Monday, October 1, 2001, Chandigarh, India


E D I T O R I A L   P A G E


UN bans terrorism
N what is obviously a tentative first step, the United Nations Security Council has called on all member-countries to crackdown on terrorism of all types. While it is mandatory for all governments to implement the resolution, there is no mandatory punishment like sanctions on those ignoring or violating the decision. 

Welcome merger
EVERAL years ago, when information technology and telecom policies were being formulated, the merger of these two vital ministries into a single communication information technology Ministry was mooted. 


Cyber challenges & priorities
A suggestion for using IT to root out corruption
Satya Prakash Singh
TEPHEN Hawking recently recommended in an interview to German magazine Focus “that humans change their DNA through genetic modification in order to keep ahead of advances in computer technology and stop intelligent machines from taking over the world”. Hawking is one of the greatest physicists, a genius that has been compared with Einstein. 


Kairon: Punjabi dynamism, American accent, lasting legacy
September 30
, 2001
India on the sidelines
September 29
, 2001
Dominant thinking in USA
September 28
, 2001
Shedding staff flab
September 27
, 2001
Proof muddle
September 26
, 2001
Have pity on civilians
September 25
, 2001
Terrorism in Kashmir
September 24
, 2001
First war of 21st century to combat terrorism
September 23
, 2001
Out goes Jayalalithaa
September 22
, 2001
Musharraf’s confession
September 21
, 2001
Another pious ideal
September 20
, 2001
Death dance in Kashmir
September 19
, 2001
Stop racist attacks
September 18
, 2001


Crime doesn’t pay! Nor does farming!
Khushwant Ahluwalia
ITTING comfortably in a bar in Delhi drinking rum with water and swallowing pork sausages on sticks, I was introduced to a rich businessman of Delhi by my host. “You can’t be a farmer” said the rich man very regimentally as if used to the ways of the defence. It was only later that I came to know that he was an arms supplier.


Anupam Gupta
The many unanswered questions of Jayalalithaa’s case
PART from a non-legislator’s appointment as Minister or Chief Minister under Article 164 (4) of the Constitution — on which I focussed last week — the September 21 verdict of the Supreme Court in Jayalalithaa’s case grapples with important issues of criminal and election law.


Three Indians on Forbes list
hree Indian Americans, including 12 Technologies CEO Sanjiv Sidhu whose company’s stocks have nosedived during the IT industry recession, are on the just released list of Forbes 400 richest people in the USA.

  • Vedanti visits World Sikh University




UN bans terrorism

IN what is obviously a tentative first step, the United Nations Security Council has called on all member-countries to crackdown on terrorism of all types. While it is mandatory for all governments to implement the resolution, there is no mandatory punishment like sanctions on those ignoring or violating the decision. This is what makes the step tentative and even symbolic. But as the first global initiative, it is highly significant. For one thing it was endorsed by the Council after just one day of debate and the approval was unanimous. Partly it was a reaction to the worldwide response to the September 11 strikes in New York and Washington; but it also indicates the resolve of all member-countries to stamp out terrorism from their countries, even if it is directed against a neighbour or a distant nation. The consensus is easily explained. The USA is in the forefront for obvious reasons. Its wounded pride has mobilised the support of the permanent members and others for the tough resolution. Britain has had to deal with the IRA (Irish Republican Army, active in Northern Ireland), France is home to a large number of Arab Muslims who have sometimes indulged in violence to protest against police misbehaviour. Russia’s Chechnya and China’s Xinjiang are often in the news and need no reiteration. Thus there is a very strong affinity of both views and interest in framing and adopting the anti-terrorism resolution.

India has reason to feel vindicated. Now it can sue the world body to put pressure on Pakistan to smoke out the dozens of terrorist outfits based on its soil but operating in Kashmir. Pakistan is particularly vulnerable to US pressure as is evident from its banning and freezing the bank account of the Harkatul Mujahideen within hours of a similar American move. Even so, India’s manoeuvrability is somewhat restricted since the USA is totally Pakistan focussed to hunt down Osama bin Laden. But this phase will be over soon. That will be the time for this country to compile an impeccable dossier on all Pakistan-based terrorist outfits and demand UN action under the latest resolution. Pakistan will not be subjected to economic sanctions but will come under international glare. New Delhi should skilfully mix the terrorism issue with the unspeakable suffering of Kashmiri Pandits to add a humanitarian touch to the problem. Sadly though, it has ignored this aspect so far. 


