Note: All images in this post are courtesy of the internet. No copyright is claimed. Copyright belongs to respective owners.

Ferrari launched its new electric vehicle - the Ferrari Luce. It is designed in collaboration with Jony Ive’s new independent design studio LoveFrom.

Jony gained fame for being on the team that designed the clamshell macbook that kickstarted the revival of Apple from almost bankrupt company to the first Trillion Dollar mega-corp. Jony was part of the design for most of this period earning him accolades. Apple was also rumoured to be working on a car of its own, but abandoned that initiative. After leaving Apple, Jony Ive started his own independent design studio called LoveFrom. This Ferrari is the first iconic product from that studio.

The exterior design shocked the internet. Though people complemented Jony Ive and Ferrari for not using touch screen and providing proper workable buttons to operate the interiors. But the exterior was total scandal.

Here are some of the image artworks from trolls signalling their disappointment with the new Ferrari Luce. If you are interested in video creativity do search them up for those too are fantastically creative!

Why am I writing about this?

First, the creativity of the people has no bounds and I want to keep this as a record of what the society saw in the Ferrari Luce launch.

Second, there is inherent power of social media to power products or to detract from them. Tesla was essentially marketed through power of memes. Whereas the memes helped Tesla establish a new car company, it seems memes may hurt Ferrari. Performance-wise there does not seem to be anything wrong with Ferrari Luce. Over time we will know how it actually performed. There is not much hope since they intend to sell it at $600,000 a piece.

Finally, the Luce does not seems to lack originality in design. We will see how it goes over time.

Till then, here are the pictures of the memes:

Finally

Subscribe now

Share

Mumbai has begun clearing the slums, and rightly so. However, it is important to understand why slums form so that we can prevent them from emerging in the future. To that end, we have to answer five questions:

1. Why slums form?

2. How do they contribute to the economy?

3. Why should they be demolished?

4. What should replace them?

5. How to ensure they do not come up again?

Let’s dive in.

Why slums form?

There are many reasons for slum formation, but they reduce to four:

1. Rural-to-urban migration running faster than supply of affordable housing.

• Urban migrants make a choice between urban incomes coupled with high-cost urban life OR rural incomes with relatively lower-cost rural life. They pick urban because the income gap is wide enough to absorb the cost gap.

• As migration increases, the cost of urban life rises and rent dominates the household budget. The gap between what the migrant can pay and what legal housing costs is closed through encroachment — aided by predatory politics, mafia, and pliant law enforcement.

• If the income gap between rural and urban areas AND the gap in number of job opportunities were to shrink, slum formation would decline.

• Two distinct problems hide inside this one. One, lack of opportunities outside the city. Two, lack of legal affordable housing inside the city. Most policy responses tackle only one.

2. Inappropriate policy incentives.

• The Slum Redevelopment Act allows developers additional Floor Space Index (FSI) when they undertake slum rehabilitation. While sound in principle, in practice it is often misused to encourage encroachments.

• To understand why, ask the WIIFM question for every stakeholder. [WIIFM = What’s in it for me?]

• For the squatter: a hutment can eventually be upgraded into a built unit that can be sold for a serious profit.

• For the developer: rehab participation comes with fungible FSI that can be loaded into a high-end tower in the same project. The gap between construction cost per square foot and the high-end sale price is so wide that creating a slum and then redeveloping it is a profitable business plan.

• Individual developers cannot manufacture slums on their own. Politicians, illegal manufacturing cartels, hawker mafias, and pliant officers all chip in. That is why the equilibrium holds. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority’s own track record — a completion rate below 13% over 27 years, with most rehab units undersized and poorly maintained — is the visible cost of this design.

3. Low-cost housing versus slum redevelopment.

• Compare the costs and incentives of a developer building low-cost housing versus one doing slum redevelopment.

• Land cost is decisive in a megacity like Mumbai — SRA projects have near-zero land cost (the land was encroached) while legitimate low-cost housing needs high-cost land.

• Governments are tweaking FSI rules for low-cost housing to align incentives. But in real estate, location decides price. Projects get redesigned so that multiple units are bought by middle and higher-income households, and the low-income buyer ends up without affordable housing anyway. PMAY-U has built millions of units but the in-situ slum redevelopment vertical has consistently under-delivered for exactly this reason.

4. Demographic jihad.

• One factor driving illegal slums and encroachments is deliberate demographic engineering. Poor Muslim families, including foreigners (Bangladeshi and Rohingya infiltration cases have been documented by NIA and state police across Mumbai, Delhi, and the North-East), are settled in strategically chosen pockets — near critical infrastructure, vote-decisive constituencies, or border areas. The objective is not economic, it is to scuttle the law-and-order machinery in the chosen locality and reshape the electorate. National security agencies need to take this seriously. I fear it is already past the point at which it could be quietly contained.

How do they contribute to the economy?

Slums’ contribution to the city economy is rarely recognised, partly because so much of it is informal. But it is real. India’s informal sector is roughly 50% of GDP and over 90% of total employment (NCEUS; ILO 2019). Dharavi alone — 2.4 sq km, 1+ million people — hosts 20,000+ enterprises and generates an estimated USD 1–1.5 billion in annual output. We are not talking about a marginal economy.

1. Slums are the source of cheap labour.

• The labour that does the inconvenient and undesirable work — garbage pick-up, sewage maintenance, recycling — comes from these slums. Most of these workers are exploited by middlemen and contractors.

• They also supply the services every middle-class household has now built its lifestyle around — delivery riders, drivers and cabs, household help, janitorial and cleaning staff, security guards. The middle-class cost of living in Mumbai is sustained by this invisible subsidy.

2. Slums hide illegal factories that require substantial manual labour.

• Many of these are low-cost manufacturing units driven purely by private profit motives.

• Many of these factories are involved in illegal manufacture, drugs, or polluting activities (leather, dyeing, plastics) and therefore need to be regulated, not romanticised. Bringing them into the legal net is part of fixing the wider ease-of-doing-business problem I have written about in the context of illegal hawkers.

3. Slums also contain semi-formal supply-chain depots.

• Bulk-breaking, sorting, and transhipment activities happen inside slums at very low cost. This reduces the cost of getting goods to the rest of the city. It is genuine social value — even if the underlying setup is illegal.

So the honest framing is this. Slums subsidise the cost structure of the city in the short run. In the long run they sit on the city’s productivity ceiling — because the same residents whose cheap labour you depend on are stuck in a poverty trap of insecure tenure, poor schooling, and worse health outcomes. This is what Marx, Stoker and Suri (MIT, 2013) called the policy trap.

Why should they be demolished?

Many people sense intuitively that slums have to go but the reasons are not always articulated. Let me articulate them.

1. Reward law-abiding citizens; penalise law-breaking. This is the foundational incentive structure of a functioning state. Slums invert it.

• A slum dweller is competing with a law-abiding citizen who lives 30 minutes or more away, pays full rent for legal accommodation, and pays for the commute as well. The cost of being legal is much higher than the cost of being illegal. This is unfair.

• I have always said: in India, the cost of complying with the law is high and the benefits are low; the cost of breaking the law is low and the benefits are high. If we want a law-abiding society, we have to flip this — put a real penalty on those who break the law, and a real reward on those who don’t. Slum dwellers cannot be allowed to enjoy a permanent cost advantage over law-abiding citizens, or we have given up on the rule of law itself. This is exactly the argument I made in the Police Officer at every corner piece — law and order is the first step toward real development.

2. Slums contradict urban design.

• Many experts now prefer in-situ rehabilitation of slum-dwellers. I think this defeats the purpose. You cannot rebuild the city’s spatial logic if the slum footprint is frozen in place.

• Slums occupy land where critical infrastructure needs to come and then become a permanent hindrance. Mumbai airport’s development was choked for decades by surrounding slums, notwithstanding the security risk those slums pose to aircraft. The Eastern Freeway, the Western Express, every major transit-corridor project — all carry the same scar.

• Urban development is a feedback-loop system. If you let a slum transform into a regularised residential block, you have changed the city’s development map. The consequences propagate outward — traffic, lost development potential of legal areas, distorted commercial rents.

3. Economic distortion

• Slums prevent economic activity from moving to other parts of the country. By keeping Mumbai’s cost advantage artificially intact, slums hold capital in Mumbai that should have helped build cities in Bihar, eastern UP, and the rest. The result is more income polarisation, more political backlash. This is what I had written back in 2005 in: Why Bihar should ensure there are no slums in Mumbai? (2005)

What should replace them?

It follows from the above what should — and should not — replace demolished slums.

1. Replace the population mix, not just the buildings.

• Planners need to think about the income profile of the area. The ratio of low-income, middle-income and high-income households was doing real work in the local economy. If we just clear the slum and build only middle and high-income towers, we create a structural gap — domestic workers, drivers, delivery riders, sanitary workers have nowhere to live within reach of the jobs.

• Transit-oriented planning calls this the X:Y rule — for every X high-income household you add, you also plan for Y low-income service households. The 2023 piece on Limiting growth of cities? makes the same point: housing supply has to be planned by income mix, not by sale price.

2. Replace the supply-chain function with legal alternatives.

• The supply-chain depots inside the slum kept Mumbai’s cost of goods down. If we demolish them without a legal replacement, costs rise across the city.

• The replacement is dedicated, planned, legal-zoned bulk-breaking and logistics areas — at the edge of the dense city, served by transit, with one-window licensing. The same logic applies to small-scale repair and refurbishment activity that today happens in slums.

3. Replace illegal informality with cheap, fast legality at the bottom of the pyramid.

• This is the conclusion I came to in The story of illegal hawkers (2022). The reason informality persists is that being legal is too expensive and too slow. Fix that — and you do not have to fight informality, you starve it. The Street Vendors Act 2014, combined with ONDC, is the architecture; what is missing is implementation.

• Unlike the standard story, poor people are willing to pay a fair price for a legally sound shop, residence, or service. They just cannot afford the bribe, the delay, and the harassment that today come with being legal.

4. Public housing at scale — some learn from Singapore, Indonesia not from SRA.

• Singapore went from 90% slum housing in 1960 to 90% home-ownership in HDB units within a generation, on the back of compulsory land acquisition, CPF-financed mortgages, and a state that treated housing as nation-building.

