|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | COMMENTARY | DEVIL'S ADVOCATE | |||
|
April 6, 1998
SPECIALS
|
How Readers reacted to Pritish Nandy's last column
Date sent: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 19:52:12 -0700 (PDT) I am surprised to see such a shallow and biased article. Limiting swadeshi to just economics is unfair. It is true that Indian economic policy is responsible for our backwardness. But the socialistic protection devoid of competition should not be called swadeshi. Mr Nandy sees a nexus between politicians and industry behind the policy of internal liberalisation by the BJP government. But he perhaps does not know that the Jan Sangh (the previous incarnation of the BJP) had argued for removing quota and permit system in 1960. Moreover, many Gandhians and socio-religious organisations such as the Gayatri Parivar are also opposing the encouragement to consumerism as it is bound to demolish Indian social values such as the family system. It has happened in America and many other Western countries. Now it is taking its toll in Japan. Mr Nandy need to study the ill effects of the so-called economic liberalisation on society and eco-system. No country can progress without self-confidence and self-pride. In India, everything from the West is assumed to be the best. Can Indian companies compete with multinational corporations with this mindset? Don't we have the cases of favour for foreign companies against their Indian countetrparts? This happens because it provides opportunities of foreign trips to officials concerned. India needs a balance between foreign investment and encouragement for Indian industries. Foreign investment alone cannot solve Indian economic problems. After all, multinationals are eyeing the huge Indian market for multiplying their profits, not for charity. Dr Sunil Kumar Los Angeles
Date sent: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 13:31:24 What is this thing about swadeshi that Pritish is talking about? Is it because his enemy, the BJP, has the slogan or what? India under Nehru and Indira were mostly swadeshi. In our country, the USA, half the people support swadeshi or protectionism -- ask the Pat Buchanan and Pat Roberts of the world. Japan is swadeshi when it comes to certain products that need to be imported. We think India should not open consumer products all together to foreigners as yet. Why does India need a McDonald franchise? Let the economy stabilise and have enough foriegn exchange before opening up the market to all goods. Pritish gives the impression that our products are trashy. We feel the competition within the country can make the quality superior. Please do not trash swadeshi because the BJP has now picked up this slogan -- and that is exactly the reason to write this out of context article. Thanks. D Bhalla
Date sent: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 21:19:38 EST Pritish Nandy needs to be educated in the matters of free trade, globalisation and economic self-preservation. Which world does he live in to say simplistically that let the foreign companies come in unchecked, and then may the best man win? If he looks at the trade policies of the USA and Western countries -- the champions of "free trade" -- he will see that they try damn hard to retain their advantages. They use all kinds of fair and foul means to achieve this: economic protectionism, heavy import tariffs for dangerous competitors, stringent anti-dumping laws, governmental intelligence support against foreign competitors, political pressure and even bribery. It's not just a matter of producing the best for the least. Ideally, that should be the goal for every Indian company. We have a lot of work to do in that regard. But industry in any country does not stand on its own. There has to be an understanding and co-operation between a nation's industry and its government. See Japan, Inc. The MITI in Japan takes care of the Japanese industry like a mother. While ever pushing their exports, the Japanese studiously keep total control of their vulnerable industries like insurance, financial services, agriculture, etc. Does Nandy think Japan lacks dignity and self-respect? And what is wrong with 'Be Indian, Buy Indian'? Why is Nandy ashamed of it? Even in the US people feel pride in buying 'Made in USA.' Any child would understand that buying Indian would preserve the Indian industry, Indian jobs and Indian economy. What India needs today is a holistic, integrated vision that would cover all the critical sectors like economy, agriculture, security and polity. We must have a targeted and focussed approach towards economic and military self- sufficiency, reducing unemployment and preserving social harmony. We have no use for people like Pritish Nandy who maliciously twist and turn a practical, prudent and rational policy like swadeshi and present it as a national disaster. He is trying to paint the majority of Indian industry as money- laundering, incompetent cheating scumbags.
