The Myth of the New India

Re: # 89

Mr.Arjun pakistanies are all over world and at higest positions. Look your unelected PM ( he can not vote) he was so called economist what big job he did other than teaching ? While our elected PM was CEO ( veery big officer) of city bank of USA and was successful man and then he became Primeminister on his knowledge of banks working and had big clients.Now he was not teacher in some indian college he was foreign trained hardworking MQM man.
There are many pakistanis in high positions but they do not mouth as they are at so high positions they are ashamed to tell their success. While little indian proclaims as engineer when he drives taxies in USA.
Now this gentleman has exposed problems of india and he has contempt for so called success of India as he knows its not true. Generally Indians who write have contempt for India as India is sick country of Indian subcontinents. Nayyer, Nobel peize winner Mrs roy awarding winning writer P.Bidwai etc all have contempt for india even though they love poors of India who are 1 billion poors.

Look at pakistani man , woman and indian counterparts. They are fair complexed and tall and fat and obase as there is lots of food to eat while indian is dark complexion and thin as shortage of food. So your school have achievent in taking undernourished dark person and train and he can get job in usa.
I differ with auther is its not illusion to have few million of people who are doing fine. And this has created illusions in hearts of 100s of millions are thinking things are improving. ITS ILLUSION BUT ILLUSIONS ARE MORE POWERFUL AND MOVE MASSES THAN TRUTH. REAL THINGS IS CONFIDENCE BUILDING INDIA GOT. THERE IS No POINT IN DENYING.
It is other things the children of these parents in usa are working at Pakistani owned fast food chains so their boss is pakistani. At heart pakistani does not want to work hard as indians, he never wants coolie job but he wants to start business and be rich so education is secondary. While indian just wants to make job so education is important.
Let me assure pakistani boys are doing cvery good in school and its not big thing to have diploma from usa, no body gives important to such little things.
Pakistani are in business and little business man in Karachi more money than coolie code writer and he does not work so hard. Pakistan is country of small traders and their business is business of pakistan. Big concerns are not cost effective and so wise people go for small business and great return on money trading. Manufacturering is not most profitable any where, real money is in sales.
Any way in middleeast countries even IIT has no value as they want usa college grads. Do not worry about PK, every thing is going smoothling here like fine assembly plant and 100s of thousands boys and girls are accepted by usa colleges and going there so stop silly talk. good day every body.
Most american think india is full of bunch of ignorant hindus worshipping animals.
good afternoon. Hope you can paying attention to indian ladies who are underweight and can not bear more than two children due to heath problems compared pakistani women who can bear more children. This is due to rich diet

capt clueless: you can rant and make stuff up as usual. That doesn`t change the fact that India`s higher % of spending in education is paying off. Today Indians are designing chips and Indian students are making their mark in the world.

Pakiland spending a higher % of it`s GDP on it`s military is paying off too. The Paki military has successfully defeated the threat of democracy.

Face it: you can`t name 3 paki pvt sector companies that can hold their own in the world. Forget 3..name 1..

Re: # 85

zeemax:

``The population was not the focus of this boom. ``

While awaiting for your reply to babu, I would like to remind you that in india the population is never the focus of any booms or busts.

#86
Khasi,

I thought you wanted to talk abt cricket....Now you changed you mind khasi?

#85

zee, have you read this article by Raghuram Rajan. I found it really insightful.

http://www.imf.org/external/np/vc/2006/031706.htm

#84 by bbabu

Bbabu I really have to go now, but I`ll answer your main question i.e. Is it stinking more than it was in 1990 ?

In 1990 everyone was more or less poor. Few very rich people yes, but they were afraid to show it. They all had their money abroad. Now, there are a lot of very rich people plus a lot of not-so-rich flaunting it and still a HELL of a lot of the dirt miserable poor. That is dangerous.

So I`ll say yes. It is stinking more than the 90s. The population was not the focus of this boom. Only a short-term niche grabbing service sector benefiting the urban educated.

The niche was there and India did right by grabbing it, but that should not have been the major focus. That`s my point.

zeemax #81

`` What he means to say is that India is not `shining`. India is `stinking`. ``

Is it stinking more than it was in 1990 ?

`` He means well in placing reality in place of mindless chest-thumping. ``

i cannot say that from reading this article.

he makes too many questionable statements.
1. `` Encouraged by a powerful lobby of rich Indian-Americans who seek to expand their political influence within both their home and adopted countries ``

2. ``No labor-intensive manufacturing boom of the kind that powered the economic growth``

3.`` Among the politicians whom voters rejected was Chandrababu Naidu, the technocratic chief minister of one of India`s poorest states``

...contd#82...

But, briefly, to set you thinking, remember that large countries with huge unskilled populations cannot progress on the external sector as the driver. It has to be the `domestic` sector. Both India and Pakistan have got it completely skewed.

#80 by bbabu

Sorry these posts crossed each other. If you really want a discussion, I`ll respond in detail to your #80 tomorrow.

#79 by bbabu

What he means to say is that India is not `shining`. India is `stinking`.

He means well in placing reality in place of mindless chest-thumping.

zeemax #49

`` The people who are knocking the Fabian Socilaistic policies of India till 1992 are forgetting that it was exactly those policies which have brought India to where it is now. The problems of India are immense, and without these policies, India would be bankrupt a long time ago and a failed state. It is not, because of the Nehru direction which was sustained till 1992. ``

I agree liberalization would have failed in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. India should have launched economic liberalization in the 1980s. Indira and Rajiv Gandhi freed up select sectors like cement, two wheelers, consumer goods etc.

