Perceived Hypocrisy on China Fueled Lawsuit Against Cisco

Don Tennant

My recent post, "Second Lawsuit Accuses Cisco of Enabling China to Oppress Citizens," recounted allegations stemming from the oppression of associates of Harry Wu, a well-known dissident who spent nearly two decades in Chinese forced-labor prisons. But there's more to the story, and it helps to explain why Cisco was targeted in the suit. It turns out Wu was infuriated by what he saw as blatant hypocrisy exhibited by Cisco as a corporate sponsor of the ceremony in Oslo in December to award the Nobel Peace Prize in absentia to imprisoned Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo.

 

Dan Ward, the attorney who filed the suit, told me that Wu attended the ceremony, and was incensed when he saw that Cisco was a sponsor. In fact, Wu wrote a letter to Cisco CEO John Chambers dated Jan. 3 to express his dismay. Here's an excerpt from that letter:

I was quite surprised upon arriving in Oslo to find that your company, Cisco, was a major corporate sponsor of the Nobel Peace Prize. I am happy that Cisco has chosen to support such a worthy event, but I find myself deeply troubled by another side of Cisco's global operations. Since November 2000, Cisco has been actively engaged in helping the Chinese secret police to ensnare dissidents just like Liu Xiaobo. In addition to providing specialized routers for garden-variety internet censorship, Cisco has been instrumental in providing equipment and training for the "Golden Shield Project," a nationwide security surveillance network, which includes a national database and tracking system, which help to strengthen the government's control of the Chinese people. Cisco has also customized its training programs for Chinese police officers and incorporated additional tracking features into its products.

 

Liu Xiaobo was sentenced in part because of his writings on overseas Chinese-language news sites, including my own site, Observe China, which is blocked by the Great Firewall. Mr. Liu wrote over 260 articles for Observe China, and three of these (along with three others from other sources) were raised in his trial and cited as reasons why he was "subverting State power." I can personally assure you that while these articles urged the Chinese government to move towards a freer, more democratic society, they were certainly not criminal. Mr. Liu himself has stated that "it is time we move beyond a society where words are viewed as crimes."

 

I urge you to consider the human impact of Cisco's business decisions in China. You may be aware that IBM provided equipment to Adolf Hitler, which was used in the Holocaust. Although the company later regretted their involvement and apologized almost sixty years after the fact, their actions undeniably assisted Hitler in his quest to eliminate the Jews. I am not advocating that you cut your business ties completely with China. That would be an impossibility in today's increasingly interconnected world. Cisco's actions, however, have gone beyond the mere sales of equipment; the company has been actively involved in the training of police departments, and has introduced specialized surveillance functionality, knowing full well that this technology is being used by the Chinese secret police for political aims. I think that you, as the CEO, must ask yourself whether Cisco has acted in an ethical manner in its dealings with the Chinese government. It is unacceptable to say that you were not aware of what was happening in your Chinese regional offices. Cisco should also clarify to the American people exactly what surveillance technology it sold to the Chinese government, how it has helped deploy that technology, and what it is being used for. Too many dissidents like Mr. Liu have paid with the best years of their lives so that your company could profit off of the Chinese regime's desire to repress its people. Cisco should take every step to ensure that the company is standing on the right side of history.

According to Ward, Cisco general counsel Mark Chandler met with Wu on June 6, the day the suit was filed. But Chambers never bothered to respond to Wu's letter. I asked Ward whether the lawsuit might have been prevented if Chambers had made the effort to reply. His response:

Whether or not Mr. Chambers responded to Mr. Wu's letter would not change the irrefutable fact that Cisco's willful and knowing acts aided and abetted (and continue to aid and abet) the Chinese Communist Party's gross violations of my clients' human rights. Given that fact, I am not sure what Mr. Chambers could have written that would have prevented the filing of our lawsuit.


Add Comment      Leave a comment on this blog post
Jun 14, 2011 5:48 AM R. Lawson R. Lawson  says:

Too bad nobody biting on this subject.  I think it is an important subject Don and frankly I want to debate someone on more broader issues than the H-1b visa.

My two favorite college courses were ethics and critical thinking.  I enjoy many of the Indian people posting because they force me to present a stronger argument... easier preaching to the choir than to non-believers.

Someone must support the Chinese position.  If not, can we at least get a devil's advocate   I wonder what the Chinese are saying about this issue - or if they even know about it given their great firewall.

