Sunday, April 24, 2016

That something has been censored must be told - else it could severely mar the experience or understanding of something

The other day I was watching Turistas on TV. Since I had already seen this movie some years ago, I could quickly notice that several scenes were not being shown [censored]. Turistas is one of those movies where these explicit/horrifying scenes are central to the story and experience of the movie. If cut, the movie feels as Coke would if sugar is removed from it. So for someone who hasn't seen this movie before, watching it on TV would make it seem like the movie isn't as good/impressive/entertaining as was claimed by someone who has seen the full movie previously.

Herein comes the idea that if/when censorship of a piece of content [movie, advertisement, book, article, newspaper, video, song, SERP, website, etc.] is done, it should at least be conveyed to the users that such censorship is in force on the content being consumed currently, so that the users don't wrongly/unfairly get an incorrect impression that the piece of content in question isn't as interesting/entertaining/shocking/strong as was claimed by others [who had consumed the full/unabridged version].

Sunday, April 17, 2016

Can defence offset requirements be effectively bypassed by routing imported components via companies domiciled in India?

Indian government frequently requires a certain percentage of procurement value to be procured from local suppliers - an offset - in order to encourage transfer of technology as well as to stimulate local manufacturing. Sounds good.

But can these requirements be fooled by simply importing components into newly-created dummy companies in India, and then supplying these imported components, making it look like these have been supplied by Indian companies? Alternatively, these foreign-made components can be imported into already-established Indian manufacturing companies, and these Indian companies can then supply these components as-it-is after keeping a small margin, again making it look like these have been manufactured and supplied by an Indian company.

Sunday, April 10, 2016

Resorting to divestment in Public Sector Undertakings [PSUs] to offset budget deficit is not a reform - it's a distress sale

Indian government uses stake sales in government-owned enterprises [PSUs] in order to compensate for the regular budget deficits. This is akin to someone selling a floor of his home in order to service the interest on his bank credit limit. This is not business, it's simply a distress sale. As if this so-called "strategy" weren't already bad enough, packaging and presenting it to the general public as if it is a "reform" is even worse.

A business and a government should sustain itself, and shouldn't have to resort to handing over state property to private owners - at throwaway prices - in order to make up for cash shortfall. Of course, the picture becomes more clear when you introduce the word "heist", which is what is happening in the Indian government. Under the pretext of divestment, the government is basically selling public property to private individuals/corporations and putting cash into the treasury, which is then of-course siphoned out by corrupt ministers/politicians via overpriced tenders, over-invoicing, etc.