Discussion of my book RETHINC at Kindle Lit Fest

Kindle Lit Fest features my book RETHINC on October 27 at 5:45 -6:15 pm. Please feel free to join.

Why would Indian educational institutions want to go abroad?

Amity University plans to be in 50 countries in the next ten years, the Economist reports.  It has already set up shop in  America, Britain, China, the UAE, and Singapore.There are others such as BITS and Manipal University that have also spread their wings overseas.

Why would Indian institutions want to go abroad when there's a huge untapped market here? And surely, they can't expect to compete with foreign institutions for foreign students?

Well, here's the answer to the puzzle. These universities do not in general cater to the local market abroad. There are plenty of quality institutions overseas to take care of the local market. What the typical Indian institution does is cater to rich kids from India. These kids can't get into, say, Amity University in Delhi. But they can get into the same university in Dubai or Singapore. They are happy to cough up more than what they would pay in India and they either can't get into top schools abroad or don't want to pay the fees of foreign universities.

So, there's a perfect market segment arising from basically the Indian market. Why would Indian institutions not expand their institutions here and take in more students? Because that would dilute the quality of their products in India and affect placement and their brand image. Many do take in some via capitation fee or donations but, taken beyond a limit, this carries risks. Better to cater to Indian students who can't make it here by setting up operations abroad. Then you grow your revenues without compromising on quality in the domestic market.

I daresay this makes for a great case study in market segmentation and pricing.

Bloomberg interview

A Bloomberg crew landed up at IIMA the other day and did an interview with me on the Indian economy and Indian banking.

Nato hypocrisy on Syria

The US and its Nato allies have no strategy on Syria, they only have outrage over Russian actions. That's because a year's bombing by Nato has produced no results on the ground other than bringing Syria closer to disintegration. The reason is simple enough. Nato has been bombing ISIS and it has also been weakening the Syrian regime headed by Assad. Naturally, the outcome is a draw- and untold suffering for the people of Syria.

Enter Russia with a clear agenda, namely, to shore up Assad against all jihadists, ISIS, Al Nusra whoever. This is the only approach that can resolve the crisis in Syria, if at all.

Read this excellent article by a British military expert.

Putin's masterstroke- for now

I happened to watch CNN and BBC the other day and was transfixed by the press conference on Syria given by Sergey Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister to the press corps at the United Nations. It was a brilliant performance. Lavrov was polite, firm, combative and, above all, came across as principled and honest. It was the performance of a man who is a diplomat to his fingertips. 

Lavrov left behind a memorable quote on why the  Russians were not confining their bombing to ISIS and instead targeting some other groups:

If it looks like a terrorist, if it acts like a terrorist, if it walks like a terrorist, if it fights like a terrorist, it’s a terrorist, right?”

Yes, right, indeed. The US-led coalition's strategy of bombing ISIS while at the same time undermining the one force in Syria that can put up a fight against it, namely, the Assad government, has produced nothing but chaos and unimaginable suffering to the people of Syria. As Lavrov put it, the idea that if Assad were made to disappear, the fight against ISIS would be successful was not "serious". Lavrov's plea for "some honest journalism" was also appropriate- the western media's demonisation of Assad has simple not helped the cause of fighting ISIS. Nor its willingness to turn a blind eye to the western coalition's decision to undertake bombing in Syria without a mandate from the UN.

Russian president Vladimir Putin's spirited address to the UN helped place the Syrian problem in perspective:

We must look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa already mentioned by the previous speaker. Of course, political and social problems have been piling up for a long time in this region, and people there wanted change. But what was the actual outcome? Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention rashly destroyed government institutions and the local way of life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now violence, poverty, social disasters and total disregard for human rights, including even the right to life.
I’m urged to ask those who created this situation: do you at least realize now what you’ve done? But I’m afraid that this question will remain unanswered, because they have never abandoned their policy, which is based on arrogance, exceptionalism and impunity. 

Putin's decision to intervene in Syria- with aircraft, tanks and other arms to the Syrian government plus 2000 Russian military advisors- is, perhaps, the first decisive action we have seen in the bloody war. The intention is to help shore up the legitimate government in Syria, reduce opposition from terrorist groups other than ISIS and get the world to focus single-mindedly on the threat posed by ISIS. There are, of course, other objectives. Russia would like to maintain its foothold in the Middle East. It would like to project itself as a global power. And it would like to move western attention away from sanctions imposed in the wake of its intervention in Ukraine.  However, the primary objective undoubtedly is stem the chaos and suffering in Syria. To quote from Putin's address again:

We should finally admit that President Assad’s government forces and the Kurdish militia are the only forces really fighting terrorists in Syria. Yes, we are aware of all the problems and conflicts in the region, but we definitely have to consider the actual situation on the ground.
Dear colleagues, I must note that such an honest and frank approach on Russia’s part has been recently used as a pretext for accusing it of its growing ambitions — as if those who say that have no ambitions at all. However, it is not about Russia’s ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world.

The US is mightily upset- President Obama has warned that Russia will get trapped in a 'quagmire'- but much of Europe has maintained an eloquent silence (with the exception of Britain's PM). Europe is being swamped by refugees from Syria. It has every interest in any action that carries the promise of stemming the inflows into Europe.

There are, of course, imponderables in the situation. If the US and its allies in the Gulf were to attempt to shore up the non-ISIS opposition to Assad at all costs, the fighting would drag on interminably. Any extended intervention would pile up costs for Russia and any loss of Russian lives would erode domestic support for Putin. For now, however, Putin's decision to intervene is a masterstroke that holds out the possibility that Syria will not disintegrate as Iraq and Libya did.