Indian Secularism Revisted.

 India prides itself as secular state where numerous religions, ethnic groups and languages have coexisted in a largely Hindu country. The secular status of the country is enshrined in the constitution and over the past seven decades India has had presidents from different minorities. However secularism was seen in 1940's as not only a sensible option for a newly emerging country it was also nourished by a sense of political opportunism to tape together the aspirations of the Muslim, Sikh, and other religious groups. The rally call of secularism was an essential tool to also bring together ethnic groups of the south where not only a plethora of languages (divorced from the national language Hindi) were spoken but cultural and social differences were obvious. 

From the outset of Indian Independence the tussle between the need for a secular India and the need for a Nationalist Indian ethos began. During the many years of Congress rule these competing forces remained uncomfortably married where being a South Indian who could not speak Hindi coexisted with a North Indian who expected his South Indian compatriot to one day catch up with the 'Indianess" that New Delhi espoused. As the tide of political preferences moved away from the Congress thought process of the Nehru political philosophy the emerging BJP, with its grass root support from the Hindu ultra nationalists the challenge to the secular complexion of India become more acute.

While communal violence was always sporadically appearing on the Indian landscape it was always seen as a localised incident with little if any repercussions on the national scene. Under Congress the likes of RSS (the Hindu nationalists) could foment trouble against the minorities but lacked a national platform or support to move their Hindutva extremism forward. The emergence of the BJP and more specifically Mr Modi as its leader galvanised the Hindu extremists to a point where today one can argue that Indian secularism is seriously questioned. 

However, this state of affairs has not happened overnight. Secularisms failures in India has been the failure to integrate the religions, traditions, languages and culture of the many minorities into a national body of what India seeks as its secular blueprint. India sought a modernity through defining a politics that tried to marry religion into politics through an idiom of unity. However, it was always evident that when religion was an idiom in the politics of secularism in sense it created its own dichotomy and nourished communalism rather than unity. Every effort by successive governments to connect to the traditions and ethos of different religions through say a law making process resulted in not only failure but also highlighted that in a secular country having a religious polity just cannot work. 

If there was a lesson from the Partition of India, where millions died in communal violence, it was the you cannot include religion in the political vocabulary of a country. For Pakistan, which its founder desired a secular complexion to an Islamic state, it was quick to set aside any pretensions of a secular state and instead talked of protection of minorities. For India such a stance so soon after independence was not possible as it would have hacked away at the cornerstone of Indian nationhood; Secularism. Since Indian independence the political leadership of the Congress took pains not to make religion the subject of public conversation more so as it struggled to create a legislative framework to cater the communal traditions of different groups. It was felt in the end a modern India, through education and demands of nationhood would absorb the demands of tradition from religious groups. 

However as much as there was a galvanising effect of this thrust towards modernity and most Hindus were comfortable with the emerging idiom of a secular India there were other forces at work. To these 'nationalist' forces the BJP afforded the opportunity to recast India under a new narrative of modernity by a revisionist dogma which implied rewriting India's history. It started with a move to remain cities, Madras became Chennai, Bombay became Mumbai and so forth. As benign an act of rewriting history, (way or five decades of independence) it spelled bigger issues. 

The Hindutva dogma also sought to rewrite Indian history and recast the 200 odd years of Muslim rule. Side by side the hundreds of years old problem of religious sites and the contest of their origin came to the forefront bringing with it a sense amongst the Muslims of India (the largest minority) that they were being marginalised. Sanitising history is a political sense is inevitable and India is not the first country to do this. However, when this sanitisation begins to define what one religions sees as right then a sense of marginalisation is the obvious result. In a general sense any religious complexion that overtake the political ethos of a country by its nature then defines who, in a religious sense, is a good person and who is not. (This is the essential struggle in Pakistan, of which a separate blog will appear). 

In fairness in India there are a multitude of political participants, Hindus. Muslims, Sikhs, who have played the religious card in their politics. In some cases this has been play to religious and communal similarities, in other cases, it has been a message of discord and fear. Invariably where the fear card has been played it has resulted in communal hate and exclusion and in some cases even violence. Even Mr Modi, the current Prime Minister, in one period of his political journey used the communal hate card with good effect. However, to use these episodes as a pretext for exclusion of minorities is nothing but a pretext for furthering the larger agenda of Hindutva. 

There is no denying today within India secularism and nationalism, as defined by the Hindu extreme nationalists, are locked in battle. It is not possible that a polity defined by a nationalist Hindu agenda can sit side by side with the semblance of secularism. For secularism to gain ground will mean a reversal of the religious sanitisation that has been going on, for both the Mahabharata and the Muslim, Sikh and Christian teaching to be a part of the school curriculum , for Indians to take pride in their collective history rather than only segments of it. To acknowledge that secularism in India and secularism in a democracy have divide that needs to be bridged, which implies the rolling back of the religious narrative in politics and the emergence of individuals and their own choices to be the determinants of the complexion of a nations secular ethos. 

Cryptocurrencies`: Fact or Fiction?

 My scepticism of crypto currencies is not born out of the recent drop in their value, although it does reinforce my long held view about this new class of assets. Back in 1983 when the cryptographer David Chaum first talked of electronic money he called 'ecash' few could have concieved the shape of things to come. In its current form the creation of the first crypto currency is credited to Satoshi Nakamoto back in 2009. He used the cryptographic hash of SHA-256 to record the 'proof of work' scheme which then got built into the blockchain which is an encrypted open ledger system that records transactions. This was the birth of Bitcoin, which remains the dominant crypto in the market place. 

In time alternative cryptos emerged and these are commonly called 'alt coins'. They use their own crypto hash schemes in their proof of work methodology and the subsequent block chains that record their transactions. With the emergence of crypto currencies a host of 'exchanges' have emerged where these assets trade and settle. These exchanges are also largely informal and unregulated as indeed the crypto class of asset is also unregulated. 

