From Facebook (author unknown and sub edited by me)
A Hindu was flying from JFK New York Airport to SFO San Francisco Airport CA to attend a meeting at Monterey, CA.
An American girl was sitting on his right. It was a long journey that would take nearly seven hours.
He was surprised to see the young girl reading a Bible, unusual for young Americans. After some time she smiled and we he told her that he was from India
Then suddenly the girl asked: 'What's your faith?' 'What?' He didn't understand the question.
'I mean, what's your religion? Are you a Christian? Or a Muslim?'
'No!' He replied, 'I am neither a Christian nor a Muslim'.
Apparently she appeared shocked to listen to that. 'Then who are you?' “I am a Hindu”, he said.
She looked at him as if she was seeing a caged animal. She could not understand what He was talking about.
A common man in Europe or US knows about Christianity and Islam, as they are the leading religions of the world today.
But a Hindu, what?
He explained to her - I am born to a Hindu father and Hindu mother. Therefore, I am a Hindu by birth.
'Who is your prophet?' she asked.
'We don't have a single prophet,' he replied.
'What's your Holy Book?'
'We don't have a single Holy Book, but we have hundreds and thousands of philosophical and sacred scriptures,' he replied.
'Oh, come on at least tell me who is your God?'
'What do you mean by that?'
'Like we have Jesus (he is the son of God) and the Muslims have Allah - don't you have a God?'
He thought for a moment. Muslims and Christians believe in one common God (Male God) who created the world and takes an interest in the humans who inhabit it. Her mind is conditioned with that kind of belief.
According to her (or anybody who doesn't know about Hinduism), a religion needs to have one Prophet, one Holy book and one God. Her mind is conditioned and narrowed down to a notion that anything else is not acceptable. He understood her perception and concept about faith. You can't compare Hinduism with any of the present leading religions where you have to believe in one concept of God.
He tried to explain to her: 'You can believe in one God and he can be a Hindu. You may believe in multiple deities and still you can be a Hindu. What's more - you may not believe in God at all, still you can be a Hindu. An Atheist can also be a Hindu.'
This sounded very crazy to her. She couldn't imagine a religion so unorganized, still surviving for thousands of years, even after onslaught from foreign forces.
'I don't understand but it seems very interesting. Are you religious?'
What could he reply to this American girl?
He said: 'I do not go to a Temple regularly. I do not perform any regular rituals. I have learned some rituals in my younger days. I still enjoy doing it sometimes'.
'Enjoy? Are you not afraid of God?'
'God is a friend. No- I am not afraid of God. Nobody has made any compulsions on me to perform these rituals regularly.'
She thought for a while and then asked: 'Have you ever thought of converting to any other religion?'
'Why should I? Even if I challenge some of the rituals and faith in Hinduism, nobody can convert me from Hinduism. Because, being a Hindu allows me to think independently and objectively, without conditioning. I remain as a Hindu never by force, but choice.' He told her that Hinduism is not a religion, but a set of beliefs and practices. It is not a religion like Christianity or Islam because it is not founded by any one person or does not have an organized controlling body like the Church or the Order, I added. There is no institution or authority..
'So, you don't believe in God?' she wanted everything in black and white.
'I didn't say that. I do not discard the divine reality (You could call it the unknown possibility, the uncertainty or destiny). Our scripture, or Sruthis or Smrithis - Vedas and Upanishads or the Gita - say God might be there or he might not be there. But we pray to that supreme abstract authority (Para Brahma) that is the creator of this universe.'
'Why can't you believe in one personal God?'
'We have a concept - abstract - not a personal god. The concept or notion of a personal God, hiding behind the clouds of secrecy, telling us irrational stories through few men whom he sends as messengers, demanding us to worship him or punish us, does not make sense. I don't think that God is as silly as an autocratic emperor who wants others to respect him or fear him.' He told her that such notions are just fancies of less educated human imagination and fallacies, adding that generally ethnic religious practitioners in Hinduism believe in personal Gods. The entry level Hinduism has over-whelming superstitions too. The philosophical side of Hinduism negates all superstitions.
'Good that you agree God might exist. You told that you pray. What is your prayer then?'
'Loka Samastha Sukino Bhavantu. Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti,'
लोका समस्ता सुखिनो भवन्तु !!! ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः !!!
'Funny,' she laughed, 'What does it mean?'
'May all the beings in all the worlds be happy. Let there be Peace, Peace,and Peace every where.'
'Hmm ..very interesting. I want to learn more about this religion. It is so democratic, broad-minded and free' she exclaimed.
'The fact is Hinduism is a religion of the individual, for the individual and by the individual with its roots in the Vedas and the Bhagavad-Gita. It is all about an individual approaching a personal God (personal truth) in an individual way according to his temperament and inner evolution - it is as simple as that.'
'How does anybody convert to Hinduism?'
