Latest news with #ManuJoseph
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Why the poor don't kill us: A must-read on why India is still Bharat
The poor attacking the rich is relatively rare in India. Sordid jails and the snail-paced judiciary are effective disincentives for voluntary criminal acts Sanjeev Ahluwalia Listen to This Article Why the poor don't kill us: The psychology of Indians by Manu Joseph Published by Aleph 2025 266 pages ₹599 This is the author's fourth book but the first in the non-fiction genre, an innovation from the 1950s, merging responsible journalism and engaging fiction in impactful storytelling. The result is a sparkling flow of thoughts sustained by their own sometimes convoluted logic. The author quit as editor of the Open magazine to write and explore alternative opportunities. So, why don't more upper-class Indians get slaughtered in their beds by the numerically overwhelming poor, many of whom serve the former in
Mint
20 hours ago
- Business
- Mint
Perplexity's $34.5 billion bid for Google's Chrome seems mischievous
If you're fighting an antitrust lawsuit that might end up breaking your company into pieces, one defence is to argue that those pieces would wither away if separated from the mother ship, thus creating a worse outcome for the consumer. That's what Google has been doing in the face of the US Department of Justice (DoJ) calls for it to sell Chrome, its market-leading web browser, as part of the remedies for its monopolistic behaviours involving its search business. As the company wrote on its blog in May, the DoJ's proposal to break off Chrome—which billions of people use for free—would break it and result in a 'shadow of the current Chrome," according to Chrome leader Parisa Tabriz. She added that the browser would likely become 'insecure and obsolete." Also Read: Manu Joseph: Who'd have thought Google could be replaced This defence was complicated somewhat on 12 August when it emerged that Perplexity, an AI company, had made an 'audacious" (Bloomberg), 'longshot" (Wall Street Journal) and 'mischievous" (my term) bid to take Chrome off Google's hands for $34.5 billion. Perplexity doesn't have $34.5 billion. The company was valued at $18 billion at the time of its last funding round, but said it would come up with funds from a coalition of investors who are already on board with the plan. The deal would realistically be possible only if the court does force the Alphabet unit to sell Chrome, which, according to most analysts I've spoken to, would be an extreme measure. But it's not an impossibility. Indeed, it might have become slightly more possible thanks to Perplexity's bid and what might come next. But before I get into that, let's humour this for a second and talk about why buying Chrome would make sense for Perplexity. The web browser has become a critical early battleground for shaping new habits in AI. Perplexity realizes this and recently introduced its own browser, Comet, which places its own AI assistant front and centre: If you type a query into the address bar, Comet will, instead of searching Google, turn to its AI instead. Also Read: Google's ad-tech dominance is easier to fix than its search monopoly At scale, this shift in behaviour from search engine to AI would be profound. The problem is that Comet has a tiny market share compared with Chrome's 70% of desktop browser use globally and 67% on mobile phones. Following loose estimates of about 3.5 billion users of Chrome, Perplexity would be paying about $10 per user. The goal then would be to convert as many of them as possible to users of its $20-a-month 'Pro' AI plan. As AI business models go, it's actually not bad. Unlike its biggest competitors, Perplexity lacks a shop window for its AI, an existing highly-used product where users can discover the functionality of AI without having to consciously go looking for it. Still, the lack of movement in Alphabet's share price on 12 August suggests investors have brushed off the possibility. For starters, some analysts think the valuation is way off. The offer 'vastly undervalues the asset, and should not be taken seriously," according to Baird. A better number, its analysts said, would be more like $100 billion—though it's hard to say how the dynamics of a deal would play out if Google had no choice but to sell Chrome. Previous valuations put it somewhere between $30 billion and $50 billion, a figure that seems a little conservative if the browser is indeed pivotal to building AI market share. Also Read: Google and Meta antitrust cases show why we need a policy pincer to foster competition in digital markets Regardless, what this bid truly represents is a cunning plan to get in the ear of Judge Amit Mehta as he considers the appropriate antitrust remedies for Google's prior bad behaviour. With this move, Perplexity is skewering Google's defence that spinning out Chrome would be fatal to not just Chrome but to Chromium, the open-source project that forms the backbone of most top web browsers, including Google's direct competitors. It can now be sincerely argued that there's a bona fide offer from a company capable of not only taking Chrome out of Google's hands but developing it further—keeping it from becoming 'insecure and obsolete," as the company warned. What's more, it seems likely other AI companies will throw their names into the ring. OpenAI's head of ChatGPT testified during the trial that the company would be interested in buying Chrome, 'as would many other parties." How much of this the judge takes into account is another thing. He probably shouldn't: The rationale to force a sale of Chrome would be to prevent Alphabet from creating a new AI monopoly with the same tactics it used to dominate search. Fine, but Judge Mehta has other tools at his disposal to achieve that more fairly. After all, the only reason an AI company would be interested in buying Chrome, at a cost that's double its existing value, would be to use the browser for those same anti-competitive ends. ©Bloomberg The author is Bloomberg Opinion's US technology columnist.