Welcome merger

SEVERAL years ago, when information technology and telecom policies were being formulated, the merger of these two vital ministries into a single communication information technology Ministry was mooted. But this idea was never followed through. All of a sudden, Mr Pramod Mahajan, Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, IT and Communications, has announced that the merger will take place in just one week. Since the disclosure comes within about a month of his taking over communications from Mr Ram Vilas Paswan, one can draw one's own conclusions about what was holding the marriage back. Significantly, the Communications Convergence Bill is before Parliament right now. The need for a merger is unexceptionable. The dividing line between the two sectors has been thinning steadily, to the extent that it has all but vanished. Bringing them under one umbrella can make the functioning of both more efficient through operational homogeneity. There will be one consultative committee and one national advisory committee of experts instead of two as at present. This common interface between the two industries, which complement each other, should go a long way towards energising them both. As far as the public is concerned, it can look forward to several advantages, including the facility to access video, voice and data on a common telecom and IT infrastructure, possibly from a single company with a single bill. If the government creates the right legal and policy framework in real time, the benefits can start flowing within a few months.

All that sounds promising enough, but one cannot ignore the flip side either. Pious intentions do not get translated into resolute action very easily. There is apprehension that the new merged Ministry may instead become a maze of super bureaucracy. After all, there are going to be three separate departments (telecom, posts and IT) with three secretaries in place. If they work in step, things can move smoothly. If they don't, well, we know what goes on in other Ministries. When Mr Mahajan urged officials of the DoT to change their mindset, he was only acknowledging the existence of a stonewall. To the Minister's credit, he showed that he had drawn up a detailed blueprint. One, he promised to create a level playing field with fair competition and fair cooperation. Two, he insisted that he would not block any new technology on flimsy grounds. Three, he remarked that private wealth was not anti-national wealth, meaning thereby that the private sector would be involved in the IT-telecom operations in a big way. And, four, he reiterated his commitment to rural telephony and making telecom a basic fuel for the engine of growth and not a revenue earning machine for the Government of India. That is a promising start. Now for the gruelling journey!


Cyber challenges & priorities
A suggestion for using IT to root out corruption
Satya Prakash Singh

STEPHEN Hawking recently recommended in an interview to German magazine Focus “that humans change their DNA through genetic modification in order to keep ahead of advances in computer technology and stop intelligent machines from taking over the world”. Hawking is one of the greatest physicists, a genius that has been compared with Einstein. He is an unbelievable fighter against physical handicap, totally crippled very early in life, yet extremely productive intellectually. He authored “A Brief History of Time,” one of the most famous books ever written. He said that computers doubled their performance every month while humans developed much more slowly. Therefore, they must change their DNA make-up or be left behind. He also advocated, “We must develop quickly technologies that make possible a direct connection between brain and computer, so that artificial brains contribute to human intelligence rather than opposing it.”

Hawking’s recommendation for changing human DNA through genetic modification may be controversial, but if a man of his calibre is worried about the future of man’s position vis-a-vis computers, the problem must be real. It ought to be tackled by the world of technologically most advanced computer-savvy elite. Surely, Indians will also participate in the debate initiated by the science prodigy Hawking, and quite effectively. Also, they will play a strategic role in formulating an action plan to stop computers from taking over the world. India’s priorities are different though. The plain truth is that India belongs to the other world — the world that still struggles for satisfying the basic minimum economic needs. We should do first things first.

It is a matter of pride for us that Indians are in the vanguard of the computer-savvy world. They are responsible in a significant way for improving the performance of computers at an incredible pace. Indeed, they dominate the world of computers: 34 per cent of the employees of Microsoft, 28 per cent of IBM, and 17 per cent of INTEL are Indians. Laurels have been sung about the Indian computer industry and Indian software entrepreneurs. More than 30 per cent of the market capitalisation in India is due to the software stocks. Also, Indians are respectable citizens of the world of enterprise in the Silicon Vally. This small section of Indians however, does not mean India. We must recognise the blatant dichotomy; proud Indians but poor India.

