Starting over

Swaraj’s message was clear: Delhi wants to depart from past practice of missing opportunities.

External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj chose not to make lengthy statements on her visit. But she emphasised at every meeting that India’s new government was determined to take the relationship with Nepal to a new level. As Swaraj left Nepal after 40 hours, she had earned enough trust in a country where the perceived “Indian high-handedness” is a matter of distaste. She was able to build a positive atmosphere and enough goodwill for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit, scheduled for August.

Apart from her oratory and ability to strike a chord in individuals, she has had a long association with prominent Nepali Congress leaders, including Prime Minister Sushil Koirala, given her past as a Socialist Party activist before she joined the BJP. She didn’t breach protocol while meeting Nepali dignitaries and leaders, in a welcome departure from the recent past. “India is not the big brother, it is just an elder brother,” she said.

Koirala praised India for its “generous and positive gesture”, while Kamal Thapa, chairman of the pro-monarchy and pro-Hindu Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal, made an appeal to make Modi’s visit free of controversy. The atmosphere on the eve of Swaraj’s visit was charged with distrust of India, especially because the draft agreement on cooperation in the power sector — that India had sent, suggesting 100 per cent investment by India or Indian entities — was viewed as New Delhi’s move to monopolise Nepal’s water resources. Barely eight hours before her arrival, Koirala, after consultations with three major political outfits, decided the challenge at the moment for Nepal and India was credibility, given their failure to execute past promises on development and hydro-power.

“Let India build a model and modest hydro-project, a road in mid-hill, and postal roads in the plains on a time-bound basis, instead of going for cost- and time-consuming mega projects, and that will create a situation for larger partnership in future,” Maoist chief Prachanda told The Indian Express. He recalled how the 250 MW Naumure hydro project, which India’s then external affairs minister and current president, Pranab Mukherjee, promised as a “gift” to Nepal in 2008, was dumped as “not feasible” subsequently. Swaraj took all of these into account, promised continuous high-level interaction at the political level henceforth, and the execution of promised projects at a pace Nepal desired. She also emphasised that India wanted Nepal stable, prosperous and secure.

With a slight deviation from the previous government’s stance, Swaraj said that while India wanted “an inclusive constitution acceptable to all sides”, the responsibility to decide upon theelements of the constitution, the structure of state and governance, etc rested solely with the people of Nepal. The message was clear: India had no favourites in Nepal, nor was Delhi going to be party to Nepal’s internal politics.

But messages and diplomatic gestures on such visits are usually made on a trial basis and reviewed when the two sides get down to business. A widely circulated post on social media in Nepal, with hostile comments, relates to a passage from Mission R&AW by R.K. Yadav, a former officer, which claims that Indira Gandhi as prime minister was planning to break up Nepal — separating the Terai — after she had successfully merged Sikkim with India. He further claims that her imposing of the Emergency and her subsequent electoral defeat got in the way. Aggressive slogans in the Terai, some political parties’ perceived proximity to the Indian establishment — some of them even claiming the Terai to be an “internal colony of Nepal” — and the issue of the power sector draft agreement dominated the political debate, with leftist groups, particularly the Maoists, raking up the question of “Indian designs”.

The sudden exit of the monarchy, without a credible alternative in place, created a big political vacuum and India’s involvement in Terai politics, China watchers say, created the pretext for China’s entry in Nepal on the current scale. In the absence of a stable institution, China found no ally to talk to about its real grievances and Terai politics, influenced by India, gave the north the reason to ask: “Why is India interested in having a buffer within a buffer?” After that, China developed its interest in many other areas, including water resources and power, which Beijing stayed away from earlier. From the Indian perspective, things will get clearer when Modi arrives in August. Swaraj has, meanwhile, created trust on the ground and shown interest in departing from the past of missed opportunities.

Balance of responsibility

in 2008, India and the US reached an agreement on nuclear cooperation that was hailed in many quarters — by nuclear suppliers and vendors in the US, India and across the world — as an opportunity to facilitate the rapid expansion of India’s civilian nuclear programme. India envisaged expanding its civilian nuclear programme from its current capacity of 4.8 GW to 30 GW by 2030. To fully engage with international nuclear suppliers, however, India needed to harmonise certain laws, particularly those addressing civil nuclear liability in the case of an accident, with international norms.

