Five Centuries Ago Tomorrow

ali87#59
You are abolutely right about the role played by the IIT alumnii, especially its diaspora. I dont think even the Chinese have anything like the successful IndUS group which has energised the Indian entrepreneurs. I believe the first company to start offshore operations in India was Texas Instrument (with Nadar?) which faced great challenges in getting a telephone line even after they had set up a satellite connection with their headquarters in Texas. I think there is a fascinating book to be written on how Bangalore gathered the critical mass to become a high-tech hotspot. If someone hasn`t already produced this work, I would seriously think of collaborating with someone on it.
You are right, too, about the difference between the hardware and software side of the computer business and how large companies failed in this sector in India even after collaborations with large MNCs (this sector is now dominated by the cottage industry doing mostly assembly work in one-room ``factories``). You have also diagnosed correctly the reason for its failure, which is the same as the reason for India`s lack of competitiveness in the manufacturing sector, with significant exceptions like automotive and chemical sectors. I am now beginning to think that, maybe, ten years from now, this might prove to be a blessing in disguise because it has forced India to become more competitive in the knowlege-based industries which are going to be the real engine of future global growth.

#58 Very interesting dost-mittar thanks for the information.

#58 by dost-mittar on April 7, 2003 7:19am PT

Dont forget the IIT Alumini. The Returning Alumini after a few years experinence in US were the first ones to venture out in the IT industry. Starting from NIIT/HCL Shiv Nadar in 1980 who started with selling Texas Insutment calculators. Perhaps because of the nature of people who entered the IT Industry they did not/could not lobby with the govt. Also the nature of the business where the demand is not in control of the Govt and no material resources being used which requires govt liceences, approvals. The main resource used by the IT industry is the communication facitlity here there was just nothign they could lobby for given their small revenue in earlier years. For computers they continued to pay the same rates in terms of customs duty etc. Margins being high this was not a factor which detered growth. However if you see the hardware sector being run by the some of the same companies which run the software sector (HCL, TATA, WIPRO etc) they havent been able to accomplish much as this involves many govt levies and permissions. Being manufacturing it involves high investements(cost and diffiuclty of raising capital depends on govt polices), High Taxes, Infrastructure (since things like captial goods, transport Infrastucture, Labour policies, Electrical Power, Land aqusition, Industrial regulatory rules are complex) are all controlled by govt policies which do not make Indian Manufactures cost compettive.

zakk#55
The success of the IT in India is as much due to a benign neglect by the govt. in its embryonic stage as to the later close cooperation between the industry and the govt. The govt. has generally gone along with the demands/recommendation of the industry in this sector, regardless of the govt. of the day. Moreover, the govt. policies are sector specific and not marred by favouritism of particular companies, unlike in other sectors. Also, the state govts. have proved a crucial role in this. Thus, IT is a growth industry in Karnataka and Andhra but not in Kerala with its left dominated politics even though Keralites are very active in the adjacant Karnataka.
The current IT minister in India is Arun Shourie. He is a prize-winning journalist turned into a politician. He is known to be hard working, intelligent and of highest integrity. He is from the famous St. Stephen`s College of New Delhi and the son of a life-long citizen`s rights activist, H. Shurie.
Until recently, the minister of IT was Pramod Mahajan. Although a BJP hack, he is considered to be one of their more dynamic, can-do ministers. He had no IT background (had never seen a computer until he became the Minister) but proved to be a fast learner. Unfortunately, he does not have a clean reputation and there are many stories about his being a wheeler-dealer. He, too, failed to win an election to the Lok Sabha and had to seek a nomination to the Rajya Sabha.
The winning of elections in India is not a function of money alone, although money is crucial. Manmohan Singh was a Congress candidate and did not lack funds. The main problem is the dirty mud-slinging that is part of the electoral process which, combined with the induction of criminal elements, makes it an unsavoury choice for any decent person to even contemplate fighting an election.

A little bit of cheer for you guys.

There is article in the Fortune which says that at the moment the the Paksitani stock exchange is giving the highest return. Many American Investors who wanted to invest could not get find the information as well as means.

Reportedly the stock exchange was giving 180% returns though this is atributed to a wild fluctations due to uncertainity.

Zakk:

I sincerely hope that I am wrong on my predicting the polarization. I believe it would be much better that if Islamists have to stay then they win all over Pakistan and not remain confined to the NWFP and Balochistan, thereby dividing the country along provincial lines as well. I sincerely hope that the situation in Afghanistan (resurgence of Talibans) does not ignite another wave of violent protests and extremism in Pakistani politics.

