|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | COMMENTARY | INDIA CENTRAL | |||
|
May 29, 1998
SPECIALS
|
How Readers responded to Ashwin Mahesh's last column
Date sent: Sat, 9 May 1998 07:45:36 -0700 Ashwin, did you miss the point that a person will perform only to the amount he is expected to perform? How do you think the Japanese and the Koreans are producing world class products? Definitely not through protectionism. In the last 50 years dreamers and low class achievers of the Nehruvian era have plundered our country, some even got their wives from Italy. Then there is the Rao-ites who liberalised only to steal via the urea scam. The defence industry should be privatised so that it can receive orders from the defence ministry. This can be masked as a research grant. Every time the Ambassador or the Premier Padmini drive by it gives a scare of what we have achieved in 50 years. We had 300 million swadeshis in 1947. In 1998, we have close to a billion. Aren't the politicians happy? Today, except for the Taj Mahal, there is no Indian product that is well known. The fire of failure and no pain, no gain attitude will only help in re-building India. The whole concept of quota system should be abolished. Taking corruption out of the system is the only way for progress. The only protection that we need is from pro-creation.
Date sent: Sat, 09 May 1998 16:42:43 +0800 Indeed having pride in oneself is the key to success. And swadeshi demands that we be proud of ourself. How we achieve it is to be seen. Everything of the past was not as bad as they are projected: comments like "presumably made by HMT" are unwarranted. Regards, Anurag
Date sent: Fri, 8 May 1998 14:58:38 -0400 Interesting opinion-piece. One of the problems that policy-makers frequently encounter is the translation of ideological positions into numbers. Consider for instance the idea of "ownership" of wealth-creating mechanisms, which Mr Mahesh has advocated. Does this mean foreign investment should be restricted to under 50 % of the paid-up capital of a firm? What should we do about investment in capital starved sectors of the economy such as transport, power and infrastructure (roads and telecom)? Should we require AT&T and Alcatel to get a local partner who can generate little over 50 % of the paid-up capital? The idea of "creating globally competitive" businesses is another one. How do you achieve this? Complete government withdrawal from all productive enterprise? Desirable as this certainly is, it's no guarantee of a competitive, productive economy. Indian labour suffers from one of the worst cost to productivity ratios. There can only be a capital-induced productivity gain in the present situation, given how far labour laws promulgated in the 1960s have made it impossible to either lay off non productive workers or give incentives to the better performers. Further, when government invests more (than it does now) in education and health, there will surely be gains in productivity. But for that the government needs to step back from areas that it currently dominates. Which in turn means capital from abroad, as there is simply not enough capital inside India to meet all these needs. In the final analysis, the question for Mr Mahesh remains: What is the policy equivalent to your swadeshi? Is it control of ownership? Does this mean placing curbs on repatriation of profits? Does this involve forcing a certain percentage of senior management to be drawn from India (or perhaps Indians abroad)? Does it mean higher tariffs and projectionist barriers against non-Indian owned entities? Or all of the above? When it comes to numbers, and it is only with numbers that policy is made, ideological positions tend to be intractable problems to deal with. Despite all the above, I do find Mr Mahesh's writing very readable and thought-stimulating.
Ravi Aron
Date sent: Fri, 08 May 1998 11:04:57 -0600 I applaud Mr Ashwin Mahesh for this article. Most columnists take their stance on an issue by being pro or con. At times what I feel about those articles is that the writer is immature or writing something in a moment of anger, or depending upon his own likes and dilikes. Ashwin Mahesh is the kind of person who can make something happen -- he looks at an issue from all sides. That's what is needed. The people who call the shots should be like him. While deciding on something, one should weigh all options. I have a request for other writers: please make your statements only after you consider all pros and cons. Santosh
Date sent: Fri, 08 May 1998 12:58:25 PDT Swadeshi... A big NO. While every developed country is going for globalisation, why are we going towards localisation? We have given 50 years to this so-called local businessmen to give quality products. But we ended up only making these guys rich. Nobody gives a damn about customer service. Once you buy their product you are off the hook. Why ? MONOPOLY. Customers were never given an option. MNCs and privitisation should be made possible. According to the latest reports: IBM plans to set up online service in China. Intel plans to set up research center in China. Why not in India? We cannot categorise the entry of multinationals. If an American wants to start a company he would need a good and convenient atmosphere in India. He would like to feel at home. An Indian in the USA feels happy to eat in an Indian restaurant. Same is the case with an American in India. He would be happy to eat in Burger King or MacDonalds rather than the local restaurants. So we have to allow all types of MNCs to exploit the Indian market. Let the market play. The Indian government has enough things to do. Selected sections of market cannot absorb all the dollars. We have given enough chance to local businessmen. Now it's time for the Indian consumers to enjoy quality products. |
| Tell us what you think of this column | |
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
CRICKET |
MOVIES |
CHAT
INFOTECH | TRAVEL | LIFE/STYLE | FREEDOM | FEEDBACK |
|