there is some evidence technology is also helping sidestep systemic bureaucratic corruption that is often rife in developing countries.

With backhand payments sometimes required for the simplest transactions, direct access to documents and government agencies is frustrating unofficial middlemen.

A government form that's downloadable from an internet kiosk rather than printed out by someone vulnerable to a bribe is a basic example of how open access can fight corruption. [Source]

CGOV should perhaps provide access to various government documents, or at least links to them. Any thoughts on this?

I'd like to invite EVERYONE (from anywhere in the world) to participate in developing a technology model that bridges the distance between the Indian citizen and the government.

Check out cgov.in which is under development, but has been tested and found to work. Right now we are working on the pilot phase, but this is only the beginning.

Let's use technology in the most creative way possible to close the governance gap in India.

I've not yet completed watching this movie, but one thing struck me while listening to it: that the rate of organ donation in India is particularly low. I'm not sure about the detailed statistics on this, but I'm thinking of making it mandatory for people to be organ donors before they get the right to comment on this blog.

Being an organ donor is SUCH A SIMPLE thing, and COSTLESS. I can't imagine why anyone would not donate their body for use after they are dead.

An organ is such a vital thing. Once we are dead we don't need our body or organs. We should be thrilled if someone can benefit from our dead body.

Organ donation is ONLY good. There is not one bad thing about it. No cost whatsoever, only gain. A PRICELESS gift that costs nothing!

If there is any manna from heaven, that would be a donated organ. 

The manna is FAKE. The organ is REAL. And has more beneficial properties than any manna, than ANY miracle.

Dear IT experts, is there a way I can require everyone who comments on this blog to confirm (through a tick box) that they are organ donors, before they comment on this blog? Any WordPress plugin that I can use? 

Here's information on organ donation in India [Source]

It is estimated that in India every year over 100,000 people are diagnosed to have kidney failure and would be needing a transplantation. Due to non-availability of organs only about 2,500 kidney transplants are done. The same thing happens for eye and other organ donations as well. 

Call Toll Free number across India for any information on organ donation or to donate organ at: 1919

Imp numbers for Delhi & Mumbai (using MTNL)

1. Information Service on Eye Bank is 1919 

2. Centralized Accident & Trauma Service 1099 

3. Information Service on Blood Bank is 1910 

4. Dial a Doctor 1911 

More information, below:

Data from the Planning Commission seems to indicate that India's government spending as a share of GDP is around 20 per cent or less. [see my blog post here]

But IMF data shows the following:

I'm only interested in TOTAL government expenditure as share of GDP, hence PD's comment about OMB's data is irrelevant. The data re: US and Australia is now looking fine, and matches with what I've known in the past, just that the US government has grown 10 per cent larger since I last thought about it. 

Clarifications needed

The key difference between the data I dug up yesterday and this one is that according to IMF India raises 18 per cent of GDP as revenues (vs. Planning Commission data – relating to the central government – which indicates that the centre raises around 9 per cent of GDP as revenues; state revenues extra). 

The idea that the states of India manage to generate 9 per cent of GDP as revenues sounds implausible. I've estimated (yesterday) that states generate around 1 per cent of GDP, with a max of 3 per cent, but that's a pure guess. I've not had time to study this issue. 

Given that IMF have had time and energy to study this issue carefully, I should defer to them tentatively. One can't dispute facts.

In order to be fully convinced, though, I would prefer if PD or someone could cite an Indian source that has conducted such analysis, and show me how the states of India are able to raise around 9.5 per cent of GDP as revenues.

I've made it clear that it is inappropriate for such folk to want to get "married". They can sign contracts and do other such things, but not marriage. But marriage is a term with long-determined meaning. The idea of changing the very meaning of a word to suit some people is undesirable.

The terms marriage, विवाह, nikah, etc., are not terms of convenience.

Like the precision attributable to the term liberty, these terms connote a precise meaning: in this case a valid union between man and woman with its many rights and obligations. It is just the way it is defined. For thousands of years, the precise nature of this institution has been worked out. It stands for certain things.

No offence meant to "gays" (and I have NOTHING against "gays" or the morose), but you can't really change definitions of words.