In any event, if I were eligible to vote in Pakistan, I would vote for modernism, continuity of policies and stability. I will not vote for Islamists, although I have a great respect for them in that if a situation like Iraq is thrusted upon Iran and/or Pakistan, it is their call that can get three nations united - Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan`s Pushtoons, Hazaras and Shia factions.

#53 Dost Mittar: Thanks for the info, just goes to show how expensive a jobfighting elections can be. I do appreciate one move by Musharaf`s the graduation degree restriction has raised the level of discourse. I am curious, though who is the Indian Minister linked with it`s IT projects? What is his background, the comparison would be interesting and probably relevant to this discussion.

#48 Yes it is the same Ayaz Amir, the journalist. His writing has gotten him in trouble before. But then his personal morality is between him and God. After all if we were to set moral standards for Pakistani politicians, I doubt most our former and present leaders would ever be able to hold office.

Ahmadzai: I accept your theory about the next elections showing a greater polarisation between political forces. But I don`t think the division will be as well defined as you have stated. There is a space for a moderate conservative party ( centre right) in Pakistani politics. that claim was formally held by the PML(N) and the PTI has attracted people with those inclinations. The problem with this polarisation is that since PErvaiz Musharraf has come to power, the power of the right wing has increased, in the sense that they have dropped aggressively extreme politics of idealogy because when ever you get into a position of political power in a democracy, you are forced to moderate. India is an excellent example of that, The BJP for the sake of power had moderated itself. Considering what it was capabe of in the early 90`s and what it coud have done in the states it controlled (if we use Gujarat as an example) they have come a long way. The reason is simple, they got used to power. Unfortunately, what you have mentioned could play out if, the establishment tries to manipulate the situation rather then let demoracy take root..by dismissing the Frontier governemnt or cracking down on the MMA. Then I feel the sympathy factor and the armed elements in the MMA could catapult it to a level most of it`s own leaders would b surprised by.

Zakk and Romair:

My observations to the two posts:

1. I have not said that in Pakistan the Ministers have been rubber stamps all along. Previously they were decision maker and therefore, looters too. Its only under the current Musharraf led administration that they are going to be rubber stamp Ministers for a very good reason that the actual policy has already been formulated.

2. The role of Ministers is supposed to be concept/product sellers to the people. In an organization, people who work their butts off are not necessarily the people who run marketing and advertising. Please recall that the revamping of Crysler Corp in the 80s is attributed to Lee Iacocca. However, the policy that is attributed to him for the success could have been attributed to at least 6 other people in the meeting of the senior management that had come up with that novel concept. However, Lee Iacocca was smart enough to send his publicity manager, Walter Murphy (if I recall the name correctly from an account) to disclose the policy as Lee`s in all the newspapers the very evening. The point is that the policy for respective areas have already been made by the Military Government. Now Ministers are being used to sell those.

3. In America, I believe that the media takes on the role of selling policy to the people (my various posts elsewhere). The Government, establishment and media works in tandem. I don`t know who is the controling body, but there definitely is one, perhaps Jewish Lobby or the corporates.

4. Romair, because of your last para, let me say once again that there would be a divide along conservative Islamists (call them Jamaatia, Jihadis, MMA, etc) and moderate Islamists (call them liberals / moderates / progressives for this is all verbosity in a Muslim Pakistan). While conservatives would like to hold on to pan-Islamism, Islamic economic system (i.e. the Islami nizam in broader sense), etc. and prove their worth through value addition in at least two provinces, the moderates would like to prove their worth through their deeds all across Pakistan. Under these circumstances, PML-N, PPP and PTI would be exceptionally lucky to carve their niche. I am sure PML-N will be wiped out. So will be PPP from its urban strongholds. I am sure PTI will disappear too. However, if it does not, I will be pleasantly surprised.

zakk, Romair:
You may find it interesting that none of arguably the most competent ministers in the Vajpayee cabinet - Arun Shourie, Arun Jaitley and Jaswant Singh- are from the directly elected Lok Sabha, but from the upper house called Rajya Sabha. This is no coincidence; India`s brightest find it almost impossible to win elections - witness the defeat of Manmohan Singh from the elite constituency of New Delhi at the hands of an old political hack, Vijay Malhotra.

