India gets a CIO

“Who said Elephants can’t dance” is a book written by Louis Gerstner the CEO who turned around IBM, the ailing giant that it was in 1992. I am sure many of us feel the same about India. We used to have a growth rate of around 3% that was termed as the Hindu rate of growth. That is history, and we are now demonstrating to the world that Indian Elephants can dance too.

One of the key strengths that any country, corporate or individual needs to compete in this new world is strength in Information and Communication Technology. And it is an area India has clearly demonstrated comfort among a broad cross section of the society. Today we have a booming IT industry ranging from cottage industries to International Giants. But we have not yet capitalised on this strength in strengthening our governance Infrastructure on a national scale.

We have patches of brilliant executions across the country. The modernisation spearheaded by NSDL and NSE with support from SEBI has catapulted the Indian capital market to world standards. There are many other examples like the bhoomi project in Karnataka, VAT computerisation in Kerala, and many more. The tragedy is that this learning is almost quarantined and has not yet formed a part of the DNA of governance. The concern is not just this isolation, there is significant duplication of efforts and investments which benefits the vendors more than the users.

For example GST is one of the most critical national initiatives India is embarking on. The empowered committee after protracted deliberations has brought out a Discussion Paper on GST on November 2009. The Finance Minster has announced that the target for implementation will be 2011, revised from the original target of 2010. A project of such magnitude and transaction intensity can and will succeed only with the help of a powerful ICT infrastructure. But we hardly see sufficient focus on issues of computerisation in all these discourses and deliberations. Each of the interested parties and states are on their own trip and trying to push their own agenda.

What we need now is to establish a framework and guidelines to facilitate IT enabled Governance (ITeG) on a national scale . The Government has woken up to this challenge. It has asked Nandan Nilekani, the Chairman of Unique Identity Authority Of India (UIDAI) to head a newly constituted Technical Advisory Group for Unique Projects (TAGUP). This is a welcome development and can surely contribute towards integration of the divergent initiatives that are going around (often in circles).

I remember attending a party soon after Nandan was appointed as the chairman of UIDAI (read up It Made Sense – 3; Nandan and the Unique ID*). I made a remark that it looked like we have a CIO for government. One investment bankers based in London who was attending this party quipped “I have now one more story to sell India”

But the remark looked a bit preposterous at that point of time. Today it is a reality. I have been keenly watching the development of UIDAI. There appears to be a clear strategy that it is following. The concept note was world class. The RFP that has recently come out for application development can be easily termed as one of the top quality RFP brought out by any government agency. He has also managed to bring together a world class talent pool to support him.

India looks good, India looks corporate, and India has now has a CIO...Read it aloud, it sounds nice and almost musical

“Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.” Isaac Asimov

The art and ethics of lying - Part II

My posting on “The art and ethics of lying” evoked quite a few responses; some as comments in the blog and some as emails. The two comments given below are thought provoking.

“Thought the rule was not ‘Don’t lie’ but ‘Don’t get caught?’ (by others or by self-guilt) Ethics is an essential compass - a needle towards north, but - but true north is slightly different on Earth?” Sajan

“I think you carry the thread too far. Saying "I bluffed" does not mean that I will do the things that you cite later in the paragraph. When I am talking with you on a contract, do not my morals require me to be responsible, (loyal, even) to the party I represent? So I say "If you do not accept my final offer, we will walk away". I might e bluffing, and this is a lie; but do I own no debt to my colleagues to get them the best deal from you? This need not be a slippery slope (Once we allow in western music, we will end up with...).” Sanjeev Gupta (ghane)

I did not mean that it is always possible to live by the commandment “Thou shall not Lie.” There could be occasions when lying is fair and even necessary. Let us take an extreme example to make a point. Consider that you are standing at a junction and a person comes running totally scared and he runs along the right fork at the junction. After few minutes you see a thug coming running with a gun and he asks you which way the first person went. You may prefer to lie to save a life. There may be less dramatic reasons where lying is the right thing to do.

As Machiavelli argues in ‘The Prince’ “A man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not so good. Hence it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain his position to learn how not to be good and to use this knowledge or not according to necessity”. A desi corollary is “the Good may often bear the fruit of the Bad”

Then there is the question of business ethics that Sanjeev has raised. Business in that sense is like poker. It requires strategies and posture that could be termed as lies in the normal sense. But that is how poker and business are played. But poker and business have their own set of rules. So in this case being good is about playing as per the rules of the game.

Game theorists will point out that reciprocal altruism, (generous tit-for-tat) which while showing a friendly face to the world will not want us to be exploited, is the most sensible strategy for survival.

