Tribute to a Legend

R. KRISHNASWAMI

1936 - 2015

An Heir to th­­e Grand Tradition 

of the Chennai Legal & Cultural Elite

Connoisseur and cognoscente Kalaimamani Mr. R. Krishnaswami, Secretary, Narada Gana Sabha, Chennai, was a worthy heir to the grand tradition of stalwarts like Sangeetha Kalanidhi Justice T.L. Venkatarama Iyer, Justice M. Ananthanarayanan and Justice V. Krishnaswamy Iyer who adorned the legal, cultural, and intellectual milieu of Chennai and left an indelible mark on many fields.  A senior counsel of the Madras High Court, Mr. Krishnaswami was acknowledged to be a walking encyclopedia of civil law.  In addition, he was an erudite scholar of literature and religious texts in a multitude of tongues - English, Tamil, Hindi, and Sanskrit – with a masterly grasp of Hindu religion and philosophy.   He had put his silver tongue and tremendous scholarship to good use through his prolific speeches and writings on law, the performing arts, and Hindu religion and philosophy.  His numerous contributions to magazines like Thuglak, Bala Jyothitam, Gnana Bhoomi, Idhayam Pesugirathu, and Saavi displayed his scholarship, and compilations of these have appeared as books.  

     Above all, what shines through is Mr. Krishnaswami’s illustrious service as a volunteer administrator shepherding many institutions.  Besides being the Secretary of Narada Gana Sabha for over five decades, he served as President of Asthika Samajam; Chairman of the Vidya Bharathi Trust founded by Sri Sri Bharathi Theertha Swami; Managing Trustee, Gnanananda Ashram Trust; Managing Committee Member of the P.S. Educational Society; Committee Member, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Chennai Kendra; and President of the Federation of City Sabhas.  Instrumental in founding the RAK Trust, a philanthropic organization of his family members, he organized the Kumbhabhishekam of the Gajendra Varadar Temple built by the Pallava Kings at Athalanallur, Tirunelveli, and brought it back from ruins into a vibrant place of worship.  He also played a pivotal role in constructing the magnificent Panduranga temple at Thennagur, which embraces the North and South Indian styles of temple structure (see http://shanthiraju.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/visit-to-thennangur/ ). This temple also houses the Guruji Medical Center (a multi-specialty hospital), a home for the aged, and a cow shelter, all of which remain popular establishments devoted to working for the greater good of the community.    Mr Krishnaswami’s philanthropic spirit has helped improve the lives of many needy persons and institutions. He has not only offered them pro-bono legal help but has also rescued many ill-fated artists and their dependents as well as a large number of bhagavatas and religious scholars from both professional as well as financial predicaments. Several famous performers of today will willingly acknowledge that Mr. Krishnaswami’s helping hand and encouragement did play a pivotal role in their rise to stardom. Mr. Krishnaswami has indeed enriched Chennai and Tamil Nadu through his tireless service and numerous significant contributions.

     Born in 1936 in Harikesanallur, Tirunelveli, which is famous for the great Carnatic composer Sri Muthiah Bhagavathar, Mr. Krishnaswami lost his father, Sri Ramasubbaier, within three weeks of his birth.  He was raised by his elder brother Mr. R. Surianarayanan (Gnanodaya Press Suri) and and his mother, Soundaram. Young Krishnaswami went to school in Madras and, eventually, graduated from Law College, Madras. After a brief apprenticeship with Justice K.S. Ramamurthy, Mr. Krishnaswami joined Solicitor General V.P. Raman’s flourishing practice.   Later on, he set up a private practice of his own with an extensive practice particularly in the areas of trial law, insolvency laws, and movie related laws.   He served later as a Senior Counsel of the Madras High Court.  He and his wife Srimathi Rajam lived in Alwarpet, Chennai, and  are the proud parents of two successful sons.

