Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
From Tanzania to New York: Success Saga of School Dropout Indian-Origin Signage Entrepreneur Babu Khalfan

From Tanzania to New York: Success Saga of School Dropout Indian-Origin Signage Entrepreneur Babu Khalfan

New York-based entrepreneur Babu Khalfan is fourth generation of Indian-origin Tanzanian nationals. He visited Mumbai recently in search of ways to pay back to the country where his great grandfather was born and brought up. Successful businessman of signage industry both in Tanzania and United States, Babu Khalfan had a talk with Maeeshat Managing Editor Danish Reyaz on plethora of issues related to his personality, profession and future business plan.

Babu Khalfan

Babu Khalfan

Babu Khalfan, you are in Mumbai and planning to open a signage institute in India’s commercial capital. What is the idea behind this venture?

I have been involved in the signage business for almost 50 years now in the United States’ New York City, one of the biggest commercial cities in the world. Thanks to God, I have been very successful in my venture. About 15-17 people, who are very close to me, have also been involved in the same business and have achieved great success.

As for my Mumbai plan, I have always thought of training young people and bringing them to the signage business. As my son has taken over my business, I have lot of time which I want to use to share my knowledge and experience that I gained all these years. I don’t want to sit idle at home and just relax, so I decided to do something for the youth in India. This is my current interest and imparting the knowledge I have is my motto right now.

Can you kindly tell us about yourself, your native place, your generation in Tanzania and how you entered this business?

I am the fourth generation of Indians in Africa. I was born and raised in Madagascar and started my career in Tanzania. I was an artist by nature as was my family. So I started by doing signage for painting-board, sign board and other things. Slowly, the business grew and became big. Ten years later, by the time I left Africa in 1969-70, my business had become very big but there were some problems in Tanzania for Indians and I decided that I had to move. I decided to go to the United States. I settled down in New York and started my business all over again and slowly slowly it turned into a big business. Right now, mine is one of the biggest companies in New York City involved in high-end architectural signage business. My sons have taken over the job. I think there are vast opportunities throughout the world. There is no signage training centre anywhere in the world. I have checked in the United States and Europe – there is none. My upcoming Mumbai signage institute will be the first of its kind in the world.

What is the future of the signage business in India?

India is growing unlike any other country and it’s growing fast. After China, India is the focus of the world, so India will have to basically comply with the world standards like for instance, ADA (American Disability Act) requires several things for the handicapped. That is linked with signage through Braille signs. The Braille signs are need of blind people. The blindness consists of several stages — those who are completely blind have to feel and those who are partially blind can see a little bit. For such people, the letter, its size and color are to be so different and contrast.

New roadways, buildings and public places are being built everywhere in India and they all need signages. All big cities of India will need signage and it’s not something that you build and it remains good for 100 years. It’s good for 10-12 years and then people have to change the signage again. In this period, new designs come in, new products come in and a lot of different stuffs. So if you start now in India, the country will really benefit from the signage facilities in 10-15 years from now.

You mentioned that there is no institute of signage in the world. Why are you going to establish a signage institute in India and why have you chosen Mumbai for it?

I started from Delhi, then I went to Gujarat where I visited couple of universities imparting knowledge about design and signage. Now I am in Mumbai, the commercial capital of India and a big city known throughout the world. It’s growing fast. The last time I came to Mumbai a few years ago, there was no sky way, no proper highways, nothing of that sort and then suddenly there are big bridges, big skyways — in 10 years things have changed completely. Mumbai is the place where there is diversity — people speak also in English and the world knows Mumbai as a major city of India.

Who can take admission in your signage institute and what is the criteria and qualification for admission?

You should know basic language, basic maths and measurement basics, then you can easily learn signage. I am a school dropout but I am an artistic person and had a zeal for doing business, so slowly I grew my business and have come to be what I am today. There are very few people in the signage business. There is no General Motors yet in this industry, there is no one place where you can go and learn signage and that is what I am trying to create here in India.

What will be job opportunities for the graduates of your signage institute?

That’s a very interesting question. I do not know much as I am new in India. In the United States, there are lots of signage industries. However, it is hard to find people with skills — there is no fabricator, no etcher or no engraver in the start. So my Mumbai institute will be a training ground for such people and it will not be limited for Indians only. My plan is to bring people from all around the world to this institute. People can come here and go back to their countries and build a business of their own with their own technical knowledge and explore the wide areas of the signage industry.