But what is more reprehensible is when you become the follower of Shakuni and take pride in the rigged dice game where the balance between rational self interest and selfishness tilts as per convenience. It is then that the lies get to be amoral.

As Laurie Calhoun noted in his article The Problem of “Dirty Hands” and Corrupt Leadership “In thinking about this issue, it is important to distinguish self-serving opportunists from those who suffer corruption through their sincere efforts to govern well. Self-serving opportunists often rationalize their dubious measures to themselves through self-deceptive references to ‘the good of the whole,’ claiming that group loyalty demands moral sacrifice or that ‘the end justifies the means.’”

Such rationalisation could become a slippery slope. Especially if we start to justify in relative terms, drawing examples of errors and omissions that we see around particularly that of people who are held in high esteem. In this world of seven billion human beings, who by design are not perfect, there would be statistically significant sample for aberrant behaviours from all walks of life.

That is the message that comes from the story of Yudhishtira’s chariot settling down to the ground when he lies. It reminds us that while we may have a justification of an ‘extenuating circumstance” a deceit is still a deceit.

So while it may not be humanly possible or even unnecessary to strive for absolute truth and justice, it could still an ideal, a ‘guiding star’ (concepts like ‘six sigma’ and ‘ethics in business’ are examples of attempts to represent absolute ideals which many may never reach) so that when we are faced with moral conflicts we could attempt not to justify our selfish acts in relation to the ‘immorality and injustice we see around’.

“We are all in the gutter. But some of us are looking at the stars” Oscar Wilde

Few Good Men

Recently there were couple of accidents in the construction site of Delhi Metro. There has been much hue and cry demanding the blood of senior officers. Criticism and accusations were part of daily news. I was surprised at such negative media attention on an organisation that in my mind is an icon of national pride.

I “Googled” for some facts. Since the construction work started in 1998 there have been a few accidents in at the Metro construction sites. But the incidences have been very few and except one or two instances these were minor. Even by international standards the accident history of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) related to its construction activities is quite low. On the other hand in the last eight years of operation of the Phase 1, there has been not a single accident in its operations.

I agree that we cannot condone accidents and we need to expose inefficiencies, failures and corruption in all public projects. When I read through the press coverage on the recent accidents at DMRC construction sites, I almost got a feeling that it is one of the most poorly managed projects.

But the reality is that this is one of the few institutions that our country can be proud of from the point of its magnitude, scope, design, implementation, operations and maintenance. Name any area the score is superlative. It has been spearheaded by a man who has proved himself multiple times in projects of such scale and national importance which has been widely acclaimed around the world.

We don’t need to treat such people and institutions like Gods and close our eyes when they make mistakes. But when we present these cases we should place these in proper perspective. Very often we see these cases blown out of proportion whereas the incidences which need true and sustained exposure are buried so fast.

The reasons for this phenomenon are many. The real scams get buried because media may have been bought over with the financial and political muscle of the perpetrators. Lack of support to genuine organisations and genuine people have many underlying reasons. The corrupt don’t want ‘the clean’ to succeed or deliver. The ‘good’ believes that only his goodness is the authentic variety. Then we have the “Indian Crab syndrome” which cannot stand the other guy rising above mediocrity. We are happy to pull him/ her down. Recently I was talking to a person who was instrumental in establishing and nurturing an institution of national importance. He confided to me that he was surprised at the extent of anger (not just jealousy) that the success of his institution had evoked.


We recently witnessed this kind of failure when practically very few took a public position to support Shahrukh Khan when there was a backlash against his remark about allowing Pakistani Cricket players to play in IPL. We have seen many more such examples of unwarranted allegations and criticisms; Sound bites on RK Pachauri, CB Bhave, Shashi Taroor etc are examples of this.

There is nothing new in this other than a suggestion that there is a need to stand up and support those few good men who try to make a difference. If you are too scared to open your mouth, at least try to take a position as a group.

"First they came for the unions, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't union. Then they came for the communists, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, but I didn't speak up because I was Protestant. And then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up."

- Reverend Martin Niemoller a German Lutheran monk who was arrested by the Gestapo in 1937

The art and ethics of lying

“Ashwathama is dead” replied Yudhishtira.

He also mumbled under his breath “May be a man or an animal”. (अश्वत्थामा हतो नरो व कुंजरो व”)

Drona the Commander in Chief of the Kauravas and also the teacher of both Kauravas and Pandavas who obviously heard only the first part of Yudhishitira’s reply was devastated believing that his son Ashwadhama was no more. He laid down his arms and then he was killed by Draupadi’s brother.

In the story of Mahabharata, Pandava’s are the good guys and Kaurava’s are the bad ones. The war and destruction of Kurukshetra was primarily caused by greed and intransigence of Kauravas.