     Mr. Krishnaswami’s interest in music began at an early age through his brother, Mr. Suri, and his mother, Mrs. Soundaram, who both took him to several concerts and introduced him to several artists. This interest, eventually, led to his involvement with the Narada Gana Sabha ever since its inception in 1958. Thanks to his determination, energy, and untiring efforts, the Narada Gana Sabha has grown from very humble beginnings into a leading institution of high repute.  Today, it is recognized as one of the most notable sabhas in Chennai not only for its success in serving the performing arts in diverse and notable ways but also for its role as a pioneer in introducing many novel endeavors.  For instance, the Narada Gana Sabha Trust provides a pension to several aged artists who are in dire need.   The sabha, which is a citadel for Indian classical dance, conducts a dance wing called “Natyarangam” (with Srimathi Sujatha Vijayaraghavan and other volunteers) to support upcoming dancers and annual thematic dance presentations on a variety of subjects (see http://www.thehindu.com/arts/dance/article595991.ece ).  At an annual dance camp conducted by the sabha at Thennangur, many young dancers and gurus get advanced training and guidance from senior luminaries in Bharatanatyam (see http://www.kutcheribuzz.com/features/column/kiranrajagopalan.asp).  The sabha hosts many namasankeertan programs and religious discourses emphasizing the intertwining of our fine arts with the Hindu ethos.   Indeed, as noted by Sruti, the efforts of the sabha under Mr. Krishnaswami’s guidance and the leadership of Swami Haridoss Giri through the namasamkeertan programs have played a significant role in reviving the interest of the public in both namasankeertanam and in Carnatic music.

Mr. Krishnaswami continued to chug along almost to his end as a karma yogi, and his ability to do so stemmed from his deep religious faith and faith in his gurus, Swami Gnanananda and Swami Haridoss Giri.  May his soul rest in peace !

V. Ramaswami

BIAS AGAINST ASIAN INDIANS IN USA - A SURVEY BASED WHITE PAPER

By most accounts and given the high positions some of them occupy, the story of Asian Indians in the US is  a success story in America, and the US can indeed showcase its Asian Indians proudly as an example of how openly USA embraces diversity.  On their part, Asian Indians in the US have much to be thankful for as well.  But how well are they accepted in mainstream America ?  Are they subjects of any bias, or do they sense bias agains them?  We wanted to find out.  Ours may be the first such attempt through a survey.

SUMMARY:  An anonymous internet survey using SurveyMonkey was conducted by data scientists Drs. Vaidyanathan & Soundaram Ramaswami. Over the period 2/14/15 to 2/20/15, it yielded a sample of 99 valid cases.  The sample, though not representative of all Asian Indians in the USA, is still interesting in that most of its participants are college educated Asian Indians who are citizens of the USA.  The group had an adequate representation of both genders.  It was obtained through postings on three major social networks and direct mailings to several hundred contacts in the Asian Indian community.  Given these and the fact that response rate was low, there is no reason to suspect any systematic bias in the way respondents were generated. Data show that a non-negligible percentage of participants encountered incidents of "discrimination" in 2014, and that an overwhelming majority of them considered Asian Indians in the USA as being subjected to "discrimination". The term discrimination was deliberately left undefined so as to give latitude to the respondent to include any act they consider as such.   That, however, limits our ability to assess if reported instances of "discrimination" are properly classified as such by the respondents.   In spite of this limitation, one irrefutable conclusion that comes out of the survey is that bias against Asian Indians in the US is certainly  a serious topic for research especially given that our sample comprises mostly of college educated Indians who are US citizens, and even they feel "discriminated."  It appears entirely fair to ask:  Is this the tip of an iceberg? Would the results be a lot worse if one were to get a set of representatives from other sub-groups with less education, income, English Proficiency etc.? Here are some highlights.  A pdf copy of a detailed paper can be obtained by sending an email to vramaswami@gmail.com with subject line SURVEY REPORT.

STUDY SCOPE & LIMITATIONS:  Be careful in drawing definitive conclusions from this study, and do not quote its results selectively. The inferences here are preliminary and need to be re-examined with a larger study .  Such a study should be with a representative sample which involves collection of national level data and the inclusion of many additional variables like income, English proficiency, and geographic information.  Also, clear definitions of bias and discrimination should accompany any future survey.  It is also preferable to ask the participants if any of a  specific list of problems were encountered so that difficulty in interpreting results is minimized.  Survey results should also be corroborated by interviews, case studies, and the like.  None of this was possible in this modest pilot which, to the best of our knowledge, is the first of its kind.  This survey was intended for the main purpose of determining if there is even a need for a larger study and to obtain a list of important questions to pursue.  To that extent, it has certainly proved its value.  We hope some researchers in US and Indian universities will embark on a more detailed research.

