Evolution of South Asia

GE Capital shows India`s IT-enabled service might

Tue 06:21 AM

By Robin Elsham

BOMBAY, Dec 4 (Reuters) - To appreciate India`s ``enormous potential`` in IT-enabled services, look at GE Capital.

With 10,000 employees, GE Capital Services India, a unit of the financial services arm of U.S.-based dynamo General Electric Co GE.N, has grown rapidly to become the largest IT-enabled services provider in India.

Last year alone the Indian unit hired 6,000 employees, prompting the company to post signs around its premises warning Trespassers Will Be Recruited.

``I can`t tell you how much we depend on India in GE,`` Pramod Bhasin, president of GE Capital India, said on Tuesday, in a keynote address at the start of a two-day seminar in Bombay on ``Indian Private Equity Investing in the New Environment``.

Private equity refers to investing money to buy an ownership stake in an unlisted company, with the aim of later taking it public or selling it to a strategic investor at a big profit.

According to data compiled by seminar organiser Asian Venture Capital Journal, India ranked second in Asia in the amount of private equity it attracted over the past 11 months.

It pulled in $1.1 billion, trailing only the $1.86 billion pumped into Japan in the January-November period. And India topped the table for number of deals financed at 91.

MOST PROMISING FIELD

Bhasin told the seminar, attended by representatives of many of Asia`s biggest and most active venture capital funds, that the best investment in India is IT-enabled services.

``I think there is no better or more promising area for India. It plays to India`s sweet spot.``

IT-enabled services involve using telecommunications to provide virtually any sort of service, from call centres handling customer account queries to product development and design services.

``At GE we`re at the stage where we believe all back-office operations should be carried out in low-cost countries,`` Bhasin said.

GE Capital India is already performing accounting, claims processing, credit evaluation and a host of other functions for 80 GE branches around the world.

``We don`t see why in India we shouldn`t go from 10,000 (employees) to 15,000 to 20,000,`` Bhasin said.

Many multinational companies have already set up service centres in India, enabling the Indian IT industry to continue growing strongly the past year even as growth worldwide slowed to a crawl.

In an earlier address, Daniel Schwartz, publisher of the Asian Venture Capital Journal, neatly summed up the evolution of India`s global economic significance over the past decade, concluding India is becoming ``the world`s back office``.

``In the early 1990`s India was a low-cost manufacturer, then it became the world`s software services developer and now we are seeing a transition to India as the world`s back office or provider of IT-enabled services.``

India is ideally placed to dominate the IT-enabled service field, Bhasin said, if it continually works to improve efficiency in the ``commoditised`` end of the industry, and to move up the value-added ladder by offering more sophisticated services.

``We (India) are so far ahead of the rest of the world in terms of English and costs. The market is ours to keep.``

A subsequent seminar speaker, W Bowman Cutter, a top economic policy advisor to former U.S. President Bill Clinton, referred to ``a world where China becomes the world`s manufacturing entrepot and India becomes the world`s IT-enabled services entrepot``.

CHINA THREAT

But in IT-enabled services, Bhasin said India faced a threat, especially at the lower end of the service spectrum, from China. It is pushing to develop an IT service industry my introducing English-language instruction and stressing computer education in schools.

``Will they catch up? Yes, within four to five years. I have never seen any country develop so fast.``

So India must keep ``going from simple stuff like call centres, to more complex operations.`` Such services would employ highly trained professionals to provide cut-rate services in areas like engineering, medical transcription, medical and legal consulting, and accounting.

``It`s about using the best brains in India to deliver services,`` Bhasin said, referring to the potential provided by population of one billion and a highly developed network of universities, technical colleges and research institutes.

Simultaneously he said Indian IT-enabled service providers need to continually work to reduce costs to safeguard their leadership position against market entrants from places like China and the Philippines.

``Our objective (at GE Capital India) is to take costs down 15 percent a year,`` Bhasin said.

He added the Indian government must also improve the nation`s industrial infrastructure to ensure the IT service industry continues to prosper.

``Tomorrow when pressure on margins is greater, we won`t be able to afford double backups on power and phones,`` Bhasin said, referring to the redundant system almost all top Indian companies employ to cope with power blackouts or phone service disruptions.