Crypto's vary in their pitch to the market place and in recent years some asset back cryptos have tried to create a niche for themselves. Indeed the crypto currency market has become sizeable engaging a plethora of supporters and doubters. In essence these crypto 'assets' possess the following features in varying degrees.

• Cryptos do not require a central regulatory authority and they derive their authenticity based off the openly distributed ledger under the mechanism of different blocks of transactions that form a chain. (hence the name block chain).
• Thus by architecture alone the block chain ensures the ownership is properly recorded and ensures the integrity that comes from traditional custodial services is more than replicated.
• The system set the total number of crypto units that can be issued, and if this total issuance has to be increased then what are the circumstances for additional units to be issued. In this sense the supply is not unlimited and putting a ceiling on the total issued units creates a sense of discipline to the crypto asset. 
• Proof of ownership is crypto encrypted in a manner that it cannot be disputed. Anyone tampering with the ledger would have to find a way to modify all the blockchain entries from the inception of the unit, which in a sense is impossible. (However, there are instances of cryptos being stolen from an exchange).
• The units can trade in multiple fractions allowing smaller holdings.
• The ownership which recorded to a registered and encrypted wallet is always there, the ownership of the wallet holder remains anonymous and in that sense the buyer and seller cannot necessarily be identified. 
• Unlike traditional currencies where the Central Bank of the country which has issued the currency is responsible for regulating the currency, crypto assets a total unregulated. 
• Crypto currencies are not backed by an underlying asset or by the taxing power of a government. Thus monetary interventions to protect a currency are absent in the case of a crypto currency.

Crypto currencies, while touted as a class of assets that will change the topography of the world financial system have many issues. 

1. Crypto currencies are not backed by any assets or the economic performance of an economy. At their inception they valued on the basis of the 'mining' costs, which the total computing power used to create the crypto. For bitcoin alone by end of 2019 the total energy consumption to maintain and update the blockchain was estimated at 7 gigawatts, which is equivalent to the total power consumed in Switzerland. Valuing bitcoin say at $30,000 based on the energy consumed is misleading as one could argue that the total energy consumed by online gaming consoles which is close to 75,000 gigawatts implies that an online gaming console should be 1,000 times more valuable than a bitcoin!

2. Based on the above argument there is no sensible way to value the intrinsic value of a crypto currency. 

3. While there is a new wave of cryptos being created where they are linked to an underlying asset such as gold, or silver these are at best marketing ploys. For instance a crypto linked to say gold raises questions of price correlation and custodial arrangements for the underlying asset. After all a crypto linked to gold will trade in close harmony with the price of gold. Linkage to say gold also creates issues of settlement in the event of settlement for cash, or better still for the asset as the crypto trades in fractions and the gold cannot be fragmented to the same fractions we see in cryptos. 

4. In 2021 total turnover of crypto trading was over $15.8 trillion of which it is estimated that criminal activities were estimated to be $14 billion. While this is a small percentage of the turnover it is in itself alarming since it represents only those transactions what ere accredited to known illegal addresses. It does not cover the transactions which escaped detection. 

5. It is suggested that given the lack of regulation and the architecture of crypto trading the amount of funds that are money laundered through crypto currencies would well be much larger than what is seen in the conventional banking system.

6. There is not doubt that cryptos are the choice means for serious criminals covering crimes such as ransom, drug trafficking and funding of more serious crimes. 

7. When the price of a traditional currency moves, up or down, one can identify measurable fiscal and monetary factors that cause these movements. In the case of crypto currencies there is no such relationship to the underlying economic factors and therefore its movement is entirely emotional. 

Conclusion:

One cannot deny that crypto currencies may well be here to stay. The more pertinent question is what will be the scope and shape of the crypto market. Clearly governments will either crack down on them, as have China and a dozen other countries, or while move to regulate the market. Eventually the leading economies of the world will move through their government agencies to control this asset class. The result of these actions will be that in time cryptos will begin to behave much in line with the traditional currencies. 

Further it is more than likely that the total cryptos issued which are over 1,800 different crypto currency types, will dwindle down to a handful of crypto currencies which will survive. Such adjustments in the market place will not be without their associated pain and financial loss.

Some central banks have moved to issue their own digital currency which is backed by the issuing central bank. This Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) is expected to be the major challenge to the current crypto regime we see in the market place. 

What is certain is that for the more sane investors the crypto market is something they would shun. This past weeks drop in their value, which wiped out over $900 billion of value in a couple days shows that the as one cannot explain such massive drops one cannot really explain the charm of an asset that is based on the energy consumed to create it?

On Entitlements.

 Some human beings, for whatever reason, carry with them a sense that they are entitled to better privileges and a special treatment when compared to others. These past two weeks alone have filled our news space with more examples than one would care to ponder over. Nevertheless these examples also force us to examine this sense of entitlement that some carry with them and to question whether there is any reason to feed this beast of privilege? From politics to sports and then royalty we saw how a narrative was created that screamed out that the persons felt they should be and are entitled to a different treatment than others. 

Boris Johnson. 

As politicians go Boris Johnson certainly is a rather unique individual. Having delivered Brexit and fought the COVID pandemic with mixed victories, it is now revealed that his and his governments COVID guidelines were really meant for the people but not for him and his cronies at No 10 Downing Street. If the initial revelations of parties at No 10 were not damaging enough the worst came with the news that on the eve of Prince Philips funeral No 10 held a 'bring you own booze' party with invitations sent to 100 people and about 30 plus showing up. This was at a time when meeting more than one person was strictly forbidden under the government guidelines and we all saw the image of the Queen sitting alone in the church at her husbands funeral. 

Faced with a growing party revolt Boris has mumbled a general apology to the nation and his office apologised to the Queen. One would imagine he would turn up in person and offer his deepest apologies to the Queen, but none of this has happened. It is one thing to feel you are entitled to a different treatment to the many who have been under lockdown, and then another thing to be lying about ones behaviour. Boris spent weeks denying any parties took place and then when the first one was revealed he said Sue Gray will investigate this and that he had no knowledge of the parties and then to finally admit they happened. What is there to investigate? People were at the party or they were not? This is something that cannot take more than a couple of days to wrap up. 