You have said that signage business has three parts and you are trying to establish the first part which is education. What are the other parts of this business?

As part of our business in New York, we buy some materials, which are fabricated signs, from China. We train students in graphic designs for signage. The entire subject of signage will give them knowledge about the materials, some knowledge about engineering, little bits of architecture, they’ll also know about designs etc. The Second part is manufacturing. People can come to India and buy the products in relatively cheaper prices than in other countries. The market is very huge and the opportunity to achieve something out of it is very easy. There are so many products in the signage business which can be seen in trade shows that can give an idea about the huge array of products used. Third part is distribution. Signage is a complex product and requires special material, special equipment, and everything special. So, we will also be involved in supplying the signage products which will make us a one-stop shop for all signage needs. You learn, you manufacture and if you start a business in signage you can get materials from the same place.

You are in Mumbai for some days. What responses have you got from people about your idea?

I have met several people for this project and there is not a single person who has given any negative response. I am really encouraged, and it is increasing everyday with the positive responses I am getting about this idea. Everybody understands the concept and wants me to proceed with it.

People versus Established Order: Contradiction sharpens in New York and elsewhere

People versus Established Order: Contradiction sharpens in New York and elsewhere

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

By Saeed Naqvi,

Does the stunning victory of a 28-year-old Latino bartender in New York this week over a 10-term Democratic lawmaker bear any resemblance to AAPs victory under a political novice, Arvind Kejriwal in February 2015? He thrashed Narendra Modis resurgent BJP and a Congress Chief Minister entering her fourth term. Of course, there are a thousand differences in detail but these are dwarfed by a basic similarity — popular resentment with establishments everywhere. It is a wave sweeping all electoral democracies across the globe. I have just seen the toppling of the Italian ruling class in Rome. Wherever they can, establishments are fighting back tooth and nail. Kejriwals endless travails are part of this counterpunch.

The winner in New York, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was, in her last job, mixing cocktails in a Manhattan bar, sometimes on 18-hour shifts to help avoid foreclosure of her mother’s property. But more meaningful for her career was her stint as Bernie Sanders’ campaigner during the 2016 election. Little wonder she stands on a similar, leftist platform, demanding universal health care, ending tuition fees at public colleges and abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Still recovering from the shock defeat happens to be Joe Cowley for whom the Democratic Party had built many castles in the air. The same party had dug its heels in so firmly for Hillary Clinton as the Presidential candidate that every argument pointing to Bernie Sanders’ chances of victory over Trump were discarded.

I was in Washington for the campaign, surrounded by Clinton enthusiasts who would not answer a straightforward question:

“Popular disgust with the Washington establishment was unmistakable. Given this reality, by what logic do you see Clinton as a winner: she is the very epitome of the Washington establishment.”

Alexandria’s victory places her in line as the youngest woman in Congress after the November elections. This could well be the thin end of the wedge, gradually opening up spaces for younger and more radical candidates.

Considering that Trumpism too is consolidating itself on white working and middle class grievances, the divisions in American society may become more shrill. Once they rise to a crescendo, the clashing of Cymbals will be deafening even though the talk of a civil war is rank exaggeration.

A considerable segment of the Democratic Party, which refrained from radicalism during the 2016 campaign, appears to have sensed the ground realities, almost anticipating the New York result. Democrats like Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren signed onto Bernie Sanders bill for universal Health Care, something they had avoided two years ago when Sanders first introduced the Bill. The platform is picking up.

The New York outcome has clearly set the cat among the pigeons in establishment circles and not just in the US. Another resounding punch will be administered on the establishment’s chin when Andrez Manuel Lopez Obrador nicknamed AMLO, almost as far Left as the late Chavez in Venezuela, triumphs in the Mexican elections on Sunday. The sharp anti-US edge to this result can safely be attributed to Trump’s open disdain for the southern neighbour.

A Bloomberg banner headline reads: “Listen, Trump: Firebrand Lopez Obrador Set to Win Landslide in Mexico.”

There is, however, a welcoming warmth to this turn in world affairs in progressive circles in Europe, not the least of it in the higher echelons of Britain’s Labour Party.

Last week I attended a meeting in support of Democracy and Human Rights in Mexico organised in the House of Commons by Laura Alvarez Corbyn, the Labour leader’s Mexican wife. Jeremy Corbyn sat through the meeting, signalling his support for progressive causes.