Bhasin said Indian service providers needed to offer cost savings of 30 to 40 percent to get American and European companies to outsource operations to them.

http://reuters.activebuddy.com/s?id=DSDVOBOM20O6

Re: Rana Ransher # 13

Yes; my understanding of democracy differs from you simply, because I am involved in the process as not as a participant, but more activily involved, as a interacter, with the intent to shape public opinion. Given the state of our present political system, it is geared towards the peddling of influence and influence is bought through monetary transactions. Those who have the money get to be heard and have their way. This may sound too harsh and undemocractic, but that is how the system really works. CNN may harp about the universiality of democracy and equality of all, but the reality paints a different picture.

Rana, your arugement suggests what should be and I am merely telling you what really is. Being involved in the political-democratic process, I will tell you one thing: do not underestimate the references to smoke filled backrooms. :)

As to the Balkan situation, I disagree with you. If people are uninformed about the issues, they may certainly abstain, but to wrongly cast their ballots on the basis of their own ignorance does not constitute a bright and shining example of democracy at work either and nor does benefit the cause of democracy itself. The most basic law of good democratic goverance pre-supposes a well informed constituency and one man-one vote, no matter how democractic, is and should not be an excuse for a lack of an informed decision.

To take the elitist view, presently as we debate the merits and demerits of democracy, genocide is unfolding in Europe. If we were to follow your rationale and the viewpoint of the majority, we would in fact be allowing the genocide in Kosovo, and soon in Montenegro, to proceed apace. If the majority so wills, does that mean we condone the genocide, because it would be undemocractic to oppose it, by force if neccessary. A majority of the Americans can not even place Kosovo on the map; should we really trust their judgement in deciding this nation`s foreign policy.

Rana, I can understand your perspective quite clearly, but like I intoned before, the present world is too complex a place and the issues which shape its affairs are too complicated to be understood by the average person to make the right decision. The complexity of the world has created a class of specialists, a technocracy, to handle its problems and devise the best solution for all concerned.

Rana, democracy is a rule by a mob by another name. You seem to be drawing a too simplistic conclusion from what I said about the nature of a democracy. One man, one vote in an idealistic sense may work as the quintestential political system and may appeal to the masses, but in a highly realistic, complex world it will not work. There will be those who lead and those who follow even in a one man-one vote society. Democracy is a creation of man`s attempt to guide his conduct and being such, it will never be a flawless system even with the inclusion of one man-one vote principle.

re: Ferozk

Wow !! We definitely understand democracy differently. What you describe is not democratic at all. If a majority wants something that you may think is bad for you. Too bad !! One may argue that the minority may have cause for seceding and not being part of a such a disparate majority, but the model you prescribe is not democratic at all.

And yes, even regarding the attack on the Balkans. If a majority of people are unaware of issues regarding the decision to bomb, then they may refrain from voting, or vote against it.
Afterall, even now there are many people who believe this is bad for the US, however, why should the choices of a select few (the elected) be deemed as right as opposed to the common mans choice. That is where democracy starts moving towards gundacracy, mobocracy, etc. ONE INDIVIDUAL ONE VOTE, its that simple.

regards

Re: Anil # 10

I know this is really an off the topic tangent, but I thought I`d post it as an observation. I found the Jugoslav crisis to be interesting, because of a lack of response from the InterActers on this forum on the crisis. I remember a while back there was a big hue and cry, in the interacts here, when a few errant American missiles flew over Pakistan and bombed terrorist bases in Afganistan and Sudan. This is a much bigger deal and the strangely, the conscience of Chowk is deafingly silient on the matter.

For the record, I support NATO airstrikes against the Butcher of the Balkans!

The nation state is in fact dissolving in the face of global trends. And the India-Pakistan animosity of the past 50 years will no doubt disappear in due course (maybe 5 maybe 50 maybe 100 years from now) as well and become as meaningless as the Anglo-French wars of the past. However, what we may find hardest to change is us and our childish hatreds for one another. Personally: If you believe in some higher being, if you are interested in the universe around us, if you believe in humanity`s future, then you and I are kin (regardless of your nationality etc.). If you dont, I wont hate you, though we may not have much to talk about. Of course I dont always feel so high minded...:)

Ferozk

Let us direct our energies in a better Evolving South Asia. There are already too many top dogs in Jugoslavia. After all these bombing NATO would want a solution if for no other reason than just to get a graceful exit. You have rightly identified Education as the key to the future. Grab this key and you the future in your hand.