Omair: We have seen in Pakistani history, that whenever a relatively strong civilian government comes into power. There appointments tend to be more technocratic while at the same time being more focussed on loyalty to the boss over all else. The best examples of that are the last Nawaz givernment and the first PPP govt in the 70`s. I don`t think either of those governments were superiorin performance then any others, the only thing that happened was the power of the cabinet was reduced and no longer a check on the Prime Minister. While I agree it is very sad to see Ministers who don`t have a clue being made in charge of certain Ministries. At the same time, the present government in India is also made of a coalition, it also has an enormous number of political appointees as ministers. That hasn`t stopped the IT sector from undergoing an enormous boom. And You should remember Ministers in India have greater access to the public sector corproations because teh size of the public sector is much more. (although I agree, the principal source of corruption for politicans at the federal level is Public Sector Corporations, while at the provincial it would be Police, Education, C&W)

The Senate in Pakistan does reserve seats for technocrats;

ahmadzai/Zakk: In the US, the ministers do not have to be members of Congress. I don`t have the statistics, but I think a majority aren`t. In Pakistan, it is exactly the opposite: the ministers have to be either in the NA or Senate.

I fail to see what Presidential or Parliamentary govt. concepts have to do with this. Who cares how England and Australia do it. They have different societies at different levels of sophistication than Pakistan. In my opinion, in Pakistan, the rules should be exactly the opposite, i.e one should not be allowed to be a Minister and a MNA/Senator. Be one or the other.

The job of a minister is to run a major department of the whole country. He should run it like an efficient private company. Politics should have absolutely nothing to do with it. He should find the problems in his ministry`s area, and present various different solutions to the PM. It should be the PM`s job to then discuss it with his MNAs and look at the political aspects, and make the appropriate decision, taking into account the politics (presented by the elected MNAs) and the technical aspects (presented by the ministry).

Ministers are not rubber-stamps. If they were, then every MNA would not be aspiring for these positions. Pakistan, with an economy not even a fraction of the USA, usually has two to three times the no. of total ministers. The MNAs are far more concerned about ministries than their constituencies or even their own parties. Notice the defection of the PPPP members, having been bribed by ministries.

MNAs want to be ministers because it gives them access to a whole dept. of the country. Since Pakistani industry is still under govt. control, it gives them control over huge govt. organizations like PIA, Ghee plants, car making plants etc. They get a great number of personal benefits through this. Most of all, they get a chance to stuff these organizations with their own unqualified voters, through jobs, at the expense of Pakistan.

That is why it doesn`t really matter what the qualification of the MNA maybe, he/she just wants a ministry. - any ministry A minister has the power to give a telecom agency to his best friend, thereby bringing down the wireless industry of the whole country. So on and so forth. The PM cannot do anything about it, because the minister may represent an internal voting bloc of five to ten MNAs. How does Pakistan benefit from this?

A non-MNA minsiter would have none of these issues, as was seen in Musharraf`s cabinet. By keeping ministries and NA/Senate separate, it will ensure that professionals (hardly any of whom can get elected) will run them, and the elected politicians will concentrate on what their voters elected them for, i.e. working in their own constituencies. Pakistan is doing exactly the opposite.

2. I am not actually actively involved in politics, at all. My family is a PTI supporter, so I get info through them. Living in the USA and Pakistan, has not been as much of an education, as living in urban and feudal Pakistan. I think all city-dwellers should live in feudal lands to see what the PPP and PML type politicians actually do in their lands - even the ones who sent their own daughters to modelling agencies and to the Ivy league. It will turn half of them towards the MMA, believe me. Mansooras of JI are liberal thriving metropolises in comparision to what goes on in the feudal lands of Punjab, Sind and Baluchistan. Maulvis put their women under veils and burqas, feudals rape theirs.

It will be very dangerous if Pakistan is divided along religious and secular/liberal lines. Countries do not progress if they are liberal, and they do not progress if ther are religious and conservative. These two points are almost immaterial. People giving too much importance to religion, from opposing directions, are usually be biggest advocates of these two points.

Countries progress due to good economic policy, good education policies, and most of all, due to honest dedicated leadership. It will not make too much of a difference if the leadership is religious or liberal. The US is easily the most conservative and religious society in the Western world, yet it is by a huge margin the most powerful.

When people start using religionism and liberalism as the main criteria for voting, they end up destroying a country. A person voting for a corrupt feudal just because she appears liberal is as lost as a person voting for an ignorant mullah because he seems more religious. Both groups of voters, are unfortunately, too narrow-minded to realize their lack of vision. Each is fanatically convinced that the other is wrong, and hence convinced they are right.

