|
|
- Discussions on Response to 'India's Role in the fight against
Terrorism'
Ramki from
Singapore: After seeing the article I wanted
to write what is in in my mind. In my opinion, the
reason for India not getting western coverage is
the race rather than investment . Earlier India
had the investments of western countires.Now , most
of the brands like Colgate,Procter and Gamble are
all purchased by Indians . The management is in
the hands of Indians where as in the countries mentioned
in the article , the management is still dominated
by Westeners .India is self reliant in everyfield.The
process may be slow but the result will be good.
India has already achieved its goal on self reliance
in food,clothing and to an extent in shelter for
all, and now moving towards health for all.Once
I came out of the country only, I could understand
the value and freedom we enjoy in India. I can proudly
say that India is no way lacking or inferior to
other countries. The scale to measure the economy
or other development is fixed based on their culture
and their convienence but nobody knows what we Indians
in India have .
Raju from London :
I want to add a few more pointers on Ramki's comments.
As any patriotic Indian, I would also supplement
his views that India is in no way lacking or inferior
to other countries. But I would like to contradict
with his statement in saying "the scale to measure
the economy or other development is fixed based
on their culture and their convenience but nobody
knows what we Indians in India have".Economy is
evaluated worldwide only on a common scale, right
from USA to Somalia the scales are the same using
pointers like GNI or GDP which reflect the state
(strength) of the economy. Any change in smaller
countries are evident immediately. Likewise their
growth is quickly reflected on their GDP and their
ratings are going up. The coclusion on standard
of living can not be based on Tamilnadu alone.
There are states like Bihar, Orissa, Rajasthan
and Uttar Pradesh whose growth is not the same
as Tamilnadu's and definitely their standard of
living is not the same. When the world views us
as Indians and our country as India it looks at
us in totality and as a result only the cumulative
growth rate is taken into account. This nullifies
the better standard of living in a few states
and everyone is rated as a person from a lower
income country. Let us face the truth some parts
of our country, even some parts of Tamilnadu still
reflects the scenes we see on TV's for the past
few days from Afghanistan/Tajikistan. Recently,
the high court has condemned the central government
for the hunger deaths in Orissa . It is a shame
that there is surplus food in states like Tamilnadu
and Punjab which is being left to rot and on the
other hand there are people who are dying in other
parts out of hunger. This definitely is not being
self reliant, probably in traditional terms we
are self reliant on food grains as we are not
importing from outside, but realistically we have
a long way before we can claim ourselves to be
self reliant.
Yes, I agree that India is self-reliant in many
areas and doesn't bother other countries. We still
have long way to go, When we need high tech, quality
products or to be specific good quality, high
end manufacturing machines, we still look outside.
Our rating of quality is still lower than the
west and that is because as a consumer we don't
demand quality. Quality works backward from the
consumer, if the consumer wants quality products
the manufacturer will make quality products and
he in turn will look for quality equipments and
that in turn will enable quality machine manufacturing.
Being a developing country all along our emphasis
has been on lower price than good quality. Once
we become an affluent society our emphasize will
shift to good quality which in turn should make
our products of good quality and would enable
to export more and compete in the world. Once
we are there our international clout is also bound
to be higher. We have to move in that direction
and as Ramki rightly said even though we may move
slowly, eventually we will be there. I would like
to put in my thoughts on western and Indian management
of companies like Colgate, Procter & Gamble. The
reason for Indian management in India is that
the goods manufactured by these companies are
consumed within India and not exported out. Even
if it is exported it is only to similar markets
in developing nations. Add to that the ability
of Indian management teams to do well and the
investment made is also lesser on comparative
terms. So it is acceptable to have an Indian Management
and they are doing well living up to the returns
expected. Whereas in other countries , they have
western management because the goods manufactured
goes back to western world for consumption and
the investment is of higher order to achieve the
better quality. So they would like to have direct
investment and management. Once a western company
makes direct investment then their performance
affects the share prices back home and there is
a need for more attention resulting in western
management. I am sure that once we start exporting
to western nations these same companies would
make more investment and would like to have more
control. I would be a very proud Indian if we
could make our own investment and manufacture
exportable goods. Recently my joy went out of
bounds when I read the news in CNN about mahindra
& mahindra exporting tractors to USA and increasing
their market share. They are even opening manufacturing
plants in USA. I am sure if Indians like you and
me contribute we will be there in our lifetime.
Rajan from Bangalore:
The point Raju made about "quality driven manufacturing"
and "importance of overall growth than what I
call "patch development" are true. As far as quality
driven economy, after 1991, we are in that path.
So we would catch up sooner than later. Regarding
the yardsticks or scale of economy, I tend to
agree more with Ramki. It does not eman that I
do not beleive in the modern school of economics
that talks about GNI/GDP but I would like to question
how relevant it is to relate to the quality of
living. No doubt, we are an inegalatatian society
and there is more heterogenity in the economic
standrads of our society. However, the relevance
of culture that Ramki talked about has some meaning.
In the sense that ours is mainly a "saving culture"
than a "spending culture". Simple example is the
importance attached to vacation and tours in countried
like UK and in India. They are absolutely different.
We make travels based on the need and constraint
but not for touring or pleasure. Also, our culture
is "not a consumption culture" as others. So,
I understood Ramki's statement as an arguement
based on the Purchase Power Parity (PPP) of Indians
vs others. Going by that we are not very far away
comapred to any. But again Raju's point is valid
here as whetehr all Indians have higher PPP. This
is where intellectauls have to work together.
|
|
