What a miserable time to restart this blog.
I am very miserable these days. Haven't quite felt so miserable in quite a few years and I am wondering why.
Analyzing my situation carefully, if I had presented to myself my current situation (at least the broad contours of it) say six months back - i wouldn't have been delighted but wouldn't have been surprised. In fact I would have said this is exactly how I expect things to pan out and would have taken the situation on balance. If so, why am I so very miserable?
The answer lies in the path things take to reach their current level. It does not matter where things are, what matters more is how things got there. When as in my case, you get very close to realising something very important and you get pulled down at the last moment you get miserable - notwithstanding the fact that six months back you did not really expect to achieve that goal. That is not important. What is important is that you were taken up and up by the situation and then brought down. It is that emotional roller coaster that you've had makes one (and that has made me) miserable.
To completely change field, I have often wondered why were investors so miserable when markets crashed May-June last year or late February-early March this year. If the market came down from 14000 to 10000 - so what? The market is still up more than 3 times from its low a few years back - i would have thought if you were told in say June 05 that the market would be at 10000 in June 06, most people would have gladly taken that - in fact put more money in. Then why do you hear stories of 'blood on the street' etc. Again, its the path that matters.
So how do I get out of the misery I find myself in? Simple, by making my heart focus on the level and stop thinking about the path. Sounds simple ain't it? Yeah it does sound simple, I have been at it for the past few hours and it sounds like any other theory!
As they say, in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice - that's a whole different ball game!
That's it for now and it's good to be back!
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Lifting the veil
The almost global debate on whether Muslim women should wear their customary veil is another example of us confusing between what we think people ought to be doing and what people have a right of doing. It also illustrates lack of cultural sensitivity.
The reason the western world is so much up in arms against such explicit display of one's religion is because their religion does not have any such requirements. That being the case, they just cannot fathom things like Muslim women wearing the veil or Sikhs wearing the turban and growing beard. I am pretty confident that if christainity had any such explicit requirements, the western world would have been far more sensitive on these matters.
I do not think that wearing a veil is something any women ought to be doing. Hiding one's face to me is a sign of cowardice. At the very least it is reflective of socio-cultural conditions a few decades back (at the minimum). But that is my opinion and that is about it.
I also think that women have the right to decide what attire they ought to be wearing. They have a right to decide whether they want to expose their face or hands in front of others - its their personal decision and they have a RIGHT to make that decision. If they do decide to wear the veil, its not something I appreciate or like or support, but I certainly support their right to make that decision.
Now again, this right to wear or not wear the veil cannot be absolute. If the demands of work or things like security demand it, then one cannot be allowed to hide under the garb of religion. So one cannot possibly be allowed to teach to small children wearing a veil - it just does not make sense for example.
In the same light I firmly feel that in India we ought to have a uniform civil code. We ought to have a basic common framework governing individuals. It cannot be left to subjective interpretations by religious scholors of ancient scriptures. Nor should we have different sets of rules governing different individuals depending on their relious beliefs. There ought to be one single law applicable to Indians and within that legal framework, individuals are free to practise their religion.
That's it for now...
The reason the western world is so much up in arms against such explicit display of one's religion is because their religion does not have any such requirements. That being the case, they just cannot fathom things like Muslim women wearing the veil or Sikhs wearing the turban and growing beard. I am pretty confident that if christainity had any such explicit requirements, the western world would have been far more sensitive on these matters.
I do not think that wearing a veil is something any women ought to be doing. Hiding one's face to me is a sign of cowardice. At the very least it is reflective of socio-cultural conditions a few decades back (at the minimum). But that is my opinion and that is about it.
I also think that women have the right to decide what attire they ought to be wearing. They have a right to decide whether they want to expose their face or hands in front of others - its their personal decision and they have a RIGHT to make that decision. If they do decide to wear the veil, its not something I appreciate or like or support, but I certainly support their right to make that decision.
Now again, this right to wear or not wear the veil cannot be absolute. If the demands of work or things like security demand it, then one cannot be allowed to hide under the garb of religion. So one cannot possibly be allowed to teach to small children wearing a veil - it just does not make sense for example.
In the same light I firmly feel that in India we ought to have a uniform civil code. We ought to have a basic common framework governing individuals. It cannot be left to subjective interpretations by religious scholors of ancient scriptures. Nor should we have different sets of rules governing different individuals depending on their relious beliefs. There ought to be one single law applicable to Indians and within that legal framework, individuals are free to practise their religion.
That's it for now...
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Need for personal bankruptcy law
Lack of a personal bankruptcy laws is one of the many ironies of the state of legal system in India.
Picture this, if a company gets into a situation of too much debt (either because it takes on too much debt in absolute terms or because its repayment ability falls), it has many avenues to restructure its debt, to pay lower interest rate, to have debt waived off temporarily or permanently, fully or partly. The business gets protection from seizure of property/assets so that it can continue normal operations. Indeed the SARFAESI Act was passed a couple of years ago, because the bankruptcy law was too heavily skewed in favor of (commercial/corporate) borrowers.
However, if an individual gets into too much debt, he is doomed. He has almost none of the options mentioned above as being available to commercial/corporate borrowers available to him. Farmers are comitting suicides every day because of being in a debt trap.
Logic demands that if a company has the option of getting its debt restructured, interest and/or principal waived/reduced then so should an individual. But this does not happen in a formal sense. It needs the problem getting out of control (which means lots of suicides and lots of headlines) before the political class 'comes to the rescue' and a temporary 'band-aid' is put on. But this essentially is a one size fits all approach and the decision is 'forced' onto the lending institutions which is unfair. So, we a formal legal procedure that is put up once and for all, else this process is repeated almost every other year.