A rose must be called a rose, and a tiger, a tiger. And so on. Just because someone like Amartya Sen starts ascribing to liberty the exact opposite meaning of what it originally meant, doesn't make this new definition valid. In DOF I've tried to explain that liberty is purely – in modern jargon – negative liberty. Not positive liberty (of the sort that Amartya Sen wants). Original meanings matter.

The key message is: let's not tinker with words and meanings. That will confound everything. 

I understand that "gay" people want to be "regularised" by society.  Sure. That's perfectly OK. I've got NOTHING against any "gay" or non-gay person. As adults people can voluntarily trade/contract, subject to not harming any other person (that's crucial).

So if you are gay you are most welcome to prepare and sign a contract that "regularises" your relationship. I'm happy to be a witness. We can all celebrate.

All that is fine. That's part of the concept of liberty.

But the idea that this relationship should be called marriage is nonsense on stilts. Only an Obama could have thought of such a thing. 

Note also that this contractual relationship can't demand any right to adopt or produce technology-created children. Children DON'T enter the equation in this relationship. They are simply out of question.

To dispel any confusion on what I stand for, here's a simple table:

Feature	Marriage	Gay couple living together
Relationship that is either contractual or a sacrament (sanctified by religion in the eyes of God)	Some are contractual. Most are sacraments in the eyes of God. The state MAY recognise (its role is irrelevant; marriage being PERSONAL law). The implicit common law contract is fully contestable in court.	PURELY contractual, with property rights protected by the state.
Institution developed and guarded by thousands of years of tradition – in all religions and societies	Yes	No
Right (but not obligation) to bear children	Yes	No
Right to rear children	Yes	No

I'm unable to respond to the many comments I'm getting on this topic. Commentators are often asuming things I did not say nor imply. I have contested the role of the state in marriage. They don't seem to know that. They have not read my writings on marriage. I'd encourage them to read Online Notes to BFN.

Also, the commentators need to tone down some of their absurd claims, e.g. "And as long as marriage is recognized as a legal contract between 2 consenting adults". It is NOT.

Marriage is NOT any ordinary contract between any two consenting adults. 

Marriage is a PARTICULAR type of contract, and in most societies, a sacrament.

It has a spiritual basis in the minds of most people. Regardless of whether there is a God or not, people deserve their beliefs to be treated with some respect, so long as they are not harming anyone.

By trying to get "married" the gays are entirely upturning the meaning of marriage. That's an inappropriate ambition. Such ambition has NOTHING to do with liberty or the "regularisation" of the "rights" of "gays" to pursue happiness.

There are ways to be free (and happy) without disrupting the entire society, AND nature!

Above all let's respect the laws of biology and of nature. 

@sabhlok Federal government spending in US is 24% of GDP http://v.gd/sTF2Pn   Heritage figures show India is 29% http://v.gd/Q6KgxL  [Source]

This is patently incorrect (both for USA and for India), from my understanding of these issues. Therefore I have now spent about 40 minutes searching for relevant data and have found the information provided below.

This table is from the Planning Commission website: (click for larger image)

The table shows that the Centre receives about 9 per cent of GDP from taxes and dividends, borrows around 5 per cent of GDP, and ends up spending around 14-15 per cent of GDP. It has been borrowing around 5 per cent of GDP for a VERY VERY long time. 

In addition, the centre spends some money on states. It is not easy, however, to locate the combined expenditure of all governments in India. So I have had to extrapolate.

The following table is illuminating: http://planningcommission.nic.in/data/datatable/0904/tab_10.pdf . It shows is that the Centre allocates about 20 per cent of its tax revenues to the states. The Centre also borrows significantly on behalf of the states, which can be seen here: http://planningcommission.nic.in/data/datatable/0904/tab_16.pdf

In addition, states have a few (feeble) sources of revenue, primarily liquor and forestry licenses, and octroi.

With total central expenditure (including borrowings) currently at around 15 per cent of GDP, I'm willing to add another 3-5 per cent as state revenues and borrowings, to yield a total GDP share of India's government expenditure of about 18 to 20 per cent. This 20 per cent figure is on the high side. I'm inclined to stick with 18 per cent.

I'd like PD to ask Heritage for their sources. I'm happy to be proven wrong in my analysis, should PD offer solid references and data.

Over to you, PD.