• Indonesia’s Kampung Improvement Programme upgraded conditions for five million urban poor between the 1960s and 1980s — and a 2024 evaluation finds those kampungs now have higher formal-sector employment and school enrolment than matched controls.

• The lesson is not to copy either model — it is to copy the seriousness. India’s PMAY-U has scale. What it needs is design discipline.

How to ensure they do not come up again?

Slums are the confluence of three things — (a) lack of opportunities outside the cities, (b) inadequate supply of affordable legal accommodation inside the city, AND (c) an ineffective law-and-order system. Prevention has to attack all three.

1. Opportunities outside the cities. This is mostly outside the scope of city administration. It depends on state and central policy — power, roads, port and airport access, ease of doing business in tier-2 and tier-3 cities. The Bihar argument I made in 2005 is essentially a call for this: it is in Bihar’s interest, even more than Mumbai’s, that the slum-formation pull weakens.

2. Affordable housing inside the city. This is squarely within city administration’s remit. It is a second-order problem and most city administrators do not understand it. What we need is structural — FSI reform, single-window approvals, digitised land records, rental public housing alongside the ownership push.

Another aspect of Affordable housing is Affordability threshold. Slums are a symptom citizens having means below the affordability threshold. It results in the homelessness we see in developed country cities. It relates more to jobs and labour mobility and deserves a separate research paper to itself.

Finally, we also need information sharing between cities. A Reddit-like platform for civic officials, planners, and informed citizens — anonymised where needed — where one city’s solution to a sewage-billing problem becomes another city’s reference within a week, not within a five-year report. Most municipal innovation in India happens in isolation and dies in isolation.

3. Law and order. A weak law-and-order machinery follows from an ineffective polity. Fixing the politics is more social change than regulatory change.

• Police reform on the lines successive commissions have already recommended — separation of investigation from law-and-order duty, magistrate-level accountability, digitised low-discretion enforcement, an end to the 1861 Police Act. Without this, more police simply means more rent extraction. With it, an omnipresent constable becomes a precondition for orderly urban development — exactly what I argued in Police Officer at every corner.

• Active citizenry. Politicians respond to incentives. If the local residents’ association can mount a public, named, sustained campaign against any new encroachment, the equilibrium shifts. Most encroachments are tested first — if they meet no resistance in week one, week two becomes a building.

• Connect the dots between Encroachments and corruption, illegal hawkers, and slums. They are not separate problems. They are the same problem in different uniforms — the high cost of legality, paid by the citizen and pocketed by everyone in the chain that gatekeeps it.

In Sum

Slums are not the problem - they are the symptom of state-capacity which is the real problem. Fix the state — at the municipal level, in policing, in land records, in business registration — and the slum problem becomes tractable. Mumbai is starting to clear its slums. Lets fix what creates slums in the first place.

Share

Subscribe now

Notes and Related reading

• Why Bihar should ensure there are no slums in Mumbai? — Rahul Deodhar (2005)

• Encroachments and corruption — Rahul Deodhar (2022)

• Police Officer at every corner!! — Rahul Deodhar (2005)

• Limiting growth of cities? — Rahul Deodhar (2023)

• The story of illegal hawkers — Rahul Deodhar (2022)

• UN-Habitat — The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements 2003

• Marx, Stoker & Suri — The Economics of Slums in the Developing World (JEP 2013)

• Acemoglu, Johnson & Robinson — The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development (AER 2001)

• Galiani & Schargrodsky — Property Rights for the Poor (JPubE 2010)

• Jaideep et al. — Demolition, forced evictions and wellbeing in the city (IDMC 2019)

• Citizen Matters — 27 years on, Mumbai’s SRA has failed to deliver

• Question of Cities — 25 Years on, Mumbai’s SRA Model

• PRS Legislative Research — Evaluation of PMAY (Urban) 2023

• ORF — Strengthening Urban India’s Informal Economy: Street Vending

• Auerbach — Neighborhood Associations and the Urban Poor (World Development 2017)

• Glaeser — Urbanization and its Discontents (Harvard)

• Duranton — Growing through Cities in Developing Countries (World Bank 2016)

The UGC Equity Regulations 2026 originated from tragic student deaths (Rohith Vemula in 2016 and Payal Tadvi in 2019) and a related 2019 PIL filed in the Supreme Court. In a delayed response in the PIL, UGC proposed to amend the rules.

The UGS released a balanced draft in February 2025 included protections for SC/ST students while preserving institutional autonomy, due process for all, and penalties for false complaints to prevent misuse. The PIL petitioners were not happy and through their lawyer Indira Jaising, a known leftist anti-India player, they proposed further additions to the 2025 draft.

The final regulations, gazetted on January 13, 2026, seem to have largely adopted the Indira Jaising modifications. The result was that the regulations shifted dramatically: they narrowed caste-based discrimination protections asymmetrically to SC, ST, and OBC students only, introduced features like Equity Committees, Equity Squads/Ambassadors, anti-retaliation clauses, debarment powers, and mandatory proactive measures, but removed safeguards against malicious complaints.

A more detailed version of events can be read here.

New regulations opened a can of worms

The solution proposed by leftist lawyers for the victims was quite drastic. It opens the General category to malicious prosecution.

But that was not all. In something coming right out of 1984 or some leftist dystopian universe, the new rules have surveillance committees that have open mandates and unlimited power. The redressal mechanisms are also scuttled and tilted against the General category.

This is what happens when regulation aims for victim protections as against action against perpetrators.

How can it be made better?

The reality is that BOTH exists

• some people (many from OBC category themselves) who commit caste based discrimination.

• some OBC/SC/ST who abuse the protective laws.

No law, by itself, or in conjunction with an elaborate enforcement mechanism (no matter how elaborate) can prevent a certain person from FEELING victimized, as that feeling is flexible and comes from the persons own assumptions. (Refer the scar experiment on bias).

The problem is perpetrators are often serial perpetrators - i.e. those actually discriminating do it to many. These acts are often below the "legal threshold" for discrimination and hence they escape punishment. Western law has used the class-action as crutch to get around to this solution. Yet, it is still a crutch not a solution.

The solution is also not to loosen the definitions of discrimination or make up lop-sided enforcement mechanism. The more elaborate the law and the enforcement mechanism the more false positives it will throw up. And the more it will lend itself as a tool for misuse.

The real solution is to make these acts accretive.

If a few person levels allegation it could be fluke (CISCO case). But if many report the person for being discriminatory then it will reveal the pattern.

In India we need to create a anonymous reporting system that allows potential victims to report a person and discriminatory acts add up when more people report. The perpetrator is identified and investigated if the score based on impact of single act of discrimination and number of such acts crosses a certain threshold. This process should work in sexual harassment and gender bias cases too.

I believe, if a well thought out system is created based on above it will be a proper legal infrastructure innovation at global level.

Clarification with respect to “anonymous” reporting.

The reporting is not itself anonymous, the database is black boxed. It means I can submit complaints with my annexures. These complaints are analyzed by anonymizing the names of perp and vic. They are then entered into this black boxed database. They are scored based on gravity of allegation, validity of proofs submitted (CCTV etc. is stored) AND number of allegations.

Thus

• If there are many allegations against one person his score increases and the entire lot (ALL allegations with their known complainants and their submissions) is opened and investigated.

• Similarly if there is just one allegation but it is quite serious, it will still trigger an investigation.

• Further, a grievous false allegation is also reported and such a false complainant can be tagged and reported.

• During open investigation the identities of all will be available to investigating and judicial/quasi-judicial team.

This prevents minor misunderstandings from escalating into witch-hunts. At the same time it ensures those who are casually discriminatory but just below the threshold are still caught.

The conduct of investigation and penalties and punishments are not mentioned in the proposal. They are governed by current law.

Current law does not punish the false complainant.

Subscribe now

Share

In a X thread, Sameer critiques an article in The Print by Karanjeet Kaur, arguing that it misinterprets Gen Z’s cultural trends as a shift toward conservatism or religious orthodoxy.

Instead, Sameer says, Gen Z is proudly reclaiming and modernising Indian culture—such as through “Bhajan Raves,” ethnic clothing, and spiritual tourism (e.g., preferring the religious Mathura over drug-alcohol-Goa)—as a rebellion against older generations’ internalised view that modernity equals Westernisation.

Sameer highlights how “Boomers and millennials continually moral policed speech, belief, and identity for decades”. He further states that

“Millennials and boomers are not “neutral observers” here. They are the repressed generation that has been convinced that anything Indian and culturally oriented is “conservative” and “regressive”. GenZ is proud and aggressive because boomers were apologetic and docile.”

This highlights two important points for me. First Gen Z is ready to take its place as heirs to our cultural traditions. And second, that Boomers and Millennials should make some room for their cultural expression.

Coming from what is called Gen X, between Boomers and Millennials, I want to explain our position and expand the discussion.

Sameer is right.

Boomers to Millennials (me being GenX) have imported the structure of culture from our Western education.

Many in our generation believe culture is rigid and structured around rituals and discipline. These generational brethren of mine shudder at some of the cultural changes that Gen Z is experimenting with.

To an extent, it is not their fault. We knew our “culture” from what we found in Western narratives, our textbooks, and socialist-communist-influenced media and intelligentsia. We knew this wasn’t right. But we were ridiculed. We did not have proper arguments, research, and power. Many of us were fighting economic survival.

We, as did generations before us, felt it was our responsibility to “save” what we “know” of our culture and bide our time till we can explore for ourselves the facts and interpretations of our culture. That saving required a conservative outlook, a rigid structure bolstered by rituals and discipline.

But we knew this “knowledge” of our culture is also not totally uncorrupted. It is why, to an extent, we have isolated our GenZ kids from our imposed understanding of culture. But yes, we may have confused our Gen Z kids to a certain extent.

So we did what we could.

We tried to fit what WE know from our culture into the “singular foundational definition” of culture as taught in the West.

We discovered it did not fit, and we have lived with this dissonance and sought its roots. We did not find discomfort in our dissonance, and that struck us as a core strength of our culture.

We just realised that what we “know” of our culture is the flawed Western observation of it. We are realising that the lens through which our culture was being observed was flawed and that the observer herself was unaware.

Yes, we, and generations before us, have held on to the past. We held on to it for a time when we can observe, understand, examine, rectify, nurture this culture of ours and allow it to grow and evolve. That time has come. That is why Rajiv Malhotra calls for a scrutiny of our culture using our lens.