We know politicians lie and yet we know there is a ministerial code of conduct which was used to dismiss other cabinet members who did far less worse than Boris. Under the code lying to the House of Commons is a serious matter. Boris has done so repeatedly somehow believing he is entitled to a different set of standards, preferably none at all.

Novak Djokovic

The tennis world went into a major media frenzy when the world number 1 tennis player was denied entry into Australia for the premier Open tennis tournament. A certain amount of mystery was created as to why he wanted to be exempted from the entry requirements into Australia. As the legal battle ensued it was evident that Tennis Australia do not approve entry and it then transpired that Djokovic actually lied on his entry permits and eventually was expelled from Australia. 

Underlying the whole episode was Djokovic's sense of entitlement that he should be treated differently. A sense of privilege what was fed by the voices of support from his supporters and even his government. Sports and entertainment icons have in this modern age come to believe that they are special, which they may well be, but to expect established rules should not only bend for them but to also be set aside is what is in question. Novak Djokovic is not the first and neither the last celebrity who has pushed his sense of entitlement, many others continue to do so, but his case is more poignant as it comes in the middle of a world wide pandemic that has killed millions. In that sense Djokovic feels he should be treated differently just as Boris Johnson in the UK feels that the rules of his own government do not apply to him.

Prince Harry.

Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle have rarely been out of the news. Their departure from the UK and the royal family attracted media attention of an unprecedented level and controversy that continues till today. Prince Harry has raised the question of his and his family's security when they visit UK in the near future. Having exited the royal family officially he is not entitled to this security. He has even offered to pay the bill for the service. 

First of all paying for the security is not an option because in the UK that is not how the system works. Secondly, if the UK police we to have intelligence of a threat to the Prince or his family while on a visit to the UK, they would be duty bound to protect them. This is how it works for other royals in the UK and one wonders why should it be different for Prince Harry. Sadly Harry tends to pick his moments to bring up issues, the current one as the Queen prepares to celebrate her Jubilee as the monarch. One cannot forget the interview with Oprah was at a time when his grandfather Prince Phillip was seriously ill and a sensationalist interview as that could have waited a few months or even a year. 

Royalty have always felt a sense of privilege and an entitlement. In recent decades this has been tolerated as many royals are working royals and in a sense seem to be earning their way. We may not agree with the British royalty and their role in British society but there are many who will agree that the Queen has in person embodied a sense of duty and public service that is commendable. 

Why would Prince Harry still feel he has an entitlement to some if not many of the privileges that he previously enjoyed? There is no doubt that he and Meghan are benefiting from the appendage of 'Duke' and 'Duchess' which to an American audience is a a big deal. This is more than enough for them to earn their own livelihood and thus pay for private security and whatever frills they wish to have in their lives. 

These are just a few examples of the sense of entitlement that some people they must have. This is not a phenomenon that is only in Europe or the UK. The world over, especially in the emerging countries this sense of entitlement giving people the sense that they are above the law or the norms that other people are subject to is very common. We as a society constantly succumb to the demands of entitlement that people impose on us, in the process feeding the monster. In some countries this extends to the sense of impregnability that allows politicians to become corrupt, believing in the end that they are entitlement to be above the law. And then corruption is not only about stealing money, at times its the corruption of breaking laws so brazenly that one can stand up in Parliament and lie, as Boris Johnson did. 

Vax or Not to Vax?

 Covid 19 has swept across the world over the past year with over 249 million reported infections and over 5 million deaths. There is little doubt that the virus remains a major concern. The economic, social and personal costs of this deadly virus remain incalculable and to this day we experience lockdowns and travel bans. While masks and social distancing are considered a broad based tool to contain the spread of the virus, the development of vaccines implies that vaccinations remain the main defence against COVID 19. Yet when it comes to vaccinations the response from people is varied and very emotional. In some countries governmental regulations have driven the vaccination policies, while elsewhere, to vax (vaccination) or not to vax remains a contentious issue.

Before one explores the pros and cons of vaccinations it is important to highlight some of the characteristics of the Covid 19 virus. 

• Covid 19 virus contains a spike protein which, like most viruses, mutates over time. This results in new variants such as alpha, beta, delta and gamma variants and the more recent Omricon strains of the virus. While more research is needed to determine why and how mutations take place, there is a general consensus that mutations are influenced by climate, and conditions typical to a geographic region.
• It is generally believed that most viruses mutate to the point that their potency for harm is minimal or non-existent as it happened with SARS. 
• COVID 19 variants indicate a propensity to be more spreadable even though so far the indication is that each of the subsequent variants have been less lethal than the original virus.
• Unlike other viruses the COVID 19 virus can and is carried by people who show no symptoms of the virus thus making it difficult to contain. In the case of viruses like SARS and Ebola, only patients with full blown symptoms can transmit the virus thus making immediate isolation as the most effective means of containing the virus. This is not the case with COVID-19.

Containing COVID 19 has been a combination of broad measures of protection and with the development of the vaccines the adherence to clinical means to contain its spread. There is not doubt that most of the vaccines were developed rapidly and anti-vaxxers claim this speed of approvals implies not all side effects have been taken into consideration. Indeed, vaccines take years of research and then clinical and human testing before they are approved for mass usage. 

However, in the case of COVID 19 vaccine development some important factors have to be considered.

A. The rampant spread of the virus required extraordinary measures and one of the main catalysts to speed research is financial resources. In this respect governments and private sector poured in phenomenal amounts of cash to fund the research and development of the vaccine. This cut down the R&D times from years to mere months.

B. R&D basic data was shared by many of the developers of the vaccine. Indeed, the Chinese shared the genome structure of the virus soon after it spread in Wuhan, thereby giving researchers a head start to develop a vaccine.

C. It is a valid comment that human testing and pretrials before certification were not as complete as would be normal, (usually a couple of years of testing). There was, however, elaborate clinical modelling done to determine the possible side effects of the vaccine and there was reasonable assurance that side effects could be managed. 