'Nobody can convert you to Hinduism, because it is not a religion, but it is a Culture, a way of living life, a set of beliefs and practices. Everything is acceptable in Hinduism because there is no single Authority or Organization either to accept you or to reject you or to oppose you on behalf of Hinduism.'
He told her - if you look for meaning in life, don't look for it in religions; don't go from one cult to another or from one Guru to the next.
For a real seeker, He told her, the Bible itself gives guidelines when it says ' Kingdom of God is within you.' I reminded her of Christ's teaching about the love that we have for each other. That is where you can find the meaning of life.
Loving each and every creation of the God is absolute and real. 'Isavasyam idam sarvam' Isam (the God) is present (inhabits) here everywhere - nothing exists separate from the God, because God is present everywhere. Respect every living being and non-living things as God. That's what Hinduism teaches you.
Hinduism is referred to as Sanathana Dharma, the eternal faith. It is based on the practice of Dharma, the code of life. The most important aspect of Hinduism is being truthful to oneself. Hinduism has no monopoly on ideas. It is open to all. Hindus believe in one God (not a personal one) expressed in different forms. For them, God is timeless and formless entity.
Ancestors of today's Hindus believe in eternal truths and cosmic laws and these truths are opened to anyone who seeks them. But there is a section of Hindus who are either superstitious or turned fanatic to make this an organized religion like others. The British coin the word 'Hindu' and considered it as a religion.
He said: 'Religions have become an MLM (multi-level- marketing) industry that has been trying to expand the market share by conversion. The biggest business in today's world is Spirituality. Hinduism is no exception'
He said "I am a Hindu primarily because it professes Non-violence - 'Ahimsa Paramo Dharma' means - Non violence is the highest duty. I am a Hindu because it doesn't condition my mind with any faith system.
A man/woman who changes his/her birth religion to another religion is a fake and does not value his/her morals, culture and values in life. (I would not go that far!)
Hinduism is the original rather a natural yet a logical and satisfying spiritual, personal and a scientific way of leaving a life..
'People will forgive you for being wrong, but they will never forgive you for being right - especially if events prove you right while proving them wrong.' Thomas Sowell
Search This Blog
Saturday, 2 March 2013
On Spin Bowling in India - 'You have no idea what you're doing here'
Like other Australian spinners in India, Gavin Robertson finished his tour with a good idea of how to bowl there. Somehow the lessons keep getting lost
March 1, 2013
![]()
| |||
Sitting towards the back of a Bangalore function room in March 1998, Gavin Robertson and Steve Waugh shared a glum, quiet dinner. Australia had been overtaken by India in the first Test, in Chennai, and then obliterated in the second, at the Eden Gardens. Robertson's offspin had been toyed with, while Waugh was coming to terms with his first Test-series loss in four years. Noticing the duo away from the gathered dignitaries, the august figure of Erapalli Prasanna ventured over to join the New South Welshmen. By way of a greeting he offered the words: "You have no idea what you're doing here."
Robertson's mere presence in India had been a shock to many. Touring Pakistan in 1994, then opposing Waugh for Australia A in the World Series Cup of the following home summer, Robertson had drifted so far from international reckoning that in the summer preceding the India Tests, he had played only a solitary Sheffield Shield game for the Blues. In it, however, he had taken seven wickets at Adelaide Oval, keeping his name from sliding completely. Shane Warne's desire to be paired with a spinner in the vein of the retired Tim May, and some prodding from Waugh and Mark Taylor subsequently, had Robertson trading his day job managing grocery shelves for a six-week journey through India.
"I was only training two or three days a week, which I almost find hilarious," Robertson recalls. "I wasn't that physically fit, I would eat whatever I had to at work to do long days, and play grade cricket on Saturday. The next thing I knew, I was playing Test cricket in 84% humidity and 44C. I think I lost 8kg on the trip."
Perhaps not surprisingly, given his preparation, Robertson struggled to find the right method, though he fought admirably in Chennai, taking wickets and making stubborn lower-order runs. Despite the team's pre-eminence as the world's top-rated side, there was a lack of knowledge and understanding about India, a country most had visited once or twice at most - this was Warne's baked beans tour, after all.
"It was a rollercoaster three Tests. We didn't really know what we were doing in the first Test, and my pace was wrong, even though I took five wickets. What happened to me the Indians did to both myself and Shane Warne. Every time you'd bowl a good ball they negated it and waited for that patience to go, and then they really went after you. If you had a moment where you bowled two or three bad balls in an over, then you all of a sudden went for 12 or 16 runs. That's where the pressure builds."
So when Prasanna made his challenge about Australia's ignorance of India, Robertson found himself nodding. Waugh was a little more feisty, remonstrating with the man often considered the best of all India's offspinners, and author of the immortal slow-bowling maxim "Line is optional, length is mandatory." Perhaps throwing in a four-letter word or two for emphasis, Waugh asked Prasanna, "Well, if you know so much, how about you tell us?" What followed would change Robertson's tour.