Jagdeep

Of all places I never thought I would hear from you on Cyber Chowk. Last week Om and I talked about you. ASMASOFT, the software company I have been spending my time is growing very well. We are planing to expand into Europe. Send me an Email at Anil@Kapuria.Com and let us talk off-line.

Shabazc

New technologies have put several hundred billions of dollars of capital in the hands of ``labor`` in the last twenty years in East Asia. In the last three years, in Silicon Valley at least one-billion dollars of capital has been delivered into the hands of ``knowledge laborers`` from South Asia. One of my close friend and a successful venture capitalist recently told me that in Silicon Valley 40% of the funded business plans have been from ``knowledge laborers`` from South Asia. If 10% of these succeed in the next five years, the landscape of Silicon Valley could be completely re-defied, and provide a very powerful primer to jump start the ``knowledge revolution`` in South Asia. You could be a bystander while your brethren ``knowledge laborers`` rightfully get more capital in their hands, and expand forcefully into South Asia. The force of this change is such that in a matter of three years, software exports from India now constitute 10% of total exports, and growing 50% p.a. clip. India`s newest billionaire is a low-key friend of mine, Azim Premji, Chairman of WIPRO. This billionaire (in dollar terms) was created on Bombay Stock Exchange a few weeks ago, while Tatas and Birlas and all have inherited their wealth from generations. I know of atleast three more companies which are waiting in the wings. Information Revolution is creating a massive wealth creation, not transfer even in South Asia as we speak.

Merger of What? to me merger of two present Nation-States of dubious success record and heavy burden is utter nosensical idea which helps apologist and romantics to justify and live in the fantsy world.

The suggestion all Indians think ``good neighbors`` mean ``united India``, is equally out-landish. Unite the kitchens and expense accounts of two brothers were living separetely in an extended South Asian family and see how fast the hell breaks out and not peace. Two brothers were separated at birth fifty two years ago, and have lived apart ever since.

If you would accuse me that I am a proponent of a South Asian Common Market. I would gladly accpet the accusation and be proud of it too. To me Nation-State itself is a losing proposition, let alone merger of two Nation-States with dubious success record.

Ras

I have appreciated your comments. I would not be surrised you must a good ``Shaair`` of Urdu poetry too, because your writings have an aroma of romance, and a feel of pain for the suffering.

I am a Kashmiri Brahmin and very proud of my geritage, even though have lived outside India for over 30 years, and have only visited Kashmir once in 1997. Several generations ago, my ancestors settled in Delhi, and each generation (I can tell you from my own experience since my grandmother used to remind us of this proud heritage) had never forgotten to remind the next of this fact.

Even with this proud heritage, I am sorry, I do not see the ground reality the way you see. I too have read / heard of the hatred, sufferings, killings and violence in Kashmir. These emotions are what I call as the ``Veil of Kashmir``, which both India and Pakistan have used to wrap around their mutually exclusive obsessions to hide them from the rest of us.

Solve this mutually exclusive obsession problem first, and I will show you how the ``Veil of Kashmir`` will disappear.

Right now, it is my humble belief, you, like many others on both sides only see the ``Veil of Kashmir``, and believe if the veil is somehow (forcefully or otherwise)removed from the other side then the problem will be solved. In my view, this can be only done forcefully to eliminate one of the mutually exclusive obsessions. Unfortunately, the truth is, if only one side thus succeeds in removing the ``Veil of Kashmir`` from the other side, then the naked truth, mutually exclusive obsession of the defeated side, would become more ghastly. It would put the violence that followed partition to shame. Just remember, the naked obsessions can be very cruel.

Kashmir is suffering from fifty-one years of two mutually exclusive obsessions of two brothers who were separated at birth, but denied full access to this precious object. Since then both India and Pakistan have treated Kashmir as the precious object only one of them must own. When two beloved sons of a mother similarly fight over a precious object, then the only way for the mother to not hurt one of her sons or destroy the precious object is, to distract the attention of her sons to somthing else, and then remove the precious object from their sights.

The time has come for Indian and Pakistani leaders to take bold initiatives and become one-prudent-mother and then act boldly.