Culture is not static. It needs to change, evolve and grow.

I have felt what Sameer accuses my generation of. I realise we have to remain neutral in our observations of Gen Z’s actions. But I also think Gen Z needs to convince us that they will join us in researching, examining, debating, rectifying and understanding the journey of our culture thus far as we go about nurturing, evolving and growing this amazing culture into the future. These days, I am confident they will. It is a good feeling.

Share

Subscribe now

India’s GDP numbers have confounded real economists1 for some time now. The growth is numerically robust but the real experiences do not tally with these high numbers.

I have a hypothesis as to what is happening on the ground. To understand that we need to simplify the reality of Indian economy. Lets dive in.

Jackets & Juices - A simplified economy!

Imagine an economy with just two industries - jackets and juices.

Now imagine that most of the jackets are made in formal economy by corporations or high-turnover professional tailors etc. Therefore the workings of jackets industry is visible to government, appears in most of the reported data and is trackable. There is a small percentage of jackets industry that is artisanal and hence not visible in the data.

Juice industry, on the other hand, is a cottage industry. It is largely informal and most of the production, sales and inventories of this industry is outside the measured economy. Now some small segment of juice industry is actually formalised and involves corporates and hence effectively reports good data.

Estimating the GDP of this Jackets-Juices Economy in theory

By definition, GDP of this economy will be the actual production of jackets and juices in that particular year.

GDP growth will represent how much the production of this year is higher/lower than previous year.

Clearly, just adding number of jackets and juices will not make sense. Hence GDP is measured in value of the jackets and juices produced.

To calculate value we multiply number of jackets and juices produced by its respective price. When we multiply the number of jackets and juices produced in ONE year with the prices of THAT year we get NOMINAL GDP.

NOMINAL GDP of this country may increased over last year in various ways. One, the number of jackets and juices may remain the same but their prices may have increased. OR Two, the number of jackets and juices may have increased but their prices have remained same. OR Any other combination of these two.

But GDP measures only production not prices. We added prices because it did not make sense to add jackets and juices together to get a measurable number. So how do we compare this years GDP with past year’s GDP. To clarify this we introduce a concept of BASE YEAR.

We fix a BASE YEAR arbitrarily - say 2011. We note down the prices of jackets and juices in this year. Now this year we take number of jackets and litres of juices and multiply with 2011 prices. This gives us REAL GDP of this year.

This is all ok if we know the exact number of jackets and number of litres of juices produced this year.

• We know reasonably the number of jackets produced this year because all the factories and tailors report them because they are formal industry. We get their number.

• But we know that some jackets are made by artisans. How to estimate that number? What if it increases suddenly? What if there is a make-your-own-jacket campaign and many people are doing so? To understand this number we do a survey of these artisans all over the country. Again this happens on any random year - say 2018. Based on the survey we get to know that for every 100 jackets produced by the formal industry, 10 are produced by artisans informally.

• We use this equation to estimate the number of jackets in 2025. Now over the years between 2018-2025 things may change so we do that survey after every few years to be certain of our approximations.

Now to juices!

How to estimate the number of litres of juices produced? This is a largely informal industry. So what can we do?

• Survey! Here we undertake a survey and estimate the size of juice industry in one particular year - say 2015.

• Then we compare the size of jacket industry with juice industry in 2015. We conclude that in 2015 juice industry is about the same size as the jacket industry.

• So for every year subsequently, we estimate that juice industry will be the same size as the jacket industry.

• Thus in 2025 too we presume that juice industry will be same size as jacket industry.

• Is it actually so? We wonder. Hence we check with the formal players in the juice industry to check if they are growing in line with the jackets industry. We also do a random survey of very few empanelled juice sellers and check if their sales matches the jacket industry.

After confirming these we compute 2025 GDP

• We take jacket production, adjust it for informal jackets produced

• We assume juice production has changed just as much as jacket production did. We verify the numbers.

• We multiply these with prices of 2011.

• Now we get REAL GDP of 2025!

Estimating the GDP of the Jackets-Juices economy in practice!

Armed with above theory you start meeting Jacket industry people and ask them for jacket production numbers. They look confused - which jackets they ask. Rain jackets, winter jackets, diving jackets, mountaineering jackets, evening jackets, dinner jackets… One jacket company counts thick-twill shirts as jackets. There is confusion about waist coats and vests.

So, to avoid all confusion, you take the units sold, current prices and total sales and you get out of their office. After getting that shock in formal organised Jacket industry you are crestfallen before going to juice industry.

The juice industry sells different juices, concentrates, ready-to-drink, fresh, pasteurised, frozen varieties of juices of different fruits. Even within fruits the prices vary - alphonso mango, Himachal Apples, Florida Oranges, etc. There is confusion if Coconut water is juice or not. Some juice makers are actually selling pulps. Are pulps juice concentrates or are they separate. It makes no sense adding litres of pulp to litres of orange juice. So here too, you take the number of litres, current prices and total sales and leave.

Now how to compute the GDP?

• You get the nominal GDP contribution of 2025 of Jacket Industry by looking at their sales for the year 2025.

• You will apply the approximation of Juice Industry will do just as well. You will confirm it by calling up Juice companies and empanelled juice sellers.

• You will add the two and arrive at the total Nominal GDP for 2025.

• Now you will look at the details for Jackets

  • There will be jackets that are being sold in 2025 but they were not created in 2011, your BASE YEAR. All these can be classified as Speciality Jackets or Other Jackets.

  • You compare the various types jackets sold in 2025 with those in 2011 your BASE YEAR.

• You will do the same exercise with Juices.

• You compare the prices of various types of jackets and juices sold in 2025 with those in 2011 and in 2024. The change in these prices will help you calculate something called the GDP DEFLATOR.

• Now you will estimate the current real GDP by reducing the Nominal GDP by the GDP Deflator.

What I mean is…

GDP calculations are a lot of data manipulation. Even for our simplified Jackets-and-Juices economy we have landed up with so much complexity. A real economy has many products, sub-products, services, valuation of services etc.

That does not mean it is all made up. As Dr. Subir explained to me once, GDP is a statistical analysis that tries to come as close to the reality as it can. It will always have errors and will not EXACTLY measure the real economy. What we want is the process to be true and it should be able to capture the change in the economy effectively. Hence total GDP is one thing but GDP growth is better metric as it eliminates the consistent gaps.

Think of GDP calculations as looking at the economy though a foggy or rainy windscreen. You wont see the road clearly but you should see enough to alert you to what is ahead. At the same time it cannot be bad or broken glass which creates distortion.

With this background let me propose what has happened in India.

Here is my hypothesis:

1. The Total GDP of India is like the GDP with Jackets (formal, relatively easier to estimate and mostly visible) and Juices (informal, not easy to estimate, hardly visible).

2. However, a confluence of forces have impacted the nature of Indian economy since 2011:

   1. Transition from a high-inflation to low-inflation regime. This has affected the price of Jackets and Juices. This is as much a psychological process as it is rational demand-supply decision. I wrote about this back in 2019. This transition, imported goods deflation from China, and fluctuating energy and food commodity prices result in wildly oscillating GDP DEFLATOR.

   2. Financialisation and digitisation: Thanks to JAM trinity, a large part of payments have moved to digital realm. Government is also streamlining taxes (just a bit but right direction) and attempt to reduce unnecessary regulations. This moves the participating industries into formalisation. It also increases the VISIBILITY of their GDP contribution. Thus, in our example, the Juices part of the economy has started becoming more visible. Experts see it as “reduction” in informal sector. I see it as better or more accurate counting.

   3. Nature of the economy has changed: Our consumption pattern (how many jackets and how many types of juices and how much) are changing drastically as more young people become adults. Technology and new realities like pandemics are reshaping our consumption habits. The BASE YEAR does not account for such change.

3. Finally, the formula, the algorithm for calculating GDP, the validation systems, the empanelled sources and methodology for survey to measure informal GDP are showing cracks.

   1. These are not wrong - just old.

   2. But a $4 Trillion economy needs to have better mechanisms to measure the prices of various products and services in a more error-free manner.

   3. IMF realises this when it gave Indian data a “C-grade” implying/positing that India may be under-reporting the correct GDP numbers.

   4. Central Government has taken steps with corrective statistical tools being designed and new GDP series with new BASE YEAR supposed to be announced soon. COVID has delayed some of these developments (for instance census, Consumption Survey, NSSO survey, The Annual Survey of Unincorporated Sector Enterprises (ASUSE), etc.)

4. The VISIBLE GDP has grown very fast (because we are able to count more juices and that small part of Jackets too).

5. The INFORMAL GDP has partly been formalised and partly remains informal. It is growing too. Our capability to estimate it has become better. But since we are using old series we are trying to reduce errors.

6. The adjustment because of the GDP DEFLATOR and the way it is calculated has amplified the GDP growth. As a mathematical corollary, it excessively suppressed the GDP growth previously. Since it is more of mathematical adjustment and hence the on-the-ground euphoria is missing.

7. Consequently, the Total GDP may have grown like usual - i.e. both Jackets and Juices clocking the usual growth.

   1. It seems to be lesser than what the numbers make us believe.

   2. And it may have been higher than what numbers stated in earlier time 2015-2020.

In Sum

The GDP growth conundrum is a misunderstanding. It may correct itself partly just with passage of time (inflation regime adjustment) and mostly with better computational capabilities of new series. But, in the mean time, policy makers need to understand this dynamic. I believe the numbers pushed the RBI into cutting interest rates later than ideal.

I think it would be better to follow Nominal GDP and inflation together along with Real GDP to understand the Indian economy better.

Thank you for reading this far. If you need to dive in more detail refer to notes, readings and references section.

Subscribe now

Share

Notes, Readings, References.

Here are some articles highlighting the discrepancies in GDP reporting. These sources range from academic working papers to financial news analysis, focusing on the disconnect between headline GDP figures and the “ground reality” of the Indian economy.