We can genuinely be proud of our ancestors. They invented the number system, place values and decimal system, algebra, trignometry, the value of pi, zero (due to Aryabhatta), Pythagorean theorem (due to Budhayan), art of navigation, earliest system of medicine, Ayurveda, wireless communication, chess, reservoir and dam systems, as well as many kinds of intricate surgeries and anaesthesia. The oldest universities of the world, Takshila and Nalanda, were established in India, where a large number of students from all over the world came to learn more than 60 subjects. We can be proud of the Harappan culture and the Indus Valley civilisation. The point to underscore is that all this happened in India at a time of history when most other cultures of the world were nomadic. We might bask in the glory of our ancient heritage. But does it solve our present-day problems?

A glorious ancient history as well as the present achievements of Indians abroad in many walks of life, particularly in intellectual pursuits, are something to fall back on in moments of despair. And the moments of despair are many. The recent assessments of the Indian economy, and reports regarding the plight of teeming millions, the poor, particularly in the face of natural calamities, are testimonies to the multidimensional poverty of India.

It is rather paradoxical that India remains economically so backward. Nani Palkhiwala is reported to have once narrated an anecdote. When he was the Indian Ambassador to the USA, the chief of IBM invited him to his company and introduced to him the Indians working there. He had all praise for the performance and achievements of the Indians working in IBM. Then, having lauded the capabilities of the Indians, he turned toward Palkhiwala and remarked, “With this kind of manpower, you must be working very hard to remain backward!”

How do Indians work hard to remain backward? We can give excellent explanations, since we are pretty good at diagnosis. The problem is that of implementation. J.P. Lewis wrote a long time back in his famous book, “Quiet Crisis in India,” that Indians were very good at analysis, but very poor at implementation. We felt annoyed. But, unfortunately, he was right. Now when the economy is in the grip of an overall slowdown, many an analysis is being produced, as usual. Structural and global causes are being listed. How can the economy be brought back on a sustainable high growth path? Recipes are being vociferously advocated. It is not necessary to go into the details of the recipes. The fact is that a feasible solution continues to evade us.

The thinking today rightly rivets round speedy and effective implementation of the second-generation reforms. There is widespread agreement on this, a serious and pertinent question mark on the efficacy of the reforms in solving some fundamental problems concerning sustainable and equitable development notwithstanding. Above all, Prime Minister Vajpayee believes strongly in the high growth rate strategy. He has a clear vision of reforms needed for the strategy to succeed. He is aware of the problems involved. He is showing commitment for taking the problems head-on. How can the information technological prowess of Indians be used in achieving the objectives that the nation has set forth?

Efficiency of processing and communication of information is one very important and feasible requirement of the strategy. Indian management guru Prakash Tandon once told a story about the extinction of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were the most powerful animals on the earth. They had mighty tails. When the tail was attacked, it would send the message to the brain of the dinosaur about the attack. The message would take two minutes or so to reach the brain. Then, the brain would analyse the information, take a decision, and order the tail to defend itself. This would take quite some time. Further, the order to defend took another two minutes to reach the tail. But, alas! By then, the attacker would successfully siphon the tail off from the body.

The story fits neatly into the Indian planning and decision-making process. There was a time when the Planning Commission was really important. Top-notch economists, bureaucrats, and even politicians, worked hard to frame the plans. Economics and statistics were superb. But the complex input-output tables on which these Plans were based had to use a decade-old data. Naturally, the Plans failed.

Can something be done to reduce time and increase accuracy in the processing and communication of information? An obvious remedy lies in computerisation. Particularly when Indians are so good at it. Also, computerisation is an antidote of red-tape, a serious impediment in the process of implementation. However, above all, information technology can help stem corruption, the singular greatest enemy of all development initiatives. This dimension of information technology needs greater attention than it has received so far. In the present time when unscrupulous exploitation of systemic loopholes, havoc by hackers and cyber crimes are commonplace, how would advances in information technology help root out corruption?