Date sent: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 11:17:40 -0500 As always, Pritish Nandy's article is totally one-sided. It is a pity he doesn't understand the impact on the small scale industries with the entry of MNCs. Not that MNCs should not enter at all. Let them do some nation-building work, rather than push sweetened sugar water and potato chips. These can be done by our people better. I am not an advisor of swadeshi myself. But most of the European/American cars sold in India are the lower-end models in their countries. Some of the designs are more than 7 to 8 years old. There is, however, a difference in the Japanese/Korean cars -- they are of better quality and also more recent models. Even if you take computer software, the US government bans shipping of 128 bit encryption enbled softwares outside the country. Some computer models a major American brand is selling in India are not even listed on their Web site here! This is where swadeshi comes into picture. Instead of letting them dump old and non-moving stuff in our markets, demand your money's worth. The difference between the Western economy and the Indian economy is that there are hardly any smallscale industries in their countries. In our country, they are very much an integral part of our economy. Even a small outlet like a fastfood joint needs to be a franchisee of some big corporation to survive/do business well, and the people there hardly buy anything less than a major brand, while in India, the market economy is totally different! So, Mr Nandy, please do some more homework, before criticising anything like the typical Indian Opposition parties. Nagendra
Date sent: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 21:55:32 -0500 Pritish Nandy's article on swadeshi is making a point. But it only shows one side of the picture. If you look at the softdrink industry before and after multinationals came in, you can see how MNCs steamroll the Indian industry. There is no Indian softdrink left -- everything is owned by either Coke or Pepsi. Thums Up by Parle wasn't a substandard drink. Even after Coke took it over they retained the brand because people liked it, but the fact remains that the Indian industry couldn't stand up to the power of the multinational even though it offered a good product. That's where protection is needed. We are a poor country and no industrialist has the strength to stand against the huge MNCs. Thus, one has to be cautious in opening up the country -- or they may become powerful than our government. Just because they have better products doesn't mean they need to be brought in. Just because some American or Italian is a better administrator, we wouldn't make him the prime minister of India. We would want an Indian there as we don't want to be ruled by foreigners because we know that an Indian will care more about Indians than any foreigner. Some multinationals are so big they can control how our politicians govern the country. Hence, we need to be more cautious in the approach to opening up. I agree with opening up to foreign competition. But some amount of protection for the domestic industry is needed. Suhas Mansingh
Date sent: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 19:06:43 -0500 Pritish got so mad, so mad, so much mad, after seeing the BJP government get through the vote of confidence that he lost his sense of rationality and picked the first BJP-related word that came to his mind, swadeshi and started rambling on and on to criticise the BJP's swadeshi. The result was this article. And you, Rediff, published it! Let Pritishji cool down and think with a rational mind. Let him ponder over the industries the world over and the protection they get in their home countries. If he names Japan as protection-less, he needs to study the Japanese economy, government and society. If he calls the USA protection-less, he needs to study the US economy, government and society. His ignorance seems to be quite deep in this matter! The US president has, in the past, called up other heads of states to lobby for orders for US companies. The US supports the World Bank and IDA only because a huge chunk of these loans flows back into its economy -- to US companies. The US supports the IMF's bailing out of Mexico, South Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc only because it wants US banks to extricate their funds from these troubled economies. President Carter bailed out Chrysler when it could not stand up to the competition from the Japanese auto industry. Try selling Basmati rice to Japan, dear Pritishji! Basmati is much superior to their typical rice. Americans and Thais have not succeeded in selling rice and apples to Japanese yet. Do you know why the US has 110v and 50Hz instead of 220v 60 Hz electricity, which the rest of the world has? It is to protect the nascent US industries (at that time) from European competition. And that's why the US MNCs are strong today! You need to learn a lot more about the MNCs and the world trade, Pritishji. MNCs are not guided by the sense of fair-competition in global markets that