Numerical nihilist

Prof. Jayati Ghosh, a development economist, has blamed the central budget 2020-21 as containing only lies. "Every single number in the budget is a lie."

How so? According to the learned professor, since the budget was presented on February 1st itself, the figures for 2019-20 contained in the budget include data up to December, 2019 only and estimates for remaining three months. Does the professor want accurate current figures before the budget is presented? Is it possible?

The professor ought to know that even the figures up to Dec 31 are only approximate. It is natural that numbers undergo a lot of revisions and corrections in a country of our size. Comfort with approximations is one of the requirements for a practical economist. Is discomfort with all numbers a prerequisite for a JNU professor?

Prof.Ghosh claims that current slowdown is worse than 1991 and 2008. One may respond to her with her own argument. What are the numbers in her calculations which have enabled her to come to the conclusion about the severity of current slowdown? Are they not a bundle of lies?

"Every single item of receipts, the revised estimates for what they are spending this year and all what they have received this year is a lie."

WHO on coronavirus

Coronavirus has spawned a huge infodemic that makes our heads spin. If there is one incontrovertible fact, it is that the problem started in China. Thankfully the Chinese government has not denied that what is now a pandemic originated in China. There are limits even to the Chinese opacity and deniability.

If China is unable to deflect the blame elsewhere, the World Health Organisation has come to its rescue. "This is the time for solidarity, not stigma" asserts WHO's Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. In other words, do not question what went wrong in China.

Initially, WHO tried to soft-pedal the issue and refused to declare the viral outbreak as PHEIC (Public Health Emergency of International Concern.) On January 30th when the seriousness of the contagion could not be contained in vague phrases, WHO relented and declared the epidemic as PHEIC. At the same time, the UN body insisted that this move was not a criticism of the Chinese policy or action (was it not inaction for a week or so since the virus started spreading?) but was meant to help those countries which were less equipped to deal with deadly infections.

WHO does not want travel and trade restrictions from various countries to China. The famed organisation has said that such restrictions are a social, political and economic recipe for disaster. WHO thinks that these restrictions would shame China, the country that WHO does not want to antagonise. WHO can afford to be more professional and less scared of big powers.

The DG has advised that the only way we can defeat this outbreak is for all countries to work together in a spirit of solidarity and cooperation. "We are all in this together and we can only stop it  together." So, China is off the hook! Tedros has also certified, "Were it not for China's efforts, we would have seen many more cases outside China." Really? (Some observers believe that China delayed informing the world and its own citizens about the viral outbreak and a lot of damage was done before the country started shutting down the entire Hubei province. Wuhan, the capital of Hubei, is the epicentre of the epidemic.)

Supreme Court of India

We can divide the Supreme Court history into 3 periods. The first was when the judges had good grasp of both law and English (Justice Patanjali Sastry and others). The second crop of judges were adept in English and not so in law (Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer). The present is amateurish in both. 

Chief Justice S.A.Bobde has commented "there is no let-down in crimes against women." This conveys the opposite of what he wants to say. He meant let-up and goofed up with let-down. Let-down means disappointment!

Supreme Court and Chidambaram's bail

Reading the 36 page judgement of the Supreme Court reversing the Delhi High Court decision and granting bail to P.Chidambaram, one gets the impression that one's faith in the judicial process is neither sustained nor restored.

The Supreme Court substantially agrees with the High Court, but cleverly and perhaps cunningly arrives at the contrary decision. The apex court accepts that economic offences are a class apart. It is therefore the case that the tripod test (flight risk, tampering with documentary evidence and influencing the witnesses) is not the only consideration to decide on bail applications. Yet it is also held that bail is the rule and jail the exception.

The sealed cover may contain the reasons why bail is not called for. But then, bail is the rule. The accused is 74 years old. He had to consume antibiotics in jail! Is PC the only pre-trial prisoner satisfying these conditions? The court could have used this opportunity to enquire how many such prisoners were there in Tihar jail itself. Does the court care for equality before the law?

The court accepts that the gravity of alleged offence is a relevant consideration. There is a rider there also. The maximum period of prison sentence for his alleged offence is ONLY 7 years and so bail is the norm.

Tushar Mehta had made it clear to the court that the charge sheet is not yet exhaustive and that further investigation is necessary in the interest of justice. Witnesses had confirmed that they had come under pressure from the accused and his family. All these matter little to the court because the accused is 74 years old and has lost weight while in prison. If these are accepted as exculpatory reasons for lenience in grant of bail, the prisons will become almost empty.

