G1TalkShop

In the discussions on my previous blog here and the posts on Facebook (as a note and posts) certain issues have cropped up: a) At least a few from outside India have misunderstood that some of those who are critical of ‘Free Basics’ are demanding totally free data. b) Some have questioned the ethics of criticising Facebook and its business from within the platform of Facebook itself. Implied is a position that it is somehow unethical and those who do not like facebook should opt out of it. c) I feel that there are quite a few important points in between all this that we need to discuss more explicitly. This note briefly touches on these. Right or Entitlement to Data Nobody in India has raised the demand (so far) for free access to data services or telecom facilities. It is Zuckerberg who is insisting on offering that! He is lobbying hard to induce 'poor Indians' into accepting what he is pushing as ‘free’ service, claiming that he is doing it to benefit the poor. He wan

“If you dictate what the poor should get, you take away their rights to choose what they think is best for them.” - Naveen Patnaik, chief minister of the Indian state Odisha. The Times of India of 28-Dec-2015 carried an edit page article by Mark Zuckerberg promoting the rebranded 'Free Basics'. Both the title, and its claim, are preposterous. Who and what are Zuckerberg, Facebook, and ‘Free Basics’ to claim that they ‘protect’ net neutrality? In fact, no single service can or will do that. Only strict compliance to both rules and norms – informal and formal – will protect net neutrality against the constant attempts by commercial interests and government agencies to violate or dilute it. We have to make sure that Facebook, internet-dot-org, ‘Free-Basics’ or any other service does not overtly or covertly violate net neutrality while claiming to be net neutral. Mr Zuckerberg has the funny notion that what is basic is different for the poor and rich. From the tenor his art

Recalling #COP15, Copenhagen - What I wrote in 2009. Eco. Times 1-Dec-2009: India must accept binding commitments for deep emission cuts; bargain for economic opportunities that can reduce poverty and sustain economic growth. #COP21 Paris. 2015: I don't accept India's official interpretation of 'differentiated responsibilities' as one that must be unverifiable, non-binding, and totally voluntary. It cannot be one without accountability - towards either mitigation or poverty reduction or both. Countries like India and China are not justified in insisting on unverifiable commitments now when they are among the biggest polluters. The position adopted in 1992 when the aggregate CO2 contribution by countries like India was very low cannot be extended indefinitely. Official Indian position is one of giving a free run to Indian crony capitalists to pollute and plunder environment. The using ‘right to pollute’ as a proxy for ‘right to development’ is dubious, fraudulent,

Let me try to explain, very briefly, why taking a stand on the Greek referendum is so important for me. Clearly, my friends must have noted that I invested a lot of time and effort in this. An explanation is due now, before the referendum. I watched the livestream of the magnificent rally addressed by Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras. It was a short, simple, but thrilling speech. It was bereft of rancour and vitriolic. He emphasized that rather than a protest, the event is a celebration – a celebration of democracy! Perhaps, he expressed eloquently and wonderfully the sense and sentiments of an unprecedentedly large gathering signifying a historic juncture. Instead of war cries, there were songs, music, and peaceful speeches. Even as Greece was heading to a historic referendum, there was very little spirit of divisiveness in the rally. So, what? That, in a way, is central to my theme. For long, many of us have been looking at the political scenarios and alternatives. Even i

Thought of not commenting on the controversy about the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Indian Supreme Court insisting on holding an important meeting of judges on Good Friday, which is a national holiday. However, I am quite disturbed by the insensitivity or lack of deep awareness on the part of the learned Chief Justice, even after the matter has been discussed with him. The significance of such days, observances associated with such occasions, the place they have in the life of people who believe are truly matters that ought to be properly understood by officials at all levels of judiciary in any multicultural nation and society. Those at the higher levels of judiciary must be better informed and even be enlightened, if you will. In the true spirit of Easter, I would take a charitable view and assume he is not sufficiently informed. He, perhaps, is a little stubborn too, as those in such positions tend to be when confronted with their own weaknesses. There is another reason why I wou

On the BBC sponsored trash film banned in India This film is utter trash. Of course, I don't support the ban. In my view BBC must be heavily penalized with hefty fine in proportion to their gross turnover (say 20%), instead of chasing a global ban. One has to be terribly naïve to think that potential culprits will get reformed by viewing this rubbish film - hearing the unrepentant, remorseless villainy dished out by psychopathic criminals.  Apart from scoring debating points on 24X7 TV, I seriously doubt if anyone will ask their young children to view this film without parental guidance. It is clearly unfit for universal broadcast - period. It is not, as is argued on TV shows, a must watch for all - from pre-school kids to hardened criminals waiting to get out from the jails after completing their term. It is an immature, unprofessional and terribly naive production that raises many ethical issues of making a film about such deeply distressing subject. It raises questio