you seem to expound and criticise swadeshi for. Where is this sense of fair competition when MNCs go out to patent neem, Basmati, and many other ayurvedic products? Where is this sense of fair competition when huge bribes are paid by Bofors, HDW, and others to grab contracts? Where was this sense of fair competition when Japanese lobbied in the 1980s to nip in the bud Indian efforts to get a World Bank loan to set up a railway axle plant in India? Where was this sense of fair play when the World Bank decided to withdraw its loan on Morarji's refusal to hire Brown and Co of CA, USA, as consultants to the fertiliser project in Gujarat? Indira Gandhi had given the boot to a similar World Bank loan when she was being forced to buy US turbines instead of BHEL turbines for a project in India (in the late 1970s or early 1980s). Where is this sense of fair play when Western countries demand free-trade for goods but not services such as engineers, doctors, mechanics, and carpenters, that India can amply supply to the world? Why this selective free trade? Now they want free trade in services but only in insurance sector and not at all in software development. Let there be free trade in the sector of software development, Pritishji, and India will earn oodles in the world market. US has restricted H-1 visas to 65,000 a year to attenuate the inflow of software developers into its economy. If you surf the Internet, you will notice that the Web sites designed by the Indians are the best in the whole world! The MNCs are sharks! There are cartels of these sharks that will swallow any country's economy without even burping once. For these MNC, all is fair in business. We have full faith in the business acumen of the Indian entrepreneurs. It is the Leftists of the Pritish Nandy and other varied brands who had stifled the Indian entrepreneur in the web of their policies for the last 50 years. Indian entrepreneurs are small fish in today's world market, except for the Tatas, Reliance and the Birlas! The rest? They need to be freed from the clutches of Communist economic mindset and allowed to grow before the MNC sharks threaten to swallow them. Big fish swallow small fish, I think you know well! Every country in the world protects its entrepreneurs, helps them grow into big fish, and then lets them into the ocean. Protection for Indian entrepreneur in the current environment is like protecting agricultural labourers from feudal lords just after Independence, reservations for SC/STs after Independence, and also like a family grooms its children before they take on the bad guys on the street! I am not advocating shoddy products in the Indian market. The Indian market is a "world-market" in itself and total and complete freedom to Indian entrepreneurs will generate enough competition within India to create better quality products. Pritishji, don't just be guided by the sheer political exigency of having to criticise the BJP somehow or the other, in any manner possible, at all possible times, occasions, and fora. That seems to be your motivation. After reading this article, I have lost most of the respect for the journalist in Pritish Nandy. I wish you good luck. And hope that you get your moorings right, someday. Raj Bhatnagar Professor of Computer Science, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221
Date sent: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 13:40:21 -0800 I couldn't agree more with what you've to say about making world class brands based on quality and fair business practices. But why is everyone hating the word swadeshi these days? In my mind swadeshi means exactly what you think and write about in your article. The word has been misused to convey the stupid ideas of greedy politicians and dishonest businessmen. Instead of beating the crap out of that word I think we should spread the real meaning of it. Then there will be a day when nobody will be ashamed to use that word 'cause it will symbolise quality goods at best prices. It has become like the word 'family planning', "triangle' and 'Nirodh' that were originally good ideas! Priti Thakker
Date sent: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 16:27:51 -0500 I never thought I'd find much to agree on with Pritish Nandy. Words cannot describe my amazement, therefore, at finding an entire article by him in which I agree wholeheartedly with almost every sentence! Market economics is like democratic politics. Under a market economy, everyone gets a say in the issues that affect them. As a consumer, you vote with your buying decisions. As a worker, you vote with your choice of profession and employer. As an investor, you vote with your decisions on what to invest in, and who to select to manage those investments. Every individual pursuing his own self-interest ends up creating a power-house economy that becomes the strenght of the country, and benefits all. The market is the collective wisdom of all those who are willing to put there money where there mouth is. It is ludicrous to think that bureaucrats/technocrats, guided by politicians, can improve on the 'invisible hand' of the market. All government interference in the market is nothing more than an attempt to cheat, to take from one group and give to another. Such cheating harms all of us by reducing economic activity, and the opportunities that would result from it. It does not matter what the justification for such interference is. Whether it is in the name of the commune, or society, or nationalism, the end results are the same. We've seen it in practice for over half a century. Gopal Saraswat