An improved information system owing to improved technology makes better control of the system by the top (political leaders, administrators and managers) possible. This reduces the opportunity for corruption at lower levels. Provided, of course, the top is committed to do so. And there is widespread cynicism that the needed commitment and will is in short supply. It is in such a critical situation that advances in information technology emit real rays of hope. Improved information technology creates “”! Transparency is the byproduct of information technology, speed and accuracy being the main products. And transparency forces even the unwilling to act, and honestly. Persons in authority may not like it but transparency is a public virtue.

What is considered to be a big hurdle in the way of application of computers may prove to be a boon. How to maintain secrecy comes in the way of e-commerce, e-business and e-governance. Speed and accuracy of the computer thrill, but the possibility of leakage of secrets kills! One of the most researched areas of computer technology is the system of secret codes. RSA cryptosystem is a system for secret codes in computers. It is based on the concept of factors of prime numbers, the numbers not divisible by 2. The more difficult the number to find its prime factors, the more difficult it is to break the code based on this number. There is a history of a 129-digit number called RSA 129. Bill Gates has described this history in his book, “The Road Ahead”. RSA 129 is a product of two prime numbers. The inventors used this number as a public key to encrypt a message. They were sure that it would be totally secure forever. This was around 1980. In 1993, a group of more than 600 academics and hobbyists from around the world began an assault on the 129-digit number, using the Internet to coordinate the work of various computers. In less than a year they factored the number into two primes, one 64 digits long and the other 65!

The moral of the story, nay history, is clear. If you feed a piece of information or a message to your computer, it is difficult, if not impossible, to keep it a secret. Hackers show the way to transparency (the crying need of the day)! Secrecy is desirable to some extent in private life, as also in business in politics. But too much emphasis on how to maintain secrecy while using computers is not required.

The need of the hour is to devise efficient transparent systems, systems that could effectively stop the misuse of advances in technology by the unscrupulous. The intelligent and hardworking Indians in India and abroad in the area of information technology can do a lot in this direction.

It is satisfying that the Prime Minister has given new importance to the Planning Commission and there is better coordination among different organs of the government on economic matters. He wants to eliminate red-tape and corruption. It is crucial that IT professionals contribute and more important, they are given the opportunity to contribute to the process of change for the better. Towards speedy implementation. Towards poverty alleviation. Towards development. Stephen Hawking can wait.

The writer is Professor, University Business School, Panjab University, Chandigarh.


Crime doesn’t pay! Nor does farming!
Khushwant Ahluwalia

SITTING comfortably in a bar in Delhi drinking rum with water and swallowing pork sausages on sticks, I was introduced to a rich businessman of Delhi by my host. “You can’t be a farmer” said the rich man very regimentally as if used to the ways of the defence. It was only later that I came to know that he was an arms supplier. “Farmers don’t look like this”, he announced. Was I supposed to look like a knight in shining armour or was he implying that a dhoti and kurta were amiss.

Somehow his statement almost came as a referendum of what the upmarket society thought about the Indian farmer. Poor, toiled and unfit to sit in a Delhi bar or probably the only time a farmer visited Delhi was to sit on a dharna at the Boat Club. In other words he seemed to be a franchisee of the stiff upper lip kinds, allowed to give a verdict on their behalf, if you know what I mean. What do you say on this, Jeeves?

“Well I’m a citrus farmer from Punjab and I’m in Delhi to attend a conference on WTO and its implications on Indian agriculture”, I replied. “Oh! So you are the progressive kind,” he said sharply. Well, I knew nothing of farmers coming in kinds and grades but the rich one surely meant to say that, does your variety have a clue of the jargon “liberalisation” and all that? “You’re the kind who don’t pay taxes either,” he belched keeping the same rhetoric. Well! Sitting in front of me was a man who had never imagined that he would ever meet our kind in a bar and that too dressed fittingly and was surprised to know that we even talked about WTO.

For him one meeting was enough to have a shift of impression and I became reason enough for his antennas to catch a wave suggesting that farmers must pay taxes. “Gentleman, I depend on the graces of God and God’s people don’t pay taxes. Got it?”, I replied. The bartender rang jingle bells announcing quits for everybody.

