|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | DEAR REDIFF | |||
|
COMMENTARY
|
|
|
How Readers responded to Shalabh Kumar's earlier columns
Date sent: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:49:22 +0800 Shalabh Kumar hit the nail right on the head -- let us hope he didn't hit the finance minister on the head. The key to the success of Indian industry and India at large lies in competition -- the sooner we break these artificial shackles that we put around ourselves, the better it will be for the teeming billion. Do it selectively if you must, but do it now and do it at an increasing pace. The global village shrinks every minute -- it won't wait for us.
Zubin Kabraji
Singapore
Date sent: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:40:00 -0800 Congratulations!! I find this article proposing a policy that I fully agree with. The author is correct in saying that neither Nehruvian Socialism nor blind capitalism wil solve India's problems. I hope the new government takes a fresh approach as suggested in the article.
V R
California
Date sent: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 11:57:35 -0600 I found the article very thoughtful and very well-written. For the first time in a long time, a pragmatist is head of the finance ministry which had been directed by ideologues and theoreticians with their heads in the rarefied atmosphere of the ivory towers! Yashwant is a street-smart savvy patriot. He hits it right on the head when he says that "we don't need tomato ketchup and potato chips"! And may I add, even for those who can't live without it, we certainly need Pepsico to come and make it for them! There are enough Indians who can make much spicier ketchup and chips than any available in a US superstore! Believe me, I have lived there for the past 30 years. Consumers of that "junk-food" are correctly labelled "couch potatoes". The country should be relieved that after a hiatus of about 7 years, Yashwant finally got an opportunity to bring some sanity to our economic policy and to direct it with the core objective that the lot of the common man must improve in India. How could we expect such an approach from governments presided over by Gucci-clad children of the aristocrats of yesteryears who had spent their childhood and youth in well-to do homes and in the privileged shelter of schools such as Doon School and Harvard University! Our people are not guinea pigs on whom economic experiments should be practised upon! Thank God that Yashwant has an opportunity, and may he bring success to his efforts for improving the lot of the common man/woman. Madan Varma
Date sent: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 07:46:06 -0800 The letter is very detailed and does point out the inadequacies that are present in the Indian way of snooping and running your neighbour's affair. In this case it is the government. Many top politicians want to run the business of the country just as Nehru had it so that they can reap the profits of corruption. The eruption of corruption in India is of immense proportions. Infrastructure means making your house get all the facilities at no cost and bill the government for your needs with strong muscle. The poor don't even have toilets. We have too many places of worship and no bathroom to go to. Any temple you go to in India you find people squatting all around the temple. Is this not a shame and disrespect to the guy we call God? The government should only concentrate on infrastructure and let the people and the world economy decide on the competition. A Singapore-like model may be accepted with better press freedom. If Sinha survives, then it will be a miracle.
Date sent: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:43:10 -0500 A very cogent and intelligent article! We really need the economy to get a move on, whatever the politics of the electorate may be. Ruchira Raghav
Date sent: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 14:48:15 -0800 Mr Shalabh Kumar makes many good points. It seems to me that one point that has gone unnoticed, or at least undebated, is the strong need for the institution of effective 'anti-trust' laws as they are known in the USA. It seems that a lot of MNCs simply want to buy out prominent companies in India and quickly grab the long operating distribution network of Indian companies. Thus, the MNCs have no incentive to build fresh modern manufacturing facilities of their own and market their products through their own distribution network. Such a state of business cannot lead to any significant product improvement; and neither to fair competition that could drive the prices down. All we see is just change in ownerships that will change things only marginally and at great discontent. I think leading Indian economists, businessmen, lawyers and administrators should take a good look at American anti-trust laws that govern company purchases and fair competition. I am convinced this exercise, if not already undertaken, will do a world of good. Pradip Parekh
Date sent: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 19:00:57 -0800 I agree 100% with Shalab Kumar's analysis of the situation. As a non-resident Indian it pains me that the country of my origin is caught in this cycle of political venality and lack of governmental effectiveness. In fact, it never ceases to amaze me that India can function (albeit in a ramshackle fashion) despite all these "messiahs" of social justice and progress. The total lack of accountability and the constant deception on the "leader's" part happens only because they (the electorate) are economically and socially deprived and have no realistic power or chance of altering the situation now or in the future. This is the root cause of the mute acceptance by the people of leadership (?!) by the likes of the Gandhis, the Jayalalithas and the Sukh Rams, politicians who have hijacked the system for their own benefit, leaving the real citizens mere onlookers in the great "Tamasha" that governance in India has become. Personally I think the situation is beyond redemption... Like Shalab, however, I hope the future proves me wrong.
Date sent: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 14:17:04 -0800 (PST) It is true that the anti-incumbency factor has been evident in the past elections in India. However, it is not fair to draw the conclusion based only on the seats lost by the ruling parties. I feel the share of votes and the change in it should be given equal importance. For example in Rajasthan, the Congress and BJP got 45% and 43% votes respectively, but the difference in the seats won by them is huge. Similarly, in Maharashtra, the BJP's vote share did not decline much. But the consolidation of Opposition votes due to an electoral understanding between the Congress, SP and RPI made a large difference. Furthermore in UP, unity among the Congress, SP and BSP could have reduced the BJP's seats considerably even without affecting its vote share. Electoral results may change drastically in favour of a party through alliances even when its vote share has not improved. Dr Sunil Kumar
|
||
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
CRICKET |
MOVIES |
CHAT
INFOTECH | TRAVEL | LIFE/STYLE | FREEDOM | FEEDBACK |
||