People need to get out of looking at each party through religious or secular goggles. They need to look at how well the party raises the economic and human rights standards of the poorest and weakest Pakistani (not that of the richest Pakistani). In the process, the party`s encouragement of co-education or separate education, no cable or more cable, though interesting, is, in the big picture, immaterial.

Pakistan needs political parties that appeal to all provinces and people of all levels or religious persuasions (i.e maulvi to secular). Only such a party can bring everyone together. Such a party will have to stop looking for its roots in the USA or Saudi Arabia. It will have to try to feel the pulse of the average Pakistani and follow that.

In my opinion, the average Pakistani is not secular, and he/she is not religious to the extent of being a Jamaatia. He wants some religion in his public life, but does not want it shoved down his throat. Whether commentators like this or not, is immaterial. I think the pulse of Pakistan is a very moderate version of Islam. I suppose one could call it liberal Islamism (though not secularism). This is about where PTI places itself. The reason it is voting with MMA is because there is no liberal party worth its salt to vote with. The PPP and PML being proven corrupt failiures.

The reason the PPP and PML are now becoming more Islamist is because they have no credibility. They have nothing to stand on. They have done nothing for Pakistan, other than rob it, MNA by MNA. The peopole have given such parties fifty years of opportunity, waiting for them to do something. Now, they are going to the only other alternative, MMA. An alternative they didn`t chose as their first choice. If you were to take the feudals (who own their complete constituencies, and thus win the elections) out of the PPP and PML, the parties would be left with nothing, since they have no credibility in the non-feudal areas.

I think due to the above, the PPP and PML will lose out in urban Punjab soon. They have already lost urban Sind, urban NWFP and Baluchistan. Who will replace them, is anyone`s guess. It could be MMA or it could be PTI.

What the average Pakistani wants, is what he should get - specially in a democracy. Due to this secular crowd needs to become more religious and the religious crowd needs to become more secular. Otherwise they will pull the country apart.

Zakk and Romair:

First of all I thank both of you for caring to get involved in an informative discussion.

Romair: Since you are involved in politics (to great extent) and have lived in the two countries, you would know that the USA`s and Pakistan`s Governments work differently. In America you would like to have an educated and skilled technocrat put at the top of a Ministry/ Department, because of the Presidential system of elections. In Pakistan and many other countries, we have to have elected reps as Ministers and handling the Ministries.

However, this time around its a bit different in Pakistan too. The main policy of each ministry will be formulated and run by technocrats (or IMF)and the Ministers will only act as sellers. They will be used to obtain the buy-in of local and foreign parties. Now you can call it bad by claiming that our ministers are going to be rubber stamp authorities or you can call it good since this ensures continuity of policies being pursued since October 1999.

In view of the above, I don`t think that the son of Farooq Leghari will be doing anything of his own accord. Ideally, Pakistanis should have elected donkeys. These then could have been made ministers to run the policy of technocrats. At this critical juncture, we do not need sudden shifts in policies on whims of the elected persons. We need continuity for giving economic stability to the country. I hope I have made my point clear.

Zakk mentioned, ``Lastly, to your first prediction, the polarisation you speak off between the secularists and Islamists in Pakistan is almost disappearing, even among former leftists parties like the PPP, there is a strong feeling of support for Iraq and pan Islamism. The MMA has regained the centre right vote stolen from them in the mid 1990`s by nawaz Sharif and with the Iraq war won support from across the field effectively dominating public discourse, and the once huge divide between secularists and Islamists has collapsed with that. It seems when you look at the mood, that the Islamists have won. ``

To this, I would say that you and I are talking about the same thing from two angles. See even PPP had to play Pan-Islamist and you are also confirming that Islamists have won.

In the light of the foregoing, in my last post you may replace ``It will be Islamists versus Government backed liberals. Whoever misses one of these two boats misses out altogether. For example, it would be a straight contest between issues like Islami Nizam to bring equality in the world, free dom to Afghanistan, Chechniya, Iraq, etc. versus who gave you Gwadar port, new roads, expansion in steel mill therefore, more jobs, etc. People like Imran Khan would not be able to find their niche between these two agendas.``

to the following:

`It would be Pan Islamists versus Musharraf/Military/Government backed liberals.`

If the Islamists remain united, then it would be very difficult to beat them by individual parties. Also people like Imran Khan will find it very difficult to find a niche between the two positions (right versus extreme right). Nearer the next elections, parties will have to join behind either of these two banners.