Today, SAARC, not India, can get the rightful permanent security council seat for the region. Unfortunately, Indian and Pakistani leaders lack visions to act as one-prudent-mother, and bring this crown jewel to the region. Instead they are fighting over which part of Lahore Declaration should be in SAARC resolution. How petty things can get before we would change? The doubters in the world were skeptic whether India and Pakistan can jointly hold the Cricket World Cup. Both when worked together, not only put the show together but made it into a very profitable venture and thus raised the bar for the doubters. We have examples in our backyard, if we care to look.

India would need a lot of energy and would be a very big demand center, AGREED. Pakistan could be ``wall or bridge`` as one writer said, and it is India`s choice, this writer implied.

I want to remind one important historical fact that John D. Rockefeller used his vision to control the distribution of same energy to the demand centers in the U.S. He became a billionaire long before any Arab owner of the oil-fields became a billionaire. Our friend John did not tell his customers that he would be a wall or bridge to his customers. The present day anti-trust laws were developed then to break Rockefeller empire of Standard Oil. Please think why should Pakistan let its customer, India, decide whether Pakistan would be a wall or bridge. Visionary Pakistanis would look at it as the market opportunity, and create tremendous wealth out of this opportunity. As astute capitalist would say, watch the flow of dollars not commodity. Pakistan`s share of the wealth from this supply chain would be enormous contribution to Pakistan`s GDP. Likewise India`s dependence on Pakistan to generate its GDP would be equally important economic reality. This mutual dependence is basis of a Common Market, and also dispute resolution.

(Sorry all for the lenght of this post)

Re: pmahmud # 8

I agree with your statement completely. Enough of this social, economic engineering to improve the lot of nations.

Rana Ransher # 6

Rana, I would have to disagree with your vision of the general population voting electronically on every issue. Allow me to be candid, because this very point raises the question of why democracy is such an imperfect system of governance and your idea would make it impractical as form of governing.

The majority of the general population, in whose judgement you profess faith, is an emotive nightmare. To function well, a democracy presupposes an educated populace aware of the issues affecting it and a willingness to participate in the workings of its decision making bodies. Given the complex nature of the modern world, most people, no matter how educated they might be, will just not have the time to accquint themselves with all issues concerning them and hence, no matter how just their intentions might be, they will be incapable of making the correct decision. Secondly; there is no indication that electronic balloting will overcome the voter apathy which effects the majority of the democracies.

Lets take the example of Ameican led NATO air strikes against the Jugoslavia. How many Americans, and for that matter any international citizen, truly undertands the reasons for the recent military actions in that corner of the world. Can these people who have no idea where Kosovo is and what are the isssues involved be trusted with resolving the problem based on their sense of an overall ignorance of the issue?

According to Edmund Burke, there comes a time in every representative`s career when he has to decide against the wishes of his constituents, because he knows that their judgement is wrong. To give you an historic example: a gentleman by the name of Witherspoon was representing one of the thriteen colonies, while the Declaration of Independence was being debated, and his constituents were against the idea of gaining independence from the Crown. He felt otherwise and in going against the wishes of his constituents, he cast the deciding vote which affirmed the passage of the Declaration of Independence by a simple majority.

Sometimes, in a democracy, the wrong action is the right action, but under your rationale that would be an impossible option. Democracy is indeed a one individual one vote proposition, but in its most basic sense, democracy is the the ability to make others do, against their wishes, what they normally would not do.

Re: Anil # 3

Since you are so caught up in this economic rationale as the ultimate salvation of humanity, let me pose a question to you, if I may.

This involves the example of Jugoslavia, again, but it does address the point I was trying to make. Granted that Izoif Tito was a dictator, but if you look at the post Second World War history of Jugosalvia, you`ll see that Tito tried to quell the passions of ethnic diversity by giving each group a modicum of self-autnomy. Under Tito, despite what one may think of him, Jugoslavia was more free than other Iron Curtain countries; was more progressive and had a better economic situation.