A similar incident happened the second time. I was attending a seminar on water management techniques at the CII office during the much-hyped Agro-Tech. Ironically, I was the only farmer attending it but all the participants’ apparel was pretty much similar. A blazer, trousers and a necktie. I thought there was no harm in wearing a formal outfit till I was introduced to a bureaucrat. “You don’t look like a farmer, from your attire,” he remarked.

This was a final blow to trigger off an argument that no wonder the agriculture is declining because no one wants to see a farmer in a progressive mode till I remembered an anonymous quote: “When it pays better to talk than listen, change your company”. I used the English word “excuse me” and disappeared.

And for my friend, whom I met in a bar in Delhi, the last I heard was that he had something to do with Tehelka. Crime doesn’t pay! Nor does farming!Top


The many unanswered questions of
 Jayalalithaa’s case
Anupam Gupta

APART from a non-legislator’s appointment as Minister or Chief Minister under Article 164 (4) of the Constitution — on which I focussed last week — the September 21 verdict of the Supreme Court in Jayalalithaa’s case grapples with important issues of criminal and election law.

Unlike Article 164 (4), however, where the court displays not inconsiderable interpretative skill geared to larger democratic ends, its treatment of criminal and election law issues is both unsatisfactory and incomplete.

While it cannot be denied that a decision on Jayalalithaa’s eligibility or disqualification to contest Assembly elections does necessarily involve all these issues, the strain on the court’s expertise in handling such disparate areas of law — constitutional, criminal and electoral — together in one case is obvious.

Take, for example, the question of stay under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a question around which much of the legal debate in Jayalalithaa’s case revolves.

“Pending any appeal by a convicted person,” reads Section 389 (1), “the appellate court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond”.

While Clause (1) of the Section thus speaks of suspension of the execution of the sentence, the heading of the Section is worded as follows:

“Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on bail”.

It is apparent that “suspension of sentence” and “suspension of execution of sentence” are used synonymously in the Section and there is no distinction between the two, what to speak of any material distinction.

This is confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by the terms of Clause (3) of Section 389, which empowers the trial court itself to release the convict on bail for a limited period till he obtains an order from the appellate court under Clause (1), if the sentence does not exceed three years.

In such an event, says Clause (3), the “sentence of imprisonment shall, so long as he is so released on bail, be deemed to be suspended.”

Like the heading of Section 389, therefore, Clause (3) also refers to suspension of sentence rather than suspension of “execution” of sentence, making it doubly clear that the one means nothing more nor less than the other.

And yet the Supreme Court, making a virtue of literality, draws a clear distinction between the two and chides the Madras High Court for mistaking the one for the other.

“It is not within the power of the appellate court to suspend the sentence,” says the court, speaking through Justice S.P. Bharucha, “it can only suspend the execution of the sentence pending the disposal of the appeal.”

“The suspension of the execution of the sentence,” it adds, “does not alter or affect the fact that the offender has been convicted of a grave offence and has attracted the sentence of imprisonment of not less than two years. The suspension of the execution of the sentences, therefore, does not remove the disqualification against the second respondent (Ms Jayalalithaa).”

What follows would dispel all doubt as to what the court means and has held.

“The suspension of the sentence (says Justice Bharucha), as the Madras High Court erroneously called it, was in fact only the susp-

ension of the execution of the sentence pending the disposal of the appeals filed by the second respondent.”

“The fact that she secured the suspension of the execution of the sentences against her (he holds) does not alter or affect the conviction and the sentences imposed on her and she remained disqualified from seeking legislative office under Section 8(3)” of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

By thus (a) inventing a distinction between suspension of sentence per se and suspension of “execution” of sentence; (b) prohibiting a suspension of sentence per se; and (c) declaring that a suspension of “execution” of sentence does not affect not only the conviction but even the sentence, the Supreme Court has, without realising it, reduced Section 389 to nullity.

It has also, in the process, overlooked, completely overlooked, the real issue in Jayalalithaa’s case: the distinction between suspension of “conviction”, on the one hand, and suspension of “sentence”, on the other, and the validity of that distinction while adjudging the eligibility of a candidate under Section 8(3).