Internationally, the fundamental nuclear liability principles include: strict liability, relieving victims of the need to prove fault or negligence; exclusive liability, ensuring that the operator is the only entity liable to compensating for damage (even if caused by a supplier or vendor); financial protection covering the operator’s liability, ensuring that funds are available to compensate victims; limitation of operator liability in time and amount, enabling the operator to set up a cost-effective mechanism to cover the liability amount; a single court for victims’ claims, providing consistent treatment in the recognition and execution of judgments.

India’s nuclear liability law, enacted in 2010, contains elements that address each of the above principles.  However, Section 17(b) grants the operator the right to seek recourse from suppliers and vendors (only after the operator compensates victims) if the accident was the result of a patent or latent defect in equipment or substandard services. This provision is fundamentally different from those in nearly all other jurisdictions. It is a significant difference, at least from the perspective of the international nuclear industry.

From a policy perspective, sophisticated parties may agree to cap liability or provide a right of recourse under a contract. This is a perfectly acceptable mechanism when the only damage is economic harm to one or both of the parties to the contract (such as damage to a reactor in the event of an accident). In that case, there is no need for a legislation. The situation is different when the victim of an accidental release is not in a contractual relationship with either the vendor or the operator but is a member of the public. In that case, the transaction costs are prohibitive — the vendor and operator cannot negotiate with each potentially affected party separately. There is then a need for legislative action (for example, liability caps, financial protection, a single court) to reduce transaction costs to an acceptable level. The legislation should create proper incentives to ensure that the entity with the greatest ability to influence accident risk adopts an optimal activity level. For nuclear power, this full internalisation ofresponsibility occurs when the operator is exposed to the activity’s full costs. This is because the operator is responsible for selecting the supplier/ vendor, qualifying equipment, overseeing construction and the installation of equipment, choosing maintenance priorities, monitoring performance, repairing equipment and operating the plant.  In short, it is the operator who is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of a nuclear power plant.

In the context of India’s nuclear liability law, the right to seek recourse from suppliers and vendors has two significant implications. First, it increases the costs of nuclear projects. Second, it alters the operator’s incentives by shifting some responsibility for safety to vendors. The first implication is fundamentally a matter of price. Because India’s liability regime is different from the international regime, it creates more uncertainty (or risk) for the vendor that must be accommodated in the contract price. And, when choosing between a half-century-old approach used internationally and an untested liability provision, a rational company will demand a significant price increase to accommodate the unique provision. This dynamic, which is far from surprising, is a major reason why negotiations remain at an impasse.

Nuclear vendors are also concerned that the right of recourse fundamentally alters the balance of responsibility between the operator and the vendor. Not only should a regulator and the public be able to demand accountability from a single entity (the operator), but the operator must also take responsibility for the actions of its suppliers and vendors. The operator should, and must, uncover latent or patent defects before equipment is put into service. Anything less would be an abdication of its responsibility to protect public safety. Vendors, therefore, are justified in being concerned that a right to recourse creates the wrong incentive, by giving an operator a mechanism for shifting responsibility from its role in an accident to the vendor. This concern is probably compounded by the fact that the sole operator in India, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, is government-owned and therefore would have the bully pulpit and motivation to blame a foreign vendor in the unlikely event of an accident.

At a recent Nuclear Law Association meeting in New Delhi, a number of participants raised questions on the effects of the liability law on the expansion of nuclear energy in India and on public acceptance of nuclear power.  Some hailed the law as a paradigm shift in nuclear liability, ensuring that vendors have a stake in the safe operation of plants. But the benefits of vendors having a stake in safe operation are overstated. The international nuclear supply chain is transparent. Reputations matter. The loss of business associated with the discovery of a defect could cripple a company just as quickly as the financial effects of the right of recourse. And the right of recourse does not result in additional compensation for victims, so there is no direct “public” benefit. More importantly, providing a means for the operator to shift responsibility for an accident ultimately undermines safety by not exposing the operator tothe full cost of any failure to safely design, construct, operate and maintain a plant. This increases the risk, even if only in a small way, that operators will accept items of dubious quality and provenance, rely more heavily on the assurances of contractors and vendors without independent verification and treat the safety of systems, structures and components as someone else’s responsibility.