Mint
21 hours ago
- Politics
- Mint
Manu Joseph: Why the poor remain unseen casualties amid India's raging dog debate
Reformers take too much credit for reform. So often, good happens when upper classes collide in self-interest but ostensibly for a good cause. As we will get to see once again when the Supreme Court decides the fate of stray dogs in the National Capital Region. Awaiting the order are two warring sides. One group of people believes that stray dogs belong on the streets, with humans, free and fed by their lovers. The other group seems to despise stray dogs but I think their real bone to pick is with dog-lovers. They want the dogs removed from the roads, and for this they have discovered a sudden and uncharacteristic love for India's poor, who are the primary victims of dog bites as they are fully exposed to Indian street life. Also Read: Indian sophistication on stray dogs can be confusing Most civilian wars in societies across the world are between these two kinds of people. Those who stand for values, who have moral clarity on the matter because they will face no consequences, and who are thus able to say all the right things, which are easy to defend on camera. And the other side that is practical, and wants to live in a convenient way and for which they know that some values need to be compromised. They cannot easily argue their moral ambiguity in public and have to deploy the plight of the poor. But what they believe in is usually what many people say privately. They want stray dogs gone but do not want to be directly responsible for that because they don't want to pay a price for it in the afterlife. The second group might well be most of India. The first makes most of the noise. Also Read: The mean streets are no happy home for stray dogs The stray dog issue has appeared in Indian courts for years, with the victories mostly going the way of stray dogs. But a few days ago, a Supreme Court bench on its own accord took up the matter of the dangers of stray dogs, especially deaths from rabies, and ruled that all strays, probably a million, in the National Capital Region must be taken off the roads and put in shelters, which do not exist today in sufficient numbers. The problem is that if stray dogs do have a right to life, then they belong on the roads. As in, they are not meant to be in shelters with hundreds of other dogs—that would be a brutally feral world. Another bench heard an appeal and, at the time of writing this piece, was yet to announce its decision. Also Read: Manu Joseph: Can anything save Indians from miserable urban lives? By the standards of conflicts in Indian middle-class society, this is one with useful consequences for the poor. Usually, Indians waste a lot of emotion on useless things, by which I mean issues that will not improve the abysmal quality of life in India. The issue is morally complex. Guardians of stray dogs deny the scale of the problem. They say the numbers of dog bites and rabies deaths are exaggerated, and that stray dogs don't attack without reason. But this is unlikely to be the view of most Indians. Dogs are a danger, especially to children, disabled and the old. Like people, they are endearing when powerless. But, at the slightest whiff of an upper hand, as in the presence of a scared child, they are beasts. Also, Indians have died from dog bites despite being administered the anti-rabies vaccine. This could be because of the inconsistent refrigeration of vaccines. So, if you are a person who has to walk home down narrow lanes, especially at night, or go on a bike, there is a real fear of death upon the sight of half a dozen dogs sitting peacefully at a road junction. It really is not about the chances of dog bite, but about the miasma of a reasonable fear. Seen this way, stray dogs don't belong on the roads. But then, seen from the point of view of dogs, they belong out in the open. To an extent, they have better lives than house pets that are locked up most of the time and whose only luxury is that they are fed well. I have seen house dogs moan in envy, perhaps, at stray dogs. Also Read: What protects us from being stabbed in our own homes? The government has failed to do the humane thing to reduce the population of strays—sterilization. In any case, sterilization works best for pets, or on a small scale, and not for a city-wide reduction of the canine population. Besides, the government can barely fix roads; we cannot expect it to do difficult things, like finding humane ways to keep the number of urban dogs down. This leaves us with inhumane solutions, like dumping them all in something that we call a 'shelter' for our own comfort. As of now, stray dogs are protected by exemplary laws. This has angered people. I feel many developed a greater anger for stray dogs chiefly because of their annoyance with the moral swag of some animal activists. Usually, when a moral idea irritates people, only politicians speak for them. So, in the past few days, politicians have raged against dogs. Some, like Rahul Gandhi, had the courage to take a political risk and say that 'voiceless souls" are 'not the problems to be erased." He said, 'Blanket removals are cruel, short-sighted, and strip us of compassion. We can ensure public safety and animal welfare go hand in hand." But there is no such solution, especially a short-term solution. In any moral debate, it would be very lazy not to factor in the incompetence of Indian local government officials. Sterilization is, therefore, just not practical. I feel that nothing will come of this issue immediately because India rarely solves its difficult problems. So the dogs are safe for now. And the core of the problem will continue—the poor will pay a price as one segment of the country's elite fight for the meaning of being human. The author is a journalist, novelist and screenwriter. His latest book is 'Why the Poor Don't Kill Us.'
Mint
18-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Mint
A price cap on cinema tickets? Bad idea
Karnataka's government has issued an order capping the price of movie tickets at ₹200, inclusive of entertainment tax, for all language films at theatres, including multiplexes. This follows an earlier attempt in 2017, when a similar cap was placed on movie ticket prices but was lifted after multiplex owners took the matter to court. Also Read: Manu Joseph: Why movies that win Oscars are no longer enjoyable As reported, the idea is to promote regional cinema, although it's unclear why the order covers all languages. That aside, it's a bad idea for the state to interfere in how prices are set in a market. This involves movie producers, exhibitors and audiences, with no role for governments except to clear films for screening. Also Read: The Indian film industry needs to up its movie marketing game The revenue losses that a price limit will cause could upset business models and squeeze the supply of movies in the state. Snazzy multiplexes may find the going especially hard, given their investments in comfort on the assumption of customers being ready to pay a premium for it. Also Read: Why period films are deployed as tools of propaganda It seems plausible that even more film-watching will move away from cinema halls to devices that stream content off the internet. Price controls in fields of discretionary spending tend to have unpredictable effects that may or may not include their intended purpose.