What happened in the last ten years then? If Jugoslavia was so better off economically, why did it fall into its present state of anarchy? Economic self-interests are not always the path to national salvation. Economic interests will never change the basic qualities of human nature, no matter how noble those intentions might be, unless we, humans, are willing to change our own natures for the betterment of all concerned.

re: Ferozk & Anil

``However, please bear in mind that economic interests often take a lesser role, in adjudicating issues concerning nation-states, when the nuances of religion, ethnicity and other diverse cultural traits are factored into the equation.``
There was a very interesting study done by the UN which my father was part of. It was basically a whitepaper trying to link economic resources, population, and political stability of regions/countries. It was basically something like `Total economic resources (human, natural, industrial, etc.) / population`. They would then come up with an index of some sort and predict political unstability in countries. WHen this index would drop below a certain threshold, some sort of social unrest would take place. In Islamic countries it was invariably Islamic movements of some sorts, while in other countries it was often a military takeover or a simply a change of polity. Either way, political unstability. Issues like ethnicity, religion, etc. suddenly became flashpoints.
I truly believe that economic interests are the main driving issue. In fact, all civilizations have their `golden period` only when economics is not an issue. Culture, art, social well being all develop when people are not struggling to make ends meet and overall prosperity increases.
Heck, when money is an issue even two brothers fight tooth and nail. When there is not enough for everybody`s insatiable `needs` then ANYTHING can become an issue to `fight` for.

Regarding democracy. To put it simply isn`t democracy ideally `ONE INDIVIDUAL ONE VOTE`. This would clearly ditribute power throughout. However, in places where it has not completely succeeded in distributing power, invariably the populace is still stuck on ONE GROUP ONE VOTE.

Speaking of technology, I can envision an electronic voting system which would do away with the present flaws in democracies. Instead of voting for candidates who are affiliated with parties, which in turn have manifestos that reflect choices, there should be electronic voting on EVERY issue. It may not be far when instead of placing your faith in a candidate you, instead, directly vote on issues. ONE INDIVIDUAL ONE VOTE would achieve what it promised.

re: Ras & Kashmir
Yawn !

regards

perhaps it is just me, but, even by calling myself pakistani, i have always considered myself more of an indian heritage than anything else. both my parents were born in india as most contemporaries of my parents are. as one interactor said, one should look at the popularity of lata in pakistan.

the islamitization of pakistan is more a governmental instillation and is wrong. With the separation of church and state, we can more effectively head into the direction of success that Mr. Kapuria is pointing to and is installing. there is the little problem with corrupt politicians, bribery and ``gunda gardi`` that we have to deal with...

rizvi

I would make a deal with you if I think it is beneficial for me and it is unlikely to be the one you think is good for me. The least palatable of the deals is the one sold by propaganda or force. This is how I see your thoughts on ``Evolution of South Asia``. Last fifty years of progress in Indian sociopolitical and economic development leave much to desired and it sure would be a hard-sell. Gratis advice to Pakistan is interesting but not helpful.

Let me say that for most part I don`t think much about India and the younger generation cares even less. If you stop oppressing people in our neighborhood, I promise we would completely forget about you and peace will prevail.

If there is any significant benefits in trade, smuggling is already taking care of it. Have you looked at India`s trade balance with Bangladesh recently?

Everybody knows that India need reliable energy and lot of it. Oh guess what Pakistan is in the way. Pakistan could be a wall or a bridge. Mr. Kapuria, make your choice.

Hi Anil

I am not going to write about your article but just want to say howpleased I am to know one of my old friends is doing so well.

Following reply was posted by ShahbazC


After several discussions with students and professors of Indian decent, I have noticed that Indians hold some inacurate ideas about pakistan and the pakistani identity. First of all, I do not believe Pakistanis want to be like the Arabs. It is even wrong to say that Pakistanis look up to the Arabs. In Muslims countries (including Pakistan), strong affinity with the ``Ummah`` (other muslims)coexists with nationalism. In general, when we speak of Arabs as our brothers, it is not done so with the hope of receiving loans; it is done so with genuine feeling of brotherhood. I believe this is what is often mistaken as ``arab wannabes.``

I believe that Pakistanis want good relations with India. Unfortunately, when Pakistanis say ``good neighbors``, Indians hear ``united India as a federation or a confederation.``

I would agree with the author that the ``Sharia`` advocated by some people in Pakistan will not solve anything. Again, the purpose of an Islamic government is not to join the Arab club. I believe it is being proposed due to several reasons. There are the sinister reasons by some power hungry ``mullahs.`` There are also those who look at all that is wrong ask for an alternative system, Sharia. ``Sharia,`` as advocated by some (especially the mullahs) will not work because their sharia is limited to banning interest and making women wear hijab.

