What is going on, in India?

An elderly American gentleman asked me that question, just last week. And I summed it up neatly as quite simply : the struggle between those who want to keep India a secular republic (which the constitution guarantees) and those who want to turn into a Hindu nation.

This explanation captures, in my view, what this fight is about. The ruling BJP has been in power for a few years now and emerged as a power-house only after the 1990s, coinciding with India’s economic liberalization.

I recall seeing images of the national campaign to take down a centuries old mosque, Babri Masjid, which was alleged to be the birthplace of Lord Rama.

This party has led charge against ‘liberals’ and ‘secularists’, clubbing them as anti-national.

In their vision of India, anyone who is not Hindu is a second-class citizen and suspect. Muslims and Christians are on top of the list of those deemed suspect.

The state has instituted CAA, the Citizens Amendment Act along with the proposed NRC, National Registry of Citizens; this can be a deadly weapon to make illegal millions of ‘legal’ citizens of India, who were born and raised in the country.

This is not just a struggle to reclaim what it means to be Indian, it is also an effort to define ‘Hinduism,’ a term & idea that was coined by the British.

Innovations in money transfer and remittances

The past few weeks have been filled with conferences. I was in Mexico City for a conference organized by CEMLA on remittances in Latin America and a meeting there lead me to another conference in Miami, this time the IMTC conference.

Founded by Hugo Cuevas Mohr, the IMTC conferences are where practitioners, bankers and technology folks go. This was my first time at an IMTC conference and I was excited to attend.

Hugo Cuevas-Mohr at the IMCT Conference, Miami, 2019.

Having just returned from Mexico City on a Sunday, I took the Monday evening red-eye to Miami, to reach on a Tuesday, Nov 12th. Speaking of travel bugs, this was definitely a streak of travel for me, unlike any that I had encountered.

So, what did I witness at IMTC?

Quite a lot : Insights from Hugo, who is a veteran of the money transfer industry. His grand-father had a remittances/money transfer business in Colombia and he seems to have grappled with many of the issues facing this industry from an early age.

“I rode the wave of money transfers, and here I am.” he pointed out.

There were several innovative products and companies showcasing them. The most innovative one I saw was a Maya ATM machine that helps you send remittances and also do a host of other things such as pay bills etc.

And there was a firm in Africa called Baluwo, that is billed as a ‘Partner for cash-to-goods,’ meaning you can buy someone goods, rather than send cash, remotely.

Additionally, I learnt about Transfer Wise, a company that was billed as one of the cheapest ways to send money, in terms of its model of functioning. It was the ‘modern hawala’ as one speaker pointed out.

In part 2 of this post, I’ll explain some more insights gathered from this conference.

Do we need whistleblowers?

The recent scandal with Ukraine and Mr.Trump is one of the dozens of ethical (and legal) scandals that we have seen. Scandal after scandal, it seems like the word scandal is losing its steam. However, this one has a new twist : there is a whistleblower involved.

The American legacy of whistleblowing goes far back, the days of the founding of the republic. Just seven months of signing of the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers passed the world’s first Whistleblower protection act. The U.S. has been a pioneer in this field, as many others.

This act was necessary to protect those government officials who were working under tyrannical bosses or unethical people, who abused the power and authority of the government – either to abuse people or to gain wrongfully from their position, and go unpunished.

As Alison Stranger points out “The whistleblowers who sought protection were 10 American sailors and marines who had reported improper behavior by the Continental Navy’s most powerful man.” This seems to be the guiding principle of why these laws were put in place and continue to exist.

Similarly, Roberta Ann Johnson writes in her book The Whistleblowers that five conditions help explain why this phenomenon exists in the U.S. : 1. Changes in bureaucracy itself 2. Wide range of laws that encourage whistleblowing 3.Federal and state whistleblower protections 4.Institutional support for whistleblowers and 5. A culture that often values whistleblowing (p.4).

Several laws such as the Ethics in Government Act of 1971, Code of Ethics for Government Service and the like were passed that encourage reporting of wrong doing and offer protections to those who do report.

While financial rewards can motivate some whistleblower – the Federal False Claims Act offers 15-25 percent of the money their whistleblowing recovers for a federal agency, many are motivated by a sense of justice and fairness at work.

While the current saga at the U.S. federal level gets sorted out, it is important to keep in mind that whistleblowers are not a nuisance or ‘spies’ but rather a necessity in our democratic society.

Without them, we may lose the moral compass that guides much of public service. We may be lost in the wilderness of corruption, redtape and nepotism.

Whistleblowers, in other words may be our new-age prophets. We better listen to what they have to say!

Hi-networth giving in America : a symptom of another gilded age?

Felicity Huffman’s sentencing to 14 days in jail this week could be a turning point in American charity. It is among the few indictments of a rich person who used their money or influence to gain an advantage for them/their family.

But a change in American attitudes towards charity and a turning point? How so, you might ask.

Huffman, a celebrity and well known figure is among the few who ever get punished for using their money to unduly influence processes. In this case, it was for getting her daughter admitted to the University of Southern California.

At a time when income inequality is a hot button issue and corruption among the elite is a topic that gains attention, the issue of philanthropy and the corruption is breeds is also gaining traction, and for good reason.

I suspect that this case may establish not only a legal precedent but also a moral one that may start questioning the benefits of hi-networth giving and the actual benefits that the giver receives. While the assumption (which holds true in many cases) is that rich folk give money to fulfill some sense of mission or obligation, there are many cases where the motives are not as pure.

Besides, may be living in yet another ‘Gilded Age’, where the rich and mighty bought favors, got laws written in their favor and basically gamed the system. This has happened in the past, with the Rockefellers, Carnegies and Fords.