PARTICIPANT PROFILE: Total 99 valid responses; Males 53; Females 46; US Citizen 87; Permanent Resident 7.  Four  (4) under 25; 55 in the age group 26-55; 40 above 55.  Ninety six (96) college educated.  Thus, the sample comprises predominantly of college educated Asian Indians who are citizens of the US with a fairly even gender distribution.  It has also given adequate counts in  age groups 26-55 and Over-55.  

ANALYSIS OF DATA/A BIRD'S OVERVIEW:

Experience of Discrimination in 2014: Claimed to be incurred by 24 of the 99 respondents, of whom 22 are citizens, all are above age 25, and college educated.  A 95% confidence interval based on the data would indicate that anywhere from 17% to 35% of Asian Indians (of the type studied) may have had at least one  incident in 2014 that they would call an act of discrimination.  Questions for a future study: Would these statistics still hold if discrimination and bias are clearly differentiated, and participants are asked to choose from specific lists of acts falling in the two categories? Would the number alleging discrimination or bias be much larger if the survey were to become more representative of all Asian Indians in the USA and included others like those who may not have adequate English proficiency or the level of income one would expect for the sample profile we have?

Sources of Bias in 2014: The 38 responses received in the survey (note that a person could have become subject to more than one event) broke up as follows by source: Police (9), Boss/Employer (11), Other (18).  Treating these 38 as a random sample, among bias incidents that happen to Asian Indians of the type studied, an estimated fraction (based on a 95% confidence interval) of 11% to 40% happen at the hands of police. Question: Is this high value a result of discrimination not being defined and a matter more of perception than reality ? Or can the real situation be worse if the survey were to include less educated Asian Indians than those represented by the sample?  Similar comments hold for other sources of bias as well.  We need a much larger survey to confirm or refute the estimates given here and to make generalizations to all Asian Indians.  Given the profile of the sample, and since managing perceptions is also important, the results cannot be totally brushed aside, but need to be followed up with a deeper examination.

Are Asian Indians discriminated in the USA? About 75% of both males and females assert that there is "discrimination" in the USA against Asian Indians.   Similar caveats as stated in the previous paragraphs hold.   The high percentage (75%) of those under 25 who assert the presence of discrimination  deserves highlighting since we hold the hope that those born in the US and growing up with their peers in the US will not be subject to as much bias as the older generation of mostly first generation adult immigrants.  But we have only a sample of size 4 from this subgroup.  Again, a much larger study is needed for the reasons stated above.  Age specific bias perceptions is an important topic for a future study.  A pertinent variable in this context may also be the number of years the participant has been in the US.

Are Asian Indians Doing Enough? 74% of all survey participants, and 91% of those who would not assert that there is no discrimination, consider that the Asian Indian community in the US is not doing enough to prevent discrimination of its members.  An exploration should be made into what inhibits the Asian Indian community from actively participating in efforts to curb bias against their community ?

Ability to Stop Discrimination: 80% of even those who would not affirm the absence of discrimination feel that they have the ability to stop discrimination against their community.  We find this reassuring of the confidence of the community, and indirectly also their faith in the US.  Does this hold at large, or only among the types of Asian Indians represented in this study ?

BOTTOM LINE:   A non-negligible fraction of Asian Indians surveyed believe they have suffered "discrimination" in the year 2014, and a  majority consider themselves as being "discriminated."  But at this time, we do not know what each one understood by the term "Discrimination."  Suppose that instead of being given such an open ended question without clear definitions of the terms, participants are given a specific list of discriminative or bias related acts to choose from.  Then would statistics similar to those in this survey continue to hold, improve, or get worse ? We do not know. Nevertheless, the fact that most participants are college educated US citizens makes many of the findings particularly important in that they belong to a group most of whose members have done well in the US professionally and financially, and one would expect them to think that they are not discriminated.   It also raises the more troublesome question whether the numbers would be even more inflated if a more representative sample of Asian Indians were to be considered.   What is really the source of the angst and how pervasive is it ?  Those deserve an in-depth study.  The real contribution of this survey is that it firmly confirms the need for a national study and has helped to identify a set of important questions to explore.