Date sent: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 11:38:24 PST I will not agree with what Pritish Nandy states in his article. Pritish states "It means taking pride in cowardice. Only a nation that lacks dignity and self respect preaches swadeshi. Because swadeshi means acknowledging one's inability to compete with the world. It means hobbling around on crutches and expecting others to pity you." No, you are wrong. Only because you have education and come from a good family which was able to provide you with the basics such as school education and and funds to graduate does not make you a SPRINTER. Indian companies do not have the power of money to fight multinationals. It is not that Indian companies produce inferior goods, but they just don't have money to invest in research and development. Some of the consumer goods produced by Indian companies are of good quality, only problem is that we don't see any new line of products. Also, companies like Pesi and Coke come to India with an advantage of 'dollars' as their asset. These companies concentrate on a particular market, the so-called educated folks who leave in the nice part of the town and have a very peaceful life. These companies rely on the philosophy of the Indian consumer that "Everything that has foreign label" is great, it is considered a cool behaviour to consume imported products. I think we Indians need social reform rather than any reforms in consumer goods sector, the quality of life of the common Indian is deteriorating day by day. Someone needs to end this, and this can be achieved by social reform. Multinational companies do not care about rural development. Products produced by these companies are too expensive for the common Indian who cannot even afford to buy a can of milk. These companies can easily get away with disaster like the one in Bhopal and yet sell their products in the Indian market, whereas here, in the US, they have to fight tougher regulations. Eg: Tobacco companies have to fight against lawsuits for passive smoking. How many columnists and journalists fought against Union Carbide? How many of them still write about it? I know multinationals produce jobs in India, they help the poor and lower middle class Indians realise where they stand in the current society. These companies help the common man realise they don't have money for daily necessities but others have money to blow on cellphones and pagers. This difference is worse than the cast system. We do need economic reforms. But we first need social reform where the common man can understand the difference in a good politician. We need someone who will educate the common Indian that the Congressmen are a bunch of hypocrites. We need someone who can write 'do not use Eveready batteries' because they are produced by a company who killed innocent Indians. We need to teach people who have earned degrees to treat others with respect. Pritish, we need columnists like you to bring social reform so we can be intellectually capable to fight competition. In simple language, we need social reform so we can no longer be inefficient, lazy. Be in position to support the weak and the effete to help them get better and then we will welcome all the multinationals to India. We will fight them back with vengeance. Pritish, help us get to that level and help us fight the multinationals.
Date sent: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 00:12:31 -0800 Thanks folks. Pretty darn good column it is. Never been disappointed with Mr Nandy's perspective. No Bullshit. Just facts. And thats the way our man does it. Good luck to him and hope some dopehead politician in the BJP or whoever that matters in our "dear" India listens to the guy. John
Date sent: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 18:45:56 -0600 Would you please stop writing articles for the Ideal world and start writing for the Real one? After watching the South Asian economies crumble, it would not be intelligent not to protect our own industry. Americans protect their own industry and they keep on blaming the Japanese for not opening up their economy enough. The Europeons do the same. Which country is not protecting its industry? Give me one example. Protecting your own interest is not losing dignity and self-respect. Losing dignity and self respect is just banking on foreign investment. While you are talking about the Tatas and Ambanis, first liberalise the economy to create more Ambanis in India, modernise the industry to create more Ratan Tatas. Then go for globalisation, rather than in the reverse order. I don't find anything wrong in the blueprint of the current administration for the economy. Invite foreign investment only in infrastructure areas and liberalise our economy internally. Sateesh