• India’s GDP Mis-estimation: Likelihood, Magnitudes, Mechanisms, and Implications [Harvard Kennedy School (Working Paper by Arvind Subramanian)] This seminal paper argues that India’s change in GDP methodology (post-2011) led to a significant overestimation of growth, potentially by 2.5 percentage points annually. It posits that the new method heavily relies on formal sector data (like corporate filings) as a proxy for the informal sector, thereby missing the declines in the real, unorganized economy. [Download here]

• Is India’s Q2 GDP Surge Believable? [The Wire by Arun Kumar former professor of economics at JNU] This December 2025 article, couched in anti-Modi language, questions a specific surge in GDP (8.2%), noting that high-frequency indicators (like diesel consumption and freight traffic) did not match the headline growth. It highlights how the “production side” estimates often decouple from the “expenditure side” due to a lack of real-time data on the informal sector, leading to massive statistical “discrepancies.”

• Beyond The Headlines: A Closer Look At India’s Higher-Than-Expected Q2 Growth [Swarajya by Pramod Hegde] This analysis focuses on the “Deflator” problem. It explains that when wholesale inflation (WPI) is negative, it artificially inflates the “Real GDP” number. The author calculates that this statistical anomaly likely added over 1 percentage point to the headline growth, meaning the “real” volume of economic activity was much lower than the 8%+ figure suggested.

• GDP data revisions—why India still struggles with sharp variations [The Print but article is by AK Bhattacharya, Editorial Director, Business Standard] This article critiques the reliability of the data itself, noting how initial growth estimates are often revised drastically upwards or downwards years later. It suggests that these constant, sharp revisions indicate a struggle to accurately capture economic activity, making the “final” numbers less credible as a real-time policy tool.

Also read

Moneylife Article: How Lower Inflation Lowered Economic Growth with Many Knock-on Effects

This poem comes from The Parent’s Tao Te Ching by William Martin.

Do not ask your children
to strive for extraordinary lives.

Such striving may seem admirable,
but it is the way of foolishness.

Help them instead to find the wonder
and the marvel of an ordinary life.

Show them the joy of tasting
tomatoes, apples and pears.

Show them how to cry
when pets and people die.

Show them the infinite pleasure
in the touch of a hand.

And make the ordinary come alive for them.
The extraordinary will take care of itself.

It is said we live in our minds. Our thoughts make the world we see. If we help make our children see the world with hopeful reality, we would have done our job as parents. It isn’t as easy as it sounds. And we need all of the village to help our children grow.

Share

Subscribe now

I read recently how Japan is good at many things. Japan is winning - from best Pizza restaurants, pastries, confectionaries, wines and whiskey to best crafted shoes, jeans, to cars and watches and more.

Melissa Chen commented on this, contrasted this with the Chinese attitude of “Cha bu duo” (差不多), a Chinese phrase that means “close enough” or “more or less,”. Many commentators have taken similar line when it comes to Indian “jugaad” culture. The understanding is Chinese or Indian excellence will not be like the Japanese.

But it is not true.

The industrial culture developed with different styles across the world.

At first there were two routes - mass manufacture and artisanal manufacturing. Britain and US followed the mass manufacturing route. France and Italy chose the artisanal manufacturing. Germans tried to bring artisanal qualities to mass manufacturing, their focus was artisanal when it came to engineering and design but it was mass manufacturing mindset when it came to operations. That is why design, innovation etc. seemed separate from cold, calculating Operations.

When Japan entered the fray, they tried to imitate this. But failed. Rather Demming, Juran and their Japanese counterparts from Ishikawa to Ohno to Taguchi experimented with adapting the western concepts to Japanese culture. The result was exceptional Japanese Industrial renaissance.

Japanese made the operators into craftsman/artists. Japanese art culture is blend of discipline and rules with flair and Iki (a japanese word difficult to translate - more like flirting beyond the no-go rules). It allows for these artists in operations. But such artists also become masters and can blend into engineering and design. Thus came the feedback loop with Kaizen powered small but relentless improvements with jumps in between. Japanese directed these characters first to quality, then to efficiency and then started to deploy it to design and innovation. If you check out Japanese packaging you will realise what I mean.

China too has the same character.

But such character needs inner motivation not CCP herding to come to fore. CCP herding of Chinese entrepreneurship has mitigated many risks and thus expanded the operations driven industries. In time the Chinese will bring artistry and aesthetic to whatever they produce. But that requires freedom, experimentation and failure.

India too is in similar boat.

But India never had the risk moat. In fact, Indian government actively increased the risks for new entrepreneurs. Indians have spent last five decades building safety nets under their families. The risk-taking generation has just burst forth. To help, Indian government is shedding its anti-rich approach and trying to encourage entrepreneurship. Over the next 20 years you will see Indians developing pathways to excellence - trying, failing, succeeding and making a mark on the world.

To achieve that we need to look INTO our own culture. We will need to adapt the global learnings to our way of doing. Our future companies may look totally different. Our employment styles will look totally different from what we see globally. All of those things will need rediscovering, reimagining, innovating and leapfrogging. The next 20 years are going to be super exciting for Indian companies.

We WILL get to excellence.

Further reading

Urban air quality is big driver of quality of life. Like every year, this year too Delhi’s air quality dropped substantially in winter. The major contributor to this well understood to be the stubble burning in neighbouring states of Punjab and Haryana. This problem is confined to the North down-wind areas from Punjab and Haryana.

However, in other parts of India too people have noticed something. If you look at the telecast of cricket matches in India and compare them to those in England or Australia you will see a lot of difference. This difference should not be visible in photos (since they go through photoshop corrections) but it is still evident. The reason is air quality.

Understanding Air Quality

Air quality depends upon the following factors:

The chemical composition of air (the gas pollutants)

These include various gases such as :

1. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx, including NO and NO2) NOx are major contributors to urban smog and acid rain. In cities, they primarily come from combustion processes in power plants, industrial facilities, and heating systems. Domestic fossil fuel use for cooking or heating also adds to levels, especially in densely populated areas. These gases can react with VOCs to form ground-level ozone.

2. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) SO2 is a pungent gas that leads to respiratory problems and contributes to acid rain, damaging buildings and ecosystems. Urban sources include coal-fired power plants, industrial processes like metal smelting, and oil refining. In some cities, the use of residual fuel oil for shipping or heating exacerbates this issue.

3. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is an odourless, toxic gas that reduces oxygen in the blood and is particularly dangerous in enclosed urban spaces. Key sources include incomplete combustion from industrial boilers, waste incineration, and household appliances such as gas stoves or heaters.

4. Ground-Level Ozone (O3). Unlike stratospheric ozone, ground-level O3 is a secondary pollutant formed by reactions between NOx, VOCs, and sunlight in urban heat. It irritates the lungs and worsens asthma. Urban contributors include emissions from solvents, paints, and industrial activities that release precursor chemicals.

5. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are a diverse group of chemicals that evaporate easily and contribute to ozone formation and indoor/outdoor pollution. In cities, they’re released from consumer products like paints, cleaning agents, adhesives, pesticides, printing inks, and personal care items (e.g., perfumes, cosmetics). Industrial evaporation and leaks from storage tanks are also significant sources of concern.

6. Other Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs or Air Toxics) include substances such as benzene, formaldehyde, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), lead, and heavy metals (e.g., arsenic). They cause cancer and other serious health effects. Urban sources encompass industrial emissions, waste burning, and chemical manufacturing. Lead, although reduced, can still come from legacy sources, such as old paint or batteries.

7. Ammonia (NH3). Often overlooked, NH3 contributes to the formation of secondary aerosols and eutrophication. In urban areas, it’s emitted from waste decomposition, sewage treatment, and agricultural activities on city fringes, as well as some industrial processes.

The physical composition of air

These include the actual particulate matter termed as suspended particulate matter (SPM) and can be classified as:

1. Dust and heavy particulates (heavier can settle down but easily resuspended by wind). These are not inhalable, but they pose other risks, including to the eyes and ears.

2. Coarse Particles (PM10 or Thoracic Particles): These have diameters of 10 μm or less (but larger than 2.5 μm). They are inhalable and can lodge in the upper respiratory tract, such as your nasal hair or mucus. If a higher percentage of these particles is present, it clogs the nasal passage, causes throat irritation and/or a burning sensation. Common sources include road dust, construction debris, agriculture, and wind-blown soil. Dust from these activities often dominates this category.

3. Fine Particles (PM2.5 or Respirable Particles): Diameters of 2.5 μm or less. These can penetrate deep into the lungs and even enter the bloodstream, posing greater health risks like cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. While finer dust (e.g., from combustion or industrial processes) contributes, this category encompasses more from secondary atmospheric formation.

4. Ultrafine Particles (PM0.1 or Nanoparticles): Diameters of 0.1 μm (100 nanometers) or less. These are the smallest, often from combustion sources, and can cross into the brain or other organs. Dust rarely falls here, as it’s typically coarser, but ultrafine dust can form from mechanical grinding or vehicle wear.

Most Indian cities have a problem with dust!

The problem in most Indian cities is not the noxious gases. Instead, it is dust - both from human and natural sources.

1. Construction and Demolition Activities: Dust is generated from excavation, building, demolition, and material handling at construction sites. This is a significant source of coarser PM10 particles in growing urban areas.

2. Industrial Processes: Factories and manufacturing facilities release dust through emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, chemical reactions, and material processing, often containing toxic elements such as heavy metals.

3. Power Generation: Coal-fired power plants and other energy production sites emit fine particulates from combustion and smokestacks, contributing significantly to urban PM levels.

4. Household and Domestic Combustion: Burning solid fuels, such as wood, charcoal, coal, or kerosene, for cooking, heating, or lighting in homes releases substantial amounts of particulate matter, especially in densely populated areas.

5. Waste Management and Burning: The open burning of municipal waste or agricultural residues near urban fringes, along with dust from landfills and waste handling, contributes to airborne particulates.

6. Raw Material Stockpiles: Wind-scattered dust from uncovered stockpiles of materials (e.g., near ports, factories, or construction yards) contributes to fugitive dust in industrial zones.

7. Consumer Products and Volatile Compounds: Everyday items like cleaning agents, paints, cosmetics, and perfumes release volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that can react in the atmosphere to form secondary particulate matter.

8. Wind-Blown Soil and Crustal Dust: Erosion of exposed soil, unpaved surfaces, or dry earth in urban green spaces or outskirts, resuspended by wind, forms a baseline of natural particulates.

9. Biological and Pollen Particles: Naturally occurring pollen, spores, and plant debris in city parks or along streets can contribute to organic dust, especially during certain seasons.

10. Geological Events: Rare but impactful sources like volcanic ash (from distant eruptions) or thunderstorm-generated dust can occasionally affect urban air.

