Mathai Chacko MLA's Extreme Unction

Who is Mathai Chacko...

We are in the midst of a another religion vs ideals battle. Its being waged in Kerala between communist leaders and the clergymen over the extreme unction (extreme unction is last rituals for the sick on death bed) administered to communist party legislator, Mathai Chacko. At the outset it might sound very locale issue, but as I just running through the line of arguments, I realise that this is not just between Pinarayi Vijayan (State General Secretary, CPM) & Fr. Paul Chittilappilly (Catholic Bishop, Thamarassery Archdiocese), but another face off between religious authority and communist correctionist forces.

Mr Mathai Chacko, the late MLA was known to be an ardent communist follower. Born in an orthodox family with several priests and nuns, probably Mathai Chacko was an aberration in the family tradition that he chose to be a communist. He soon rose in the communist leadership in northern Malabar region of Kerala and elected as a legislator from Thiruvambady constituency in north Malabar as a Left Democratic Front representative (LDF - Communist led alliance. The constituency itself is supposed to be a congress stronghold with considerable christian population. He won that seat is a proof of his credibility as a person than a representative of communist party).

Then he was diagnosed for Carcinoma at terminal stages. He passed away about an year ago. He was consecrated outside a church cemetery as per his last wishes. But the issue of extreme unction came up in a veil almost an year later when catholic bishop Fr. Paul Chittilappilly mentioned that he administered last rites according to Mr. Mathai's wishes. The communist legions gathered themselves into action to save their hero from any denigration of his stature as a principled communist activist. Pinarayi Vijayan, the all powerful communist leader in Kerala took it upon himself to comment on the issue. On the first death anniversary of the MLA, Over his commemoration speech, Pinarayi Vijayan went overboard with his remarks on the bishop. He called the bishop as a 'wretched creature'. The catholic church couldn't have tolerated their bishop being termed in such mean language.

What ensued is a media war of words and changed positions on this topic. Media pulled out records of Mr.Mathai's marriage being sanctified in church. How can an accomplished leader agree to any church sanctification to his marriage? This further angered the communist leaders. Not even the widow is spared from media attention as their marriage became a disputed event.

We do not know for sure, if Mr Mathai requested for unction or if he had after thoughts on his ideals and principles. We do not know if he was conscious to the last moment. We do not know if someone from the family wanted him to have this administered (taking upon themselves the salvation of this strayed soul, given that he was unconscious).

Why should churchmen be wrong...

The boundary between religion and politics is as blurred as ever. Will religion be content working with spiritual and meta physical aspects of its followers, or will go to the extent of ensuring the welfare of its members in every sphere of life. What was the real intent of the bishop when he said that Mathai Chacko received the extreme unction and rosary from him. Was he really trying to make a point that however one live this life, the ultimate inner peace will come from the holiest arms of the church? Was he trying to recreate an all familiar story of the strayed sheep coming back to his shepherd?

Mathai Chacko led his life as a true communist (at least in the sense of abhorring all whats religious). It fits in well in church faith to have someone repent on his misdeeds and come back to join the brethren. But does church need such portrayals at the cost of a dead man's reputation and ideals?

Can church, for that matter any religion, take responsibility for all humanity to be in the path towards virtuousness. Can they dictate rules and regulations for doing so?

I know the answers to these questions are not simple. In some sense the questions indicate my favors for the answers. I think we should have serious retrospection on why should church take over arching responsibility for an individuals destiny and principles, especially for someone who has chosen to lead a life which he thinks right for him...

The case of Marxist forces.....

By choosing to start of a nasty verbal war against the bishop and church in general Communist party is deviating from democratic ways of debating and disagreeing(the wide held belief is that in Marxist scheme of things democracy is applicable to you as long as you proclaim Marxist revolutionary principles). Why cant Marxists exercise restraint on their words and actions when it comes to beliefs of sections. Why do they think that faith is something they can always desecrate. Why would anyone score political mileage over anyone by disrespecting something which is considered to be virtuous by sections.