Date sent: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:56:55 -0700 I think this article by Pritish Nandy is in bad taste. He lacks the foresight to the impending consequence of his suggestion to open up the economy to multinationals. His comments, "Only a nation that lacks dignity and self-respect preaches swadeshi" shows clearcut bias toward multinationals whose only goal is to make money. India has just started the concept of liberalisation. In effect the people of India have yet to realise the repercussions of such moves and actions. No longer can trade unions take the Indian people, and particularly the politicians, for granted. Or should I say the otherway around, especially the politicians through their votebank politics? Business and industry have to be given adequate protection for the time being to evaluate the 'liberalised economy' to further strengthen and hone their business acumen at the national level before taking on multinationals at the international level. India does not need multinationals at the consumer level as corporate India can take care of that. Allow more freedom to individuals to take decision within the confinement of their business rather than creating hurdles for them through trade unions et al. I think the concept of swadeshi must be seen along these lines. India definitely needs technology from multinationals -- if they are ready to provide. Allow them the adequate opportunity to strengthen technology and infrastructure in India. But certainly do not create a situation where Indians do not have a level playing field. An example is the recent comment by none other than Dr Abdul Kalam. According to him "Indian materials taken from Indian mines, purchased and processed by Japan was refused to India. Strange are the ways of this unequal world." Indian politicians and the media better realise the significance of this comment made by a person with the distinction of having received the Bharat Ratna. Sachchit K Pandey
Date sent: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 14:21:48 -0800 It is a great column, Thanks to Nandy for having the courage to tell swadeshi is nothing more than a game played by shrewd businessmen and corrupt politicians. It's not that Indian businessmen don't have money to fund R&D, just that they are left with no money after paying politicians and officials for favours like these. Hopefully, some day Indian people will realise what price they are paying for the so-called self-reliance (since we are the only people using this term in the whole world, lets replace it with swadeshi)!
VT
Good one. Does any Indian politician read it? I would be shocked if it happens. He will after all read it with a computer running on Unix/Windows... After all, these computers are swadeshi stuff!!!! Let the guys travel by anything other than Ambassador/Premier Padmini cars. We'll then know who is truly swadeshi. Baski
Date sent: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:03:29 -0600 Yet another beautiful analysis by the maestro! I agree that competition is one of the best means of ensuring a vibrant economy. If you replace it with protectionism (calling it swadeshi), then the only loser is the hapless consumer. The BJP's line of "we want computer chips not potato chips" is at the most immature. They don't have to worry about Ruffles Lays pushing out local brands, because people just won't buy their packet of chips which are priced anywhere between $ 1 to 3. It should be observed here that many multinationals have burnt their hands in India by underestimating the consumer. The best example is the numerous number of new car brands. These companies did not realise that the consumer needed a small car, not a fancy one. I admire the Tatas for the reason that they are introducing a small car. And I am sure they will make money out of it! Vishwas Date sent: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:19:30 -0500 From: "Raj M. Manglik" <Raj.Manglik@uc.edu> Subject: Pritish Nandy on Swadeshi I had, to date, considered Nandy only as a journalist who liked to drift with the fashionable 'blast swadeshi' stream to make a living. But now, with this latest column, I consider him to be an absolute and unadulterated IDIOT (this is a rare breed in Indian "consumable" products). I believe Nandy deflects his own lack of self-esteem, and his need of 'foreign' crutches on the people who talk of swadeshi. Needless to say, Nandy is completely clueless as to what the term stands for and signifies. It is sad to see a journalist taking advantage of his/her freedom of expression to propagate nonsense -- even sadder is it to see editors buying this garbage!! The only way people like Nandy derive any self-esteem is when foreigners say 'nice' things about them -- the typical phoren return syndrome. In the end, all I can say is God bless Nandy and his likes!! I am sure he was around in some incarnation to welcome the East India Company!!