11. Natural location: There is an ecological reason for the high prevalence of dust in Indian cities. India is located within a “desert zone” that lies between 15 and 30 degrees latitude. Hence, India experiences a very concentrated rainy season between June and October. The rest of the year is bright and sunny, which dries the moisture from the soil. This means, unlike other countries, India will have to work harder to ensure there is no soil-generated dust.

The Solutions

1. Construction and Demolition Site Management: Construction is a primary source of coarse dust (PM10). Key controls focus on minimising fugitive emissions:

   • Dust Suppression Techniques: Utilise water sprinklers, mist cannons, or chemical suppressants (e.g., polymers) on exposed surfaces and during excavation operations. Enclose sites with barriers or tarps to contain particles.

   • Material Handling Protocols: Cover stockpiles of sand, gravel, or debris; limit vehicle speeds on-site; and clean wheels before exiting to prevent road resuspension. In cities like Los Angeles, mandatory wetting and covering have reduced local dust by up to 70%.

   • Phased Scheduling and Permits: Require permits that mandate dust control plans, with phased work to minimise exposed areas. Fines for non-compliance encourage adherence.

2. Road and Traffic Dust Suppression: Road dust from unpaved surfaces and vehicle movement contributes significantly to urban PM.

   • Paving and Maintenance: Pave unpaved roads with asphalt or permeable materials; apply gravel or stabilisers to rural-urban fringes. Regular street sweeping and vacuuming remove accumulated particles.

   • Vegetative Barriers: Plant roadside hedges or grass to trap dust; maintaining vegetation cover reduces exposed soil erosion.

   • No uncovered open soil: Uncovered open soil dries out quickly and, along with the wind, adds to the particulate matter in the air.

3. Industrial and Waste Management Controls: Industries and waste burning release fine particulates (PM2.5) alongside dust.

   • Emission Control Technologies: Install filters, such as baghouses or electrostatic precipitators, on stacks; switch to low-emission processes or fuels. Chimneys require proper emission management systems. Relocating heavy industries from city centres, as in China’s eastern cities, has helped.

   • Waste Collection Improvements: We will need covered garbage bins and high-quality garbage trucks to effectively manage waste collection.

   • Waste Processing Improvements: Ban open burning and promote recycling and waste-to-energy initiatives. Covering landfills and using leachate controls prevent dust from waste sites.

   • Parali-processing power plants: Buy the crop stubble from the farmers and use it as a fuel for thermal energy generation. The plant should be able to use gas as an alternative fuel and should be equipped with bag filters and carbon scrubbing technology.

   • Zoning and Standards: Enforce zoning laws to separate industrial zones and establish strict emission limits, utilising real-time monitoring with IoT sensors connected to SMART City control rooms for seamless tracking and compliance.

4. Transportation and Vehicle-Related Measures: While focusing on non-exhaust PM (e.g., tyre/brake wear, road dust), these reduce overall particulates.

   • Electrification and Clean Fuels: Shift to electric vehicles (EVs) and buses, which produce less brake dust; phase out diesel in public fleets. Cities like Shenzhen have electrified transport to lower PM.

   • Reduce stand-still traffic spots: The more vehicles stand still on the road, the more the SPM emissions. Common bottlenecks are traffic signals, toll booths and roadworks.

5. Urban Planning and Greening Initiatives: Design cities to naturally mitigate dust and PM.

   • Green Infrastructure: Create urban forests, green roofs, and parks to absorb particulates—trees can filter up to 30% of local PM. Vertical gardens and “green corridors” enhance this in dense areas.

   • Building and Ventilation Design: Utilise wind mapping to optimise building layouts, enhancing airflow and reducing pollutant concentrations; incorporate carbon-capturing materials into structures.

   • Sustainable Land Use: Minimise soil disturbance through compact development and protect natural buffers, such as wetlands, ponds, and lakes.

6. 6. Household and Indoor Controls: Indoor sources contribute to outdoor PM via ventilation.

   • Green Energy Transitions: Replace solid fuels (wood, coal) with gas, electricity, or renewable sources for cooking/heating, reducing ambient SPM.

   • Cleaning conventional energy: Carbon scrubbing and carbon capture technologies must be deployed in industries that use coal, wood, or oil for fuel.

7. Policy, Monitoring, and Community Engagement: Overarching frameworks ensure sustained impact.

   • Regulatory Incentives and Restrictions: All of these ideas require regulation and strong enforcement. As a corollary, we will need dispute resolution mechanisms and corruption control.

   • Advanced Monitoring Networks: A certain amount of fact collection can be augmented using sensors to gather real-time data on PM hotspots; utilise AI and smart traffic lights to dynamically adjust flows.

   • Public Awareness and Collaboration: Ultimately, public awareness and engagement can drive more effective enforcement.

In Sum

Urban pollution is a multi-dimensional problem. India has taken many steps in improving the chemical composition of air. Yes, more can be done but substantial progress has already been achieved in this area.

However, we need to focus our attention on Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM) levels and we need to tackle this challenge in all our cities.

Note:

For detailed references you can email me.

Contrary to popular opinion, I have maintained that there is no “skill gap” anywhere in the world including in India.

Skill gap is artificial construct, a lame excuse. Anyone can be skilled. If they see profits or opportunity, companies will train Grade-4 dropout to code, manufacture or whatever we think is “high-skilled”.

Companies influence skill development in two main ways.

First, by paying higher for skills they desire. This process creates a longer feedback loop for skill development. Depending upon the depth of the skills, universities invest in creating technical courses and attracting students to these courses. This creates the talent that is absorbed by the industry. Companies often co-invest with universities and they often allow their own employees to teach at these universities to ensure training aligns with industry requirements.

For quicker results, companies pick up adjacent skilled people and train them. This requires investments in training - seeking out managers who can train people repeatedly while on the job. After skilling companies need to offer higher wages to these newly skilled employees. Some employees adapt these skills to create separate businesses themselves.

In fact most famous companies came from skills created like above

• Amancio Ortega (Inditex/Zara): With no education beyond age 13, he started as a shop hand in a shirt factory, mastering garment production and supply chains through daily hands-on work. He then founded Zara, building the world’s largest fashion retailer by creating fast, affordable style for millions.

• Ralph Lauren (Ralph Lauren Corporation): Lacking any college degree, he learned menswear trends and customer preferences on the job as a sales clerk at Brooks Brothers. He launched his own tie line, scaling it into a billion-dollar global apparel empire that redefined American luxury.

• Zhou Qunfei (Lens Technology): Leaving school at 16 with minimal education, she mastered precision glass manufacturing by polishing lenses in a watch factory. She started Lens Technology in a garage, becoming the top touchscreen supplier for Apple and Samsung, worth billions.

• Henry Ford (Ford Motor Company): Formal schooling ended after eighth grade; he learned engineering and assembly through machinist apprenticeships and shop-floor tinkering. He founded Ford, inventing the moving assembly line to mass-produce affordable cars, transforming global industry.

• Colonel Harland Sanders (KFC): Education stopped at eighth grade; he perfected his fried chicken recipe through decades of on-the-job cooking in restaurants and steakhouses. At 65, he franchised KFC, building a $27 billion fast-food empire from a single recipe.

• Joyce Hall (Hallmark Cards): Dropping out at 14 with no higher education, he learned greeting card design and sales through door-to-door vending and bookstore work. He founded Hallmark, growing it into the world’s largest card company with $5 billion in annual revenue.

• Ingvar Kamprad (IKEA): Leaving school at 17 without further qualifications, he honed sales and flat-pack design skills selling matches and furniture door-to-door. He founded IKEA, revolutionizing affordable home goods into a $50 billion global retail giant.

It is all about demand!

When companies do not see demand, they come up with such plethora of excuses to not enter the fray. But when push comes to shove, they can and will compete AND win too.

Here is news about US skilling people for manufacturing.

Subscribe now

You can picture this. There are many street vendors selling everything from clothes, bags, vegetables, food, drinks, books, electronics and knick-knacks. They have encroached on the footpath. You do not have space to walk. There are people haggling with these vendors. Yes, of course, there is a demand for those goods.

But just behind them, there are shops - proper airconditioned shops and not many customers in there. Why don’t those shops not sell these fast moving items? The reason is regulation.

The Restaurant Case

While researching for a legal case of a restauranteur, I learnt that

• It takes 40+ licences to start a restaurant in Mumbai. And all of these need to be updated - some monthly, some six-monthly, some annually, some at random time intervals.

• Around 12 different inspectors/officers conduct visit of the restaurant.

• 450+ times he is interacting with some official or other during the year, filing forms, inspection, certificate grant, getting copy of the certificate, etc.

• The process is smoothened by bribes.

• Yet, many officers are antagonistic, treating the restauranteur as a criminal at the very outset. Others are pragmatic and state their “demands” upfront.

The food-stall right outside the restaurant simply pays one bribe a day. His process is smooth and officers are friendly. Yes, sometimes they raid these stalls, break them and cause losses but they often give advance notice of such raids.

Regulation makes it tough to do business legally.

What I described about the restaurant business is true of all stalls vs legal shops. This is the problem with current regulation. This brings us to the current reality in India:

Cost of complying with the law is HIGH & benefits are LOW
AND
Cost of breaking the law is LOW & benefits are HIGH

The central government and some states have tried to ease this but city-level governance is still colonial. It proceeds with the assumption that the citizens are cheaters and culprits. This assumption was seeded by the British colonial power that wrote these laws. It was incumbent on the free-India’s state machinery to recolonise the laws and institutions. Something it has failed to do as yet.

The people’s response to such an extractive state has been to subvert it. I explained it in this post.

It is time to de-regulate intelligently!

It is now critical that we de-regulate. Compliance of law should be easy. We need to trust the citizens to do the right thing.

But it should not mean there is no oversight. Oversight should be benign. It should be driven from place of care not from a need to control. There is a BIG difference in those two attitudes.

If you like this post please share it with others using the button below.

Share

I, or RightVIEWS, will not solicit any money from you.

This week, I told my father that Trump does not drink or smoke and is against drugs. He is also against tattoos and believes his children should focus on studies. My father said Trump sounds a lot like Gandhi. I thought he meant Rahul Gandhi - and one can argue that. But he insisted that there were many similarities between Trump and Mahatma Gandhi! I was taken aback.

But it is true.