Is the Democratic Party in the US learning lessons from real life? Until the New York result there was no evidence of any change of heart in the party’s higher reaches. In fact, a year ago, a Fox News poll establishing Bernie Sanders’ exceptional popularity was largely ignored. The poll showed Sanders a +28 rating above all US politicians on both ends of the political spectrum. Trust The Guardian, London, being the only newspaper to pick up the issue. The paper’s Trevor Timm wrote:

“One would think with numbers like that, Democratic politicians would be falling all over themselves to be associated with Sanders, especially considering the party as a whole is more unpopular than the Republicans and even Donald Trump right now. Yet instead of embracing his message, the Establishment wing of the party continues to resist him at almost every turn, and they seem insistent that they don’t have to change their ways to gain back the support of huge swathes of the country.”

On current showing, the British Establishment demonstrates greater suppleness. A few months ago The Economist welcomed Corbyn, a socialist in the Michael Foot mould, as Britain’s next Prime Minister. That the Economist, a pillar of the Western establishment, should acquiesce in Corbyn’s impending Premiership could not have been honeyed music to Blairites in the Labour party like Lord Peter Mandelson who is committed to “undermining Corbyn”. This kind of cussedness is counterproductive and this becomes clear when a Labour back bencher retorts:

“Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister implementing policies that actually benefit the people terrifies the Establishment. It is no surprise that Mandelson has found space in his busy schedule on an Oligarch’s Yacht to attempt to undermine Jeremy.”

(A senior commentator on political and diplomatic affairs, Saeed Naqvi can be reached on saeednaqvi@hotmail.com. The views expressed are personal.)

—IANS

Haley warns UN: Russia may use chemical weapon on New York

Haley warns UN: Russia may use chemical weapon on New York

Nikki HaleyUnited Nation : Expressing solidarity with the UK, US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, has warned that if concrete measures were not initiated, “Russia will use chemical weapons here in New York or in cities of any country that sits on this Council”.

Haley said the Donald Trump administration “stands in absolute solidarity with Great Britain” following a nerve agent attack against a Russian double agent and his daughter in the English city of Salisbury last week, the CNN reported.

In the strongest statement yet from the US administration on the affair, Haley said Washington shared the UK’s assessment that the Russian state was behind the poisoning and demanded a firm international response.

“The US believes that Russia is responsible for the attack on two people in the UK using a military-grade nerve agent,” Haley said in her remarks at a UN Security Council emergency session on Wednesday, blasting the Russian government for flouting international law, the CNN report said.

“If we don’t take immediate concrete measures to address this now, Salisbury will not be the last place we see chemical weapons used,” said Haley.

“They could be used here in New York or in cities of any country that sits on this council.”

Russia, however, has dismissed the accusations as “fairy tales” and denied any involvement in the attack which landed the Skripals, along with a British police officer, in the hospital.

The UK believes Russia was behind the attempted murders of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia because of the nerve agent used. Novichok, was developed in the Soviet Union and could not be replicated by non-state actors, CNN quoted UK officials as saying.

London on Wednesday announced it would expel 23 Russian diplomats after Moscow failed to meet a UK deadline to give a “credible response”.

Moscow’s Ambassador to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, even suggested the UK might have been responsible for the attack in an attempt to smear Russia. “In the Russian Federation, no scientific research or development work under the title Novichok were carried out,” he told the Security Council.

Laying the blame firmly at Russia’s door and highlighting Moscow’s support of the Assad regime in Syria following that government’s use of chemical weapons against civilians, Haley told fellow diplomats the world had reached “a defining moment”.

“Time and time again, members states say they oppose the use of chemical weapons under any circumstance,” said Haley. “Now one member stands accused of using chemical weapons on the sovereign soil of another member.

“The credibility of this Council will not survive if we fail to hold Russia accountable,” she said.

—IANS

New York Attorney General sues Harvey Weinstein, brother, firm

New York Attorney General sues Harvey Weinstein, brother, firm

Harvey Weinstein (Left)

Harvey Weinstein (Left)

New York : New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has filed a lawsuit against Harvey Weinstein, his brother Robert and their firm, the Weinstein Company, a move that could complicate the sale of the disgraced mogul’s film studio, the media reported.

Schneiderman said on Sunday that a four-month investigation into sexual harassment found “vicious and exploitative mistreatment of company employees”, reports CNN.

The lawsuit, filed electronically in the State Supreme Court in Manhattan, cites what it calls “egregious” violations of state, civil and human rights laws.