All of this does not mean that a change to India’s liability law is necessary, but it does suggest the contours of any possible solution. One solution, of course, would be to change the law to fully align with international principles. But it might also include a process for endorsing the absence of defects or confirming acceptable service. Or, though less ideal, the operator could purchase an insurance policy that would indemnify vendors in the event of a claim under Section 17(b). The last two options ensure that the operator is exposed to the full costs of generating nuclear power, though in a somewhat roundabout way.

Ultimately, the tangible benefits of nuclear power (efficient baseload power, climate, economic development) outweigh its costs, including the low probability of accidents. But broad nuclear development will only take place when there is a stable liability regime that all parties find acceptable. That will not happen until the economic and regulatory framework for nuclear power creates complementary and efficient incentives.

The stories we don’t see

With the world going crazy, I tried running away from the news. It didn’t work. I’ve been doing an eco-survey of Madagascar, the island nation off the east coast of Africa that contains the highest percentage of plant and animal species found nowhere else on earth — all of them now endangered to one degree or another. My tour guide is Russ Mittermeier, the president of Conservation International and one of the world’s leading primatologists. We saw something the other day that even Mittermeier, who’s been coming here for 30 years, hadn’t seen before.

We were trekking through the Berenty Reserve. This forest is home to Sifaka lemurs: white, fluffy primates, with very long hind limbs that enable them to bound from tree to tree like forest kangaroos.After walking through the forest for hours, spotting a lemur here and there, we came upon a particularly dense grove and looked up. There, about 30 feet off the forest floor, were nine Sifaka lemurs huddling together for warmth in two groups — four on one limb, five on another — staring directly down at us. “I’ve seen two or three huddled together,” said Mittermeier later that night, “but I’ve never seen a whole group like that. I didn’t want to leave.” None of us did.

But it wasn’t just because we’d never seen such a thing before. It was because we knew we may never see such a thing again — that no one would, particularly our kids. Why? Just look at the trends: Madagascar has already lost more than 90 per cent of its natural vegetation through deforestation, most of it over the last century, particularly the past few decades, said Mittermeier. And that brings me to the question: What is news? I’ve visited and written a lot about Ukraine and the Middle East lately. The tragic events happening there are real news, worthy of world attention. But where we in the news media fall down is in covering the big trends — trends that on any given day don’t amount to much but over time could be vastly more significant than we can now imagine.

Madagascar’s ecological challenge parallels the Middle East’s political challenge. The struggle here is all about preserving Madagascar’s natural diversity so its people will have the resilience, tools and options to ensure a decent future. A diverse system in nature is much more resilient and adaptable to change. Monocultures are enormously susceptible to disease. They can be wiped out by a single pest or weather event in a way that a poly-culture cannot. In the Middle East today, though, the last remnants of poly-cultural nation states and communities are being wiped out. Christians are fleeing the Arab-Muslim world. Islamist jihadists in Syria and Iraq are beheading those who won’t convert to their puritanical Islam.Jews and Palestinians, Shiites and Sunnis keep forcing each other into tighter and tighter ghettos. So a human rainforest once rich with ethnic and religious diversity is becoming a collection of disconnected monocultures, enormously susceptible to disease — diseased ideas.

Costs of an unequal war

For every operation that Israel launches on Gaza and the Palestinian people, the resistance becomes stronger and more determined

Over the last two weekends, demonstrators have been gathering at the Ferry Building in San Francisco. Young men wearing the keffiyah chant “Palestine will be free,” while others sing “Free Free Palestine,” holding placards, banners, flags and dummy coffins that demand an end to military aid to Israel, ask for the Gaza war to be over and ask that the leaders of Israel be tried for war crimes against Palestinians. During the first week, there were about 1,000 protesters. This past Sunday, the estimated number of people at the protest exceeded 6,000. As is the standard procedure in the United States, squads of police personnel walked alongside the protesters.

Anguished voices

The protests have been peaceful but the demands are made vociferously and with much anguish. The gathering on Sunday made its way down the Market Street and ended at the Civic Centre, one of the seats of power in San Francisco, which adjoins the United Nations Plaza. On the steps of the Civic Centre, young Palestinian women recited poetry in which they talked about trauma, hurt and anxiety. Students and professors made speeches telling people that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one between unequal powers. Some sections supported armed resistance, while others said that both states can coexist peacefully. However, there was broad agreement that not resisting would mean inviting the planned and painfully slow genocide of their people. The protesters were not shy about using the word “apartheid” to describe Israeli policies towards the Palestinians.