Mahatma Gandhi was against alcohol, smoking, drugs and tattoos. As is Trump. But the similarities do not end there.

Mahatma Gandhi supported Swadeshi (boycott of foreign imported goods). Trump’s MAGA policy echoes this. In fact, both Gandhi and Trump have used Swadeshi / MAGA as a tool for economic warfare.

Gandhi favoured non-cooperation, something Trump has used recklessly against supplier countries. In fact, both Gandhi and Trump have used non-cooperation against their own party. Gandhi famously sat on “fasts-unto-death” to make his Congress Party change policies and bent it to his will. Trump has unleashed RINO tags, pushing centerist Republicans into a corner.

Both were fallible to ego massaging. Gandhi famously subverted India’s first choice for PM - the upright and mince-no-words Sardar Patel and installed the charming, rose-trotting, laundry-in-Paris Nehru.

Gandhi was against wars. So is Trump. But despite their policies, both supported “their” wars. Gandhi was against only those wars that were against the British. He favoured Indians fighting FOR the British, even at the cost of losing the chance to gain independence. Trump has just renamed the Department of Defence to the Department of War!

Mahatma Gandhi was also fond of women and sexuality, as detailed in his autobiography. While Trump’s escapades are well known. Gandhi tried to add a veneer of justification using “experimenting with TRUTH”, while Trump was quite crass about this in his public utterances. If Trump has the courage to write about it, he may try to justify it too.

And finally,

Gandhi screwed the nation by accepting the partition that resulted in the death of 2 million people. His policies and ideas would subvert the rise of India for decades.

In a way, Trump is following the same path.

Share

If we map out all the transactions in any industry from raw materials to finished products, you will find that there are risks within every industry. The entrepreneur bears this risks and for this, s/he is rewarded. The entrepreneur uses capital investments to reduce the risk or to mitigate it or make it easier to bear.

You will find that where there is risk, there is capital.

This capital refers to financial capital, intellectual capital, human capital. Financial capital is loans or funds. Intellectual capital refers to new ideas or designs (e.g. coca cola recipe ) or new ways of doing business. Human capital refers to skills and productivity of those employed (jewellery craftsmen for instance).

Agricutlure is different - it is misaligned.

In agriculture, all the risks is borne by the farmer. The creditors, supplier to the farmer and customers of the farmer are in collusion.

Modi’s farm laws were meant to tackle collusion present in the Indian agricultural system. This is a reform that is necessary.

The collusion aspect is not present in developed countries’ agricultural industry. But the rest of the story is the same. There is far too much risk in the system and farmer is not capital-rich (in all forms of capital) to bear the risk. The entire focus in global agrictulral development has been to improve yields and productivity.

Farmers will need institutional support from multiple directions - choice of crops, farming know-how (called agricultural extension), market synchronisation through different types of contracts and contract enforcement, transportation and storage of agri-produce, etc.

We need a comprehensive system in place which allows all the parts to work together. I proposed a Smart Agriculture Management System to do just that. You can read about it here.

Till such a reform is brought in, agriculture will be in difficulty as a business.

Share

Subscribe now

Economic Policy Institute has recently updated their Productivity-Pay Tracker and it points to continued divergence between increase in productivity and increase in wages.

But it is not as straight-forward as it looks!

Ideally, an increase in labor productivity should be paired with an increase in wages. However, it IS possible for productivity to rise without any change in labor productivity. How?

At the risk of oversimplification, imagine a simple bread bakery.

Its output relies on various types of labor: skilled bakers and support group ( sales, cleaning, accounts and others). Now, imagine this bakery buys an automated bread-making machine. The machine takes dough, presses a button, and produces perfect loaves.

In this new setup, the bakery still needs the support group, but instead of skilled bakers, they only need a low-cost attendant to operate the machine. The machine itself requires maintenance, which is outsourced, creating new jobs at the machine's manufacturing company.

Fewer people are now needed to produce the same volume of bread. These workers, as a group, may receive a smaller share of the bakery's sales, but since there are fewer of them, they might individually earn more. This is an example of a higher-order economy of scale at play.

The specialized knowledge of the bread-machine makers is highly valuable and commands higher returns. This process can be repeated, leading to gains accumulating with those who possess unique knowledge. For instance, the consulting baker at the bread machine factory would earn far more than an average baker.

So this productivity gain has now created inequality.

We have a super-well-paid consulting baker and many attendants in various bakeries for operating the machines and machine maintenance workers.

Our bakery saw deployment of capital that increased its productivity but also changed the employment profile of the operation. This shift, where technology increases production's capital intensity, leads to a polarization of incomes. On one hand, it amplifies the scale and returns for those with distinctive knowledge - like our consulting baker. On the other hand, it reduces the skill level required for many jobs, consequently lowering the expected income for those working in these jobs.

This change represents a structural shift from an effort-based society to a knowledge-based society. Consequently, those without a college degree or the ability to do "knowledge work" may experience stagnant wages. In this new society, the value of physical effort is reduced, leading to lower pay for jobs that require it.

New Metrics for a New Economy

To truly understand productivity and income changes, we need new concepts. We could measure the "wage content of a job," which would track the wage changes for a standard basket of jobs, similar to how we track a consumption basket for inflation.

Conversely, the "job content of a wage" would measure the value of work that a specific wage can accomplish over time. Measuring these factors would give us a clearer picture of the ongoing economic shifts.

Ultimately, a country's job-profile, and knowledge profile should align with income-profile. If they do, it suggests that capitalism is functioning as it should.

I discuss some of these concepts in my book "Subverting Capitalism and Democracy".

Share

Subscribe now

One of the main reason US-India Trade talks broke down, it is learnt, was the US insistence that India open its agricultural markets. The argument is that India has raised substantial tariffs and non-tariff barriers to agricultural products from all countries, specially the US.

Is it true?

Yes!

First, after the British left Indian agriculture in tatters - subject to famines and excesses, India was at the mercy of global food aid. We have won food security at great cost. We do not want to sacrifice that food security at altar of trade.

Second, India agriculture employs the poorest of Indians. We want to double their incomes every 2-3 years. This requires investment in cold-chains, food processing and allied industries. And given the financial vulnerabilities of this segment, protection will be required.

Third, farm-sales lobbies are controlled by middlemen and are anti-farmer and regime change forces have infiltrated them. Modi brought in farm reform laws in farmers interests but he had to withdraw them - in national interests.1

Finally, as I discussed previously, there is a reason for specific barriers against US food imports - our history with PL 480.

But there is other reason why US is pushing for agri/food trade.

We are seeing RFK Jr. shake things up in the US food industry with his Make America Healthy Again initiatives. These changes may be potentially affecting2 an incredible $1.2 trillion in sales/revenues for American companies. Even a 20% decline would deliver a shocking blow of $250 billion! Such losses could spell job cuts and economic turmoil—something Trump cannot allow to happen.

Hence the coordinated effort to find new markets for American food and food processing products - healthy and unhealthy. But we know how companies think and therefore we can guess where this is going. They want to off-set the losses that will emerge from MAHA changes AND they want US agro-processing companies to profit from trade. So naturally, they look at the most populous country as potential market.

This must stop!

We do not want a repeat of the PL-480 debacle. We want RFK Jr. to improve the quality of food, both raw and processed, in the US. But do not send those rejected products to India - or to any country.

We also want India to move to such a healthy, natural and organic food ecosystem. India has to rid itself of its addiction to Palm oil and food processed using unhealthy chemicals, “flavour enhancers”, “additives”, “emulsifiers” and “food grade colouring agents”. Most of these are neither healthy nor necessary. There is absolutely no place for over-processed, chemical-infused foods, genetically modified organisms, or any form of overly processed products in our diets.

We must stand firm in our belief in the importance of our heritage of ecologically sustainable, regenerative agriculture. It’s time to take a stand for our natural, authentic, and organic foods!

Stay strong, Modi-ji!

Share

Subscribe now

Also Read

Notes

Imagine the economy as a vast network of pipes, with money flowing like water between income classes. This metaphor reveals the hidden dynamics of wealth distribution, highlighting why some pathways thrive while others wither. In this post, we'll explore the bottom-up, top-down, and inter-class flows, dissect the challenges we face, and propose solutions to restore balance.

The Core Pathways of Money

Money doesn't move randomly in an economy—it follows predictable routes shaped by spending, investment, and production. We can categorize these into three main types:

1. Bottom-Up Pathways: These represent the expenditures of lower- and middle-income groups, channeling money upward to the elite. Think of everyday purchases: groceries, gadgets, and services that ultimately enrich corporations and their shareholders. This flow is resilient because the wealthy invest heavily to keep it smooth—through marketing, innovation, and infrastructure. It's the engine of consumer-driven growth, but it increasingly concentrates wealth at the top.

2. Top-Down Pathways: Here, money trickles from the affluent to the masses via hiring, philanthropy, or luxury spending that creates jobs. However, as inequality widens, these pipes narrow. The ultra-rich spend a shrinking share of their income on goods and services that benefit the bottom tiers, opting instead for assets like stocks or real estate. On a per-capita basis, this flow fails to generate meaningful livelihoods for the masses.

3. Inter-Class Pathways: These facilitate exchanges within similar income brackets, such as middle-class families dining at local restaurants or trading services among peers. While stable, they don't bridge divides and can exacerbate silos.

The Pipes Metaphor: Growth, Stagnation, and Decline

To make this vivid, let's extend the pipes analogy:

• Economic Growth and Innovation: This expands the network—adding more pipes (new industries) and fattening existing ones (increased flows). It's like upgrading a city's water system to handle booming demand.

• Degrowth or Slowdown: Money flows diminish temporarily, perhaps due to recessions. Pipes remain intact but carry less volume.

• Economic Decline: Pipes rust and vanish entirely, as seen in the West when manufacturing jobs migrated to China. Fewer pathways mean reduced opportunities for wealth redistribution.

Job Types and Their Distributional Impact

Different sectors influence these flows uniquely:

1. Traditional Manufacturing: These jobs excel at spreading wealth. Money from lower classes funds production, branching out to middle managers, suppliers, and workers. Pipes are numerous and evenly distributed, with less concentration at the pinnacle.

2. Modern Manufacturing: Automation dominates here, reducing labor needs. Flows are streamlined but skewed—fewer branches, fatter pipes to the ultra-elite (think tech billionaires). Value capture is efficient but exclusionary.