Harvey and Robert Weinstein co-founded the company in March 2005. Previously deemed as one of Hollywood’s most powerful film studios, it has produced Hollywood blockbusters like “Django Unchained”, “The King’s Speech”, “Silver Linings Playbook” and “Inglourious Basterds”.

The complaint alleges “a years-long gender-based hostile work environment, a pattern of quid pro-quo sexual harassment, and routine misuse of corporate resources for unlawful ends”.

The alleged misconduct began in 2005 and continued through October 2017, the suit has claimed.

The lawsuit has also delayed a fire sale of the company, which was expected to be finalised on Sunday, reports The New York Times.

“Any sale of the Weinstein Company must ensure that victims will be compensated, employees will be protected going forward, and that neither perpetrators nor enablers will be unjustly enriched,” Schneiderman said.

The company has been trying to avoid bankruptcy since reports of the allegations were first revealed by The New York Times and The New Yorker magazine.

Before the lawsuit, the company was nearing a deal to sell itself to an investor group for about $275 million, plus the assumption of $225 million in debt, informed officials told The New York Times.

Robert had frantically tried to keep control of the company following his brother’s firing in October.

The brothers, who jointly own about 42 per cent of the company, would receive no cash from the proposed sale, according to the officials.

Other equity holders, including the advertising giant WPP Group, may also be wiped out.

In reply to the lawsuit, Weinstein attorney Benjamin Brafman said in a statement that “a fair investigation by Schneiderman will demonstrate that many of the allegations against Harvey Weinstein are without merit”, CNN reported.

“While Mr. (Harvey) Weinstein’s behaviour was not without fault, there certainly was no criminality,” the statement added.

—IANS

Interfaith demonstrators in Washington protest Trump travel ban

Interfaith demonstrators in Washington protest Trump travel ban

Interfaith demonstrators in Washington protest Trump travel banWashington : Faith groups protested on Friday against ongoing efforts by the Donald Trump administration to institute a ban on travel by residents of a number of Muslim-majority countries.

The demonstration in New York’s Washington Square Park took place a year after Trump’s first executive order setting out the ban, which has been blocked by the courts.

The US Supreme Court has agreed to decide the legality of the latest version of Trump’s ban, which affects residents from six countries instead of the original seven.

It pits an administration that considers the restrictions necessary for Americans’ security against challengers who claim it is illegally aimed at Muslims and stems from Trump’s campaign call for a “complete shutdown of Muslims” entering the US. The policy blocks entry into the US of most people from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.

The justices plan to hear arguments in April and issue a final ruling by late June on a Trump policy that has repeatedly been blocked and struck down in the lower courts. On Friday protesters linked arms around a group of Muslim demonstrators who knelt to pray in Washington Square Park.

Rev Dr. Chloe Breyer, from the Interfaith Centre of New York, told Huffington Post: “It’s practically important and symbolically important to stand with people of different faith traditions. It’s what we should do as Americans.”

Trump’s first travel ban was issued almost a year ago, almost immediately after he took office, and was aimed at seven countries.

It triggered chaos and protests across the US as travelers were stopped from boarding international flights and detained at airports for hours. Trump tweaked the order after the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit refused to reinstate the ban.

The next version, unveiled in March, dropped Iraq from the list of covered countries and made it clear the 90-day ban covering Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen did not apply to those travelers who already had valid visas. It also dropped language that would give priority to religious minorities. Critics said the changes did not erase the legal problems with the ban.

The same appeals courts that are evaluating the current policy agreed with the challengers. The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond said the ban “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.” The San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump violated immigration law.

The Supreme Court allowed the ban to take partial effect but said those with a claim of a “bona fide” relationship with someone in the US could not be kept out of the country. Grandparents, cousins and other relatives were among those who could not be excluded.

But the high court said lower courts were wrong to apply the same limits to the new policy, at least while it is being appealed. The justices did not explain their brief order.

The third version is permanent, unlike the other two, and the administration said it is the product of a thorough review by several agencies of how other countries’ screen their own citizens and share information with the U.S.

Solicitor General Noel Francisco said in court papers that the policy is well within the President’s “broad authority to suspend or restrict the entry of aliens outside the United States when he deems it in the Nation’s interest.”

In response, the challengers said the policy violates the Constitution because it is biased against Muslims and also violates immigration law. The new version continues “the same unlawful policy” that was struck down by lower courts last year, lawyer Neal Katyal said in his brief on behalf of the challengers.

—SM/UNA-OIC