"Prasanna talked about how you've got to understand a batsman," Robertson says. "You want to try to lock the batsman on the crease with the amount of spin you've got on the ball and your pace and dip. You've got to combine that to make sure the batsman feels like if he leaves his crease to take a risk, it's going to drop on him and he'll lose the ball.
"So he'll search quickly to defend, and that will cause him to feel nervous about leaving his crease, and that'll start to get him locked on his crease. Then you'll get him jutting out at the ball and jabbing at it with his hands. Then he'll start trying to use his pad and his bat together to negate a good ball. Finally he said, 'All you have to do is get that right pace and create that feeling, and then you have to do it for 20 or 30 overs in a row, and you'll bowl them out.'"
"It's about finding the right pace and line that locks the batsman on the crease. If you can do it for long periods of time, you win the pressure battle, you break them down, you get wickets"Gavin Robertson | |||
Subtlety, discipline and consistency. These were not outlandish tactics, but they mirrored what Robertson had seen from his Indian counterparts, both in 1998 and on the tours to follow. Over the next few days before the third Test, in Bangalore, Robertson worked at this method, quickening his pace slightly and seeing useful results in the nets. By the time he came on to bowl again on the first morning of the match, his confidence was restored to a decent level. Flicking the ball from hand to hand, he thought of bowling a couple of tidy maidens before lunch then settling in for the afternoon.
Nathan Lyon is familiar with the sort of thing that happened next. Those two overs went for plenty, leaving Robertson's mind to race again. "I went to lunch with 0 for 31 off two and I thought, 'I'm in real trouble here,'" he says. "When I came back on after lunch Stephen [Steve Waugh] was at mid-off and I said 'I'm going to go for it here, I'm going to try to spin a bit harder and bowl a bit quicker.'
"I added two extra steps to my run-up, which I'd never done. I told myself to bowl like a medium-pace offspinner - you bowl with a quicker arm action and actually get more on the ball. I bowled to Tendulkar and he came forward, it gripped and it spun, went past him, nearly hit Ian Healy in the head and went for four byes.
"I just kept doing it. I went from 0 for 31 off two overs to 2 for 58 off 11.2 overs, and in the second innings I took 3 for 28 off 12 and we won the Test. Those were the lessons. It sounds quite simple, but it's having the experience and the patience to keep doing it. They're not worried about you unless you bowl really well."
Robertson's awakening to what was required to bowl spin effectively in India is a tale that is true for many Australian spin bowlers who have ventured to the subcontinent. Robertson describes it as cases of "failure, failure, then some success by the time you go home". Jason Krejza was all but a lost cause on the 2008 trip until he worked with Bishan Bedi in the Delhi nets, and subsequently harvested 12 wickets - albeit expensive ones - in Nagpur. Nathan Hauritz was never able to settle in 2010 as he entered the tour after injury and then had his bowling style changed, not by the locals but by Ricky Ponting, who desired his tweaker to "bowl more like Harbhajan Singh", whatever that meant. None were granted a second chance to tour India and use the knowledge gained on the earlier visit.
"You could almost have all those learnings on a whiteboard or some sort of document that relays 'This is the plan for this, we know what we've been up against before, knock it over,'" Robertson says. "That's what I thought we were supposed to be doing when we went two and half weeks early. We probably haven't learned from those past tours."
For now, Lyon is trying to work out how best to succeed in Hyderabad, having taken four wickets in Chennai but at an enormous cost. Robertson recalled Prasanna's advice, but also the example set by R Ashwin and Ravindra Jadeja in Chennai.
"Have a look at the pace the Indian bowlers bowled at in the first Test," he says. "Just over, say, an hour or 15-over period, and watch how many times they're full and they're up outside off stump and spinning back. And then watch us and see how many times in that period we get short and get worked. How many times do we get scored off short balls, and how many times the other way?
"The Indians always bowl full with the right pace, the ball is dropping at sufficient pace and there's not enough time to get down the wicket to it. In Australia, Nathan Lyon can bowl on middle stump and a little bit short. Because the wickets are so quick here, it's so much harder for a batsman to punish it. Over there it's so slow, as soon as you bowl too short and on the wrong line, it just sits up like a cherry and it goes.
"It's about finding the right pace and line that locks the batsman on the crease. If you can do it for long periods of time, you win the pressure battle, you break them down, you get wickets."
Prasanna could not have said it better himself.
Sunday, 24 February 2013
To fight India, we fought ourselves
Mohsin Hamid in The Hindu
At the heart of Pakistan’s troubles is the celebration of the militant
On Monday, my mother’s and sister’s eye doctor was assassinated. He was a Shia. He was shot six times while driving to drop his son off at school. His son, age 12, was executed with a single shot to the head.