We have normalized trade with a communist nation that has information filters and jails their opposition - just like North Korea.  That boggles the mind that we would throw away our American values for cheap sneakers.

Reply
Jun 14, 2011 10:56 AM R. Lawson R. Lawson  says:

It's clear that PNTR with China have not only failed, they have rewarded a country for bad behavior.

Trade with China must be predicated on basic human rights.  I would suggest a "sin tariff" that makes it unprofitable to violate international environmental standards, labor laws, and human rights standards. 

If China wants to retaliate with their own sin tariff, great.  Perhaps that will prompt other nations to improve themselves as well.

We can leverage capitalism for good, however we chose long ago not to do that.  All the arguments regarding PNTR with China would move them closer to Democratic rule were total BS because there was no instrument in place to do that. 

It was once again this irrational belief in the "invisible hand".  Sometimes I'd like an invisible foot to kick their collective asses.

Reply
Jun 15, 2011 6:45 AM Drunken Economist Drunken Economist  says: in response to R. Lawson

Bear in mind, I was just playing the 'devil's advocate'..

Personally I don't like what the Chinese are doing to their people, neither do I like what US corps are doing to ours (or replacing with young/cheap) either. China is still a sovereign nation, and they still have MFN from us, right? What's the endgame? War with China to 'bring them freedom?'

As to what 'we' do with our 'lone wolves?' I think Bradley Manning or Kevin Mitnick would disagree with you. As would 'normal' Muslims swept from Afghanistan into Gitmo for years on end and no 'transparency' as to whether they're innocent or guilty due to being in the US Mill Justice system.

Cisco (and IBM, and Microsoft, and...) cannot be considered American companies anymore, but multi-nationals. They're gonna do what they're gonna do. And, they have the leverage to do so it seems with our Wall St. friendly POTUS.

My point with Cisco & the Great FW:  -- the tech in the Cisco switches is not under ITAR AFAIK or they could be stopped that way by US gov't laws governing tech transfer.

It is very telling that there's been no major action that way-- and that the only thing that can be done is a civil suit in an obscure NorCal court.

Finally, there are a host of OTHER businesses doing business with the Middle Kingdom. Even Google (still). Google probably has done more 'damage' than Cisco. Where's the outrage there?

But back to Chambers: neither he nor any MBA of rank can even do right by folks in his own country (offshoring, outsourcing, crying poormouth for bailouts, tax breaks, etc).

Why would he even care about Chinese dissidents?

Again, I don't agree with these POVs. But as someone who's worked in these types of corps, I know how they think. One more reason why I don't work in large corps anymore.

I also have dealt with the Chicoms. Let's just say I'd (also, like Apple) rather deal with ROC'ers.

-Drunky

Reply
Jun 15, 2011 6:58 AM Drunken Economist Drunken Economist  says: in response to R. Lawson

RLawson:

"You are making a strong case for even more regulation of companies because clearly their only concern is who has the deepest pockets, not what evils their products are being used for. "

Funny, I was trying to make the case for prison sentences and MAYBE the death penalty. I was REALLY SURPRISED that only Bernie Madoff got prison time. After the crash, there was no justice. In fact, those at fault got promoted/bonuses, and we the people paid for it.

In fact, they're all about making those pockets deeper, as we're probably headed into another recession.

RLawson:

"I don't think John Chambers made his evil decisions because he wanted to harm Chinese dissidents - I think he did it because he was afraid.  Afraid to disappoint investors.  Afraid he would lose his lavish lifestyle.  Afraid his world would fall apart if he "did the right thing".  Stop acting like a scared little girl John Chambers and do the right thing!  Stop being afraid!"

I can assure you that these guys just DO NOT think like this. They're at a particular tier, and if you didn't make it to that tier, it really doesn't matter to them.

The ONLY THING that scares them is if they've tumbled the numbers & thought about the next 10 years. Then thoughts of Mad Max, guns and Argentina hyper-inflation/unrest come to mind (read ZeroHedge to get a taste of this).

Getting the MBAs to comply is a simple matter of making laws with teeth. And throwing more of them in prison.

-Drunky

Reply
Jun 15, 2011 8:11 AM Drunken Economist Drunken Economist  says: in response to R. Lawson

Heck, in the USA we discard whole generations of workers for 'cheap' and 'young/compliant'. Sneakers are easy in comparison. Here's a devil's advocate view:

Harry Wu may 'mean well' with his positive liberty arguments, but he's barking up the wrong middle kingdom and he knows it. He says that the American people should have an accounting, but those same folks could care less. As Germany was a client, so is China. Times are bad, and you deal with the guy who has the gold. Oh, and the only heat is from a dissident and not even your government?