D. The efficacy of the vaccines used in the past year have shown its effectiveness to be as high as 96% in the first eight weeks to 84% six months after the second dose. A second dose does push the efficacy back to 90% and it is determined that this efficacy works against all the variants that have emerged so far. 

The vaccine and anti vaccine camps are equally vocal in their positions and considerable effort is being made by each camp. Let us see their views.

Arguments of the anti vaxxers and a response:

A. The vaccine was 'rushed' and its long term effects are still to be determined. 

Response: What was rushed was the administrative process while all the clinical steps were all followed. Given the financial support it was easier to fund these clinical steps through all its stages rather than wait for piecemeal funding.

B. Testing in human trials have been lower than is typical of vaccines.

Response: This is an incorrect statement as testing is not simply a matter of time but the number of subjects who are available for testing. For example for years bio tech companies have been close to a vaccine for Ebola but given the number of people available for testing is very small in population the minimum threshold of 30,000 subjects has not been achieved. In the case of COVID 19 there was no shortage of subjects and in some countries like say UAE there were over 30,000 volunteers for the testing period. 

C. There have been cases, albeit a few, of fully vaccinated people contracting COVID 19 and succumbing from the virus.

Response: Correlating the vaccination rates with hospitalisations and deaths show that in the case of COVID 19 vaccines the more people have been vaccinated the less hospitalisations and deaths have occurred. In UK alone as more people have been jabbed the less hospitalisations have taken place and death rates have come down. Yes in recent weeks the effects of the Omricon and Delta variants has shown a huge spike in positive tests but we notice hospitalisations have not matched this huge spike. This spike is largely explained by the 'over relaxation' of the safety protocols in terms of social events and mass events (football matches, and music events). 

In addition even with a 90% efficacy there will be the odd case of vaccinated people testing positive and in a few rare cases (a handful) resulting in death. When and if we achieve a 100% vaccination rate then we can determine if these odd cases are a failure of the vaccine or anomalies in the immunology response system of the concerned patient.

D. Vaccinations should be a personal choice and not a government mandated requirement.

Response: The argument of personal rights versus civic duty will always be a never ending saga of arguments. Suffice to mention we as a society follow many laws, regulations and directives that fall under the gambit of social and civic good. These range from seatbelt rules, obeying traffic laws and the list is never ending. Without a doubt the civic duty to protect ourselves and those we come into contact with does dictate that personal choice in the case of a pandemic like this needs to be set aside for the good of society.

E. The mRNA vaccine, which is what all COVID 19 vaccines are, can alter the DNA of the recipient and are considered relatively new methodology for vaccine development. 

Response: This is entirely untrue. mRNA vaccines have been under development for decades and are not at all something that was discovered in response to COVID19. Essentially these are messenger vaccines that create a protein spike on the outside of your DNA cell. This spike protein replicates the characteristics of the COVID 19 virus which then 'messages' your immune system to create the anti bodies to fight the virus. After the second dose it is expected that the body 'learns' to create the anti bodies for the COVID 19 vaccine automatically. The mRNA vaccine does not penetrate into the DNA cell and therefore cannot alter it.

F. Even if you are vaccinated you can transmit the virus.

Response: No vaccine is 100% effective and to that extent this statement is generally true. In general it has been seen close to an average of 80% protection is achieved upto 8 months after the second done. However, vaccinations across society ensure that over 80% of transmission can be blocked by the vaccine. Thus if only say 30% of a society are vaccinated as compared to say 90% in another country then in the first country vaccinated people may be able to transmit the virus. Thus the more a country is vaccinated the better the protection is going to be. 

G. Messenger RNA vaccines alter the genetic code.

Response: Since the mRNA vaccine does not go into the cell it cannot affect the genetic structure or genetic code of the DNA cell. This is all the more true since the COVID 19 virus is not a retrovirus like say AIDS where the DNA cell is compromised and vaccines and medicines used to combat retroviruses do interact with the cell itself.

H. The Long term affects of the vaccine are not known.

Response: Indeed this is true as it is equally true of any other vaccine that is developed. However, with artificial intelligence and clinical modelling with computers vaccine behaviour over longer period of time can be predicted. Suffice to mention the current probability is that most of the possible outcomes have been considered. On balance the uncertainty of long term effects have to weighed against the possible outcome of a virus infection.

I. Some of the anti vaxxers are against chemicals being put into the body.

Response: This is a generic view that anti vaxxers have and is misplaced insofar as the vaccine is concerned, The mMRNA is not a chemical vaccine,(in the Pfizer vaccine) and its active ingredient is ribonucleic acid, which is also produced naturally in our body. The other major ingredient is lipids which again are commonly ingest by us in things like olive oil etc. It the arrangement of these ingredients through bio processing that creates the spike protein that is essential in creating the anti bodies in our system. In the Johnson and Johnson vaccine the active spike is the adenovirus spike (like the common cold virus) which then teaches the body to create antibodies.

J. People can die of the side effects of the vaccine.

Response: Theoretically this is true to COVID 19 vaccines as it is true to any medication. Thus if there was a young person who has a history of hospitalisation from myocarditis (a heart condition) then there is a one in a million chance that such a person could have a seizure and die from the vaccine. This was equally true of the small pox vaccination where there was a risk that people with cavernous sinus thrombosis could die from the vaccine. Again these risks weighed against the millions of vaccinations creates a very low probability of such an outcome.

Conclusion.

While it is recognised that that will be a small percentage of people who will always resist vaccinations, there is a need for an objective discussion with the many others who have been influenced by the anti vaxxers. This entails and open and fair dialogue to ally the fears of people. Vaccinations are the most essential toll available to us for combating this deadly virus, which will continue to mutate to new variants till it becomes, hopefully, naturally extinct. Given the speed of the spread of this virus it is all the more essential that we, as a society, arm ourselves with the means to slow down and if possible arrest the spread of this virus. 