The money spent on public sector white elephants could have been directed into education both higher and elementary.

`` India made a mistake in 1992 when it tried to copy Pakistan`s liberalisation (which was compounding Pakistan`s mistakes as well ..). It wasn`t yet time. Neither for Pakistan nor for India. India should have established it`s large scale manufacturing before moving into export-orientation. It did have the base which Pakistan didn`t. As it was, India moved to export orientation and that too in the service sector, creating huge disparities in income distribution, and of-course resentment follows. ``

I do not know much about Pakistan`s liberalization. I presume you are talking about Ayub Khan`s reforms in the 1960s. Pakistani economic reforms are doomed if it chooses outright confrontation with India over Kashmir or with USA over Taliban. You cannot punch with guys out of your league.

`` India was well placed to follow the Chinese example, but it didn`t. More socialism was required at that stage, but it opted to do away with it altogether. ``

Socialism is the problem in India - govt owned telecom enterprises, electricity companies, govt highways are not conducive to a Chinese style economic boom.

`` Capitalism is useful ONLY when you have already finished providing basic means of livelihood to the population. Not before. The monetarist/consumerist policies will work in the USA, not in India or Pakistan. ``

Capitalism works when you have informed critical mass of well educated enterpruneurs, rule of law, access to capital and appropriate infrastructure. India still does not have them. You just have to improvize as you move along.

`` There is, however, no denying many Indians their conviction that the 21st century will be the Indian Century just as the 20th was American. The exuberant self-confidence of a tiny Indian elite now increasingly infects the news media and foreign policy establishment in the United States. ``

Are the news media and foreign policy establishment in the United States dumb ?

`` Encouraged by a powerful lobby of rich Indian-Americans who seek to expand their political influence within both their home and adopted countries, President Bush recently agreed to assist India`s nuclear program, even at the risk of undermining his efforts to check the nuclear ambitions of Iran. As if on cue, special reports and covers hailing the rise of India in Time, Foreign Affairs and The Economist have appeared in the last month. ``

What influence do NRIs have in India or USA ?

`` Looking for new friends and partners in a rapidly changing world, the Bush administration clearly hopes that India, a fellow democracy, will be a reliable counterweight against China as well as Iran. But trade and cooperation between India and China is growing; and, though grateful for American generosity on the nuclear issue, India is too dependent on Iran for oil (it is also exploring developing a gas pipeline to Iran) to wholeheartedly support the United States in its efforts to prevent the Islamic Republic from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The world, more interdependent now than during the cold war, may no longer be divided up into strategic blocs and alliances. ``

What is wrong with closer ties between USA and India ?

``But the increasingly common, business-centric view of India suppresses more facts than it reveals. Recent accounts of the alleged rise of India barely mention the fact that the country`s $728 per capita gross domestic product is just slightly higher than that of sub-Saharan Africa and that, as the 2005 United Nations Human Development Report puts it, even if it sustains its current high growth rates, India will not catch up with high-income countries until 2106. ``

Are you suggesting that India stop growing ?

`` Feeding on the resentment of those left behind by the urban-oriented economic growth, communist insurgencies (unrelated to India`s parliamentary communist parties) have erupted in some of the most populous and poorest parts of north and central India. The Indian government no longer effectively controls many of the districts where communists battle landlords and police, imposing a harsh form of justice on a largely hapless rural population. ``

Maoists existed in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. There was not any IT boom back then.

`` The potential for conflict — among castes as well as classes — also grows in urban areas, where India`s cruel social and economic disparities are as evident as its new prosperity. The main reason for this is that India`s economic growth has been largely jobless. Only 1.3 million out of a working population of 400 million are employed in the information technology and business processing industries that make up the so-called new economy. ``

what is the point ?

`` No labor-intensive manufacturing boom of the kind that powered the economic growth of almost every developed and developing country in the world has yet occurred in India. Unlike China, India still imports more than it exports. This means that as 70 million more people enter the work force in the next five years, most of them without the skills required for the new economy, unemployment and inequality could provoke even more social instability than they have already. ``

do you really anything understand the ecologicl consequences of manufacturing boom in China ?


`` Among the politicians whom voters rejected was Chandrababu Naidu, the technocratic chief minister of one of India`s poorest states, whose forward-sounding policies, like providing Internet access to villages, prompted Time magazine to declare him ``South Asian of The Year`` and a ``beacon of hope.`` ``

AP one of India`s poorest state ??


`` Many serious problems confront India. They are unlikely to be solved as long as the wealthy, both inside and outside the country, choose to believe their own complacent myths. ``

Analyzing problems are okay. Propose some solutions.

#76 That`s my boy!! Never, ever say plain ``paki`` again!! Your attempt at improving your chowk performance by adding an adjective to ``paki`` will be conveyed to General Mahadev...Romair I mean. Good show!!

hamidm #72 We tried that on Corporal Arjun...but alas. One look at the mirror lowered his self-esteem even further. :-(

Reality-challenged pakis!! that`s a first </sarcasm>

bongdongs: no one can drive Romair away!! He has important duties to attend to. As a matter of fact, his real name is General Mahadev of the Indian Secret Service. He is the boss of the boss of Corporal V.V. Karaosamanglamavatnampuranthakanashivanam...I mean of Corporal Arjun...damn!!.. I mean Arjun_m.

General Mahadev....No, no...I mean Romair, the paki guy on chowk.... visits chowk for inspection purposes only. He told me (Captain Sharma undercover agent, at your service) that he is getting concerned about Corporal Arjun who seems to have started slacking on his chowk duties.