Ayodhya verdict

Ayodhya is an antonym for war. The name is associated meaningfully with the likes of Ram who was averse to waging a war ; Ayodhya can have no attributes of a person, a descendant of Genghis Khan,  who waged multiple wars to gain territory and commit unspeakable atrocities.

It is unfortunate that Indians are known for their xenophilia. Evils emanating from this tendency were highlighted by George Washington in his famous 'Farewell Address': (tedious but worth reading):

"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter."

It is not surprising, therefore, that criticisms abound about the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in the Ayodhya case. Archaeological Society of India had firmly concluded that the Masjid was built on the ruins of a non-Muslim construction. This was typical of the acts of a murderous marauder. Clamour for imparting a higher legal title to a merciless invader indulging in lawless adventure than to wronged and helpless locals is a typical manifestation of spineless xenophilia.

Come clean on NEET

The Madras High Court has made some spectacular observations in a NEET (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test) - related case. These observations are perhaps born out of genuine concern for the poor students. But apparent failure on the part of honourable judges (N.Kirubakaran and P.Velmurugan) to ask relevant questions seems to have misled them.

In Tamil Nadu, a preponderant majority of successful students in NEET has gone through private coaching which costs around Rs.5 lac. This isolated statistic has made the judges observe that NEET is anti-poor. Is this the case in other states also?

There is widespread resistance (fuelled by donation-greedy medical colleges promoted by political leaders) to NEET only in Tamil Nadu. It is not possible that other states are not concerned about the prospects of poor students. Students in other states are able to clear the NEET exam even without additional coaching because the educational standards in their state schools are good enough to enable their students to get through NEET.

So the answer to the problem faced exclusively by poor students in Tamil Nadu lies in improvement in the standards of school education. Instead, if we do away with NEET, we will only throw the baby with the bathwater. The court's gratuitous question "Why can't the Centre cancel NEET like other systems implemented by the Congress-DMK regime?" unnecessarily paints the issue in political colour.

Tamil Nadu should stop treating the students as dumb folks who need to be protected from knowledge and start respecting them as eager minds which have a welcome hunger for relevant knowledge.

Artificial Intelligence on steroids

Google recently announced that they have designed a quantum computer that processes in just 200 seconds what the most efficient computer that exists today will take 1,000 years to process. ‘Quantum Supremacy’ has arrived!

It has been speculated for quite sometime now that the Moore’s Law which states that the speed and capability of computers can be expected to double every two years, is becoming outdated because the limits of computational ability are approaching. The advent of quantum computer has obsolesced the Law in an unexpected way!

John McCarthy who coined the term ‘Artificial Intelligence’ (AI) defined it as the science and engineering of making an intelligent machine. The question therefore arises as to what is intelligence. Intelligence may be classified or taxonomised in two different ways. The macro taxonomy as defined by psychologists Raymond Cattell and John Horn is crystallized intelligence and fluid intelligence.

Crystallised intelligence is accumulation and retention of knowledge. It comes out of experience and memory. Fluid intelligence is the ability to think, connect the dots and come to decisions. Both are important in order to succeed in life. Therefore AI also is supposed to incorporate both.

The micro taxonomy is elucidated by Howard Gardner. He contends that intelligence is of nine different types. These are spatial, kinesthetic, naturalist, quantitative, existential, linguistic, musical, inter-personal and intra-personal. These intelligences are exhibited illustratively by pilots, dancers, botanists, engineers, spiritualists, orators / writers, singers, leaders and psychologists respectively.

It is not possible for a human being to be adept in all nine types of intelligence. However, it is theoretically possible to design artificial entities which will exhibit all of these.

Artificial intelligence of a computer is categorized as Artificial Narrow Intelligence (ANI), Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI) depending on the variety of tasks the computer can perform. ANI is the limited capacity to perform only one kind of task. AGI involves the ability to perform any task that a human being can do. ASI transcends the limitations of human intelligence and is the ability to do what humans cannot.

AI can work 24 hours a day unlike the human intelligence. AI can execute hazardous and boring jobs without complaining. It can consistently perform activities flawlessly, a far cry from what a human can do. On top of all this, AI does not have a bias of its own. Contrarily, an unbiased human being is perhaps an oxymoron.