No matter what system we implement democracy/sharia,
dictatorship/theocracy, etc.) we need to address some economic issues. We need to build infrastructure. Human skills (education), reliable government (corruption), transport, telecommunications, etc. We also need to take care of economic problems; somehow get out of borrowing to pay for interest on the borrowed. Even small steps such as a freedom of information act,independent judiciary and increased tax base can do wonders.

Finally (almost done), it is indeed the interest of Pakistan to trade with India, China, South America, etc. If there was a move (in the near future) toward some sort of merger, I am sure destructive politics would be stronger than any profits from business. A vast majority of te people in Pakistan are workers, a united anything will only benefit the oweners of capital, not owners of labor. On the other hand, a set of comprehensive treaties with Iran, central asia, and other muslim states will shield us from each other`s political problems, yet provide a mechanism for sharing knowledge, labor, raw materials, etc.

That`s just a quick assesment what should be done, what what should not be done :-)

FerozK:

Your comments are refreshing. That is very interchange is possible is due to the basic laws of democracy. I would exceed the boundaries of my knowledge, if I try to define the basic law of democray. We should leave it to the political scientist to define, unless you would like to define. My understanding of democracy is that it is a method of accumulation, management and distribution of power over people.

I am not alone to say that Jugoslavia was never a democracy. Its dictators past and present (Marshall Tito included) accumulated a lot of power, applied autocratic centralized techniques to manage it, and never knew how to distribute power when the time came. What we are witnessing today in that part of the world is result of failure to distribute power.

Even the most ardent marxist of the yester-years would tell you that economics was the real motivation for expansion and the colonies. Look at Britain, France and Germany now only fifty three years later of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) of the World War II. Do you believe today, fifty-three years after the MAD, these would launch another MAD with each other. But, today, fifty-two later, you cannot say the samething for India and Pakistan, where a economic common market still remains the missing ingredient.

ANIL

Anil, I`m glad to read this writing on CHOWK
and welcome such interaction.
There is much that one can find agreement with in this writing including the future of the nation-state model and it`s eventual possible decline at the feet of the Information Revolution.
And countries that are not prepared to face
this Tsunami of knowledge are already falling behind and hopefully not even fascism can prevent
their people from access to the global media and
marketplace. As an example Pakistani Madrassa (religious school) graduates will have a very difficult time finding a future in the world of today and tomorrow (but will be better prepared for the afterlife than some of us).
India itself will be experiencing much turmoil
with as someone mentioned seventeen small or large
liberation movements going on today within its borders.
Kashmir is going to be the main test for India (could Kosovo be a possible example for us?). It
is in India`s interest to face up to reality
and to prepare it`s people around the world to
change their mindset on this problem.
India has ambitions of being a global player.
Pakistan can at some point be of help to it to achieve this goal. Without peace with Pakistan,
India will have difficulty playing a role beyond
SAARC.
Pakistan is not a Middle Eastern country and nor
should it`s people claim to be. But Pakistan
I believe has a major role to play in Central Asia
now. With Iran and Turkey, Pakistan controls the
routes for valuable energy sources (That India will need at some point). And I will leave it at that.
On the more personal level let me close with something I wrote to try and explain why the Pakistani Rock Group Junoon was invited by the GOI
to perfor in India (Comments to Rediff):

``Let me start with the good news here. Almost all Pakistanis do not hate Indians and love to interact socially with them all over the world. No
matter what Indians may hear, I have yet to find a similar cultural comfort zone that I am supposed to have with the Arabs or other fellow Muslims from countries not in South Asia. There is a cultural chemistry between Pakistanis and Indians that is impossible to overlook. And this
report on Junoon being invited to perform by the GOI should not be a complete surprise. The possibilities of such future co-operation are
endless. Has anyone really studied how popular Lata Mangeshkar is in Pakistan?
Now to the bad news. Kashmir stands in the way of much more then cultural co-operation. It stands in the way of the future. If a ``proxy war``, as you Indians describe it, is all there was to it then there would be no problem stopping it. Kashmir is a people`s movement. It cannot be stopped. The valley has to be separated from Jammu and Ladakh
and given other options (Pakistan, Independence or ...?). To blame Pakistan alone for this problem is not being truthful. Solve this problem and I`ll take the bus to Delhi with my wife too, because we
would want to spend an evening in Agra to see the Taj on a full moon night. And there are many more such Junoonis in Pakistan who yearn for
peace and cultural interaction.``

Yes Anil, the Information Revolution will change
South Asia. And India today is much better prepared to receive the benefits from this then Pakistan. The pursuit of tomorrow`s job market will and should be the driving force for all South Asians today and during the start of the next century.
The rise of religious extremism, fascism and the
suppression of individual freedom especially that
of women and minorities will only guarantee that
we all miss the bus to a brighter future in both countries.