INVESTIGATORS:  Dr. V. Ramaswami has a Masters in Statistics and Ph.D. in O.R.  As a researcher in probability he recently retired from AT&T Research and was previously Chief Scientist at Bellcore.  Dr. S.  Ramaswami is a faculty member at the Educational Leadership department of Kean University teaching Research Methodology & Statistics to doctoral students.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT:  We thank all the participants and SurveyMonkey.

DISCLAIMER:  This is a strictly private effort.  No comments of any sort should be attributed to employers or groups the authors are affiliated with.

INQUIRIES: For comments or inquiries, contact vramaswami@gmail.com

WHITE PAPER: Obtain a 19 page White Paper with references, many data tables, and analysis by sending a request to vramaswami@gmail.com with subject line SURVEY REPORT. The report should be useful particularly for sociology faculty and students looking for important topics for research.

OTHER RELATED BLOGS:

http://veeraam.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-terrible-apathy-of-indian-in-america.html

http://veeraam.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-burden-of-asian-indian-ethnicity-in_21.html

HOW GOOD IS THE 2015 INDIAN ECONOMIC SURVEY? VIEW THROUGH A CHAPTER ON "MAKE IN INDIA".

For those not familiar with the report, the background material is given after my critique.

Summary Review
     This chapter is noteworthy for its poor preparation, lack of credible content, and absence of even a semblance of novelty.  Given the importance of the topic as an agenda of the new government of India,  this chapter should be viewed as an embarrassment to the government and to India for the poor quality of its content and presentation.  This evaluation is based on the following and will be elaborated on below: (a) the document gives an impression of having been put together in a hurry and abounds in grammatical and semantic errors which even make some key sentences unintelligible; (b) the chapter rests mostly on a crank-through with a "one shoe fits all" attitude of the Rodrik model which is more descriptive than prescriptive; (c) to cite two inaccessible and unvetted working papers (with A. Amirapu) to provide support for key ideas should be unacceptable in a document of this importance; (d) this is IMF-think slightly modified, and ignores many challenges and opportunities specific to India.

Conceptual Criticism
     I will divide my criticism into two parts - those at a fundamental conceptual level, and those at stylistic and presentation levels.  The latter are certainly less important, but only relatively so since no new idea can succeed without it being sold successfully to stakeholders by creating a good understanding of it.

    First and foremost, "Make in India" is a means to some ends and not an end by itself.  What are those ends?  The primary goals of "Make in India," and the parameters within which one can operate have not been articulated.  Is it mainly to increase exports and shore up the rupee?  Is it to achieve greater economic security for the masses?  Is it to decrease dependence on foreign technology and products, particularly in key areas like defense procurement?  What can give, and by how much, in areas such as environment, foreign ownership? Should one not spell out the goals and constraints as the first order of business given that you may not get there if you don't even know what "there" is?

     The Rodrik model [the main analysis tool of the chapter] is at best descriptive serving to provide one of many explanations of the economic history of some developing economies.  It is not prescriptive by any means and does not say how to effect a transformation.  Like all equations and models, it is subject to the major problem of "Garbage In, Garbage Out" in terms of data quality.  Technically, estimation of derivatives (rates of growth) is the hardest and subject to a lot of data problems.  The model predictions are not very illuminating without detailed sensitivity analysis that will shed light on how it is affected by minor perturbations of its assumptions or input.  Can the future of 1.25 billion humans be hung on cranking that one model, however much it may be adored by certain segments of the economics community?

     Is labor productivity the only metric of concern?  Many economies have increased this at the expense of the health and well being of labor in environments resembling indenture.  Shouldn't  "Make in India" occur with a balanced approach, and if so what is it?

     The disparity in labor productivity in the subsectors of manufacturing  cannot all be attributed to skill levels alone.   There are many more important factors like lower idle times through better organized procurement of orders, possibly better quality of life of labor, more mechanization and use of power tools, etc., that are more common in the registered manufacturing, for example, as compared to the unregistered.  Why is no attention paid to identifying the specific factors that account for the advantage of those sectors of manufacturing that have done well, and to see if in some way these factors could be manipulated in the other sectors?  The success of the dairy industry in India happened as a result of such innovative thinking, did it not?