And your government uses the same STOCK kit? No ITAR or anything like that, just IOS configuration and a little tweaking? Please. Stop acting surprised.

If Wu's only recourse is filing a lawsuit in a liberal activist court against a US company who has been doing this for.... how long? Bueller? Then he doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.

The Chinese have a problem. And as we use the main stream media to regulate/moderate our wildeyes, or 'lone wolves' in our country, they use the Great Firewall (and netcops, who pop up "warning avatars") to regulate theirs.

Lastly, as I said in the other blog entry, the Chinese folks as a whole don't value our idea of (negative) 'freedom'. Tho' they are, increasingly, becoming consumer oriented.

-Drunky

Reply
Jun 15, 2011 8:28 AM Drunken Economist Drunken Economist  says: in response to R. Lawson

The PRC is nowhere NEAR how bad the DPRK is now. In fact, China considers the Kims a royal PITA -- if N. Korea really 'fails' then the Chinese will have a massive refugee problem.

Okay, back to Cisco: Memories are short. Remember this?

news.cnet.com/China-firm-stops-shipping-disputed-gear/2100-1035_3-983824.html

If Cisco stops selling kit, there's more than enough knowhow with Huawei or another company to maintain the Great Firewall.

So it's in Cisco's interest to shut up and take the money (and maintain their IP with the Chinese) .. and to ignore a handful of dissidents like Wu.

Not saying I like it, but that's how the fortune cookie crumbles. Or in this case, doesn't.

-Drunky

Reply
Jun 15, 2011 11:31 AM R. Lawson R. Lawson  says: in response to Drunken Economist

Devil's Advocate:"As Germany was a client, so is China.Times are bad, and you deal with the guy who has the gold.Oh, and the only heat is from a dissident and not even your government?"

You are making a strong case for even more regulation of companies because clearly their only concern is who has the deepest pockets, not what evils their products are being used for. 

Maybe Cisco could have wired up Osama's mansion in Pakistan also - using your logic there's nothing wrong with that. If history was timed slightly different, I can imagine John Chambers having tea with Hitler - "which camps would you like our routers in, my feuer?" "Yes, we can demonstrate their use - take me to your nearest ghetto - and bring some police dogs. This will be fun."

If Cisco wanted to avoid such criticism they could have avoided the Nobel Peace Prize altogether - especially knowing that they were profiteering from the silencing of people and an obstacle to both democracy and human rights. 

They didn't donate to the cause because they really care about peace - no this was simply marketing and an attempt to offset all their dirty little deeds. The way you stop projecting yourself as a bad company Cisco isn't by marketing, it's by stop doing bad things. 

I think it is great that this backfired on them and that people recognize what hypocrites Cisco truly are. Nobel should have rejected their blood money.

Devil's Advocate:"And your government uses the same STOCK kit?No ITAR or anything like that, just IOS configuration and a little tweaking?Please.Stop acting surprised."

I thought it was "our government" Cisco but perhaps it's just mine. I forgot that you absolved your citizenship. But wait - you still want the corporation to be treated like a person and the right to influence campaigns with no limitations. I digress.

You are deflecting the issue. This is about your behavior and not the source of the criticism or what others are doing. This is about your sins Cisco.

"The Chinese have a problem.And as we use the main stream media to regulate/moderate our wildeyes, or 'lone wolves' in our country, they use the Great Firewall (and netcops, who pop up "warning avatars") to regulate theirs."

The difference is that the 'lone wolves' as you call them aren't doing forced labor for years on end and fear tactics to control speech. And you may recall that I was a lone-wolf on the H-1b issue (as are we all) and managed to convince others who didn't see the evils of the program to now disavow it. Don and I would probably be doing forced labor in China right now for acting against "state interests" and as collaborators. Perhaps we could wave to John Chambers every now and then through the Cisco hardware monitoring us.

Thanks Drunken Economist for playing devil's advocate  

This issue causes me to think back on my own activism and my own path in life and business. I see so many people caught up in fear, and as such they are afraid to do the right thing for themselves, their business, or their country.