In this war of good and evil Pandava’s had to use deceit a few times. Although many would sympathise with these strategies, none of the parties who implemented these were proud of this. After Yudhishtira lied (first time in his life) about the death of Ashvathama, his chariot which was always few inches above the ground, settled down to earth. Each of the players was filled with remorse at the deceits that they had to use disguised as strategies.

Their use of these strategies was more and exception to regain what the Pandavas lost to on account of the treachery of Duryodhana and his cohorts.

Today in the jungle of governance (of both corporate and the country) we see the use of treachery as a strategy to achieve one’s end. Shakuni’s deceit is packaged and sold as the strategy of Krishna.

We see many who proudly boast “I bluffed” with a gleam in their eyes that shows how smart they feel. It then becomes a part of their nature to say white lies or to palm out concoctions of facts, suitably laced with lies to suit their convenience. They will use this strategy to get what they want or to destroy whoever comes in their way. They will work on the insecurities of their colleagues and egg them on to make mistakes. They have no shame to take credit of others achievement and will feel no compunction to exploit. They, like the renowned Tuglak, will work towards fomenting discord in their team so that they can promote their agenda without opposition. They will stand in the frontlines of the temples and front benches of churches.

These are not strategies to achieve a larger goal; but a means to further their private agendas. If you have to survive in this modern jungle, the easy way out is to join the gang.

But if you have little scruples left and you are not yet ready for ‘vanaprasta’ (ie; be the monk who sold his Ferrari), then you need to learn to recognises these seekers of self interest to have your own strategies for survival.

It is going to be a difficult task because in this endeavour you are going to be mostly alone, because the ‘good guys’ seldom co-operate or stand-up for their fellow ‘goods’ unlike the ‘bad’ . (Take a look at my earlier posting "To be or not to be (Part 2) – Of Good being Bad" for some thoughts on this)

Otherwise you should be lucky enough to have ‘Krishna’ (the God) as your charioteer and/ or you should be willing to redefine in your heart what you mean by victory.

"Let the lie come into the world, even dominate the world, but not through me......
Writers and artists can do something more: they can vanquish the lie.......
Once the lie has been dispersed, the nakedness of violence will be revealed in all its repulsiveness, and then violence, become decrepit, will come crashing down" Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsy, Winner of Nobel Prize in Literature in 1970

Modicum of Truth

“Encounter Killing” is a familiar term for most of us. It refers to extra judicial killing of gangsters and terrorists who are a menace to the society. In its most benign form is used as a substitute for the slow and often ineffective judicial process of conviction that fails to deter the guilty. But it is also used as a means to eliminate dissent in many parts of the world.

It is claimed to have been beneficial in controlling the underworld and terrorism in some parts of India. As these are mostly extra-judicial and staged operations, they arouse quite a lot of controversy particularly from the human rights activists. In many cases the specialists who have been nurtured for this role have graduated to roles where extra-judicial means becomes more a norm than an exception and used as shortcut, a means to promote private agenda and a way to settle disputes.

The practice of using such un-lawful means and building and encouraging individuals and organisations that have no respect for the process of law is not an invention of Indian Police or of modern times. It has been / is being practiced by corporations, ministries and even nations.

Bindran wala of Punjab was nurtured initially by our political process. Similarly Taliban was supported by US as a counter to Russian influence in Afghanistan. Look around we will be able to see many more examples.

We see many bureaucrats in our administration who are also nurtured, supported and used by their political bosses willing to adopt any means to further their agenda. We see examples of such encounter specialists even in business organisations who are used and encouraged for quick results not necessarily with physical violence.

In certain circumstances there may be a justification to cultivate a “Rambo” and use his service. Often these Rambos are brilliant people who might give outstanding results especially when not restricted by conventional restraints that are meant to safeguard the justice.

But we need to keep in mind that it is a dangerous experiment to be used in only rare occasions and with extreme caution. Otherwise it may be addictive. For the sake of expediency we take the easy road and then it may become difficult to put a stop and restrain the Rambo. Especially when they are giving us results. Accountability and safeguards get subverted in the altar of quick results.

It becomes even more dangerous if we allow such specialists to rise up to leadership positions with the same disregard for ordinary people and conventional processes.

It is equally or more important to prevent a situation where we need to resort to such extra-constitutional measures.

The question on the balance between intentions, actions and consequences has always confounded statesmen, philosophers, religious leaders and the common man. Pragmatic view often tilts towards the philosophy of “end justifies the means” with less attention in evaluation of the fairness of ‘means’ and reasonableness of ‘end’

It is here that we need to appreciate the true import of the serenity prayer

“Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change; the courage to change the things that I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.” .. Reinhold Niebuhr