“A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years,” reads Section 8(3), “other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release.”

Does suspension of sentence under Section 389 involve or include suspension of conviction as well? If not, is the appellate court empowered, in the exercise of its discretion, to suspend the convicion in addition to suspending the sentence?

That, then, is the real question to be decided in Jayalalithaa’s case. And it is astonishing, indeed, that the Supreme Court has totally side-stepped that question despite Madras High Court Judge, Justice Malai Subramanian’s elaborate opinion on the point in Jayalalithaa’s case itself.

Pronounced on April 11 this year, Justice Subramanian’s opinion is about the best analysis of Section 389 that I have been able to find, even though, after having essayed the analysis, he lost heart and declined stay to Jayalalithaa.

The Criminal Procedure Code, he held, “does not specifically speak about suspension or stay of conviction anywhere, may be for the obvious reason that conviction, left to itself, does not carry any implications except (that) it is followed by passing of sentence or passing of an order under Section 360, CrPC or the Probation of Offenders Act.”

Both Section 360 and the Probation of Offenders Act contemplate release of a convict upon probation in lieu of a sentence of imprisonment in certain cases.

“Nobody who is convicted by any court for any offence,” Justice Subramanian continued, “is left with such conviction because it is the punishment that matters. Mere finding of guilty does not take him anywhere, except (that) a sentence is imposed on him. Thus, the main result of conviction is only imposition of sentence.”

In the absence of any imposition of any sentence, he said, or passing of any order of probation, “conviction, as it is, has no legs to stand on its own. That is why the framers of the Code were careful to provide for suspension of sentence or the order appealed against rather than suspension of conviction.”

Even where an accused admits his guilt, he added, and the CrPC permits the court to convict him on that basis alone, without calling upon the prosecution to produce evidence — Sections 239, 241 and 252 — the court cannot simply convict him and leave it at that.

It must further pass a sentence, or an order of probation, even though none of these three provisions — Sections 239, 241 and 252 — speak about passing any sentence or order.

Yet further, he said, the Criminal Procedure Code at more than one place — Sections 232, 248 and 255 — provides that if, after the evidence is over, the court finds that there is no evidence that the accused has committed the offence, it shall record an “order of acquittal”. The same expression is employed in Section 378, which provides for an appeal to the High Court against an “order of acquittal”.

Unlike acquittal, however, (he said), which marks the finality of a decision, conviction does not end with that and has to be followed by a sentence or other order.

“That is why (said Justice Subramanian), it appears that conviction nowhere in the Criminal Procedure Code has been described as an order.”

And that is why, for all these reasons, he said, “it can safely be held that conviction and sentence are inseparable twins in the eyes of law.”

And the suspension of the one implies necessarily the suspension of the other.

Justice Bharucha expressly notes and refers to Justice Subramanian’s order but skips this entire discussion on the identity of conviction and sentence for the purpose of Section 389.

Nor does he refer, even in passing, to important decisions of the Supreme Court itself on this vital question going to the root of the controversy in Jayalalitha’s case.

Decisions such as Rama Narang’s case of 1995 and K.C. Sareen’s case of August this year, both of which — unlike Justice Malai Subramanian — recognise the distinction between conviction and sentence. And reflect on the court’s power to stay the one or the other, or both, pending appeal in appropriate cases.

The Supreme Court’s September 21 verdict quashing Jayalalithaa’s appointment as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu is, and will forever remain, a major moral benchmark in the corruption-infested jungle of Indian politics. But Article 164(4) apart, the legal quality or sufficiency of the verdict leaves much to be desired.


Three Indians on Forbes list

Three Indian Americans, including 12 Technologies CEO Sanjiv Sidhu whose company’s stocks have nosedived during the IT industry recession, are on the just released list of Forbes 400 richest people in the USA.

Sidhu (44) is ranked 236th along with venture capitalist Vinod Khosla (46) general partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers. He is reportedly flying high, prudently selling his shares to keep his pockets well lined, even though his Dallas-based software company’s stocks fell.

Amar Gopal Bose (72) of Massachusettes-based Bose Technologies ranks 364th.

Khosla and Sidhu are each worth a billion dollars, while Bose’s wealth is estimated at $700 million.