While empowering the most needy sections via organisation and party provided education Communist party in Kerala probably created a social model for growth. But does that mean that they can chain the very own proletariat whom they have claimed to have saved from perpetual exploitation. Are they becoming religion by itself by denying the members any independent thinking or existence of their own?

Where does it lead us to...

The current spat of events is not one off. Its following some lasting tensions between the clergy and the communists in Kerala. One gets a sense that Marxist has decided to capture this as the opportune moment to seize the initiative from the right wing forces in Kerala. The current disputes over educational institutions is a case in point. The aggression and continued stance of aggression is a pointer. But I just leave the forum with these thoughts. We all know that its a never ending struggle, but the point is how disciplined we will be in taking our causes ahead.

Are stock markets safe for retail investors

The Beginnings ...

I think this question had been reverbating in the minds of the retail investors for long time and this had been discussed in umpteen number of forums. I am not sure if those discussions changed the attitude of the investors towards markets or their participation in the market. I used to be an avid reader of markets and investment advice from investment gurus in my college days. Still I for one stayed away from market for a long time. Primarily I didnt have enough funds to set apart for the investments in stocks.

Now a month ago, after lot of after thought, I decided to go and experiment there. The Indian market is already in its life time high. Some 20-30 % appreciation in the last 2 months. Nothing deterring me, as if some kind of vision impressed upon me that this market will fly forever.

Now that I am in the market it suddenly poses several confusing set of options. Options of When to invest, which sector to invest, what should be my strategy, how do I make use of the daily / weekly fluctuation for a further returns, which news will have what impact, did the minister really mean that and so on.. Add to these confusion, you will find a bevy of fund managers appearing and giving 'street preaches' on whether it will rain today or tmorrow. Everyone of them seemed to be very serious in their analysis and pretty committed. What worries me is the bewildering mismatch between each ones predictions on the market. With so many faces on the screen on the chances of rain and thunder, you literally find it difficult to make out between the expert talking right now and the expert who was preaching five minutes ago.

I dont know if the situation looks funny. But I know its very serious (look at me sitting baffled with a marketwatch window opened with some 15 shares blinking its prices and volumes). It all points to the fact that no market behave based on fundamentals alone. In a highly volatile market thats a great worry for a retail investor. He is harm strung with flood of infoporn or lack of critical data. He has much less clue of who is investing and why he is investing. Is it an FII or an MF.

Grey Matter...

The point I want to raise is the apparent information arbitrage happening in the stock markets. The large fund managers are privy to lot of information and grapewine which retail investor will not have any access to. For the retail investors policy makers are celebrities sitting somewhere in Nariman Point or New York or New Delhi. The proximity something the fund managers can use to judge the circumstances and to find out who is making the move.

This realisation, as it sets in, will surely discourage the retail investor to put any his money into market on his own. An investor will be more happy investing his funds with a mutual fund than to spend long hours chugging through the information and try to make sense of the market and then fail on that.

Now look at the size of the transactions which is handled by a fund manager. Again the transactions can come very much orchestrated from the large investors, of which the retail investor will have no clue. The miniscule funds he handle can not make any changes to the price level or trend. While the size factor seems to be very acceptable, worrying factor is the orchestrated nature of share price movements. Its surely is an after effect of information arbitrage.

Then comes the third issue of the expansive roles played by fund managers in todays connected economies. As fund managers extend their reach to markets world wide and operates on a global scale the foriegn funds flowing into any economy is anyones guess (yes, you have a number, but you dont know if he is a real investor or just parking his funds here as a safe haven). How long those funds stay in those economies then depends on host of reasons ranging from eerthquake in antartic to car explosion in Bagdad. Every thing, every trend seems to have an impact on the equity market. It could be inflation in UK, Fed rates in US, consumer spending in Texas or real estate price crash in Hong Kong. Can the retail investor keep track of such events while doing his primary job (I guess none of these retail investors earn their bread from stock markets). Can he assess the impact on the stock market he is involved in?