• 
  

United Kingdom and Migration.

 The daily news of channel crossings by people illegally trying to migrate to the United Kingdom is regular feature that continues to cause not only tensions between Britain and France but evokes intense debate within British society. Turmoil in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere has fuelled the migration of people seeking to assert their refugee status to seek asylum in the UK. Before one deals with the current refugee crisis it is important to see the history of migration in the UK. 

Since Roman times, as an example, Londonium, as London was called, was a melting pot of many ethnic people. Like most modern countries before the advent of rigid borders it was common for people to move around. In the mid 1800's there were immigrants from Ireland, Germany, Russian Jews and even 1000 Africans who had sided with the British in the American War of Independence and been relocated to Britain. The table below shows the migration pattern from 1800-1945 and then from 1945 to 2010.

Migrant group	Migration 1800–1945 (145 years)	Migration 1945–2010 (65 years)
Africans	10,000	1,000,000
Americans	70,000	250,000
Arabs	10,000	290,000
Belgians	240,000	40,000
Chinese	20,000	320,000
Cypriots	2,000	80,000
French People	40,000	100,000
Germans	100,000	300,000
Hungarians	2,000	38,000
Irish	1,500,000	700,000
Italians	40,000	160,000
Jews	220,000	80,000
Poles	5,000	500,000
South Asians	20,000	1,000,000
West Indians	10,000	400,000
Others	50,000	1,000,000
Total migration	2,339,000	6,231,000
Average migration per year	16,131	95,862

It may be noted that the Alien Act of 1905 and then the Alien Restrictions Act of 1914 slowed down immigration in to Britain. In some cases these acts, especially that of 1914 caused a reduction of Germans and Jews, many of whom then immigrated to United States. 

While many immigrants were fleeing persecution and turmoil, there was also labor shortages in some major segments of British economy which created the impetus for bringing in foreigners. This was nothing new as we had seen through the British colonising years that labor movements were encouraged by British overlords to meet the demands of shortages. Needless to say some of largest owners of the slave trade were British merchants even though few if any slaves were brought into what is Britain today. Slaves were taken to what is today the West Indies and from then on into America, Cuba, Latin America and elsewhere. 

Around the mid 1700's there was a shortage of seaman for the ever growing merchant fleet of vessels that plied between the colonies and Britain. In order to meet this demand, for instance, the British East India Company employed Indian 'lascars' or seamen who were placed in port cities of Britain and were perhaps the first Indians to migrate to the Britain. It was common in those days for English captains of ships to employ Bengali and Goan cooks and then these captains retired and settled back in England it was quite normal to bring their cooks and even 'ayahs' (maids) with them. Records show that in the mid 1700's there were close to 40,000 Indians in Britain and they ranged from lascars, to cooks, students, and emerging Indian businessmen. Indeed one such cook, Sake Dean Mohammed, who was from Bengal went one to open and own in 1810, what is believed to be the first Indian restaurant in London with the name "Hindoostane Coffee House". 

From the mid 1950's Britain started to grant independence to many of its colonies and it was believed that this might slow down the immigration. However, this coincided with a rebuilding of UK's infrastructure, after the war, and a relocation of a large number of British colonial officers and personnel. This created shortages in the labor market and Britain to bring in workers for the transport and building sectors. The added benefit of workers from the Commonwealth countries (former British colonies). was that many of them were not averse to working longer hours and/or night shifts. Indian and Pakistani workers flocked to areas like Lancashire and Yorkshire to fill the jobs in the textile industry, and to London for the transport industry and Slough for the food industry. 

By 1962-65 a flood of resentment swelled amongst 'white' British people who felt these immigrants were taking away their jobs. Subsequently on the back of Conservative Party pressure in this period various Acts were passed by Parliament to control immigration culminating in the 1968 Immigration Act which allowed immigration only to people who had 'a substantial connection; to the UK.  Anti immigrant sentiment remained high as evidenced by the right wing leader Enoch Powells 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968. 

With the Conservative Party's sweeping election victory in 1970 immigration was expected to slow down. However, political upheaval in Uganda, under Idi Amin, resulted in an influx of British subjects who had been granted special status under the 1948 Independence Act, were admitted into the UK. This was on the backdrop of the 1972 Immigration Act being debated and passed where by automatic entry for Commonwealth citizens was seriously revered and only skilled people already having been offered a job in UK and/or who could prove their parents or grandparents were British citizens were to be allowed in. All other entries were subject to the will of the British government. 

Contrary to the ultra conservative views of Powell and his supporters immigrants were filling job vacancies that 'white' British people were either not prepared to do, (cleaners, baggage handlers, unskilled labor) or were in sectors where there were chronic shortages, like the National Health Service. The NHS which has been created in 1948 really mushroomed its services in the late 1950's and was seriously short in doctors and nurses. In 1970 it was estimated that 33% of junior doctors positions and 44% of nursing positions were filled by immigrants. In sense this influx of people for the former colonies was like what famous author described as 'reverse colonisation' and has remained source of heated debate to this day.

In the late 1970's civil wars in the Horn of Africa and in Biafra created a new form of crisis where people displaced by conflict while not eligible for immigration felt they could arrive at a UK port and seek asylum. In 1951 the United Nations and passed a convention on Refugees and most countries were signatories to this convention and subsequent Protocol of 1967. Thus there is a clear distinction between people who seek to immigrate versus people who claim refugee status and/or seek asylum. The recent crisis in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan have created a influx into Europe and eventually Britain of asylum seekers and is the fraught with controversy.

The issue of refugees is emotionally charged and controversial and needs to be discussed even if some of the aspects of this debate are uncomfortable. Indeed there is the humanitarian aspect as enshrined in the 1951 UN Convention and the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights which gives every human the right to seek asylum from persecution and prevents recipient countries from returning asylum seekers to countries where the dangers they escaped from exist. These protocols establish the definition of a refugee and while the UNCHR was entrusted with a large body of the administrative and humanitarian protection of refugees, contracting states are obligated to protect and care for refugees. 