LIBERTY is the "human right". LIFE is the "human right". [Why I place the phrase "human right" in quotes is explained at length in DOF; basically there are no rights till a constitution is agreed, along with enforcement of the rule of law. By no means are natural rights to life and liberty automatic "rights" .]

But the question before us is: Is marriage a natural right?

No.

A constitutional liberal democracy must enforce the rule of law, through application of laws equally to all citizens. That does not mean, however, that the law must be blind to basic BIOLOGICAL facts of life.

For instance, in public places there are generally TWO separate toilets: one for men and one for women. 

Why?

Because men and women are DIFFERENT in their biological constitution. It is not a violation of liberty for men to be prohibited from entering women's toilets in a public place (e.g. airport).

Similarly, children can ONLY be produced from a man and woman (regardless of any technological overlay, which STILL relies on the underlying DNA of ONE man and ONE woman).

The right to marriage is therefore RESTRICTED only to a man and woman who will not just live together but could have have BIOLOGICALLY CREATED (i.e. natural) children. 

One may well ask: Is it crucial that children necessarily be produced in order for a union to be called "marriage"?

No. Even if a marriage does not produce children, the fact that biologically it COULD have, is sufficient. 

The fact that someone must necessarily adopt children or have them technologically produced (as must ALWAYS be the case in "gay" marriage), is fundamentally a different idea to that of marriage. These are two distinct sets; MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE:

There are those who argue that "gays" can adopt and hence "care" for children. But just because one is fit to be a nanny doesn't mean he/she becomes a parent. The whole point of marriage was (and is) the natural upbringing of children.

In sum, there is no natural right to marriage. There is NO constitutional imperative or necessity for a society that guarantees liberty to also guarantee "gay" marriage.

There is, in addition, NO natural right to be able to "care" for children that are not one's own. Yes, in a real marriage adoption sometimes becomes necessary. But that still allows for the NATURAL upbringing of children. Such upbringing of an adopted child in a REAL marriage is NOT comparable in any form or shape to "upbringing" of an adopted child by a "gay" "couple" .

In sum, there is NO system or possibility in nature for "gay" parents. PERIOD.

"Gay" people can live together and have SEPARATELY defined legal rights, particularly contractual arrangements for property or such things.

But no, their relationship is not, and cannot be marriage.

Should they wish to care for children, they can help out in orphanages or otherwise assist as nannies or school teachers. I'm not undermining their possible contributions as humans. But they must not have any access to children for "bringing them up". That is a fundamental violation of the laws of nature.

The NATURAL rights to life and liberty derive from NATURE. The laws of life (biology) have priority over all other laws. Let us avoid making a mockery of fundamental institutions that are rooted in biology and the laws of nature.

Being the ridiculously incompetent nitwit dictator that she is, she could not even do that (Or arrest the MILLIONS of others who shared/tweeted/blogged the said cartoon).

Now she is making another useless statement – that she will "show you Facebook".

I don't know what she means by this – whether: 

a) she will show us how to log into and use Facebook, or

b) she will show Facebook the cartoons about her, or

c) she will take Facebook to court and shut it down (!).

I suspect, the middling two penny dictator that she is, she imagines she is going to shut Facebook down.

Let her try. 

Go for it Mamata! Let's see what you will show us.

In the meanwhile, I'm delighted to ONCE AGAIN RE-PUBLISH the cartoon which has rankled her so much:

Clearly Mamata Banerjee is a MAJOR LAUGHING STOCK OF THE WORLD.

Good on her for keeping us in amused.

 It is almost certain that India will soon become the world's largest beef exporter (it is competing vigorously with Australia and Brazil for this position). 

[Source]

What is the value of the global beef industry? I couldn't locate the answer to this question through a quick google search, but I found this data which could be generalised, very roughly, to indicate that about 80 per cent of the world's population (say 5 billion) eats around 15 kilos of beef each year.

That gives us 75 billion kilos of beef consumption annually, or 75 million tonnes, of which the total export market is around 9 million tonnes (which makes sense).

With an average retail price (for that's the ultimate value of the product) of beef of around $12 per kilo, that represents a global market value of approximately $900 billion per annum. (My calculations may be off by a wide margin so if you have better data please let me know.)

Lack of more active participation in this massive market represents a HUGE lost opportunity to India not just for greater exports but for greater protein consumption within India, making children across India much healthier. 