Tuesday, I attended a protest in front of the Governor’s House in Lahore demanding that more be done to protect Pakistan’s Shias from sectarian extremists. These extremists are responsible for increasingly frequent attacks, including bombings this year that killed more than 200 people, most of them Hazara Shias, in the city of Quetta.
As I stood in the anguished crowd in Lahore, similar protests were being held throughout Pakistan. Roads were shut. Demonstrators blocked access to airports. My father was trapped in one for the evening, yet he said most of his fellow travellers bore the delay without anger. They sympathised with the protesters’ objectives.
Minority persecution is a common notion around the world, bringing to mind the treatment of African-Americans in the United States, for example, or Arab immigrants in Europe. In Pakistan, though, the situation is more unusual: those persecuted as minorities collectively constitute a vast majority.
A filmmaker I know who has relatives in the Ahmadi sect told me that her family’s graves in Lahore had been defaced, because Ahmadis are regarded as apostates. A Baluch friend said it was difficult to take Punjabi visitors with him to Baluchistan, because there is so much local anger there at violence toward the Baluch. An acquaintance of mine, a Pakistani Hindu, once got angry when I answered the question “how are things?” with the word “fine” — because things so obviously aren’t. And Pakistani Christians have borne the brunt of arrests under the country’s blasphemy law; a governor of my province was assassinated for trying to repeal it.
The majority myth
What then is the status of the country’s majority? In Pakistan, there is no such thing. Punjab is the most populous province, but its roughly 100 million people are divided by language, religious sect, outlook and gender. Sunni Muslims represent Pakistan’s most populous faith, but it’s dangerous to be the wrong kind of Sunni. Sunnis are regularly killed for being open to the new ways of the West; or for adhering to the old traditions of the Indian subcontinent; for being liberal; for being mystical; for being in politics, the army or the police; or for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
At the heart of Pakistan’s troubles is the celebration of the militant. Whether fighting in Afghanistan, or Kashmir, or at home, this deadly figure has been elevated to heroic status: willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, able to win the ultimate victory, selfless, noble. Yet as tens of thousands of Pakistanis die at the hands of such heroes, as tens of millions of Pakistanis go about their lives in daily fear of them, a recalibration is being demanded. The need of the hour, of the year, of the generation, is peace.
Pakistan is in the grips of militancy because of its fraught relationship with India, with which it has fought three wars and innumerable skirmishes since the countries separated in 1947. Militants were cultivated as an equaliser, to make Pakistan safer against a much larger foe. But they have done the opposite, killing Pakistanis at home and increasing the likelihood of catastrophic conflicts abroad.
Normalising relations with India could help starve Pakistani militancy of oxygen. So it is significant that the prospects for peace between the two nuclear-armed countries look better than they have in some time.
India and Pakistan share a lengthy land border, but they might as well be on separate continents, so limited is their trade with each other and the commingling of their people. Visas, traditionally hard to get, restricted to specific cities and burdened with onerous requirements to report to the local police, are becoming more flexible for business travellers and older citizens. Trade is also picking up. A pulp manufacturer in Pakistani Punjab, for example, told me he had identified a paper mill in Indian Punjab that could purchase his factory’s entire output.
These openings could be the first cracks in a dam that holds back a flood of interaction. Whenever I go to New Delhi, many I meet are eager to visit Lahore. Home to roughly a combined 25 million people, the cities are not much more than half an hour apart by plane, and yet they are linked by only two flights a week.
Cultural connections are increasing, too. Indian films dominate at Pakistani cinemas, and Indian songs play at Pakistani weddings. Now Pakistanis are making inroads in the opposite direction. Pakistani actors have appeared as Bollywood leads and on Indian reality TV. Pakistani contemporary art is being snapped up by Indian buyers. And New Delhi is the publishing centre for the current crop of Pakistani English-language fiction.
Security hawks
A major constraint the two countries have faced in normalising relations has been the power of security hawks on both sides, and especially in Pakistan. But even in this domain we might be seeing an improvement. The new official doctrine of the Pakistani Army for the first time identifies internal militants, rather than India, as the country’s No. 1 threat. And Pakistan has just completed an unprecedented five years under a single elected government. This year, it will be holding elections in which the largest parties all agree that peace with India is essential.
Peace with India or, rather, increasingly normal neighbourly relations, offers the best chance for Pakistan to succeed in dismantling its cult of militancy. Pakistan’s extremists, of course, understand this, and so we can expect to see, as we have in the past, attempts to scupper progress through cross-border violence. They will try to goad India into retaliating and thereby giving them what serves them best: a state of frozen, impermeable hostility.
They may well succeed. For there is a disturbing rise of hyperbolic nationalism among India’s prickly emerging middle class, and the Indian media is quick to stoke the fires. The explosion of popular rage in India after a recent military exchange, in which soldiers on both sides of the border were killed, is an indicator of the danger.
