Lenovo, IBM, and IIPM

I've been reading updates on the ongoing IIPM fracas in the blogosphere with some interest. Whatever the truth about IIPM's advertisements (and from the posts I've seen, IIPM can hardly defend itself; the problem is such false advertising is fairly rampant :-(), their going after the bloggers was simply out-of-line. However, thinking over things this past day, one thing sticks out like a sore thumb for me. All the stories seem to highlight that Gaurav Sabnis (one of the affected bloggers) resigned from IBM, and although he disclaims that IBM had anything to do with his resignation, the implicit line being towed by the many bloggers (and the mainstream media that has begun to cover this) is that IBM had somehow applied pressure on him to resign, and whether or not they applied pressure, that IBM had a moral obligation to stand up against IIPM's pressure tactics and to defend their employee's basic freedom of speech. The fact that IBM is often the face of American capitalism, and that freedom of speech is a cherished (and sometimes forcibly exported) American value, seems to add an implicit irony to these references. (Maybe I'm reading too much into this? :-))

Which may be all be fine, except, none of these stories seem to demarcate that Lenovo is not IBM! IBM sold it's PC division to Lenovo. Somewhat like the Manto's satire on partition, Toba Tek Singh, what happened as part of that sale is that what was IBM (India) one day, became Lenovo (Pakistan) the next, and those who were working for IBM's PC division now work for Lenovo. (Of course, this change had none of the acrimony of partition, just the tremendous love of money changing hands ;-).)

From Washington Post's coverage of the sale:

Under the terms of the deal, Lenovo would pay $650 million in cash and up to $600 million in common stock. Lenovo would also assume $500 million in IBM liabilities. Once the transaction closes, Lenovo would have about 19,000 employees. About 10,000 IBM employees -- more than 40 percent of whom are already in China and less than 25 percent of whom are in the United States -- would join Lenovo.

There is a hand off period where IBM is allowing Lenovo to continue to use the IBM (and Think) brand names, but Lenovo is its own company. From the CNET story:

Lenovo will be the preferred supplier of PCs to IBM and will be allowed to use the IBM brand for five years under an agreement that includes the "Think" brand. Big Blue has promised to support the PC maker with marketing and via its IBM corporate sales force.

I managed to make the error of thinking that IBM was involved as well, so I'm not sure I blame others for their initial references to IBM in the context of this story. But with all the wonderful facts being dug up on IIPM and its founders by bloggers (and this is solid work by them), maybe it's time to set the record straight and take IBM out of the picture?

• Note: Most of the links on the IIPM story are via Desi Pundit and Amit Varma (i.e., they did all the hard work).
• Obligatory Disclaimer: These views are mine and mine alone (i.e. I do not speak for anyone else).

The Great Indian Cricket Mutiny

Wow! What a mess Indian cricket has gotten into? The email from Greg Chappell at the heart of all this seems balanced enough, but does have the air of a teacher complaining about the head boy to the principal. However, some of the allegations, if true, are fairly serious and, IMHO, should probably cost Ganguly his place in the side. Reports of support for Ganguly from other players is only expected, and shirking of a rigorous fitness regimen (as Prem Panicker points out here) may definitely be spurring some of that support.

It is also likely that Chappell is, rightly, trying to get players used to an Aussie sense of performance accountability. The performance of the Indian cricket team, once seeming as if it had reached an unprecedented high after the victory in Pakistan, has dropped very sharply and alarmingly to an unpleasant depth. While Ganguly can draw analogies to Mark Taylor's dismal run of form as Australia captain, one should also point out that the Aussie team continued to prosper under him. Yet, during Taylor's poor run, there was no shortage of fairly vocal calls for him to resign or to be dropped from many an Aussie great. And when Australia begins to falter in performance, it's clear that the overall records of players (something Ganguly trots out in his defence every time) matters very little in the mind of selectors who want to stem the rot, as the recent dropping of Martyn (a player with a test average of nearly 48) from the test team and Gillespie from the ODI side show. What matters, and what should matter, is what is in the best interest of their cricket team. And the facts in Chappell's email, if true, reflect activities going on at present that are not in Indian cricket's best interest; the faster such issues are resolved, with brutal action if needed, the better.

That Chappell's attitude should rub some of the players the wrong way is clearly expected. Players like Harbhajan Singh and Zaheer Khan have been performing well below par and should attribute a lot of the chances they have recently got to Ganguly's backing. (It isn't clear that backing has helped Indian cricket, however.) Putting together Chappell's email and VVS Laxman's critical comments after the 2nd day of the 1st test, I would speculate that Laxman is among the "senior" cricketers who have talked about feeling very insecure about their position in the side, Chappell's clarification in his email notwithstanding. (Chappell addressing him head on and telling him to forget about a one-day spot, as he admits he did in the email, couldn't have helped matters any, for VVS, if his interviews are to be believed, continues to feel that a one day spot is being wrongly denied him.)

My take on all this is that it's time serious action were taken to correct the rot. If Chappell's allegations are true, it is time to wish Ganguly and any of the other players who are touting their love for him, good bye and god bless. ("Thank you for your services to Indian cricket. We hope you have a nice time with ESPN sports.") There is talent on the sidelines and the faster that talent is put under Chappell's tutelage, the sooner that talent will translate from "raw" to "cooked". The Indian cricket team performance is not far from the nadir, and this is a good time to blood talent that is willing to give their all for the Indian cricket team and its success. What's more, there will hopefully be three all-time greats whose exemplary work ethic will give the newcomers treads they can follow, and who can lend the team a solid spine as it goes through this transition: Dravid, Tendulkar, and Kumble. Under Ganguly, the Indian board slowly adopted the Aussie mantra of giving players sufficient opportunity to prove themselves, and for this Sourav deserves thanks. Under Chappell, it is now high time we also adopt the strict Aussie sense of performance accountability.