Mint
10-07-2025
- Sport
- Mint
Sports as a public good: Time for India to put this idea in play
On 1 July 2025, the Union cabinet approved the National Sports Policy 2025 (NSP 2025). The policy's ambitious five-pillar, whole-of-ecosystem approach aims to place sports on the front-line of national development. This prompts a double-headed question: What can sports do for India and what can India do for sports? From two pillars to five: 'Medals' is the word most likely to be evoked by any mention of sports and the NSP 2001 captured this limited imagination of the pursuit. Grassroots sports for talent identification and international success were its two pillars. The NSP 2025 seeks to reframe sports as a cornerstone of nation building across five pillars: excellence, social development, economic growth, mass participation and education. This signals a new identity and role for sports in recognition of its power to effect population-scale change. It can improve physical and mental health outcomes, drive educational attainment and personal growth, enable social inclusion and contribute to livelihood creation, all with excellence as an overarching goal. It is also an open invitation for every Indian to participate. Also Read: Why should India spend public money on sports? Let the goal dictate our strategy Sports as a public good: The policy adopts a full-stack, ecosystem-based strategy that aims to integrate physical literacy with education, incentivize community engagement, develop high-performance pathways and encourage inter-ministerial, centre-state and public-private collaborations. This goes beyond semantics to real significance. For physical literacy, the policy adopts a rights-based approach to sports in education and promotes mass participation in competitive sport and physical activity so it becomes a people's movement. In general, it positions sports as a public good, with wide engagement serving a broader purpose. Countries that embed sports within their civic, health and educational frameworks report better social indicators—reduced crime, a better sense of belonging, increased gender equity and stronger civic cohesion. With over 65% of India's population aged below 35, we are well placed to reap similar dividends. From a health economics standpoint, mass participation in sports can reduce the rising burden of non-communicable diseases while enhancing mental health and well-being. Also Read: Manu Joseph: India's Olympic Games shame is not about sports at all From a labour and livelihood perspective, the sports ecosystem—from coaching, event management, infrastructure and apparel to data analytics and broadcasting—can create hundreds of thousands of jobs. The global sports economy, including value generated in adjacent sectors, is valued at over $600 billion. Informal estimates suggest that the Indian sports economy accounts for about 0.1–0.2% of GDP, significantly lower than the 0.5% plus seen in high-growth economies. India lags on direct employment by sports as well. Even a modest convergence with global benchmarks could unlock thousands of crores in economic activity. The NSP 2025 points to a crucial opportunity for India as a creator of sports value. Efforts in this direction would include supporting sports technology startups, the domestic manufacturing of equipment and wearables, sports media production and innovation in fan engagement. The policy's emphasis on inclusivity can improve social equity and widen the talent pipeline across all sporting disciplines. Also Read: Phogat episode: Celebrate her grit but revamp sports administration Clarity, culture and winning: While the NSP 2025 outlines ambitious objectives, it acknowledges the role of better governance and institutions in implementing its vision. Its ultimate success will be judged on how its whole-of-government approach works out. Our current challenges range from good governance of sports bodies and countering age fraud and rampant doping to local coach development and fixing inconsistencies in our reward and recognition systems. For all five pillars to work in support of the policy's vision, we will need inter-ministerial trust and coordination as well as inter-state cooperation. Our sports framework will also have to accommodate more strategic players. The 'national team' should include private investors and enterprises, educational institutions, corporate social responsibility funders, philanthropies and social and civil society organizations. The government simply cannot implement its policy vision alone. To effectively nurture these new relationships, it should use its full policy toolkit, moving beyond its role as India's sole implementer. It must also adapt itself to play multiple roles as our sports regulator, funder, enabler, assessor and celebrant. Also Read: FIFA World Cup 2026: Will US hostility trump its hospitality? Also in need of attention: fundamental research through surveys on the state of sports and physical activity, status checks on sports management and governance and other such endeavours that aim to enhance our knowledge for effective action to be taken. Schemes and programmes under the policy should be tied to measurable outcomes, such as improvements in physical literacy, health indices, access to sports infrastructure and employment generation. Monitoring must go beyond audits and become a window to identify opportunities as well as areas of impact. Finally, the policy's governance framework must mirror the enduring values of sports: fairness, accountability and transparency. Positioning sports as a public good calls for a mindset that looks at every Indian as a partner in progress. This is a defining moment for India. The NSP 2025 sells an ambitious dream. If it succeeds, hosting the Olympics won't be an end goal but just a pit-stop. Let's get playing. The authors are co-founders, Sports and Society Accelerator, a national sports promotion organization.