One of the essential responsibilities placed on a refugees was that he would seek refuge in the first country where he arrives and if this country has an absence of the conditions he/she are escaping from shall be considered his country of abode. This a key aspect of the dispute between UK and EU countries, particularly France because UK believes France is 'pushing' the refugees to cross the English Channel into UK. In the same view there is a common feeling that many of the refugees are 'asylum shopping' by not staying in the first safe country where they arrived and choosing preferred countries they would like to settle in. Whether this 'asylum shopping' is a personal choice or a choice made for them by the smugglers who profit from the asylum trade is not fully certain.

There is then the element of genuine refugees who face persecution and the danger of death and those who are essentially 'economic refugees'. Many of the refugees feel, as is the case of Afghan refugees, that since many of them worked for NATO, including British, forces now with the Taliban in control these countries 'owe' them the obligation of protection and settlement. Let us take the example of Afghan refugees as a test case to highlight the complexities of the refugee debate.

Since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in 1980s both Iran and Pakistan have housed millions of refugees. Particularly in the case of Pakistan, which at the peak had close to 6 million refugees, the refugee camps became the recruiting ground from where the many militias who fought the Soviets emerged to eventually oust the invaders. The refugee situation did not ease as a bitter civil war followed and then the Taliban takeover, who themselves were ousted by the US and its allies in 2003. Through all these phases the refugee camps in Pakistan and Iran remained full and currently it i estimated that there are close to 3.5 million refugees in Pakistan and 2 million in Iran. 

In 2021 total internally displaced people within Afghanistan was 3.5 million of which 677,000 are said of have left the country, mainly for Pakistan and Iran and Europe. UNHCR registration of Afghan refugees is not complete in many ways and stands at 2.2 million, thus causing much confusion on the actual numbers. UK, as apart of the withdrawal from Afghanistan took in 7,000 Afghan nationals and it is estimated another three to four thousand Afghan asylum seekers have crossed the Channel. Since the late 1990's total Afghan refugees settled in Europe, including UK are 570,000, of which about 40,000 arrived from Afghanistan after the withdrawal. 

At the peak US and NATO, and their non NATO allies, had 132,000 troops in Afghanistan, in 2011, while UK at not time had more than 10,000 troops. Of the total forces the US generally had close to 80% in Afghanistan with UK having around 8% of the total. One has to question whether the 570,000 'new' refugees escaping retribution from the Taliban are all political refugees who worked for foreign forces and thus feel their life is in danger. This does lead one to assume a large portion of the asylum seekers are really economic refugees who do not necessarily fall within the spirit and the letter of the law that the 1951 Convention and the Protocol of 1967!

The argument runs that because the Western powers left Kabul in a hurry there was no due process available for these persons, who are now asylum seekers, to legally seek immigration to the West. In fairness there is weight to this argument and one has to conclude that UK, US and their allies did little to think this process through.

The first place of safety for many of the refugees was and has been Pakistan and Iran. Why didn't the Western powers reinforce the administrative structure of these refugee camps and work with both Iran and Pakistan to deal with the refugees. They could then have set up processing centres in these camps to process the various possible cases for legitimate immigration. It would also have allowed them to create refugee camps with good facilities to house these refugees and reduce the incentive for them to fall prey to the smugglers? 

Secondly, Britain is right in its argument that France and some other EU countries should not 'push' the refugees on to cross the Channel. While the rules of first country are clear and all the refugees crossing the channel are violating the rules the problem is that in many cases the first safe country of entry for these refugees is Belarus. It is obvious that Belarus has adopted a policy of moving the refugees on to other European countries and is perhaps the base from which the people smugglers operate. 

Thirdly, the argument that former 'helpers' of foreign forces are still at risk in Afghanistan needs to be fully investigated. Indeed to say there is no one at threat would be flippant but it would also be silly to argue that all members of the former Afghan government and armed forces are targets. If indeed there are elements within the Taliban government who are targeting such people then an engagement should take place with the Taliban to correct the situation and countries like Pakistan can be asked to help in this process. 

Nothing in this suggests that asylum seekers should be sent back into the English Channel or other wise be abandoned. Humanitarian assistance but be accorded to all people who are at risk, this is beyond question. Looking ahead would it be impossible to build housing and services in say Pakistan and Iran and other neighbours of Afghanistan where the refugees can be housed and looked after. One would suspect it would cost less than trying to settle them in UK or Europe. This would also create the basis of repatriating those refugees who sought asylum and did not qualify to these new housing complexes within the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan. It would allow the very few genuine cases of asylum seekers to be processed and in time allow EU and UK to establish processing countries in the refugee camps and housing complexes adjacent to Afghanistan.

Addressing such a delicate issue is not easy but Europe and UK need to establish a new form of thinking and approach to dealing with asylum seekers. Sadly the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol did not create and solution for mass asylum seekers who are either economic asylum seekers or people who would not qualify for entry. In sense all those conventions suggested was that those who do not qualify would continue to languish in refugee camps in the final country they arrived in! Those conventions were designed to deal with a limited form of refugee crisis that emerged in the aftermath of the Second World War. Today we face a different world with different challenges and while we would like to end strife and war the reality is it exists and displaces people. Having a comprehensive approach to deal with such displacement with compassion is very important. 

The Anatomy. of Racism.