Date sent: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 07:48:18 -0500 When I found that (as one reader, Mr Venugopal Gundagurthi, correctly said) Pritish Nandy is always pessimistic, I stopped reading his articles. But somehow I happened to read his article on swadeshi. And as expected, I could not agree with him. His points seem to be pithless and his anger on swadeshi appears to be out of some kind of frustration. Can he answer why Indian industry could not prosper or improve when there was no swadeshi? Who is responsible for today's state of Indian industry ? Is it not true that foreign investment is present for the last so many years in India? Has it made Indian companies more competent? What about so many young enterpreneurs who could not start their own business because of the 'permit raj' which prevailed for so many years in India? Why does Nandy want to ignore the fact that removing hurdles of permits and various restrictions from Indian enterpreneurs's path is going to increase the competetion among native businesses too? Or is he worried only about the Tatas and Ambanis? The following conclusions could be drawn after reading his articles: 1. He lacks knowledge about India and its history. His following statements prove it. "It (swadeshi) means taking pride in cowardice. Only a nation that lacks dignity and self-respect preaches swadeshi." "Because swadeshi means acknowledging one's inability to compete with the world. It means hobbling around on crutches and expecting others to pity you. " Does Pritish Nandy mean Gandhiji wanted India to be pitied when he launched swadeshi? Is the same thing true about 'Be American, Buy American'? 2. Nandy thinks the nation is himself and people like Ratan Tata, Ambani, and the likes. He is not worried about the common man who still does not have sufficient resources to be an independent enterpreneur. Can a commoner in India start his/her own business and survive in the global market? The 'Permit Raj' of the last 50 years (surprisingly when there was no Swadeshi!) has brought things to this passe! Isn't that true Mr Nandy? 3. Nandy's frustration is clear when he uses words like 'greedy pigs'. His frustration is beyond comprehension. One cannot understand why he is not able to see good in anything at all. If he continues to express himself in this manner his credentials will be doubted. 4. Mr Nandy keeps on talking about 'shoddy' products. And he presumes, the products of Indian industry are going to be so even when they get better enterpreneurial environment. This is a way of showing disrespect towards the Indian community. It is another way of saying, 'Indians are not capable of delivering better goods'. Mr Nandy's affiliations are well known. But keeping that aside, has Mr Nandy done anything to stop the corruption that has ruined the Indian industry? 5. The simple fact is that even when there was no swadeshi Indian industry could not bloom. Neither did the quality of products improve. Mr Nandy's attempt to attributing this 'shoddiness' and 'inability to compete with the world' to swadeshi cannot be accepted. The whole article seems to be aimed at proving that Indians are incapable. Pritish Nandy will do well to understand that Indians have understood what swadeshi is. They all are confident of delivering better goods and services, given a chance. In the last 50 years, it was neither the BJP, nor swadeshi that controlled the Indian economy. Concentrating financial, economic and political powers in the hands of a few has made the Indian industry what it is today. In the last 45 years, the Congress and these anti-swadeshi peoples's greediness has robbed the Indian community of its natural right of being better enterpreneurs. Before exposing ourselves to global competetion, let us compete among ourselves. And those among us who grows in experience and necessary skills will go to compete in the global market. Like Mr Nandy we Indians do not think that MNCs have necessarily to be 'foreign'! We common Indians, too, can have our MNCs, not just the Tatas and Ambanis. Sanjay
Date sent: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 11:57:33 -0800 I do not disagree or agree with what Mr Nandy has written. However, we should try to make our businesses and corporate houses strong enough to face the challenge of multinational companies before we let them come in. He could cite only two examples, the Tatas and Ambanis, who could probably face any challenge from multinational companies. Do these two form the whole country? Do these two do all the businesses in India? NO!! We need more businesses of these types. They need India's support for the same. We should try to make some significant changes in our own corporate culture to improve the conditions of our businesses. Then we can let anybody come in and compete. If we do let them come in right now you can guess how many of them would remain in the near future -- two!!
Date sent: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:12:49 -0600 (CST) I totally agree with Pritish Nandy. May the best man win. Anand Bernard |
| Tell us what you think of this column | |
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
CRICKET |
MOVIES |
CHAT
INFOTECH | TRAVEL | LIFE/STYLE | FREEDOM | FEEDBACK |
|