So it is important now to prepare the public in both countries for an extremist outrage, which may well originate in Pakistan, and for the self-defeating calls for an extreme response, which are likely to be heard in India. Such confrontations have always derailed peace in the past. They must not be allowed to do so again.
In the tricky months ahead, as India and Pakistan reconnect after decades of virtual embargo, those of us who believe in peace should regard extremist provocations not as barriers to our success but, perversely, as signs that we are succeeding.
Let's have some sympathy for the jury
My verdict on our justice system
Let's have some sympathy for the Vicky Pryce jury. Sitting in judgment is a tough job

12 Angry Men: the jury system as it ought to work. Photograph: Ronald Grant Archive
The jury in the Vicky Pryce case were, no doubt, just being conscientious.
After sitting through days of evidence in the Mysterious Case of Mrs Huhne and the Speeding Points, they came back to the judge with 10 questions to help them reach a verdict.
Mr Justice Sweeney was so horrified by the questions that, when they said they were unlikely to find agreement, he abandoned the trial and sent them all home on the grounds that they didn't understand what they were doing. The prosecutor, Andrew Edis QC, said the jurors had shown an "unparalleled" failure to understand "very basic concepts of jury trials".
No doubt they meant well. It is good when jurors take their job seriously. Unfortunately, their earnestness simply makes the questions even more hilarious. I think my favourite is question five: "Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it, either from the prosecution or defence?"
I am disappointed that the judge sent them home without asking: "You have a reason based on no facts and no evidence? What in God's name is it?"
Nevertheless, he deserves credit for amusing the nation with his response to question four ("Can you define what is reasonable doubt?"), to which the judge replied: "A reasonable doubt is a doubt which is reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law doesn't allow me to help you with."
It is cruel that all this has been made public. My guess is that these questions were submitted by perfectly intelligent people, who were being driven slightly mad by the warped logic and limited understanding of some fellow jurors.
I've done jury service; trust me, that's likely. I imagine an exhausted schoolteacher sighing: "No, we can't accept your theory that 'marital coercion' involved Huhne tickling her until she screamed. If you don't believe me, let's ask the judge."
The questions do look preposterous on the page. Many barristers will, I'm sure, have jabbed their fingers at the newspaper and shouted at their spouses: "You see what I have to deal with? These are the people I'm talking to, day after day, week after week, year after year! Their blank, uncomprehending eyes! Their open, drooling mouths! Their constant scratching! And then you think I want to spend my Sunday at Ikea!"
Based on my experience, I would say that 90% of jurors struggle with the distinction between inference and speculation. They really have amazing trouble getting it. But I would also say that, somehow, justice is usually done. It's like a messy goal: there is fumbling, shoving, confusion and mud, but the ball fumbles its way to the back of the net. The jury system is a precious and wonderful thing.
I would bet that this case was discussed by a majority of good, bright people and scuppered by a couple of idiots. Then again, by the law of statistics, there must occasionally be 12 idiots on a jury. Last week, a conversation about a different case somewhere else in the country might have unfolded like this…
Juror One I reckon he's guilty. Can't wait to find out! They tell us the answer before we go home, right?
Juror Two No, no, you have to write in for the answers. [Writes on paper: "Dear judge, who did it?"]
Juror Three I reckon he was drunk. Drunk driving. As well as speeding.
Juror Four Speeding? This is a murder trial. He was on foot.
Juror Three No, I reckon he was driving. And I'd have a drink if I'd just murdered someone, wouldn't you? It's all a cover-up. [Writes: "Dear Judge, are we allowed to find him guilty of a crime he's not currently accused of?"]
Juror Two Speaking of drinking, who's for a lemonade?
Juror Five How is this supposed to work?
Juror Two I think you pour it in the glass and then you just sort of have it.
Juror Five [doubtfully] Should we ask the judge?
Juror Three Am I the judge?
Juror Seven No, you're the foreman.
Juror Three I forgot that [drinks lemonade miserably]. So I have to work out how long he goes to prison, and then I stand up and say it?
Juror Eight Yes, or you can choose to do the non-religious one instead.
Juror Three I've got hiccups.
Juror Nine He's not guilty, anyway. I saw him in the cafe at lunchtime.
Juror Two So?
Juror Nine So how could he have been drunk? He was only having a piece of toast.
Juror Two But he's allowed to be drunk. There's no law says you can't be drunk when you do a murder.
Juror Five I don't think the crime was today anyway. It was, like, a week ago.
Juror 10 But I was on holiday a week ago! How am I supposed to know what happened then? [Writes: "Dear Judge, I love skiing. Do you?"]
Juror Three I've just googled him on my iPhone.
Juror 10 That's not allowed! They specifically said, no research!
Juror Three This isn't research, it's inference. It helps me infer he's guilty. Look, here he is burgling a house.
Juror 10 That's not him, that's Ronnie Barker.