     Is export the only focus or the main focus ?  What about the vast internal market? In many areas, it operates as a sellers market providing no incentive for quality and productive improvements to facilitate speedy convergence.  Should we not be adding more to the supply to change that?  Should we not increase the overall demand side by spreading the benefits of economic growth to larger segments of the population so that the overall economy is driven to higher gear?  Should we continue the status quo where wealth accumulates with only a few and gets spent on foreign luxury goods, gold ornaments, etc. at the expense of precious foreign exchange reserves and national strength?

    One must disagree very strongly with the assessment that "focus must be exclusively on registered manufacturing."  Even in a highly developed economy like the USA, a very large set of providers of employment is the small business sector and not the large multinational (which is busy downsizing and outsourcing to increase profits and reducing labor by all means of automation).   Betting on big multinationals has an inherent risk; as labor costs go up, as they indeed will in a growing economy, there is no guarantee that they won't flee to where cheap labor is more plenty and that India's growth becomes but a flash in the pan and not sustained.  The success of Gujarat (and Gujarati NRIs) did not come from participation as labor in the registered manufacturing sector, but as entrepreneurs and businessmen.  In the USA, the row of millionnairs has a large share of small business owners like laundraumat owners (see the book "The Millionnaire Next Door"), and the bulk of the middle class is made up of blue collar workers.  Unfortuantely, policies are made in India by white collared babus who probably have poor appreciation of the potential at the other end of the spectrum and the bottom of pyramid.

     Skill building is viewed from the traditional Indian white collared point of view or as generating employees for large businesses only.  If there is one thing that has kept India backward, it is the retention of the Macaulay model of school education which was certainly good for turning out clerks for the Raj but not for building a modern India.  Its "one shoe fits all" philosophy has thrust upon all a set of curricula relegating many to low paying jobs albeit a high school diploma, while those very people as entrepreneurs or small businessmen on their own would have done a lot better if only they had been redirected and trained to be so based on their aptitudes and ability.  A system that enables many entering jobs as electricians and plumbers and other workers to become better trained not only technically but in terms of the rudiments of running a small business would make a marked change in the lives of millions, and that too in a relatively short period.  Indian problems need Indian solutions, and the assessment of Indian strengths need the involvement of not only ivory tower researchers and white collared babus but also some real "chaiwallas" if some great opportunities are not to be missed.

    There is little given in the paper on the service sector except that it compares favorably, and some sub-parts even more so, with the registered manufacturing sector.  One issue glaringly not addressed is whether the most profitable part of that sector comprising of IT and BPO are reaching a plateau and how they can move forward.  Also, as the current US experience shows, can an economy prosper for long only as a service economy relegating all manufacturing to others?

     Finally, there is no attention paid to innovation and intellectual property generation and protection. Without innovation in India increasing enormously both in size and quality, "Make in India" can degenerate easily into replicating the worst of the Chinese model in terms of low level jobs, high pollution, and social discontent.  From the individual post-doc going abroad as an intern to scientists at government laboratories on collaborative research, no systematic effort is made to secure the intellectual property benefits for those who create the intellectual property, and these get signed away as small print in some contract or the other often to a non-Indian entity.  India needs to not only generate more intellectual property and marketable innovations, but also move aggressively to reap the benefits of the intellectual property generated by Indians. 

Presentation Issues
     The chapter is unfortunately poorly and hastily written, pretentious, and incomplete.  Honestly, this would not merit a passing grade in a graduate course in a reputed university.

     The equation of Rodrik is given without even a simple explanation of the notion of the frontier. We view the inclusion of the equation and the greek as an attempt "to baffle with baloney" in the absence of an ability "to dazzle with brilliance" at least in the context of the topic of the present chapter.

     This chapter smacks of a monopoly of wisdom as resting only in one subset of developmental economists, and hangs too much on an unpublished working paper that cannot be accessed.

     In many places, the typographical errors and certain sentences make it hard to even understand what is intended.  Two examples are: (a) the footnote of page 1 of the chapter "They suggest and increased in the level" which probably should read "They suggest an increase in the level" ; (b) Page 3, 2A: "That is, productivity growth should be faster in richer than poorer parts.  Otherwise, severe within-country regional inequality may arise."