With several dozen other rich and famous people accused of misusing their money and influence to help their kids get into this top-ranked university, the question naturally arises : Are Americans becoming tired/ jaded of a certain strand of philanthropy :that of the super-rich?

It may be too soon to say that this is a major shift, but there are indications that more people are paying attention.

For sure, there has been a decline in public confidence in public institutions, as this study points out. There has always been a skepticism of hi-networth philanthropy, among the informed segments of American society.

The philanthropic landscape in the US is quite complex, with people’s understandings, motivations and trust varying across levels. While almost 1/3 of philanthropy takes places towards religious institutions, one can see how confidence in religious institutions remains somewhat high, despite various scandals.

However, given the individualistic nature of giving in the US, there seems to be some skepticism of hi-networth giving.

While this scandal involving philanthropy and education may pass, it may awaken a new understanding among people (and perhaps the elite philanthropists too) that buying your way into anything may have consequences. And that hard work may after all, count for something!

Honesty, hardwork and the academic life

New York Times published this article recently that talked about writing companies offering essays, academic papers and the like, as services to American college students. I have seen examples of this in my own classroom, though have been handicapped in proving that this work is completely written by someone else. This goes to the heart of an issue in academic integrity : You cannot detect plagiarism if it is someone else doing your entire work. For that, you need good old commonsense.

The authors of the story, Stockman and Mureithi point out that “The essay-for-hire industry has expanded significantly in developing countries with many English speakers, fast internet connections and more college graduates than jobs, especially Kenya, India and Ukraine. A Facebook group for academic writers in Kenya has over 50,000 members.”

What this means is that many American and international students get help and an unfair advantage over others.

I have seen this in my classroom and it makes me sad that students resort to this sort of behavior. What this does is make learning purely an instrumental idea, something purely done for the sake of earning that degree/ diploma.

The statistics are not positive. As the article in NYT points out, “A 2005 study of students in North America found that 7 percent of undergraduates admitted to turning in papers written by someone else, while 3 percent admitted to obtaining essays from essay mills.” I would hazard a guess and say that this number is possibly higher, given the difficulty in getting accurate responses on such sensitive topics.

This sort of ‘contract cheating’ is harder to detect, point out folks from Turnitin, a software that catches plagiarism. However, the same company is coming up with another product called Authorship investigate, that will determine if the said author actually wrote a piece.

There are no federal laws against contract cheating in the US, the authors point out. Such laws have come into effect in Australia and the U.K.

So, what can universities do to address this? What can professors do, to eliminate such practices?

There are no easy answers. While it is easy to accuse someone of contract cheating, it is very hard to prove it.

I have tried to institute inclass work, to see how much of their work matches with what is turned in – I tend to have writing heavy courses – so this is a real problem for me.

I have also interviewed students suspected of this practice. I talk about plagiarism and related issues regularly in class, not to shame anyone but to let them know that it is not ok!

But I still wonder, how can I teach someone the value of putting in the effort, of actual learning – that is supposed to enhance one’s life and quality of thinking? That is a tall order indeeed.

Race to lead

I received a report in my mailbox today titled ‘Race to lead’ which deals with the issue of challenges that leaders of color face, in the nonprofit sector, in the U.S.

Many of the issues highlighted in the report are quite familiar to me : lack of funding, board of directors not taking you seriously. The report adds “Nonprofit EDs/CEOs of color report more challenges in their relationships with boards of directors when the boards are predominantly white.”

The report also points to the challenge of access to support for leaders of color.

Critics may point to the self-reporting bias and a sense of victimization that leaders of color may have. I have heard this argument myself. However, there is no denying that salary data, experiences of people in leadership positions to tell us a story. And unfortunately, it is not the prettiest one.

What do you think about this report? What is your own experience in leadership – if you are a person of color?

On leadership…

I am teaching a course on Nonprofit Leadership this summer. This is a strange time to be talking about leadership, given that we are witnessing so much chaos around the world and those who are supposed to be ‘leading’ are doing anything but lead.

Consider the world of business, which has become the focus of much of our lives. If one takes the case of Huawei, the Chinese company that is at the heart of supposed espionage – according to the American President – there is increasing pressure on American firms to cut ties with Huawei. Political leaders are pulling the plug on collaboration, creativity and innovation, it seems. Whether Huawei is actually indulging in espionage remains to be conclusively proven, but leaders have chosen to point fingers.

In an announcement that didn’t reveal anything, Robert Mueller read out a testimony basically saying that his report was the last word. He pointed to Congress to interpret and act in ways that were in line with their mandate. In other words, he was asking people with power and authority to act as leaders.

So, what do leaders do?

They craft a vision and inspire people to move towards that vision, says Warren Bennis, in his book ‘On becoming a leader.’ This sounds simpler than it actually is.

What drives one’s vision? It is a combination of one’s values, ambitions, character traits and life experiences.

So, to have better leaders we need better value frameworks, which are more inclusive, just and equal.

Whether is it dealing with change, chaos, crises; all of one’s values come to the fore. Especially, if one is a leader, he/she is asked to define a problem and then help solve it. With a twisted logic and skewed view of the world, one can only mess things up more, rather than solve the real problem.

What we are witnessing today, in the world is not actual definition of problems, but rather twisting and framing problems to suit one’s agenda. Whether it is gun control, climate change or migration, leaders are choosing the easy path to please others. Despite overwhelming facts and evidence that humans with guns are dangerous, that climate change is real and that migration actually helps countries grow, politicians are acting in ways that limit debate on these issues. Populists are framing issues to suit their needs and are dealing in xenophobia and fear.

This, is not good leadership. It may be good salesmanship and PR, but certainly not good and enlightened leadership.