Juror Four I thought he was fatter.
Juror 10 It's an old picture. [Writes: "Dear Judge, can we have a DVD of Open All Hours?"]
Juror 12 [Waking up suddenly] Right! I think we've covered everything.
Juror 10 You're right. We've cracked it. Let's go back in, ask the questions and find out who won.
They ring for the court usher.
Saturday, 23 February 2013
With this tax dodger list the Revenue shames only itself
By singling out barbers and pipe fitters, HMRC shows it takes care of the little people, while Amazon looks after itself

'Public enemy No 1 is a Liverpool hairdresser… Or rather, in the interests of accuracy, he is only one master criminal on a list of nine coveted scalps.' Illustration by Matthew Richardson
Pondering one of the more delicious ironies of 20th century American justice, people always say wryly that they could only pin tax evasion on Al Capone. Pondering HM Revenue and Custom's 21st century name-and-shame list, they will say that they could only pin tax evasion on hairdressers.
If you have spent the past few months – or indeed decades – frothing with righteous indignation at the refusal of various major corporations profiting in the UK to pay so much as 37p in tax, let alone their fair share, you will be encouraged to learn that public enemy No 1 is a Liverpool hairdresser whom the Revenue eventually fined 17 grand for deliberate default. Or rather, in the interests of accuracy, he is only one master criminal on a list of nine coveted scalps. Others include a pipe fitter who settled with them for £10,986 and a Nottinghamshire knitwear firm that was eventually fined £86,765.54. The big kahuna is a wine firm from Mobberley in Cheshire. I'd quite like to see their thrilling stories told in a modern version of The Untouchables. As the Eliot Ness of the piece, the taxman ought to be played by a clean-cut do-gooder – Ryan Gosling perhaps – with Robert De Niro returning to take the role of the Fife grocer.
As so often in this septic isle, it's the pettiness of it all that's the tragedy. If these are the names, then the shame must be the Revenue's. Yet they seem to have trumpeted this exciting new direction in their tax-hunting activities with similar fanfare to that which must have attended the nailing of Capone. Ladies and gentleman … We got him.
Needless to say, this isn't a defence of the named and shamed, who are no doubt dreadful little chisellers. I'm afraid I'm one of those ineffably dreary sorts who doesn't pay cash in hand, gladly operates as well as submits to PAYE, and really can't be doing with tax avoiders at all. Blah, blah, blah. But for all my easy-won goody goody-ness, I pretty much need to know that every last megacorp doing business in our land has paid every last penny they owe before we start boasting about having nailed Cool Cutz, or Headmasterz, or whatever hair-based pun adorns this chap's salon lintel.
Predictably, this isn't the line HMRC's Treasury overlords have gone with, as Treasury minister David Gauke once again suggested that tax avoiders have nowhere to hide. (Except in plain sight, as some of Britain's most successful companies.)
Are you convinced by Mr Gauke? I can't help feeling that as a former corporate tax lawyer, married to a corporate tax lawyer, and a chap who used taxpayers' money for stamp duty on his second home move, he is somewhat miscast as the Simon Wiesenthal of hunting down tax avoiders.
I suppose he thinks getting on the airwaves to big up the HMRC list counts as Being Seen To Be Doing Something, as do his underlings in the Revenue themselves. Yet, as a piece of political theatre, this outing feels marginally less successful than Sooty and Sweep's production of One for the Road. There has been a huge and exhilarating outpouring of anger over tax avoidance over the past year, as the issue has moved closer to the centre of the stage than it has been in decades. To say that HMRC publishing a list of nine small businesses squanders that goodwill feels something of an understatement.
What is the intended message, if we may flatter the stunt in that way? That if HMRC look after the little people then the big people will look after themselves? You can't deny it's working. The big people seem to be looking after themselves very well indeed, and though this stunningly misdirected exercise stops just shy of congratulating the major multinationals who avoid tax, the indication of where the Revenue's focus lies effectively does just that.
If I were a mischievous billionaire I would stage a piece of political theatre myself. I would find out whichever hotshot tax lawyers act for Starbucks or Google, and hire them at vast expense to defend the likes of the pipe-fitter and the grocer. They'd end up getting a £300,000 rebate, which would make the point about the real problem more eloquently than Gauke and his cabinet seniors ever could. Certainly more than they'd ever care to, on this evidence.
As for the Revenue, it takes a special sort of flat-footedness to snatch defeat from the jaws of moral victory – but ultimately we must remember the calibre of the organisation with which we are dealing here. I merely pass on to you the tale of one self-employed friend, who was relentlessly pursued over a mystery cheque of around £2,750 that she had written and could not – a long time after the event – explain. She couldn't find the stub, the bank had somehow lost the details, and the investigating Revenue official was under the impression that she had written it as some kind of tax dodge. What kind was unclear, but he wanted to know what she was hiding. After two or three years of this, he brought his investigation to a graceless close. It had emerged that the cheque in question had in fact been paid to one HMRC, in settlement of income tax. Which should give the likes of Amazon a flavour of the worthiness of their foe.