I was fearful when I first began discussing this issue publicly that I would get fired. Eventually I was after stirring the pot at Publix regarding Infosys. The funny thing is that somebody else actually was responsible for what got me fired (anonymous blogs) and I'm not sure who it was - but I was the guy opposing Infosys so "it had to be him".  Reply

Jun 15, 2011 11:31 AM R. Lawson R. Lawson  says: in response to Drunken Economist
I never post or blog anonymously because I feel it is my duty as an American to never flinch in the face of those who would try and silence me.

But what happened after that was what really changed my course. I didn't lose my house - no in fact I found a better job. And a better one after that. When I stopped being afraid I became not only better at activism but also better at business. 

This is why I don't support corporate sponsored anything. Including healthcare which actually hinders the free movement of American labor (people are afraid to lose their healthcare). So even when employers would provide healthcare plans, I opted for the private market long ago. Healthcare is leverage and the last thing I need to worry about after losing a job is being sick - or my kids getting sick. Yes, it cost more. But my freedom from fear is worth way more than saving a few dollars in insurance.

I then built up a nest. Everyone should be able to survive without any income for six months. 

When you become independent you stop being afraid. You do better for your clients. You make the tough business decisions you would otherwise be afraid to make. 

The last major change was cutting off the cable. I have netflix and a box to watch netflix, but the 24 hour news cycle is a huge distraction and quite frankly they just scratch the surface of the news. I was paying good money for bad reporting.

I am just glad that I live in a country that I could stop being afraid, and not end up executed or in prison. 

I now live in Florida but when I lived in Hawaii I remember locals telling stories about a typhoon that hit Maui and you had all the poor people lining up for ice and water, taking it all in stride, and there were several rich men in the town who killed themselves because they couldn't take losing it all and being forced to stand in line with commoners. 

That story stuck with me some 15 years later and I believe that many rich people are in fact weak. Fear is disease that can harm anyone - and the rich are particularly vulnerable to it because they have more to lose. 

I don't think John Chambers made his evil decisions because he wanted to harm Chinese dissidents - I think he did it because he was afraid. Afraid to disappoint investors. Afraid he would lose his lavish lifestyle. Afraid his world would fall apart if he "did the right thing". Stop acting like a scared little girl John Chambers and do the right thing! Stop being afraid!

Reply
Jun 15, 2011 11:39 AM Su Su  says: in response to R. Lawson

On China and to some extent on your protectionism on other discussion...I have complete agreement ... so did not mention anything

Reply
Jun 16, 2011 2:29 AM R. Lawson R. Lawson  says: in response to Drunken Economist

"Funny, I was trying to make the case for prison sentences and MAYBE the death penalty. I was REALLY SURPRISED that only Bernie Madoff got prison time. After the crash, there was no justice. In fact, those at fault got promoted/bonuses, and we the people paid for it."

I agree.  There needs to be way more done to not only regulate, but also prosecute.  If the letter of the law makes prosecution tough, we need to update the letter of the law.

I'd rather sentence them to life in prison living with other poor people and execution.  Execution is probably a reprieve to many of these guys (who most likely will attempt suicide anyways).

I don't understand why there isn't more anger towards these people.  We should be burning tires in the streets and throwing molotov cocktails.

Reply
Jun 17, 2011 9:57 AM Su Su  says: in response to R. Lawson

"

Including healthcare which actually hinders the free movement of American labor (people are afraid to lose their healthcare).  So even when employers would provide healthcare plans, I opted for the private market long ago.  Healthcare is leverage and the last thing I need to worry about after losing a job is being sick - or my kids getting sick.  Yes, it cost more. 

"

Try to bring talent or workforce from through out the world but not in a manner of H1 visa. It has to be more strict and fraud-proof. The main problem is why someone even has to have an insurance and why healthcare is sooo costly in US? It is again that shortage. US providers are not doing any special job and mediocre sick people need ordinary treatment. If you buy a burger in $5 then if you have flu you should spend around $20 to see a doctor. But no if you don't have an insurance then it might cost $500 and with insurance it might cost you $100-200!!

If there are people with no jobs ...why there is shortage in these high-end jobs creating a cost which is absurd in comparison to rest of the world. Why someone has to go to Canada, Europe or even Asia for healthcare just because of cost and not because of quality. The society should create competition internally so to motivate people to scale up and create skills to survive. Otherwise if you have so much money and protect kids with that...kids will say why to study hard and become a doctor let's be cool and become a tattoo artist. When it becomes large-scale it is very bad sign for a society. Don't compare this with history because America in past might not have this problem - so you can't say we did so good 75 years back - that doesn't mean you don't have any problem today. I feel very bad for people in US for healthcare. Sorry for diverting topic.