While Indians twiddle their thumbs in debates about whether a cow is "sacred" or not (although Vedic Indians probably ate cows, from my current understanding), Australia is using Indian cow DNA to produce one of the world's most efficient breeds, suited to the dry environment of Australia. 

If India had applied its mind to this issue, it would have become enormously wealthier and HEALTHIER by now.

(click for larger image)

Caste system

I have shown how the caste system was PIVOTAL to the success of India during the agricultural epoch. It ensured that basic necessary skills (e.g. blacksmithy) were ALWAYS available in each remote, decentralised village. That gave India a competitive edge over the entire world, making it unequivocally the RICHEST society (including in per capita terms) in the world for 12 out of the past 20 centuries.

The fact that India evolved the caste system is therefore, in my view, better attributable to the imperatives of economics than religion (although religion has a role in its continued persistence). Religious explanations merely couched the optimal economic equilibrium in language more suited to the lay man. 

Even today, as Gurcharan Das rightly points out, the major industrialisation drive in India is coming from the bania or capitalist "class", which is shifting gears from trade to industrial production. Caste is giving India an advantage even in the capitalist world. 

But this should be its last hurrah, its last contribution to India.

Capitalism CANNOT tolerate inequality of status. In this new epoch of industrial and information production, the caste system is NOT optimal any more. The economic logic of capitalism will, in my view, inevitably lead to the death of the caste system – If only India's governance is radically modernised.

Marriage

But the institution of marriage is not defunct and will NEVER become defunct. It serves and continues to serve a most basic purpose in society. It is the place where CHILDREN – the most important beings from the perspective of humanity and Nature – get to experience the dynamics of REAL life, thus being nurtured till they are able to stand tall and compete in this dynamic, challenging world.

The idea of having two "dads" or two "moms" for any child (who is not naturally produced from BOTH parents) is TOTALLY perverse and harmful at ALL levels. Children in such "families" will NEVER appreciate or imbibe the basic organic structure of society. Such children are put at a disadvantage from day one.

I do NOT support any idea that damages CHILDREN and confuses them from the moment they first come into this world.

How will a child suckle two dads? What UTTER nonsense is this!!!!

Why are we depriving CHILDREN of natural upbringing?

It is not my business nor am I interested in what two adults do with themselves. I don't really care whether they are gay or morose.

But I am FIRMLY against the idea of a "family" unit that destroys the foundational institutions of society – and SERIOUSLY damages children.

I oppose the caste system on many grounds, so clearly I'm not a conservative. I'm a (classical) liberal. But I oppose any attempt to destroy or dilute the MOST foundational institution of society: the family.

I firmly oppose the idea of two males/females being allowed to "marry" and thus "bear" children.

Obama THE FOOL is (once again) WRONG. I hope he is booted out by the Americans.

I urge Indians to FULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY REJECT THE UN'S MESSAGE AND ASK IT TO MIND ITS OWN BUSINESS. (I'm being polite.)

Let the West switch off its coal plants and use windmills, if it wishes. Let the West cut down its carbon use. But India should NOT. By all means use coal efficiently, but use it freely and without restraint to power growth.

Till there is EVEN ONE COAL PLANT in the West, India should NOT listen to anyone who wants India to cut down its growth by using high cost energy.

In any event, CO2 is GOOD for life on earth. Pay no heed to the highly paid morons who operate the UN.

A new report released by the United Nations Development Program in mega-city Jakarta today has a tough message: Asian cities “can't afford to grow first and clean up later”. [Source]

Note that the UNDP doesn't mean cleaning up toxic chemicals! It means reducing carbon emissions. Carbon – the BASIC ingredient of life – is deemed to be more problematic than toxic chemicals.

The challenge was to make sure these countries could grow and reduce emissions at the same time. Even so, they already use 80 per cent of the world's coal for industrial production.

“We're not saying consume less, that Asia shouldn't have a middle class,” Mr Chhibber said.

“But it's how you plan your cities in terms of transport development, greener buildings, the shift to gas [for electricity] against other forms of fuel [such as coal], and much greater options on transportation.”

city administrators “have little understanding of climate change”, and few “appreciate its full implications”

This is rubbish. Ignore the UNDP.