 There is no longer any doubt that the Palestinian question needs more international attention and global deliberation. 

In pre- and post-protest discussions with some demonstrators, the sense of trauma was palpable. These are young people who have moved to different countries to escape the conflict. They have forged new lives and careers as students, caregivers, motel operators and technology professionals. The last two weeks have witnessed some of the biggest worldwide mobilisation for Gaza. The Palestinian diaspora in Europe and the United States, supported by people of various countries, have all rallied in favour of Gaza and asked for an end to the current assault on the Strip. The only protest that has turned violent so far occurred in Paris.

The most recent round of violence between Israel and Palestine has been precipitated by a number of factors. The immediate cause was the alleged kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers in mid-June. Following the multiple abductions, the Israeli Defence Forces launched Operation Brother’s Keeper, under which over 300 Palestinians were rounded up and questioned. From the beginning, it was unclear who was behind the kidnappings. While Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, accused Hamas, the Palestinian Authority said there was no evidence of Hamas involvement. Hamas also denied that it had kidnapped the youths. The three youths were later found dead in a field near Hebron with conflicting reports suggesting that they had been killed soon after abduction or had been killed recently.

Operation Brother’s Keeper resulted in a massive manhunt for possible suspects with little evidence. Further, revenge attacks on Palestinian youths began to occur with botched kidnapping attempts and the burning of a Palestinian boy by Jewish extremists. Three weeks after the Israeli youth disappeared, Hamas fired 100 rockets into the Israeli territory. On July 8, Israel began responding by firing back in what is now called Operation Protective Edge.

Interestingly, Israel has somewhat agreed that the killings might have been perpetrated not by Hamas but by a Hamas splinter group called the Qawasameh clan that has often gone against the edicts of Hamas leaders. This begs the question: what is this current war really about?

The recent hostilities are not rooted in only the immediate tensions between Israel and Palestine; they are a product of recent changes that have taken place in the region. In June 2014, Hamas and Fatah, two groups politically at odds in Palestine, buried their long-standing differences, sending tremors through Israel which thinks that with the reuniting of these groups, terrorism will get a boost, i.e., Hamas will drag the more moderate Fatah towards extremism. The manner in which Operation Brother’s Keeper was initiated suggests that the main endeavour was not just to find the missing youths but to use the incident as a pretext to take out Hamas targets and their supporters. This would make the Palestinian Unity government seem weak and ineffective in combating Israeli aggression and controlling its own territory.

In Israel, both the Knesset and the government agree that resuming hostilities against the Palestinian territories best safeguards the interests of the Israeli state and people. The Knesset, with a strong presence of the Zionist right, has members who have made strong anti-Palestine pronouncements. Ayelet Shaked, a member of the Knesset representing the Jewish Home Party, stated that the conflict could not end until all Palestinians, including women and children, were “wiped out.” More recently, the Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, Moshe Feiglin, wrote strongly about a ground invasion with the entire capacity of the Israeli Defence Forces and bombing of Gaza with little warning as a ‘solution’ to the Gaza issue. Similarly, Gilad Sharon, son of Ariel Sharon, has suggested that Israel flatten Gaza like Hiroshima.

The Palestinian Unity government has a component of the right, but the presence of Fatah helps temper Hamas. However, peace deals and ceasefires have been a lot harder to negotiate. As it is, Hamas has repeatedly accused Israel of sanctioning settlements even though ceasefire norms were in place. Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority and a Fatah member, is also caught between a rock and a hard place, as he has been asked by Mr. Netanyahu to choose between a deal with Hamas or Israel.

Last July, former U.S. presidential hopeful John Kerry, along with Martin Indyk from the Brookings Institution, tried to restart peace talks between Israel and Palestine. The talks were supposed to take place over 10 months and reach a settlement on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The talks broke down several times. Mr. Netanyahu rejected the Palestinians’ right of return, while Mr. Abbas said they didn’t want a single Israeli settlement on Palestinian land. In January 2014, Israel approved 1,400 settlement homes in a move that sent a negative signal to the Palestinian Authority. This, combined with repeated failures to release Palestinian prisoners in Israel, led to a lack of confidence on the side of the Palestinian Authority.