3. Services Sector: This is nuanced:

   • High-End Services (e.g., household staff for the wealthy): Mimic 18th-century aristocratic models—top-down, employing low-wage workers but reinforcing hierarchies.

   • Digital Platforms (e.g., Facebook, TikTok): Bottom-up, where masses pay via attention or micro-transactions, enriching a tiny creator elite.

   • Local Services (e.g., small retail, restaurants): Inter-class, circulating money within middle or lower tiers without upward mobility.

In essence, older industries democratized flows; modern ones concentrate them.

Today's Crises: Clogged and Corroded Pipes

Our economy's plumbing is in disrepair:

1. Bottom-Up Pipes: Concentrated and Bloated

   • Fewer branches mean intermediate classes capture less value.

   • More money surges to the top 1%, widening the gap.

2. Top-Down Pipes: Thinning Out

   • The rich allocate less to lower classes, favoring intra-elite spending (yachts over widespread hiring).

   • Governments have stepped in as the default provider via welfare and subsidies— a band-aid for broken pipes.

Why the government takeover? Private top-down flows have eroded, leaving states to fill the void. But this raises a pivotal question: How do we rebuild these pipes? What value can the bottom offer the top to incentivize direct flows? Solutions might include skill-building programs, inclusive innovation, or policies that reward broad-based hiring. But those are matters for other time.

What are your thoughts on rebuilding these economic pipes? Share in the comments below. Subscribe to RightVIEWS for more insights on economics, society, and beyond.

Subscribe now

Share

One of the central points of discussion concerning the US-India trade deal relates to agriculture and farm produce. Trump insists that India should reduce the tariffs on farm produce and allow the sale of GMO food products from the US. Without going into the details of US-India trade, we need to understand the agricultural restrictions through the lens of what happened under the PL 480 scheme.

A brief on PL 480

In the early 1950s, a newly independent but severely depleted India faced substantial food shortages. The predatory practices of colonialism had impaired the agricultural ecosystem to such an extent that the poor couldn't get any food. After WW2, the British refused to release India's wartime surplus; thus, there was not enough capital for agricultural investment. Hence, a beleaguered India approached the US for food aid in the 1950s.

At that time, the US sent food aid to India under the PL480 scheme. To feed the starving Indians, the US supplied wheat meant for animal feed called Milo Wheat. The grains received under the scheme were of such poor quality that even the Indian animals refused to eat them as feed. The supplies also included hardened weeds (highly invasive Parthenium grass) that further depleted crop yields. As a cash-starved country facing famines and hunger, India did not have much choice.

To add insult to injury, the US threatened to with-hold all food-aid to subdue India's defence after Pakistan attacked India in 1965. The Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri asked the nation to eat only once a day to ensure the army had enough food.

But the US did not stop there.

As Johnson made the US's surplus food a tool of statecraft, using it as a bargaining chip to secure support for American foreign policy goals, the most striking example of it was India.

While India fought and won battles against Pakistan, monsoon waged another war with India with a series of failures. The result was a drastic 20 per cent fall in the national grain production — from 89.4 million tonnes in 1964–65 to 72.3 in 1965–66. Facing severe famine, India desperately needed US food aid.

Johnson got the opportunity to leverage this situation to pressure India, which had infuriated the US by criticising American bombings of Hanoi and Haiphong during the Vietnam War. He made critical famine aid to India conditional upon assurances that "the Indian government would implement agricultural reforms and, crucially, temper [its] criticism of US policy regarding Vietnam".

The Indian mildly protested saying its position was not different from what the United Nations and the Pope had said on the bombings by the US in Vietnam, Johnson reportedly said, "The Pope and the [UN] Secretary-General do not need our wheat."

In Indian culture, this is the lowest of the insults. And it hurt.

And 50 years later the ghosts live on.

For anyone who remembers this insult, we do not want to be dependent on US food. We will buy it when we want and at a price that we want.

Today, India is reasonably self-sufficient in food. We have occasional shortages which we procure from outside world. We buy food from across the world - Apples, almonds and other food products from the US, Avocados from the Aussies, strawberries from Europe and NZ. We also buy cocoa, coffee and many other food items from Africa, South America and many other places all over the world. But we buy them on our terms.

We are now a leader in grains such as rice and wheat, spices, sugar, tea, milk and dairy products. We can produce and sustain this country without any help from the outside world. We can ensure 800 million people get access to food and meals even when the world shuts down in a pandemic. And we are proud of it.

In Sum

More than half a century later, the bitter taste of that strategic leverage still lingers in India's collective memory, shaping our commitment to food sovereignty. This historical episode serves as a powerful reminder: for a nation to truly stand on its own feet, especially in a world of shifting geopolitical alliances and economic pressures, fundamental needs like food security must remain firmly within its own control. As global trade dynamics evolve, the "ghosts of PL 480" underscore a timeless truth – independence is not just about political freedom, but the self-reliance that protects a nation's people from being used as pawns in a larger game.

Sources

• Firstpost Article: PL-480: When US choked food aid to shape India’s foreign policy

• Congress Grass: How the US gifted India a frankenspecies that's gobbling up land

• The ‘Bihar Famine’ and the Authorisation of the Green Revolution in India: Developmental Futures and Disaster Imaginaries

• “Food is a powerful tool in the hands of this government”: The Johnson administration and PL 480, 1963–1969

Share

Subscribe now

Older investors are surprised at the resilience shown by the financial markets in the face of high-risk events like the Iran-Israel war.

Confidence in Government safety net mechanisms

The world has changed since the 2008 financial crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic only accelerated the shift. Governments and central banks have rolled out an array of tools—direct financial aid, stimulus packages, even whispers of universal basic income—to keep economies afloat. Many in the markets now believe these measures form a robust safety net that can shield us from any future shock. This toolkit, they argue, has been studied, explored and prepared enough to be deployed against any economic shocks. Growth, thus, is now predictable and certain.

But is it? I'm not so sure.

The more I look at it, the more it feels like we're putting lipstick on a pig. Since 2008, much of the economic scaffolding—bailouts, quantitative easing, low interest rates—has been about managing symptoms, not curing the disease. The economy isn't healed; it's just been medicated to look functional. Governments have become adept at massaging statistics to paint a rosier picture than what's on the ground.

Take unemployment, for instance.

Unemployment, for example, is supposedly at historic lows. Sounds great, right? But dig deeper, and the cracks appear. Two shifts in the job market tell a different story.

First, underemployment is rampant. People work jobs that don't match their skills or pay enough to sustain a decent life. Engineers driving cabs, graduates slinging coffee—these aren't anecdotes; they're trends. Second, income polarisation has reached absurd levels. Back in the day, the ratio of a CEO's salary to the lowest-paid worker in a company was about 20:1. By 2008, it had ballooned to 200:1. Today? It's even worse.

And here's the kicker: even this metric is gamed. Companies outsource low-wage jobs—janitors, security guards—so the "lowest-paid worker" on the books isn't the absolute bottom rung. If we compared the CEO's paycheck to the janitor's, both working for the same firm, the ratio would be even more obscene. Globalisation muddies the waters further. Comparing a Nike executive's salary in New York to a Bangladeshi factory worker's wage is meaningless. Yet, no matter how you slice it, the conclusion is stark: the gap between the haves and have-nots is a chasm, and it's growing.

Then there's the issue of asset prices.

Asset prices dictate the quality of life. Housing is the most glaring example. Gone are the days when a single salary could buy a family home. In many cities, even dual-income households struggle to afford a modest place. This isn't just a financial strain—it's a demographic time bomb. Unaffordable homes mean fewer families, lower birth rates, and a shrinking population. The data backs this up: countries with skyrocketing property prices, like Canada or Australia, are seeing fertility rates plummet.

Other assets—stocks, bonds, investment properties—are no less troubling. High asset prices are a double-whammy. On the one hand, they inflate the cost of building your portfolio. At the same time, they increase the risk that this high-cost portfolio will not sustain your retirement. You're paying exorbitant prices for an inadequate stake in an uncertain tomorrow. If prices crash, your nest egg evaporates. If they don't, you're still stuck buying an overpriced future at the expense of your present.

In sum

The belief that financial markets are crash-proof stems from a dangerous complacency. The tools we've developed since 2008—fiscal stimulus, monetary gymnastics—may delay a reckoning, but they don't address the root causes: structural inequality, manipulated metrics, and an over-reliance on inflated asset values. We're not building a stronger economy; we're erecting a house of cards on a shaky foundation.

The real question isn't whether markets can crash but when. No amount of government intervention can paper over the fundamentals forever. Underemployment, income polarisation, and unaffordable assets aren't just economic quirks—they're warning lights flashing red. Ignoring them won't make the next crisis disappear; it'll only make it hit harder.

So, are financial markets crash-proof? Hardly. They're more like a patient on life support—stable for now but far from cured. The sooner we stop treating symptoms and start tackling the disease, the better.

Subscribe now

Share

Before the Industrial Revolution, there was no concept of work-life balance. Work and life were so intertwined that they often happened simultaneously.

A temporary separation of work and family was a consequence of military necessities. It was expected of the army man to leave their family behind while he was serving in the army. However, during peacetime, these men were part of the agrarian and service economies. This separation was not the norm; instead, it was an aberration caused by national calamities or invasions.

The strict and persistent separation of work from life came during the Industrial Age. Initial industrial activities, such as mining (particularly coal mining), metallurgy, and others, involved hazardous chemicals (explosives like TNT, acids, etc.), heat, and giant machines that posed a severe health hazard to workers. Here, the presence of danger became a cause for concern, particularly when vulnerable children and untrained adults were around such machines.

Modern organisations operating in these hazardous industrial activities were modelled after the army. They borrowed the separation of work and life from the military.

Modern economic activity, however, has moved away from the industrial services sector. But it has not changed the way organisations separate work and life. We are currently experimenting with a 4-day workweek, office leisure comforts, flexitime, and other ideas. These ideas do not solve the central problem.

The Central Problem - inefficiency in both work and life!

People cannot work, concentrate and be productive in long, pre-defined time slots of 8 hours. Invariably, their productivity declines, and work suffers. Many carry their work home. Some wait out at the office to hit the productive hours in their day. This means less life and more work. This means less family time, weaker relationships, fewer children, lesser satisfaction, and a loss of meaning in life.