Reply
Jul 12, 2011 9:16 AM who knows who knows  says: in response to R. Lawson

Reason nobody biting on this subject is because Don's blog always viewed (at least me) as  immigration related and will write for legal immigrants (later it got changed). I came to his blog quite recently and presenting legal immigrant side of good and bad.

I follow your comments just to get different perspective and learn how others view/receive legal immigration. IMHO your argument didn't ended with any response on "I Was Wrong - The H-1B Visa Program Must Be Abolished", may be you forgot about that blog. When to get some time try to share your perspective on my 13 point response.

Your comment : "We have normalized trade with a communist nation that has information filters and jails their opposition - just like North Korea.  That boggles the mind that we would throw away our American values for cheap sneakers."

It is up to citizen of the respective country to take control of their nation. Because we have free nation (at this point I doubt due to criminal cases registered for internet comments) other nations with different controls has to be viewed/treated differently by a corporate or by any person for that matter. Typical example I would take is Singapore which has very good legal system (with good implementation due to size of the country) with each and every person in the country who believes on their legal system and never attempt to test the extremes of it.

As a corporate all I would care is am I selling my product to legitimate/recognized company/country. How it is used and what for it was used should be out of business scope. If you want every corporate to think differently I doubt any person/company/country can work on creating/maintaining Nuclear weapons (IMHO which is a worst thing a country can create for whatever reason) where is American values in this particular program. I can't even think a single reason (other than killing aliens from different planet) to have those weapons that in thousands.

Why don't we apply the American values when we buy a product from a company/country, at the least that is reasonable and easy to implement right ? How about using American values when importing oils....oh...we can't because without importing we can't run the whole country.

All I am trying to say is corporate(s) cannot test/preach their belief (or country of their origin) to their end clients as long as it is legal business.

Reply
Jul 12, 2011 10:07 AM who knows who knows  says: in response to R. Lawson

Trying to provide different perspective (against my heart and wish)

Roy, If you own a company won't you expect your employees being monitored because anything bad they do it would reflect on your company right.So, may be China wants to make sure their citizens don't involve in any bad things which may indirectly affects their country.

They want their citizens to be looking and working on things which leaders of the country looking and working.Everything has it own tolerance and I hope haven't crossed their citizens tolerance at this point.

PS:I do control my kids on what they do in Internet because couple of weeks back a kid got suspended from school for posting comments about his/her teacher in facebook and another kid getting prosecuted for criminal offence for playing prank in the school (now you see how much freedom kids have in US).

Now let me present my view

Your comment:"The difference is that the 'lone wolves' as you call them aren't doing forced labor for years on end and fear tactics to control speech. And you may recall that I was a lone-wolf on the H-1b issue (as are we all) and managed to convince others who didn't see the evils of the program to now disavow it."

I don't think you or Don are the lone-wolf on H1b issue, there is big caucus (numberusa.com best sample)working on H1b issue.

Your comment :"This issue causes me to think back on my own activism and my own path in life and business. I see so many people caught up in fear, and as such they are afraid to do the right thing for themselves, their business, or their country."

Roy, is it not right thing for you will different from right thing for me.For an example I don't take meat because I believe eating living being (you can argue plants are also living being...but my take is it doesn't shed blood at the least) is wrong.At this point whole world is getting to common ground for right and wrong but still it is long way to go.US government is slowly increasing control on their citizen on what they can do and they cannot do even on their food habits.Right wing says homo sexuality is wrong where as left wing says that is non of governments business.So, there is not right and wrong as long as it doesn't directly affecting another person (obviously my action would indirectly affect which I may or may not have control on).

Your comment:"This is why I don't support corporate sponsored anything. Including healthcare which actually hinders the free movement of American labor (people are afraid to lose their healthcare). So even when employers would provide healthcare plans, I opted for the private market long ago. Healthcare is leverage and the last thing I need to worry about after losing a job is being sick - or my kids getting sick. Yes, it cost more. But my freedom from fear is worth way more than saving a few dollars in insurance."

I have my own tale of getting out of big corporate(s) twice due to their (my reporting manager...I don't blame company for an individual actions) lack of ethics.And same like you I never regretted my decision to throw the jobs which doesn't fit my own heart.I don't think anyone has to stick with a company just for health insurance.It is never being part of your annual compensation then any help on paying my family insurance is good.