Trust deficit

The United States has taken a measured stance on the issue by blaming both sides for the breakdown of the 2013-2014 talks. Mr. Kerry went on record that a third Intifada was in the offing if the current talks didn’t succeed. The recent round of hostilities suggests that talks are no longer working because both sides display a basic trust deficit.

For Israel, Hamas is more of a threat than the Palestinian Unity government and Israel is uncertain if the Palestinian government can strong-arm Hamas. It is, then, not surprising that personal protection of Israeli territory and Israelis in the settlements has taken priority over trying to build confidence and trust between the two states.

Operation Protective Edge has claimed over 600 Palestinian lives, while the Israeli death count stands at less than 50. Over the last two weeks, images have surfaced of Israeli people roosting atop a hill watching the bombardment of Palestinian targets. Flechette munitions have been used against civilians. Humanitarian groups report a grave crisis in Gaza with hospitals working at full capacity amid rocket attacks.

What is new about the Israel-Gaza conflict is that Israel seems to be losing much popular support internationally, as studies and reports establish that the Israel-Palestine conflict has been a lopsided one for many decades, that the Israeli state has practised segregation and influx control, not unlike the apartheid regime in South Africa, and that its means of fighting and adherence to a real lasting peace with Palestine are part of carefully-crafted doublespeak.

There is no longer any doubt that the Palestinian question needs more international attention and global deliberation. This is a slow genocide of a people who have struggled against occupation since 1948 or 1967, depending on the viewpoint people adhere to. Google images have accurately shown how the Palestinian territory has reduced over the decades. The paradox is stark and unavoidable — for every operation that Israel launches on Gaza and the Palestinian people, the Palestinian resistance becomes stronger and more determined.

Less than 10 per cent of human DNA useful: scientists

More than 90 per cent of human DNA is doing nothing very useful, and large stretches may be no more than biological baggage that has built up over years of evolution, Oxford researchers claim.

The scientists arrived at the figure after comparing the human genome with the genetic makeup of other mammals, from dogs and mice to rhinos and horses.

The researchers looked for sections of DNA that humans shared with the other animals, which split from our lineage at different points in history. When DNA is shared and conserved across species, it suggests that it does something valuable.

Gerton Lunter, a senior scientist on the team, said that, based on the comparisons, 8.2 per cent of human DNA was “functional,” meaning that it played an important enough role to be conserved by evolution.

“Scientifically speaking, we have no evidence that 92 per cent of our genome is contributing to our biology at all,” Lunter said.

Researchers have known for some time that only 1 per cent of human DNA is held in genes that are used to make crucial proteins to keep cells — and bodies — alive and healthy. The latest study, reported in the journal Plos Genetics, suggests that a further 7 per cent of human DNA is equally vital, regulating where, when, and how genes are expressed.

But if much of our DNA is so worthless, why do we still carry it around? “It’s not true that nature is parsimonious in terms of needing a small genome. Wheat has a much larger genome than we do,” Lunter said. “We haven’t been designed. We’ve evolved, and that’s a messy process. This other DNA really is just filler. It’s not garbage. It might come in useful one day. But it’s not a burden.

Popularising RuPay

In India, 90 per cent of credit card transactions are domestic; however, the cost of transactions is high due to monopoly of foreign gateways like Visa and Master cards. If this process of transactions is made India-centric, cost can come down drastically. In the last 3-4 decades, the usage of credit and debit cards -- what we call the plastic money -- has increased manifold. Their usage has actually multiplied in the past one decade due to emergence of e-commerce. We can not only make purchases of our needs from a big store by swapping our credit or debit card, we can even purchase air, train, bus ticket; or any commodity from e-commerce websites using this plastic money.

Though banking is no new business in India and credit and debit cards have been issued since long ago; however, these credit and debit cards had essentially been issued in partnership with international gateways like Visa and Master card. It is notable that Visa and Master cards make huge bucks from this business.

According to world Line India, a leading agency providing services in the field of electronic transactions, there are nearly 20 million credit cards in the country; and HDFC Bank, State Bank of India, ICICI Bank and Axis Bank are the main banks issuing most of the credit cards. Apart from this, there were 389 million debit cards in the country in March 2014.