At a personal level Romair, I don`t dislike Imran. I used to like him a lot, but then I figured out that he is too arrogant and dictatorial. I have been observing his gestures and body language on TV shows and I don`t think that he is democratic inherently. He has very strong views and this could be bad (Bhutto, BB and Nawaz) or good (Quaid-e-Azam).

If I were to vote, I would vote for continuity of policy for economic stability (the 4 point agenda of the Government), no matter who commits to that.

#26 by Pankaj on April 2, 2003 4:18pm PT
Thanks, despite our differnces we should keep our language respectful.

Bad language also shows that our a_slave_with_new_master ran out of arguments.

#44 by Zakkk on April 4, 2003 1:35pm PT

I dont know much about pakistani politics but if you are talking about Ayaz Amir the journalist.

I wonder how he survived in politics with articles like this in Outlook India.

Even Indian politicans will not be able to brush of this kind of behaviour easily, at least not openly.

http://outlookindia.com/diary.asp?fodname=20000214&fname=delhi%5Fdiary%2Ehtm&sid=1


Here are some excerpts.


``The bar here is called, rather too obviously I thought, the Patiala Peg, which during the three days I was in Delhi became my favourite watering-hole. This despite the fact that faulty ventilation makes it quite stuffy even on a wintry day. With the Patiala fairly deserted in the afternoons and I the only customer it was easy to fall into conversation with the bartenders, especially after my second Kingfisher was down the hatch.``

``On an earlier visit many moons ago I had entered, with a sense of foreboding, the famous Rajdoot hotel where I found rundown surroundings, an air of lurking sin, girls (some quite pretty) and no booze, a combination that was perhaps Delhi municipal authorities` idea of fun. But I gave the place a miss this time-maybe because there wasn`t enough time or maybe because I felt I was not that young any more. ``

``But it`s in one cultural artefact Delhi lags behind Lahore, the Pakistani city to which it can best be compared, and that is in its quality of red-light areas. Lahore`s Shahi Mohallah, or Hira Mandi as it is also called, retains even in these austere times a bright and cheerful aspect. G.B. Road, off Ajmeri Gate, is tacky and dirty by comparison``


I used to respect this man earlier. But the way he describes his visit to Delhi almost exclusively about drinking and prostituion that he indulged in. It is almost as if he found nothing else to write about Delhi indicates his foucs on these two acctivtes that to the places he describes are some of the most seedier locations and establisments of Delhi which also points to his complete lack of taste.


A lesson perhaps to me not to depend on media Images to conclude about the personality, ethics and standards of a person.

I don’t have any interest or disinterest in Ottoman but the following excerpts forced me to make a comparison.

++ And thus it was just about two years ago, when Usama Bin Laden stated that the September 11th attacks were in retaliation for what the West had done to the Ottoman Empire eighty-some years ago; that is, for the West’s dismemberment of what was, admittedly, a collapsed state incapable of defending itself. ++
++ We must bring the Ottomans back. ++

Osama can justify the Sept 11 as a retaliation to what West had done long time ago.
Which means, people and communities don’t forget easily. The wounds don’t heal. Then why does anyone expect India to forget what the foreigners did to its religions.

India was a glorious civilization for thousands for years. But it was invaded and looted by outsiders, its local culture attacked, its people converted, its religious places destroyed. It lost its old glory. And now its people (some more than others) carry the wounds till today.

And they too justify what they do by saying “ We must bring our religion back to its glorious days”

Omair: The appointment of technocrats to posts like the State Bank andHigher Education Commissions,attorney General, is an understood practice in all forms of Democracy, those are technocratic posts by intent. A side point by the way according to Law in the US supreme Court Judges do not neccessarily have to be lawyers. In fact Bill Clinton at one time was considering the appointment of former New York Mayor Cuomo(sp?).

I understand your anger at the appointment of Leghari`s son as Federal Minister (I am curious why they specifically targetted S&T it is not a post which could help Dera Ghazi Khan much?). And I agree with you, in areas like S&T and other`s the posts shoud not be turned into political bribes. However a graduation condition does not provide leadership; if thatw as true this present Assembly would be the most brilliant in the country. Muhammad Ali Jinnah was not a graduate, actvists like Ghaffar Khan were not graduates either.

In the US from what I understand, you have a non Military person as Commander in Chief of the Armed forces, according to your logic, the post should go to a Military person. Similarly you have senators and Congresssman with little experience in the field in charge of powerful select committes Chair`s which control funding and have strong oversight powers. That`s the brilliant world of siasat!