India’s public finances - A walk on the wild side
Government borrowing generates inflation, widens the external deficit and crowds out much-needed investment. Can India now overcome its debt addiction?

INDIA has grappled with its public finances for long enough. When presenting its first budget after independence in 1947, the finance minister of the day insisted that the country was not living beyond its means. Yet every budget since has failed to produce a surplus. India borrows more heavily than typical big emerging economies and faces more periodic crises. Palaniappan Chidambaram is the latest to try to tame the fiscal beast. He became finance minister, for the third time, last July. On February 28th he will present his budget, possibly the last one before the ruling Congress Party goes to the polls, which must take place by mid-2014.
India’s economy is a concern. Growth is running at about 5%, nearly half what it once was. The external deficit is at a record, while inflation remains stubbornly high. Last year India faced the threat of a downgrade of its credit rating to “junk” status. Thankfully, Mr Chidambaram has shaken Congress from its stupor. The party is to blame for the present budget mess, having launched a pre-election spending spree in 2008 that continued. Subsidies, mainly of fuel, almost doubled, to 2.4% of GDP. The central government’s deficit has been 5-6.5% of GDP. Add in spending by the states, and India’s overall budget deficit has been running at a wild 8-10% of GDP.

When the economy was zipping along, the borrowing did not matter so much. For a while, the national debt actually fell as a proportion of GDP, despite high budget deficits (the ratio is about 70% today). But now, with slower growth, a debt spiral is a real risk. Borrowing has taken a heavy toll. It has fuelled inflation and a balance-of-payments gap, while crowding out the private investment in factories and infrastructure that India badly needs.
Mr Chidambaram says that for the year to March 2013 he will limit the central government’s deficit to 5.3% of GDP. His budget is likely to project a modest decline to 4% by 2015. Chetan Ahya, an economist at Morgan Stanley, notes that the minister is squeezing spending, which fell by 9% in December against a year earlier. Subsidies on fuel are being cut. And the state is selling shares in public companies. Raghuram Rajan, the government’s economic adviser, insists accounting gimmicks will not be used to meet budget targets.
After the budget, however, the outlook is murky. Some still worry that Congress will try to spend its way to re-election. The last three general elections were preceded by splurges. And if a messy coalition comes to office, discipline may slip.
India is in a bind because normal checks and balances have been overwhelmed. In 2003 a Fiscal Responsibility Act was passed, designed to bind politicians to fiscal rules. Although it has led the states to behave better, the central government has ignored it. Meanwhile, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the central bank, keeps the debt market under its thumb. It forces banks to buy bonds, prevents foreign investors from participating, and has propped up prices by buying bonds itself. It now owns 16% of the public debt, not far off the level in the crisis year of 1991.
There is plenty of spending on politicians’ crazy schemes. One sanitation project claims to have built 84m rural lavatories, about 60% more than the 2011 census says exist. Meanwhile, fuel subsidies benefit the richest tenth of Indians seven times more than the poorest tenth.
The solution, some hope, is “direct transfer” schemes that give welfare payments directly to the poor, lowering waste and graft. Yet vital though such reforms are, they will not yield enough cash to come close to balancing the books.
Pressures to spend will always exist, says Subir Gokarn, an economist and former bigwig at the RBI. In areas such as education and infrastructure, that is only right. So revenues need to rise. A new report by the IMF compares India with other countries, adjusting for their wealth. It implies that India’s government revenues should be 25% of GDP. At present they are just 18%.
How to raise revenues? Selling off more badly run state firms would help. Lots of state land lies idle and could also be sold. A recent mapping exercise in Ahmedabad, a modest-sized city, concluded that $4 billion could be raised there.
But the tax system needs changing, too. Before India launched market-friendly reforms in 1991, taxation meant clobbering manufacturers with customs and excise duties. Since then the mix has shifted to direct taxes on individuals and firms and indirect taxes on services, which make up three-fifths of GDP. (Farming, which employs half of all Indians, contributes only one-seventh of all GDP and is largely exempt from tax.)

Much of the economy remains out of sight of the taxman. A lot of the services sector is informal and cash-based. The property market is notorious for black money. Big firms in the formal economy pay a decent rate of tax, but many smaller businesses fall under the regime for personal tax, where compliance is poor. Surjit Bhalla, of Oxus Investments, reckons income-tax receipts are two-thirds below what they should be. Just 32m people, or 2.5% of Indians, pay income tax.