During the last one year (2013-14) 58 million new debit cards were issued. It is notable that after the ATM machines were started being used, all banks have been issuing debit cum ATM cards to their customers, which can be used not only for withdrawing money, but also for making transactions at stores and e-commerce websites.

Foreign gateways like Master and Visa cards charge fee in lieu of their services and huge sum of foreign exchange gets transferred abroad by these companies. Due to monopoly of Master and Visa cards, a hefty fee is charged by them. Their business in India has been increasing leaps and bounds in the last 10 years. According to RBI, credit cards transactions were Rs 1.56 lakh crore and debit cards transactions Rs 20.22 lakh crore during the year 2013-14.

Foreseeing the importance of an Indian Card, Reserve Bank of India, desired to start an Indian card and National Payment Corporation of India (NPCI), realised this desire and an Indian card in the name of RuPay was started on March 26, 2012. Today in creasingly the transactions of a majority of Indian banks and financial institutions are being facilitated by RuPay and it is giving a tough competition to Visa and Master card. NPCI has also tied up with Discover Financial to give RuPay an international acceptance.

International acceptance

RuPay global card is now accepted at ‘Discover Global Payment Network’ internationally. RuPay was dedicated to the nation on May 8, 2014 by the President of India, Pranab Mukherjee. RuPay card is accepted on all ATM machines under national financial switch of NPCI. According to the NPCI data there are 1,45,270 ATMs and 8,75,00 points of sale which come under RuPay platform. In addition to this RuPay is accepted on nearly 10,000 e-commerce websites. Banks recognised by NPCI for this purpose can issue RuPay credit and debit cards which are accepted in ATMs, Points of Sale (PoS) and e-commerce websites. As of now about 240 banks have been issuing RuPay cards. Along with this 200 cooperative and rural banks are also issuing RuPay cards, giving a boost to financial inclusion.

Kotak Mahindra Bank has started a new initiative on financial inclusion; whereby farmers of 75 cooperative societies can get payment for their milk directly to their bank account. This model is destined to be implemented in Gujarat, where 3 lakh farmers of 1,200 societies will benefit.

It is notable for domestic sector that RuPay fee is merely one third of Master and Visa cards. Though RuPay is cost effective private banks are still not cooperating in adopting RuPay. Around 150 lakh RuPay cards in circulation now have so far been mostly issued by public sector banks. Argument of private banks is that since they have long period tie-ups with Master and Visa Cards, they cannot adopt RuPay till these agreements expire. Though private Indian and foreign banks know that in the long run RuPay would prove to be beneficial, they are not ready to adopt new card looking at their short term interests.

The State Bank of India, the largest public sector bank has started issuing RuPay card only three months back and has realised the benefits of the same. According to SBI officials, though it has long term agreement with Master and Visa cards, still it would be good for the bank to pay money to them and switch over completely to RuPay. Experts believe that if only SBI adopts RuPay fully, the scheme would be a success. Although for international operations, fee of RuPay is yet to be decided, the NPCI says that it would be better to keep it low to maintain it attractiveness in international business also.

In the first week of July 2014, the secretary, department of financial services of the Union ministry of finance has written to CEOs of all the public sector banks urging them to issue RuPay cards to all new customers and the existing customers who have not been issued debit cards so far.

Banks have also been asked to install RuPay card terminals in commercial establishments. So far there is a system of issuing only one type of debit card; however if one desires to get Master and Visa card, he/she can be issued the same along with RuPay card. Those who are used to Master or Visa card need to be lured gradually towards using RuPay as it will prove to be a winwin situation for all, as it would not only reduce cost of transactions significantly, but also increase the card penetration in the country, especially rural areas .The State Bank of India, the largest public sector bank started issuing RuPay cards three months back and has realised the benefits of it.

Three fundamentals that change behaviour

As incomes grew, so did adultery. Divorce rose from 3,41,000 in 1980 to 2.2 million in 2013.

Behaviour change comes in two ways: at the basic level, enterprises follow the same route avoiding product obsolescence, and, as I wrote last week, the unique way of making incredible difference, as Gillette, Sony Walkman and Apple among others did. However, prominent indicators that change behaviour are culture, food and ergonomics.