 Humans are not born racists but  some are conditioned over time, through upbringing, teaching and interactions, to segment other people into various groups. These groupings are based on physical features, like the colour of the skin, facial features, hair and ethnic characteristics. Historically it was natural to feel an affinity for a group of people 'similar' to ourselves, people who are in different groups were generally approached with caution. The creation of social segments of family, clan and tribe are all associated with our history of interaction. 
Various groups, (tribes) made alliances for a common cause which could range from sharing the spoils of hunting to confronting a common enemy, and by definition also considered differences with some groups as irreconcilable. However through history people have learned to coexist and live together in between prolonged periods of systemic hate and xenophobic sentiments. 
In the past few decades the reemergence of 'racism' has prompted a world wide debate about racism. In the modern context racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalised. Racism is not only directed by white people against black or coloured people, but also has been seen between coloured people. In its extreme forms, as we saw in Rwanda and former Yugoslavia this has resulted in ethnic cleansing. 
Issues that surround racism get even more heightened and complicated when politics and religion are added to the mix of the existing hate and antagonism. While Islamophobia or the treatment of black people are the more obvious examples of racism, in fairness racism is quite widespread in many forms that range from the blatant to the subtle. In some cases racism blends into centuries old beliefs as in India's caste system which is perhaps the worst case of institutional racism that has survived for centuries. 
History aside we today stand at a unique moment where the debate on racism has expanded and yet instead of bringing more tolerance and understanding has in a sense hardened the views on racism. The killings of black men by police in the United States may well have brought life to a new movement 'Black Lives Matter' few understood that there were under currents in US society that shaped the actions of people criticised the BLM movement. When in 2015-16 President Trump hurled his divisive comments about immigrants and half embraced the white supremacists in a way he allowed people to consider groups like the KKK as a normal part of society. Indeed we do not face images of the Klu Klux Klan ridding with whites hoods on and lynching black people, but be sure that they are around in different forms. 
Black Lives Matter is not only suggesting that only black lives matter, bur in a larger sense is for people to recognise that racism is in a sense institutionalised. The recent case of Kyle Rittenhouse highlights this better than anything else begging the questions that if Kyle was a black man who shot and killed two white people and did not have over $2 million donated to his legal fund would he have walked free? While initially 'taking the knee' seemed to suggest it was creating an awareness for BLM, in time it has come to symbolise a stance against all forms of racism. 
In truth many of the more subtle forms of racism are embedded in the behaviours that come from the 200 odd years of global colonialism. Thus when I am asked 'where did I learn to speak English', I can understand it's as much a subtle racist remark as it is a show of ignorance from the person asking me that question. In the same strain when a white South African comments on the current mismanagement of South Africa by the black political leadership one finds the deeper we go into what is a legitimate debate inevitably the tones from the days of apartheid become visible. 
Racism is not only a white and black issue and indeed colored and black people can also be equally racist about white people. Different races other than including white people can be racist, as we saw in the ethnic cleanings in Rwanda and Serbia. Till this day there are prejudices against the Hazara people by the Pushtuns, and across Africa hate is fuelled along ethnic differences. Indeed these ingrained prejudices are often confused with politics as we have seen in Sri Lanka during their civil war or in what is now Bangladesh in its time as East Pakistan. In Europe we saw Germany, under Hitler, implement a policy of persecution of Jews resulting in the death of millions and all in the name of a misplaced nationalism.
On positive side awareness of these racist trends is higher than ever before amongst a younger generation that seeks to put a stop to it. Movements like the civil rights movement in USA, or the aim to address the gross injustices to the Native Americans across the continent of America remain alive and perhaps in small ways making a difference. The battle to fix things is hard because one is fighting generations of in built bias that gives some ethnic and racial groups the misguided notion that they are in some ways superior to the others. This is all the more difficult to address in countries like India where the supposed superiority of some is built around a caste system they feel is ordained by their religion. 
Racism does not spread through the genes of a family. Racism is a mindset that is humanly created through learned behaviour. To that extent it is reversible, in theory, and this is a function not only of education but also addressing the fabric of the society which creates racists. Racism, like a virus, has also mutated into different strands that are difficult to trace and counter act. Kangaroo courts and mob lynchings have been replaced by a stunted judicial system which will typically hand out more severe punishments to a black man as compared to what it would do to a white man. Access to education and jobs is stone walled in some cases so that coloured and black people do not get the same opportunities. 
Reforms have often achieved some success but it's a slow process and in the 'democratic' countries hard to have consensus upon. In some countries political change, like in South Africa, suddenly reversed the table for the minority ruling elite. In so far as the objectives of such change was much needed in some cases, particularly after the death of Nelson Mandela, resulted in a sort of reverse racism where White people were denied some of the opportunities that previously the black people were. Gratefully this did not take the shape of forced segregation as we had seen under Apartheid. 
In some countries like the United States there is a concern that as lines are drawn harder the clash between the reformists and the entrenched white supremacists will become more violent. The Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty verdict is seem by the likes of KKK as a major victory all more as such groups are also vocal supporters of gun rights. In the same breath we have seen through the senseless killing in Wisconsin by a black driver of white people to signify just how bad race relations are getting in the US. While there are calls for healing there needs to be an understanding that things have to change radically for better racial harmony. With politics fuelling the fire of racist hate there is scant optimism that in some parts of America this may be achieved soon. 
Globally there needs to be an individual introspection on how each person can change the racist trends that exist around them. We need to take stock of our prejudices and address them in a manner that they change our perception of people who are not like. Healing is not simply talking about it, but it is to fundamentally change the mindset within us to abolish racism. A good starting point would be to shun divisive politics and  misplaced religious beliefs of superiority from out society. 

Pakistan's Energy Sector: Historical issues and some solutions.

 As the winter approaches talk of energy shortages in Pakistan are rife. After three decades of load shedding and electricity shortages now there is talk of critical shortages of gas. Each government since the 1970's has added to the problem of mismanagement, poor planning and misplaced priorities to the extent that one can say the energy sector is seriously broken. The chronic problems facing this sector are summed up below:

1. Installed generation capacity is 37,000 MW, while peak demand is 27,000 MW, which indicates that there is possibility for generation surplus. However, the transmission capacity is only 22,000 MW resulting in massive shortages in peak seasons. Over the past three decades there is been nominal investment in the transmission and support infrastructure resulting in a situation of shortages. Not tapping this surplus which is not consumed costs the country about 2% of GDP.

2. Consumer tariff levels are below the cost of generation and transmission for electricity resulting subsidies from the government to sustain lower tariffs for consumers. Residential rates at $0.10 per KwH is the same as the generation rate, so once the transmission and administrative cost is factored in there is a loss.