Complexity discourages people from joining the formal economy and makes cheating easier. Each state has its own taxes, from the value-added sort and levies on luxury goods to duties on entry to specific areas. To deal with this, the central government has a Goods and Services Tax (GST) in the works. Its aim is to unify the rates of indirect tax across India and replace a tangle of local taxes. It should cut red tape and encourage more activity, such as construction, to enter the formal economy, says Vijay Kelkar, of the India Development Foundation. Encouragingly, rationalisation of the code for direct taxes is also on the government’s to-do list.
The fine print of these measures is still being debated. They have been in the works for years. Some worry that to win over the states, the government will dilute the impact of the GST. Yet these reforms have the potential to bring more of the economy into the tax net, raising revenues by several percentage points of GDP. When Mr Chidambaram speaks on February 28th it will be promises about progress on tax reform, rather than about the deficit two years hence, that will signal whether India is ready to cast off its fiscal chains.
Thursday, 21 February 2013
Creationist free schools are an abuse - ancient ignorance has no place in education Young minds are primed by nature to believe most of what adults tell them to believe. They should be treated with respect, not twisted into shapes that conform with dogma
A C Grayling in The Independent
An increasing concern about the current free school movement is that too many of those behind it have a religious agenda. Freedom of Information figures reported in The Independent this week show that 132 of the 517 applications to open free schools in the past couple of years have come from faith groups.
Creationists and fundamentalists of various stamps are eager to open schools so that they can proselytise the young, knowing that this is by far the chief way that religious belief survives in the world.
A single moment’s thought shows that the expression “faith school” is a contradiction: education should be about how to think, not what to think; it should be about learning, enquiry, testing evidence and arguments, not indoctrination of the young into having “faith” in one or other of the many ancient belief systems that constitute religion. The younger a child is, the more intellectually defenceless he is, and the easier it is to fill his head with beliefs from which it might cost him much, later in life, to free himself so that he can see the world truly and clearly.
It is not for nothing that the Jesuits say, “Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man.”
For note what “faith” means: it means believing without evidence or reason, and even in the face of contrary evidence; this intellectual irresponsibility is regarded as a religious virtue, as the story of Doubting Thomas is intended to illustrate.
There are, therefore, powerful reasons for saying that the government should require all free schools to be secular in the sense of neutral towards faith commitments. Children should not be subjected to indoctrination into religious beliefs, any more than they should be instructed in school to believe that astrology, magic, the occult or voodoo are true.
In being taught about religion (as opposed to being taught to believe religious dogmas), they will see for themselves the conflicting claims, the basis in ancient ignorance, and the too often baleful effects of religion on human lives and societies. Whether they come to believe in Shintoism or Christianity or Islam after that will at least be their own choice, based on an examination of the grounds for believing.
I and my colleagues at the New College of the Humanities have put in a bid to open a free school in Camden with a concentration in the arts and humanities. One stringent principle of its educational ethos is to be that pupils must be encouraged and equipped to think for themselves, to challenge, to ask questions, to have a very good case for committing themselves to any ideological viewpoint, whether political, religious or otherwise. That is the overwhelming responsibility of education.
If the phrase “faith school” makes any sort of sense, it must mean “schooling in a faith”. We have been lulled by the wishy-washy laissez-faire history of Church of England schools into thinking that religious-ethos schools are harmless affairs, with a bit of cod spirituality and morality thrown in at school assembly on some mornings of the week.
But the new faith school movement is far from harmless. Its objective is to capture minds and hearts for a sectarian outlook. Creationists and “intelligent design theorists” wish to combat science where it is easiest to do so: in very young heads which are primed by nature to believe most of what adult authorities tell them about the world.
In the past, Richard Dawkins and I have described religious indoctrination of small children as “child abuse”, and if one is being strictly literal in the use of these terms, so indeed it is. This seems fighting talk to those who are unaware what a cost the world pays in the divisions, conflicts and antipathies generated by religion, or the psychological burden of children and adults struggling with feelings of sin and inadequacy.
The argument that children need to be nourished spiritually and morally as well as educated in the theorems of arithmetic and the dates of history are right: but those who use this argument thinking that only religion provides these things are more wrong than they know. There are rich, deep, powerful traditions of thought and debate about life and how it can be best lived in the philosophy, literature and art of our world, which have no reference to religion, require no “leaps of faith”, and appeal to the clarity of reason and the innate warmth of the human heart as their basis.
Religion is the belief system of our remote ancestors who knew little about the universe, and made up stories to explain it to themselves. It is extraordinary that so many people still live by those stories, so manifestly inadequate as a resource for understanding the world and informing our moral lives. Education should not be narrowing minds into the antiquated moulds of those beliefs, but opening them so that by the bright light of enquiry they can seek and examine evidence for themselves.
A young mind is a beautiful opportunity: receptive, curious, quick to soak up information and techniques; it is something to be treated with utmost respect, not twisted into shapes that conform to antique dogmas, but given every chance to grow and discover. That is what a free school should aim for: an education in intellectual autonomy.
Professor Grayling is founder and Master of the New College of Humanities
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)