Do you think health care is bad in US because of corporate sponsored ? Reply

Jul 12, 2011 10:07 AM who knows who knows  says: in response to R. Lawson
I really don't get it.Do company pay more if you go for private insurance (out of company provided) ?I never heard of any such thing.All I think is instead of me paying $1000/month I pay $300/month and my company pays $700/month.If my spouse has good plan and I decided to go with that plan then it is savings of $700/month for my company and I never get any part of that savings.

I never had fear of losing job just because I will lose medical insurance...that seems to be (IMHO) not right.

Your comment :"I then built up a nest. Everyone should be able to survive without any income for six months."

I like this part and I follow this religiously ( I do saved separately for packing and getting back to my country just in case) and wish every one follows it.

Your comment:"I don't think John Chambers made his evil decisions because he wanted to harm Chinese dissidents - I think he did it because he was afraid. Afraid to disappoint investors. Afraid he would lose his lavish lifestyle. Afraid his world would fall apart if he "did the right thing". Stop acting like a scared little girl John Chambers and do the right thing! Stop being afraid!"

I think John Chambers decision is of anything related to fear it is normal business as any other business.When US sell arms to Pakistan does it think they may harm general public too ?It is just a business and their client is one of the biggest nation in the world.How it is using is up to their citizens to question it as a seller I has nothing to do with my clients thought.I don't think cost of any product would include cost for analyzing the client intention.

Reply
Jul 12, 2011 10:22 AM who knows who knows  says: in response to R. Lawson

Roy is it not that Chinese who need to react to this control. US is doing too much of moral policing which is costing too much for their tax payers.

I don't think 100billion+ people are tied up there, if they wish they can take control of their destination.

Did America got punished for using nuclear weapon on Japan ? Did all the companies/people who involved in that action got punished ?

It doesn't mean these two are equal but it is up to each government to decide how they want to treat their citizen and it is up to each citizens of the respective country to take action if they don't like it.

I don't think companies to take that responsibility in the name of ethics and value.

When you don't want to handover any responsibility to corporate(s) then how do you expect them to take responsibility on other countries destination. is it not against your own view ?

I would say every one play their role properly

Citizens : Follow all the laws, speak against any fraud, speak against any control you don't like and be honest towards your own people.

Government: Make sure every citizen gets basic needs, maintain law and order, create needed regulations, implement all the regulations created and treat your citizen with proper dignity.

Companies: Do legal and legitimate business, innovate, treat your employees as a shareholder, follow all business ethics and be honest to your client,employees,shareholders and country you operate.

Press and legal systems also needs to play their role but no system should step on others which will create issues.

Reply
Jul 15, 2011 10:30 AM Su Su  says: in response to who knows

"For an example I don't take meat because I believe eating living being (you can argue plants are also living being...but my take is it doesn't shed blood at the least) is wrong. "

It kept me thinking and it tells me why someone like R Lawson is rightly more vocal about anything against classic American values and less proactive on embracing immigrants. It is human tendency and nothing wrong with that. While they will be very active against chinese values or illegal immigrants - you can't expect them to be same "active" to fight for "their" rights.

Now I'll come to your quote above. Do you really gave up eating meat with your choice or are you just following your family tradition or cast system? There is difference between these 2. 99.999% Indians who are vegeterian are not by choice but it is built in their value system and may be their families are following this for 1000 years and an individual is just respecting that tradition. So this is not something more complex than "because I believe eating living being ".

This is same with Roy; who is fighting a cause with many "because" with a tilt towards protecting his values - where as not so open minded towards other side of the fact. Unless he is very hateful towards other isde of it (which he is not) it is acceptable to have a little 'bias' and 'love' towards his 'values' and 'interests' and be little 'misguided' towards 'other' side of it.

Reply
Jul 20, 2011 4:56 AM IT_Blogger IT_Blogger  says: in response to Su

Su,

You said: "99.999% Indians who are vegeterian are not by choice but it is built in their value system and may be their families are following this for 1000 years and an individual is just respecting that tradition".

I think your above statement is absurd. Can you cite the source for your above comment? Being from India and a strict vegetarian myself, I can't make any categorical statements like the above.

Reply

Post a comment

 

 

 

 


(Maximum characters: 1200). You have 1200 characters left.

 

null
null

 

Subscribe to our Newsletters

Sign up now and get the best business technology insights direct to your inbox.