3. There has been no investment in upgrading the generation efficiency of the state owned power generations units resulting is a higher cost of generation. Currently many of Pakistan's power generation units use 14,000 BTU to generate 1 KwH against an accepted international standard of 8,400 BTU. This indicates that their power generation is almost 50% less efficient that the norm. It is estimated that 45.2 billion is needed to upgrade the existing plants. 

4. It is estimated that between 20 to 30% of electricity produced is effected by what is politely called 'transmission loss'; which is really theft. Power theft for legally addressed in the Electricity Act of 2003 but virtually no enforcement has taken place. Political power and a corrupt enforcement regime means that people who steal the power are assured of getting away scot free. 

5. Poor bill collection suggests that around 15 to 20% of bills are unpaid. While the biggest defaulters are the government agencies and departments there is a significant number of private and industrial consumers who just don’t pay their bills. In recent years there has been some effort for government agencies to try and be current on their bill payments but there isn't sufficient evidence that this is the case. In addition, there is such huge deficit of unpaid bills that it is very unlikely it will ever be caught up. 

6. The result of these mismanagement issues have been that the combined amount of the subsidies and the unpaid bills have been financed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) by bank borrowing backed by the government guarantees. This is massive amount as is commonly known as circular debt in the banking fraternity. This debt is rolled over each time tranche matures and is evidence of the extent to which the power sector has been mismanaged. 

7. Structural Inefficiencies were created in the late 1990's and then again in 2007 when there were massive generation shortages. This power generation gap was covered by allowing private co-generation agreements to be put into place with new investors in the power sector with tariff structures that were not realistic. The new investors are pretty much guaranteed between 18% and 25% return on equity by structuring the off take rate at $0.12 per KwH. These agreements are still a bone of contention and also a major financial burden. 

8. Capital inflows have not only dried up for new and more efficient energy system but we have also seen a dearth of finance for the maintenance of the existing power infrastructure. Fossil fuel, Hydro power and coal as the three main sources of energy generation and all suffer from poor investment in terms of upkeep and operations. Hydro dams are silted, old out dated technology is used in the furnace fuel generation plants and the transmission network is not only under capacity but also poorly maintained.

The Power sector in Pakistan while having massive potential is also the backbone for social and economic progress. The mismanagement and inefficiencies in this sector have become endemic and need a serious plan to be put into place to correct this vital sector. Some suggestions are summed up and while these are not entirely comprehensive, for which a major working paper would be needed, but it may help to concentrate on these points.

Main issues to address:

1. Pilferage of power and non payment of the bills, even by government departments should be addressed on a war footing. It is estimated that the combined effect of these two elements results in close to 50% of loss of revenue to the sector. (20% pilferage and 25% non payment of bills). Exemplary punishments should be handed out to those who are stealing power. Disconnection of power supply for non payment of current bills should be a policy even for government departments. 

2. With the above measures the increased revenue collection should be used entirely or atleast 50% to enhance the transmission network so that the installed capacity can be brought to the consumers.

3. As of now there are about 10,000 MW of new generation capacity being installed or considered for installation. This capacity will take 4-5 years to be completed and it is presumed since it use newer technologies the generation cost will be significantly lower than $0.10 per KwH. Additional new capacity has to be studied to see if it is cost effective.

4. Private Power generation units that were given preferential rates in the lat 1990s and 2007 have had over 15 years to recover their capital costs. These agreements should be renegotiated to bring them into line with current market rates for their off take tariffs. The owners of these units have held the upper hand by threatening to reduce or terminate power supply but with new capacity coming on they will have less leverage in the future.

5. While it is estimated that $5.2 billion is needed to upgrade the existing capacity to make it more efficient a five year plan to achieve this should be put into place. As efficiencies improve the cost-benefit of these plants will significantly improve with some units being able to achieve a reduction in costs by as much as 45%. This in turn will reduce the power generation cost per KwH and thus reduce the subsidy that the government provides to this sector.

6. A massive effort to encourage solar farms and solar cogeneration should be immediately implemented. Unlike fossil fuel and hydro projects, which can take from 5 to 8 years to be completed, solar farms can be completed within a year. Additionally current technologies to created concentrated solar plants have not only brought the cost down from $3m per Megawatt 15 years go to around $1 million per Megawatt. These capital costs are significantly lower than any of the other options for power generation. In addition the cost per KwH for solar power is currently between $0.03 to $0.06 per KwH. As most of the solar power can be provided to smaller towns and cities this would eliminate the subsidies that are given to the residential sector in the tariff rate structure. 

7. One of the major obstacles for new investment in the power sector is the massive corruption in the country. From the inception of the project design there are string of government officials who have to approve these projects who demand their 'cut' of the capital costs. One can go so far as to say that its like a mafia within this sector as reporting one official only results in his colleagues being even more difficult in approving the project. One person suggested that the 'cut' demanded is at times as high as 5-6% of the project cost! 

8. Countering the 'oil mafia' within the country is one of the major issues for investors in renewable energy sector. There is within the country a coterie of businessmen and government officials who benefit for the import and distribution of furnace oil to the power generation companies. Whenever, there is a large renewable energy project under consideration this oil mafia works behind the scenes to scuttle the project. Whether such a mafia exists needs to be investigated and appropriate action taken to address their influence. 

While the above measures are common sense and seem rather straight forward the real issue is implementing a plan that puts these into place. The extent of the current mismanagement and corruption is so massive that successive governments have been unwilling to tackle the problem. The clout of the private power generation companies has also been instrumental in the lack of ability to address these issues. For the private power companies their returns are pretty much guaranteed and thus it is not in their interests to change the status quo. 

However, creating an efficient power sector cannot be achieved in one stroke but has to be carefully thought out and achieved in a series of steps. Over a period of three to five years one can implement these recommendations and thus looking forward create a viable power sector. If Pakistan is to achieve economic progress then this is imperative to implement with boldness and clarity.