail. That is not always the case. Unicorn companies do fail; and the reasons can vary. The fundamental reasons for unicorns failing are; overvaluation, extremely thin profit margins, an ever increasing cost of acquisition to keep the company functioning, differences in the mindset of individual investors and institutional investors, stagnation in employee numbers, declining customer attention, and secured excessive funding without plans to utilize that funding for growth. Well-known unicorns that have failed are; Evernote (the note recording app startup), Zynga (owners of the Farmville game on Facebook), Powa Technologies that made smart-phone apps, Quibi (micro-streaming platform), and the infamous Theranos (valued at US$ 10 billion in 2015 and valued at zero in 2016). Theranos is a clear example of both; the greater fool theory and the Unicorn valuation theory. Start-up founders should study these failures in detail and understand that a unicorn status and a billion dollar evaluation does not guarantee survival in the market place. In India, there is a marketing company pretending to be a edtech start-up that is spending seven hundred rupees to earn a rupee, and has become infamous for everything from complaints of fraud, financial impropriety and a non-functional customer service.

So, how do start-ups navigate these pitfalls? 

• First and foremost, it’s necessary for the initial idea or concept to be validated by third party entities; which should include the potential financiers, technology experts and potential end customers. 
• The second step is to invest into the formation of the management team, thereby separating ownership from control. 
• Thirdly, isolate investors from the decision making process of the management team. 
• Fourth, create clearly defined share-holding to enable old investors to exit and new investors to replace them. 
• Fifth (and most important) create physical assets as the company grows. 
• Sixth, ensure that legal entities are separate from any one individual owner, enabling the start-up to grow into a company with a potentially unlimited lifespan.

Start-up founders must make it a policy to ensure that their company value is based on actual assets and not on vague ideas of evaluation. The success of the venture lies in its ability to create profits from the 2^nd year in existence and not on a fictional evaluation with major financial losses that are to be borne by the investors. Risk-taking is integral towards success. However, there is a difference in being a prudent risk-taker and a reckless one. Founders must have an exit route with a clear strategy in place, along-with a resilient business growth. Start-up founders must ensure that they have a mentor who will guide them in their initial steps and through complex issues as they grow. Without an experienced mentor, the start-up is already headed towards failure.

“We all have dreams. But in order to make dreams come into reality, it takes a huge amount of determination, dedication, self-discipline, and effort”.

 

    

 

 

 

 

How to lose credibility and create enemies! by Prof (Dr) J. Biden

 How to lose credibility and create enemies!

By Prof (Dr.) J. Biden

10/16/2022

 Creating enemies is an art in itself. This art cannot be practiced by those who believe in values, have integrity and cannot make other people’s lives miserable. For the rest (especially politicians), here is the overview:

1.     Be utterly shameless in your dealings.

2.     Political goals supersede everything else.

3.     Lie big, the bigger the lie the better the prospect of it being believed.

4.     Ignore facts to pursue the goal of your lies, i.e. to win in politics.

5.     Never be burdened with morality, ethics or empathy.

6.     Create a false personal narrative about your past. Be the hero, even as fiction.

7.     Blame every issue on others, especially the citizens of your own country.

8.     Force friendly nations to follow your dictates, even if it harms them.

9.     Be belligerent in your speech. Remember, everyone is the enemy.

10.             Insult and threaten those who you depend on for your career success when they refuse to help you. But before that; beg, grovel and kiss ass.  

11.             Refuse to believe in reality, even if it hits you in the face.

12.             Insult your dead family member’s memory for political profit.

13.             Cognitive deficiency can be beneficial. You cannot be prosecuted for what you cannot remember.

14.             Always blame Putin. Or Trump. Or both. (It doesn’t matter who).

 Have a great career. Remember, many are celebrated but very few are despised. 

 

 Disclaimer: Any resemblance to any person, dead or alive or otherwise is a pure coincidence.