In fact I would argue that the need for having a bankruptcy law is even greater for individuals than for corporates. In case of invidiual it is often the question of survival. Secondly, a company getting into a debt trap can be put an end (be liquidated) - but you cannot do that with an individual. So, in case of an invidual/household getting him/them out of debt is the ONLY option. Secondly, once in a debt trap unless there is some structural mechanism available, it is almost impossible to come out of it thanks in no small way to 'compunding' the 8th wonder of the world as Einstein put it. Thirdly, in case of individuals, debt trap affects not just that person but his family - so there is collateral damage (Ironically, in case of corporate its employees may get laid off nor not get paid and it is then that they need help with their debts and it is precisely then that they do not get any help while their company continues to get benefits!)
Now, it is not my argument that banks/lenders in India are insensitive or unaware of this. Nor is it my claim that banks/borrowers are overly harsh all the time. But it is certainly my case that there is no formal law which lays down ground rules of how to deal with such a situation, the rights of borrowers (it cannot be the case that banks/lenders have all the bargaining power) and the various types of settlements which are possible so that borrowers can have a reasonable hope of getting out of the miserable situation they find themselves. We need a proper law which puts this and many other things in writing.
For example, the personal bankruptcy law (which incidently was tightened a year or so bank as it was perceived to be too lenient and favouring the borrowers!) covers things like who is eligible to claim personal bankruptcy, under what circumstances, what are the assets that cannot be seized, how and to what extent can debt be waived off or deferred etc etc etc. All these are fairly important issues.
Now, the immediate reason for writing this post is the farmer's suicides. But the need for this law will increasingly be felt as the 'credit' culture gets seeped in the soul of this country. Hitherto, since credit penetration at a personal level was very low, the need for this law was not felt (apart from to the extent individual businesses/farmers etc borrowed). However as increasingly almost every thing is brought on credit (remember credit card is nothing but a unsecured loan!) and as the marketing departments of all financial institutions work overtime in trying to get people take on credit - it will not be surprising to see more and more people getting into debt traps.
In fact another side benefit of this law would be that if banks have to take some losses under this law - either through deferrals or waivers etc, it will force their marketing managers to use a bit of judgement in extending credit.
That's it for now...
Picture this, if a company gets into a situation of too much debt (either because it takes on too much debt in absolute terms or because its repayment ability falls), it has many avenues to restructure its debt, to pay lower interest rate, to have debt waived off temporarily or permanently, fully or partly. The business gets protection from seizure of property/assets so that it can continue normal operations. Indeed the SARFAESI Act was passed a couple of years ago, because the bankruptcy law was too heavily skewed in favor of (commercial/corporate) borrowers.
However, if an individual gets into too much debt, he is doomed. He has almost none of the options mentioned above as being available to commercial/corporate borrowers available to him. Farmers are comitting suicides every day because of being in a debt trap.
Logic demands that if a company has the option of getting its debt restructured, interest and/or principal waived/reduced then so should an individual. But this does not happen in a formal sense. It needs the problem getting out of control (which means lots of suicides and lots of headlines) before the political class 'comes to the rescue' and a temporary 'band-aid' is put on. But this essentially is a one size fits all approach and the decision is 'forced' onto the lending institutions which is unfair. So, we a formal legal procedure that is put up once and for all, else this process is repeated almost every other year.
In fact I would argue that the need for having a bankruptcy law is even greater for individuals than for corporates. In case of invidiual it is often the question of survival. Secondly, a company getting into a debt trap can be put an end (be liquidated) - but you cannot do that with an individual. So, in case of an invidual/household getting him/them out of debt is the ONLY option. Secondly, once in a debt trap unless there is some structural mechanism available, it is almost impossible to come out of it thanks in no small way to 'compunding' the 8th wonder of the world as Einstein put it. Thirdly, in case of individuals, debt trap affects not just that person but his family - so there is collateral damage (Ironically, in case of corporate its employees may get laid off nor not get paid and it is then that they need help with their debts and it is precisely then that they do not get any help while their company continues to get benefits!)
Now, it is not my argument that banks/lenders in India are insensitive or unaware of this. Nor is it my claim that banks/borrowers are overly harsh all the time. But it is certainly my case that there is no formal law which lays down ground rules of how to deal with such a situation, the rights of borrowers (it cannot be the case that banks/lenders have all the bargaining power) and the various types of settlements which are possible so that borrowers can have a reasonable hope of getting out of the miserable situation they find themselves. We need a proper law which puts this and many other things in writing.
For example, the personal bankruptcy law (which incidently was tightened a year or so bank as it was perceived to be too lenient and favouring the borrowers!) covers things like who is eligible to claim personal bankruptcy, under what circumstances, what are the assets that cannot be seized, how and to what extent can debt be waived off or deferred etc etc etc. All these are fairly important issues.
Now, the immediate reason for writing this post is the farmer's suicides. But the need for this law will increasingly be felt as the 'credit' culture gets seeped in the soul of this country. Hitherto, since credit penetration at a personal level was very low, the need for this law was not felt (apart from to the extent individual businesses/farmers etc borrowed). However as increasingly almost every thing is brought on credit (remember credit card is nothing but a unsecured loan!) and as the marketing departments of all financial institutions work overtime in trying to get people take on credit - it will not be surprising to see more and more people getting into debt traps.
In fact another side benefit of this law would be that if banks have to take some losses under this law - either through deferrals or waivers etc, it will force their marketing managers to use a bit of judgement in extending credit.
That's it for now...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