Culture: Nowhere is culture changing behaviour more visible than in China. When Deng Xiaoping led the country after Mao Zedong, he introduced reforms from 1978 with his slogan of “To get rich is glorious”. This inspired private enterprises to grow. He de-collectivised communes, shifting to the household responsibility system, making millions of peasants return to family farming. Village and town industries responded to the market. Shenzhen, a little village near Hong Kong, became an SEZ in 1979; today it’s the world’s largest manufacturing hub.

Opening up to international trade made Western influences enter politics, culture, the economy, challenging official values and moving beyond urban to rural areas. Dramatic culture change included family woes like broken homes. As incomes grew, so did adultery. Divorce rose from 3,41,000 in 1980 to 2.2 million in 2013. Suspicious wives are resorting to private detectives, who use secretive measures like attaching GPS trackers to their suspects’ cars or monitoring their calls. Such spying services are illegal but continue as privately collected evidence has been permitted in civil law suits. So traditional Chinese culture is undergoing changes akin to capitalistic societies.

Cultural attributes that change behaviour are basic functioning of day-to-day family life, health, education, economic conditions, lifestyle and livelihood generation. Religion is not a part of it unless the society is monatomic, with one religion driving the socio-eco-political spectrum. Culture started before religion or civilisation, when people discovered how to make fire, find food for survival or draw cave pictures.

It’s evident that materialism brings behavioural change. Take material comforts our godmen enjoy, like airconditioned rooms and cars, first or business class air travel, instead of meditation under the trees. Their disciples may have thrust these comforts upon them, but it’s obvious these disciples have managed to change the habits of godmen.

What’s radically changed India’s working culture is the global IT servicing industry that brings in about $80 billion every year. Young boys and girls work together at call centres. At age 18, in their first job after school, these youngsters can earn up to Rs 18,000 per month, whereas if their father was a simple worker, he’d be earning that amount perhaps after 25 years. So father-child cultural behaviour cannot be the same. News stories abound about condoms clogging call centre drains and employees being counseled because their speech has become American English, odd working hours make them miss all family functions and social contact outside office. Eventhe behaviour of pre-industrialised Americans was not altered so diametrically when they entered the post-industrial era.

Food: Food is the behaviour changer for immigrant children who pick up the new country’s eating routine, although their parents may take time to change. But when food is designed with strong universal appeal, it can change behaviour. The world’s mass-level people can never accept French-style rare mincemeat beefsteak, but a well-done beef patty covered with salad, cheese and sauce within a bun becomes the familiar, favoured McDonald’s. Change beef to chicken, it even works with heterogeneous Indians with heterogeneous food habits. The Chinese devour burgers too, abandoning their centuries-old noodles habit.

Packaged food companies have remarkably turned people from handmade to readymade food. Without laborious work, you just microwave an enjoyable dinner of varied dishes.

Ergonomics: Physical instruments that humans touch for playing, working or entertaining can disruptively change behaviour. Before Thomas Edison, there was no repeated listening to music, sound or voice. The gramophone entirely modified our approach to entertainment. After Graham Bell’s invention of telephone, our primary communication style changed from using the pigeon, horse rider, or cycling postman as messenger. People held two instruments with both hands to talk and listen; then landline phones became one instrument; now the mobile phone is a single device you keep in your pocket. This behaviour-changing evolution spans the mechanical, electric, electronic to the digi-tech age. Children’s physical attachment to Barbie, Lego or Mechano sets has shifted to digitally driven games. If, as a product designer, you don’t follow children’s changing behaviour with games or the education system, you won’t be designing any saleable instrument for work, play or entertainment tomorrow. I’ve seen my nine-year-old granddaughter Sreeya, who lives in London, return from school at 4 pm, then rush to the computer at a pre-fixed time to work online on mathematics with her classmates for the next day’s test. Their regular practice is to connect to the Internet for doing school homework together. Just imagine how digi-tech is changing children’s behaviour. Sreeya often takes up a challenge against any child who’s online anywhere in the world. Even at office, digi-tech is infusing every domain with radical transformation, from HR recruitment to production to supply chain.

The way we worked 10 years ago is not the same now, but our attitude in certain areas will never change. Fashion is cyclic, something new comes, vanishes, returns and we knowingly ride that cycle happily. Whether you’re an entrepreneur, politician or philosopher, try enlisting culture, food and our ergonomic relationship with devices, the agents that change human behaviour, to really become iconic, capture mindshare and sell your product or ideology across the world.