Ras

Re: Anil Kapuria

First of all, I agree with most of what you`ve said in your article, but with certain caveats which I will attempt to outline in this reply.

Yes; I agree. Pakistan needs to define an identity for itself and one which is closer to the South Asian example than an Arabic one.

Just one question though: what is the basic law of democracy?

I hate to throw water on your democractically inspired musings; democracy is the worst form of government ever created, but unfortuneately the alternatives are not any better either! Given the choice, opting for democracy is the lesser of two evils. You seem to suggest that multi-pluralistic societies are the glue which holds democracy together and that democracy devolves power into the hands of the smallest group of people.

Given the situation, as it is unfolding in former Jugoslavia, your argument loses its validity. Multi-pluralism, as evidenced, in Jugoslavia was the scintilla which sparked the present crisis, because power did slip, as you say, into the hands of the smallest group of people (Serbs) and they used that power to advance their own agenda at the cost of fragmenting the national confederation.

Furthermore, I would contest your defination of democracy and attempts to abolish it within a society and I would argue just the opposite of what you are suggesting. It is far easier to destroy the precept of democracy in a region cursed with multi-culturalism, like the former Jugoslavia, or in the example of the article, India, because of the nature of democracy itself. Democracy, as an idea, thrives on the principle of conflicting interests sharing access to finate resources and democracy, by its very nature, advocates a confrontation of ideas, values and belief systems which seem to tear at the seams of its polity. A non-democratic system, by contrast, has a better chance of success, because of its uniformal polity and a lack of issues fermenting discontent in its body politic.

What separtes a democracy, and incidently is ingredient which you overlooked in your analysis, from anyother system of goverance is the ability of a democracy to balance power, equally, between all competing interests.

In responding to your other assertion on what the new Pakistani identity, and this is applicable to the India too, should be and what you suggest as a technologically based mobile society. I can visualize your rationals, but I would have to remind you that is not a road map to democracy, as based on your own criteras, but rather a justification for elitism. The greatest hurdle, in both India and Pakistan, in attaining the status of a techological, mobile and educated workforce is the concept of education itself. Both India and Pakistan can not enter the age of globalism, as envisioned in the new millennium, unless they universially spread the benefits of education to the lowest rung of their society and do not preserve education as the bastion and a societal badge for aspiring to a social status.

Lastly, on the issue of nation-states, I would be the first one to agree with you on their irrevelency in the final years of this century. You seem to be under the impression that the benefits of an economic solvency will diminish all national-territorial regional concepts. Maybe being an entreprenuer yourself, you seem to view this problem through the prisms of economic interests and you are absolutely right to suggest so. However, please bear in mind that economic interests often take a lesser role, in adjudicating issues concerning nation-states, when the nuances of religion, ethnicity and other diverse cultural traits are factored into the equation. These influences mitigate human emotions and responses to certain situations, as in the Serbian claim to Kosovo or Pakistani claim on Kashmir, which marginalize and over shadow any economic benefit that can be accrued from a friendly bi-lateral economic relationship.

Pakistan, as you argue in your conclusion, can not benefit from all the advantages which you listed, unless it improves the basic welface of its people first. Even if Pakistan enters the new millennium with the mobile technological insight, it can not sustain its growth in that environment without an educated workforce reinforcing its new mobile technologically based society.

Lastly, you end your article by saying that societies must evolve or wither away and that is true, but before societies can evolve into the condition, as foreseen by you, human nature has to evolve in that direction too and that is easier said than done. In the end, the societal evolution of Pakistan and its new identity will not be determined by its ability rationalize new technologies, but rather by how the Pakistanis chose the direction and focus of their own evolution as a people; a society and as a nation.