The consoling factor should be a good regulatory structure. But there too, you have issues of being a regulator. Firstly, no matter how good the regulation is, there is room for collusion and inside trading. Secondly, look at the time the regulator takes to respond to unwelcome tendencies in the market. There will be long deliberations on whether to intervene or let the market take its own course. But the blow to a retail investor could be quiet severe in that timeframe...

Where am I heading...

I am still experimenting and would like to go ahead with that. At the moment I feel that the retail investor can not afford to be in the trading. His bet is to research and select the best companies he would like to go with and leave the macro factors to settle in the long run.

Globalisation in the backdrop of social & economic inequalities

I was reading through the 'Lead India' campaign by Times of India. There are number of people invited to reflect their views on the newspaper, supposed to be the ordinary folks representing various sections.

There are some 10 questions on various topics such as globalisation, reservations, sex, dowry, government intervention and judiciary. What should be the government approach towards globalisation and growth with respect to distribution of the wealth created by globalisation. Should we go in such a pace where the lower pyramid can participate or we just move as fast as we can on this front.

I think the questions of how to pace India's economic growth (driven by globalisation) and how to tackle the inequality created by such growth are two different issues which need different approaches to solve. The root of the inequality trouble is very different from the drivers of the economic growth.

Lets just look at the growth phenomenon. The growth story in various emerging economies is part of the larger phenomenon of spreading the economic growth beyond the developed economies. Or these countries are the new engines of growth for the market driven / capital driven forces in the world economy today. India do not have any other option than to participate in this growth, else its going to be a laggard for a long time. Since the growth is driven by external market forces, India's ability to control the pace (increase or reduce) becomes quiet difficult task. The protection regimes will have retrograde effects only, I believe. If you look at it, in a way we are solving a the issue of inequality of world wealth by driving this new growth initiatives in emerging economies.

My views might seem to be infected by capitalist tendencies (which is criticised for being mindless). For me its not really capitalism which is taking place, but greater productivity / wealth creation by greater economic freedom. It should be about collective responsibility still retaining the importance of individual initiative. We have tried to experiment with several other mechanisms of solving economic inequalities and governing nations (Read communism and various flavours, then some very scary models of dictatorships and theocracy). But the last century has demonstrated its inherent problems for us very vividly.

But the new growth mechanism (be it capitalist or very similar the academic definition can wait at the moment) makes assumptions about the society where its being implemented. It assumes an appreciable level of participation from the people in the governance . Not just servient attitude to any political party, but an attitude of looking at the real facts involved in a situation. The mechanism needs active media which debates issues (right issues) than sensationalising it. It needs a judiciary which is timely in delivering its responsibilities. It needs a very responsible parliament and parliamentarians. Unfortunately Indian realities are far from these assumptions. We are seeing pockets of activism be it in media or judiciary or parliament or bureaucracy.

I think thats where the gap between growth and distribution of wealth comes. There is one more dimension to it, our civilisation is millenia old. The inequality of our society as is created by more than few centuries. Solving that social and economic inequality is not task which can be discussed in the same platform for globalisation. I think it takes more than economic initiatives. Our inequality is seldom economic only, its a lot psychological too.

Our 50-60 years of affirmative action led by government agencies and educational institutions would have done incremental benefits. But we are still far from the dream of an active democracy which thrives on people action and debate. We are still run by cast equations and religious placards.

Does it make sense to hurdle our economic growth by arguments on social equality. Whether we have growth or not, we need a seperate set of actions and platform to solve that. Actually the growth and new found wealth has made that social wealth distribution question more relevant for our society. In that sense I see this growth actually supporting the work for greater social & economic equality.

I have just briefly touched this broader issue. What I want to stress is that we should treat the sickness than its symptoms.