We need to re-invest work-life equations.

Imagine an office environment where families work together. Work and life all meshed together.

• Here, kids are in the office, not secluded in a separate play area or on-site creches. They peek in on Zoom calls, bring you their drawings or homework, or borrow your pen or eraser right in the middle of work.

• So are pets! Pets, too, roam around and follow you, and cats often seek your attention during meetings. Dogs have to be fed in between emails.

• People, their spouses, and friends, as well as friends' spouses, are all in the same office, working for different companies and solving various problems, but their families are all in the same place.

• Or it could be an office where all people and their spouses work for the same company. Customers come in to visit, bringing their children and pets along with them.

• Some older kids may assist with the work. Some may help by playing or doing homework.

• There may be a group kitchen or restaurant, a gymnasium, or a library, all centred around the "office".

Why not?

Indeed, what I described above is quite radical. We will need to change what we expect from employers and what is expected from employees. We will need to rework the legal aspects, confidentiality and other variables to make it work.

But, we must not be afraid to imagine new equations of work-life balance - some that are more meaningful. Of course, we should discuss and debate it before we adopt it.

To me, the new office I described above sounds romantic. Such an office will have more and varied job responsibilities. You may need nurses, child-care specialists, cooks, librarians, and so on. Such an office will resemble a community centre - noisy and chaotic, yet warm and welcoming. Connections will be made, many skills will be learnt by watching, collaborations will occur, and relationships will form. Yes, we will have time for each other. Work won't be a burden; we will see more kids around. Sounds like life, doesn't it?

Subscribe now

Share

In a recent tragedy, flight AI 171 crashed after take-off landed in a medical college hostel. Except one, all on board and few on ground lost their lives. The three-floor medical hostel building while damaged, was still standing.

The conspiracy theorists came out in droves. Here was a normal building hit by a fully-fueled aircraft and it was still standing. They wondered why then the world renowned, earthquake proof and storm resistant World Trade Centre buildings collapsed so dramatically when hit by fully-fueled aircraft on September 11, 2001.

Frankly, this was not very intelligent idea to compare both building crashes. I was right in front of the TV when the planes flew into the WTC on 11 Sep 2001. And since then I have followed all the conspiracy arguments. The 9/11 conspiracy theorists believe that the WTC towers were sabotaged. They give many theories pointing out the unique coincidences and weird on-goings that raise suspicions. We are not going there.

There were some structural differences between how WTC was constructed as against normal techniques for sky-scrapers. And I wanted to highlight those.

To avoid wasting the time of many structural engineering non-geeks, I summarize things right here.

Summary

• About recent crash of AI 171

  • First, AI 171 did hit the medical college hostel and yes the hostel is still standing.

  • The flight AI 171 was trying to avoid buildings and avoid crashing, it had lost thrust (as per latest reports).

• About 9/11 crashes

  • The flights that hit WTC Tower 1 and Tower 2 were fully fueled, with full power and accelerating into the towers for maximum impact.

  • These flights were fully loaded and hit the towers are high velocity.

  • Based on the structural designs, I believe it is possible that WTC Tower 1 and 2 may have fallen based on impact I saw that day.

  • I also do not find any rational reason for WTC7 (the third building to collapse) to fall as yet.

Lets dive into the details!

Structural concepts - WTC tower 1 and 2

WTC tower design was unique engineering experiment.

Usually buildings are designed with internal skeletal beam-column structure. As we see in normal houses. Lets call this lattice structure. In tall buildings (not skyscrapers) this structure is repeated over multiple stories.

This structure is strong and the load carrying is distributed well over the entire structure. This structure forms our common understanding of how buildings should react to air-strikes.

The medical college hostel was designed similarly and its condition aligns with our intuitive understanding of structural strength and performance.

Sky-scrapers are designed differently

In Empire State (first building of that height) they used pipe-style design. Imagine a very very thick pipe. The outer wall of the pipe was created out of the lattice like we see in normal tall buildings. It left a central space (like a pipe). This space housed the elevator banks. (first pic).

In WTC towers we have two load components - the building weight was carried by columns on the outside - there was no lattice on the outside - just large steel columns clad with glass. (shown in white in fig 2) It was more like an exoskeleton.

Inside was another steel core - but not with lattice as we see in other buildings. As these housed the elevator banks (shown in orange in fig 2)

These two were connected with trusses. (fig 3) Now trusses behave slightly different than beams. So the internal structure (my view) did not contribute nor did it benefit from outer structural elements.

How will such a design perform during head on collision with huge airplane full of fuel accelerating into the building and exploding? Our common understanding of building performance does not apply in this case.

Compare these with Burj Khalifa. BK has robust skeletal structure with different elevator banks. It is called buttressed core system with a hexagonal core supported by y-shaped structure each with its own load carriage column/beam network.

In addition the Burj Khalifa uses multiple height sub-buildings. It is more like a cluster of pipes welded together along their length. This creates substantial rigidity.

It will withstand aircraft hits more effectively than WTC.

Finally WTC 7 is odd ball. The details about it are hazy. It was not directly hit. One can imagine possible debris hits, but it should have withstood that.

Thank you for indulging in this structural design analysis. Be kind in the comments.

Subscribe now

Share

Israel has attacked Iran for developing nuclear weapons. Israel has maintained that it will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons and will do everything in its power to stop Iran from getting access to nuclear weapons. This Israeli attitude comes from the fact that Iran, its proxies, and other Islamic powers have time and again threatened Israel with extinction if they get access to nuclear weapons.

The US, too, does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. For its own reasons, the US is supporting the termination of the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Let us understand the situation in more detail.

Israel's motivations

For Israel, this is an existential threat. Iran has time and again clarified and threatened that it intends to use any weapon and any means to destroy the state of Israel. Iran has taken decisive action in this direction.

• Iran has sponsored Hamas, armed it and provided support for planning and execution of Hamas' offensives against Israel at its southern border. Hamas has used extensive tunnel networks, creating an urban warfare nightmare, hiding the hostages of the Oct 7, 2023 attacks on Israel.

• Hezbollah is another Iran-sponsored outfit attacking Israel from the northern side. It is building up a similar front as Hamas, and soon, Israel will have to contend with the same problem on their north side.

• Houthis are Iran-sponsored outfits in Yemen - far away from Israel. But they have also targeted Israel using long-range rockets and missiles.

• Regional Militias backed by Iran in Iraq and Syria target the US and Israeli interests [source: Atlantic Council]. These militias have allowed Iranian armed forces to create supply lines and access routes to the Syrian border of Israel and to Hezbollah forces.

In such a scenario, if Iran gets access to nuclear weapons, the risks for Israel go up substantially. The threat of dirty nuclear bombs, direct nuclear missile strikes and saturation attacks using some nuclear missiles/drones put Israel at extreme existential risk. Israel must heed this threat, and it must act pre-emptively if it wants to survive.

The confused approach of the US.

The US is a 250-year-old country rooted in 500 years of historical context from its European origins. The Europeans have erased from their collective memories what happened before the 1500s. The result is a remarkable ignorance and confidence on the part of the British and their successors, the US. The resulting stupidity, called Kissinger doctrine, means the US has played on both sides of the aisle in the case of Iran.

The US had the Shah of Iran and Pakistan as allies that it wanted to use against the USSR. Consequently, the USSR played Iraq and Afghanistan in the region. After the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, the US started supporting Saddam's Iraq against Ayatollah's Iran.

Iranian leverage with terrorists in Lebanon and other places led Regan to open dialogue with Iran to get back US hostages. However, the failure to obtain the release of US hostages and Saddam's invasion of Kuwait meant relations were cold in the Bush Sr. era. It morphed into a sanction-and-forget policy followed by Clinton and Bush Jr.

This policy changed under Obama, who approved of Iran's civilian nuclear use developments. Obama released the economic sanctions, giving a second life to the radical regime. Iran used this opportunity to deploy civilian technologies for developing atomic weapons.

Trump reversed the policy to stringent sanctions. Trump even ended food-for-oil programs with Iran, creating internal pressure on the regime. But, Biden reverted back to the Obama policy, releasing billions of dollars to Iran and approving the supply of some strategic tech to Iran. This gave the regime another lifeline.

The regime quickly doubled down its efforts by choking internal protests and supplying proxies in Yemen, Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria. They also accelerated the development of bomb-grade nuclear material.

In a way, the Oct 7, 2023 attack by Hamas on Israel provided some strategic space and diversion for the Iranian regime to achieve nuclear capability. However, Israel was watching.

India's position

India has had long-term relations with the Iranian people. However, India's relations with the Iranian regime are different.

Under the US-backed Shah, Iran was adversarial to India and pursued pro-Pakistan policies. Iran provided Pakistan with military support during this time.

Following the Islamic Revolution, trade relations between Iran and India have improved. This is because Shia Iran has difficulty aligning with Sunni Pak and Afghanistan. Iran and India have significant trade interests.

During the Bush Sr. and Clinton eras, India continued to trade with Iran under the food-for-oil scheme. Iran has also leased the Chabahar port to India, creating access to Afghanistan. The trade was later stopped by Trump in his first term. But Chabahar still provides access to Afghanistan for US aid and Indian trade with Afghanistan.

Despite the good trade relations, Iranian Ayatollahs are anti-India. If they could Islamize India, they would drop everything and join the other radicals. Therefore, an Iran free from the influence of both radicals and the US is in India's interest.

In Sum

The position of Israel and the US is understandable. Unlike the majority in Gaza and Palestine, the majority of Iranian people are more interested in development and well-being. Or it so appears. So, it makes sense for a radical regime to be eliminated.

But who are we to impose a preferred regime on the Iranian people. It has to be up to the Iranian people to choose their leaders. In a way, it is right that Israel has restricted its goal to the elimination of the nuclear and missile-strike capability of Iran rather than forcing a regime change. If regime change happens, hopefully towards a more democratic rule, it will be welcome.

The conflict also raises many important questions about nuclear energy. Is it valid to deny Iran access to nuclear energy for peaceful civilian purposes? Who gets to decide which countries can develop nuclear power? These are questions worth deliberating. Instead of a back-room, hush-hush discussions, it is best done in the open.

Iran's current state is a result of outside interference. First, the British, the Americans, the radical Islamists and others. Today, we may be at a point where we can free Iranian people to choose their own fate. I hope we will not betray them.

Subscribe now

Share