CONCLUSION: A topic of utmost national importance has been given a shallow and poor treatment.  The exclusive reliance on mostly the authors' work, some of which is unpublished, and of a small coterie of developmental economists who may not fully understand the opportunities in India and may see it from a purely "foreign" market/investment seeking optic compromises not only its merit as a scholarly document but its value as a basis for policy.

============================
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
============================

     The Government of India released recently The Economic Survey 2014-2015, a daunting document of 296 pages with a statistical appendix of yet another 148 pages, making it impressive certainly by its size if not by the quality of its content.  Though it is claimed to be written in the tone of an editorial or a blog as opposed to an academic economics paper, the digestion of such a document is nevertheless bound to be a daunting and time consuming task given the multitude of tables and the various economic theories that form the backbone of interpretations of data and evolution of policy.  

     But no sooner than the document is put out, news media is busy both showering bouquets and throwing bricks, and one wonders if either camp has a real basis of understanding for their hype and hysteria.  Given that the survey drives policy impacting 1.25 billion humans whose hopes have been raised very high, I have decided to embark on a careful reading and review of at least a few chapters. I start here with Chapter 7 (13 pages) titled "What to make in India?  Manufacturing or Services?" since that is one of the flagship initiatives of the new Prime Minister and since it also tickles my own imagination as an Indian.

     I have one axe to grind.  People like my grandfather gave almost all of theirs for the freedom of India.  Many others, like the heroes of Jalianwala Bagh, even gave their lives.  Almost 70 years have passed since we won independence, and India is still and forever only arriving.   I may not have a decade left and definitely not a decade of patience.  So, I want to do my part, and that is to be the court jester who will not shy from calling it the way it is.

My Synopsis of Chapter 7 

     It is well-known that structural transformation of an economy from low productivity to high productivity areas pays dividends that could be accelerated further by two additional facts: (a) the higher productivity difference becomes applicable to an increasing fraction of the labor force over time due to migration; (b) high productivity sectors move to optimal performance more quickly than the others.   (This is Rodrik demystified without the mumbo jumbo of an equation.)

     Structural change need not be into manufacturing (of physical goods) alone, but could be from agriculture and low efficiency manufacturing into the service sector (like insurance, IT services, etc.). It is appropriate to ask if one should not include transformation into the service sector as well or remain focused mainly on manufacturing.

     Structural transformation needs to be such that it absorbs resources (labor, specifically) so that benefits percolate to the masses.  For this, there should be congruence between skill requirements of the expanding sector and what is available or could be developed quickly.  Exports are a key to rapid growth.

    The Indian reality is that in manufacturing productivity is very low in general.  Unregistered manufacturing productivity is much lower than that of the registered. Indian industries converge (come up to international levels in productivity) at a slower rate than average.  Indian states have been unable to achieve more than 6.2% of employment from registered manufacturing over 30 years.  Secular growth is geographically spotty within India.  The sector to be pushed higher should be at least initially one that can absorb considerable amounts of unskilled labor, but the manufacturing entities that can be accelerated are also those that mostly use skilled labor.  Manufacturing thus fails to satisfy some critical desiderata for becoming the sole agent of transformation.

     Indian service industry - like transport, real estate and construction, IT -  have shown substantially faster employment growth and are becoming an important source of wealth.  But they have a limited capacity to use India's most abundant resource, namely, unskilled labor.

    In the area of manufacturing, India must concentrate transformation exclusively in the area of registered manufacturing.  However, registered manufacturing has nothing "distinctive or superior" when compared to certain service sub-sectors.  Both are skill intensive, however.  The construction sector, though not skill intensive, is not tradable [I interpret this as meaning that it does not support exports.]  "Skilling Inida" is therefore important.

     The challenge of India is either to make it possible to utilize its unlimited supply of unskilled labor or to make the supply of skilled labor more elastic in the sense of being able to adapt to demand and other conditions quickly.  The future trajectory of Indian economic development could depend on both.
============

Dr. V. Ramaswami, the blogger, is the author of the book, "Innovation by India for India, the Need and the Challenge" widely available from Amazon and Flipkart.