For Sidhu, a former member of the Indian national sailing team who is now into surfing, “the world is getting more and more exciting,” Forbes said.

Sidhu graduated from Osmania University in Hyderabad and did his masters from Oklahoma State University. Sidhu, married with two children, was ranked 24th on the Forbes 400 Richest list, besides being on the World Richest list in 2000.

He was also among the 800 Best Paid CEOs in both 2000 and 2001.

Many of Khosla’s investments have been on the downward trajectory, but the co-founder of Sun Microsystems remains unfazed. “What we saw in the last 10 years is peanuts compared to what we’ll see in the next 10!” he told Forbes.

Khosla, married with four children, lives in Menlo Park, California. He is a graduate of Carnegie Mellon University with a Masters from Stanford Business School.

Forbes previously ranked him 243rd and 274th on its 1999 and 2000 list of 400 Richest respectively. He is also on the magazine’s 2001 World’s Richest, ranked 490th.

Predictably, Bill Gates (45) of Microsoft continues to top the list worth $54 billion. He is followed by investment guru Warren Buffet (72) of Berkshire Hathaway ($33.2 billion); Gates’ one-time partner Paul Allen (48) ($28.2 billion); Larry Ellison, 57, of Oracle ($21.9 billion); and Alice Walton (52) of Wal-Mart ($17.5 billion).

Bose, who established his company in 1964 and got his first contracts from the U.S. military and NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), is credited with introducing the first factory-installed car stereo system in 1982.

The MIT graduate, married and with two children, was ranked 384th in the magazine’s 1999 list of 400 Richest Americans. Bose Technologies, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of home hi-fi speakers, was listed by Forbes in its 500 largest private companies in 2000. IANS

Vedanti visits World Sikh University

Jathedar Joginder Singh Vedanti visited the World Sikh University, London’s Harrow campus on Saturday to meet its Ph.D. students. He was welcomed by the university Senate members — Mr Gurdip Singh Gujral, CBE, Mr Harbans Singh Sethi, Mr Gurbachan Singh Gill and Mr Sajjan Singh Grewal. He was presented with a “Sri Sahib”, shawls and a set of books on Sikh history.

Dr Sukhbir Singh Kapoor, Vice-Chancellor of the university, welcomed the Akal Takht Jathedar who interacted with each Ph.D. student.

The Jathedar, pleased with the work and teaching programmes of the university, said the whole nation should be proud of the standards achieved by the university.

He praised the Senate members for establishing such a reputed institution in the heart of Europe.

He also appreciated Dr Kapoor as also Mrs Madhavi Amdekar, the university’s Academic Registrar. TNS


When one’s mind is conquered, the whole world is conquered; but when that (mind) is left unconquered even one’s own son is not under one’s control.


How can one who is not capable of subjugating his own mind hope to subjugate this (extensive) earth bounded by the oceans themselves.


Life is one, many are the bodies; truth is one, many are the delusions; one alone is true learning, many are the nihilists; who do learned people indulge in frivolous arguments?


A single wise man fallen among many fools like a lotus in the waves of water is surely overwhelmed.


A frog having reached a very small puddle becomes extremely happy and goes on croaking loudly — who is like me? Out of intolerant pride; but the great ocean having received the waters of all the rivers... and possessing a good number of gems does not have any pride.


The exceedingly brilliant sun stands alone; the exceedingly courageous lion lives in the forest; the exceedingly vast air-space is empty and the exceedingly deep ocean is salty.


If you think that you are alone, then you do not know the Wise who is (sitting) inside your heart; you are committing a sin in his presence and he knows your wicked act.


The doing of good to other corporeal creatures with wealth, intellect, speech and life is what makes the life of corporeal creatures a successful one.

***** whose minds are blinded by wealth, fling away much to gain little.


Fate does not discriminate the joyous rich and the miserable poor. It drags all alike hither and thither as if by a rope.

— From Maha-Subhashita Samgraha, Vol. IV, 7573, 7583, 7712, 7736, 7742, 7745, 7924, 8052, 8517

Home | Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial |
Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | In Spotlight | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune
50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations |
121 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail |