SCEPTICS remain unconvinced that liberal trade and foreign investment policies have resulted in a significant improvement in the performance of India's external sector.They argue that export growth during 1990s has not been much higher than that achieved during 1980s when the level of protection rivalled Mount Everest. They likewise argue that the response of foreign investment to liberalisation has been less than overwhelming.Are the sceptics right? The answer is a qualified 'no'. Evidence on the relative performance of the external sector during 1980s and 1990s belies the sceptics.
Exports of goods and services grew at an annual rate 10.7 per cent during 1990s compared with only 7.4 per cent during 1980s. Likewise, imports grew at 9.7 per cent during 1990s but only 5.9 per cent during 1980s.The annual growth rate of exports as well as imports has, thus, risen by 3.3 percentage points. This rise has manifested itself in a significant increase in the imports-to-GDP and exports-to-GDP ratios.On the export side, the ratio approximately doubled from 7.3 per cent to 14 per cent between 1990 and 2000 and on the imports side it jumped from 9.9 per cent to 16.6 per cent.The overall trade to GDP ratio has thus gone up from 17.2 per cent in 1990 to 30.6 per cent in 2000. In contrast, the change in the trade-to-GDP ratio between 1980 and 1990 was tiny: from 15.2 per cent to 17.2 per cent. On the foreign investment front, India has been receiving approximately $5 billion every year since 1994-95 compared with just $0.1 billion during 1990-91.This amount is split approximately equally between foreign direct investment (FDI) and portfolio investment. There has also been a significant shift in the remittances from abroad: from $2.1 billion in 1990 to $12.3 billion in 2000.While the basic claim of the sceptics is thus readily refuted, it must be acknowledged that the response of the external sector to liberal trade and investment policies has been an order of magnitude weaker in India than China.
Exports of goods and services grew at annual rates of 12.9 and 15.2 per cent during 1980s and 1990s respectively in China. Imports exhibited a similar performance. Consequently, China's total trade to GDP ratio rose from 18.9 per cent in 1980 to 34 per cent in 1990 and to 49.3 per cent in 2000.On the foreign investment front, differences are even starker. FDI into China has risen from $.06 billion in 1980 to $3.49 billion in 1990 and then to a whopping $42.10 billion in 2000.China was slower to open its market to portfolio investment but once it did, inflows quickly surpassed those into India, reaching $7.8 billion in 2000. Even if we allow for an upward bias in the figures as suggested by some China specialists, there is little doubt that foreign investment flows into China are several times those into India.While some differences between the performances of India and China can be attributed to the Chinese entrepreneurs in Hong Kong and Taiwan, who have been eager to escape rising wages in their respective home economies by moving to China, a more central explanation lies in the differences between the compositions of GDPs in the two countries. Among developing countries, India is unique in having a very large share of its GDP in the mostly informal part of the services sector.
Whereas in other countries, a decline in the share of agriculture in GDP has been accompanied by a substantial expansion of industry in the early stages of development, in India this has not happened.For example, in 1980, the proportion of GDP originating in industry was 48.5 per cent in China but only 24.2 per cent in India. Services, on the other hand, contributed only 21.4 per cent to GDP in China but as much as 37.2 per cent in India. In the following twenty years, despite considerable growth, the share of industry did not rise in India. Instead, the entire decline in the share of agriculture was absorbed by services.Though a similar process was observed in China, the share of industry in GDP was already quite high there. As a result, even in 2000, the share of services in GDP was 33.2 per cent in China compared with 48.2 per cent in India.Why does this matter? Because typically, under liberal trade policies, developing countries are much more likely to be able to expand exports and imports if a large proportion of their output originates in industry.
Not only is the scope for expanding labour-intensive manufactures greater, a larger industrial sector also requires imported inputs thereby offering greater scope for the expansion of imports. In India, the response of imports has been just as muted as that of exports.This is demonstrated by the fact that recently RBI has had to purchase huge amounts of foreign exchange to keep the rupee from appreciating. Imports have simply failed to absorb the foreign exchange generated by even modest foreign investment flows and remittances.This same factor is also at work in explaining the relatively modest response of FDI to liberal policies. Investment into industry, whether domestic or foreign, has been sluggish.Foreign investors are hesitant to invest in the industry for much the same reasons as domestic investors. At the same time, the capacity of the formal services sector to absorb foreign investment is limited. The information technology sector has shown promise, but its base is still small. Moreover, this sector is more intensive in skilled labour than physical capital.Therefore, the solution to both trade and FDI expansion in India lies in stimulating growth in industry. The necessary steps are now common knowledge: bring all tariffs down to 10 per cent or less, abolish the small-scale industries reservation, institute an exit policy and bankruptcy laws and privatise all public sector undertakings. The real question is: Will the government act?
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
NEW HAVEN
NEW HAVEN -- George W. Bush is a geopolitical incompetent. He has allowed a clique of hawks to induce him to take a position on invading Iraq from which he cannot extract himself, one which will have nothing but negative consequences for the United States--and the rest of the world. He will find himself badly hurt politically, perhaps fatally. And he will rapidly diminish the already declining power of the United States in the world. A war against Iraq will destroy many lives immediately, both Iraqi and American, because it seems clear that high-altitude, surgical-strike air attacks will not suffice in military terms. Invading Iraq will lead to a degree of turmoil in the Arab-Islamic world hitherto unimagined. Other Arab leaders don't like Saddam Hussein one bit, but their populations won't stand for what they will inevitably feel is an unprovoked attack on an Arab state, leaving leaders with little choice but to be swept along in the turmoil or drown. And an attack on Iraq might ultimately spark the use of nuclear weapons, which, if unleashed now, will be hard to again make illegitimate. Iraq may not have such weapons yet, but we can't be sure. Even if it doesn't, might it not attack Israel with conventional missiles that would prompt Israel to respond with the nuclear weapons we know it has? For that matter, are we really sure that, if the fighting gets tough, the U.S. is not ready to use tactical nuclear weapons?
How have we gotten into such a disastrous cul-de-sac?
It seems probable that U.S. military action against Iraq is now not a question of whether but of when. The U.S. government insists action is necessary because Iraq has been defying United Nations resolutions and represents an imminent danger to the world in general, and to the U.S. in particular. This explanation of the expected military action is so thin that it cannot be taken seriously. Defying U.N. resolutions or other international enjoinders has been commonplace for the last 50 years. I need hardly remind anyone that the U.S. refused to defer to a 1986 World Court decision condemning U.S. actions in Nicaragua. And President Bush has made it amply clear that he will not honor any treaty should he think it dangerous to U.S. interests. Israel has, of course, been defying U.N. resolutions for more than 30 years, and is doing so again as I write this commentary. And the record of other U.N. members is not much better. So Hussein has been defying quite explicit U.N. resolutions. What else is new?
Is Hussein an imminent threat to anyone? In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. That action, at least, did pose an imminent threat. The U.S. response was the Persian Gulf War, in which we pushed the Iraqis out of Kuwait and then decided to stop there--for good military and political reasons. But that left Hussein in power.
The U.N. passed various resolutions requiring Iraq to abandon nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons and mandated inspection teams to verify that it had done so. The U.N. also put in place a variety of embargoes against Iraq. As we know, over the decade since then, the system of constraints on Iraq put in place by these U.N. resolutions has weakened considerably, but not totally by any means.
Several weeks ago, Iraq and Kuwait signed an agreement in which Iraq agreed to respect the sovereignty of Kuwait. The foreign minister of Kuwait, Sheik Sabah al Ahmed al Jabbar al Sabah said his country is now "100% satisfied," adding that he had written the agreement himself. A spokesperson for the United States nonetheless exhibited skepticism. The U.S. is not about to be deterred simply because Kuwait is "satisfied." What is Kuwait, that it should participate in such a decision?
U.S. hawks believe that only the use of force--very significant force--will restore our unquestioned hegemony in the world. It is no doubt true that the use of overwhelming force can establish hegemony, as happened with the United States in 1945. But U.S. hegemony is not what it once was. The country's economic superiority in the world between 1945 and 1965 has been replaced with a situation in which the U.S. economic position is not significantly better than that of the European Union or Japan. This relative economic decline has cost the U.S. the unquestioned political deference of its close allies. All that is left is military superiority. And, as Machiavelli taught us all centuries ago, force is not enough: If that's all you have, then its use is a sign of weakness rather than of strength and weakens the user.
It is clear that, at this point, almost no one supports a U.S. invasion of Iraq: not a single Arab state, not Turkey or Iran or Pakistan, not Russia or the great bulk of Europe. There are, to be sure, two notable exceptions: Israel, which is cheering Bush on, and Great Britain--or rather its prime minister, Tony Blair, who declared last weekend in Texas that "doing nothing ... is not an option" with regard to Iraq. Yet an article in The Observer last month reported that "Britain's military leaders issued a stark warning to Tony Blair last night that any war against Iraq is doomed to fail and would lead to the loss of lives for little political gain."
I cannot believe that U.S. military leaders have drawn a different conclusion, although they may be more wary of stating that unpleasant truth to President Bush. Kenneth M. Pollack, formerly of the CIA and the Iraq specialist on Clinton's National Security Council, says military action in Iraq would require sending in 200,000 to 300,000 U.S. troops, presumably from bases in either Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, as well as additional troops to defend the Kurds in northern Iraq.
The U.S. seems to be counting on intimidating its allies into going along. But after Israel's occupation of West Bank cities, the remote hope that Saudi (or even Kuwaiti) bases would be made available to U.S. troops has almost surely disappeared. Turkey clearly has no interest in defending Iraqi Kurds, since such action would certainly strengthen the Kurdish movement in Turkey, against which the Turkish government fights with all its energy. As for Israel, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon--with Bush's strong support--is in the process of destroying as rapidly as possible the Palestinian Authority, which certainly won't help Bush build his anti-Iraq coalition.
Still, there will be an invasion, which will be difficult if not impossible to win. The action could well become another Vietnam. Just as in Vietnam, the war will drag on and will cost many U.S. lives. And the political effects will be so negative for the U.S. that eventually Bush (or his successor) will pull out. A renewed and amplified Vietnam syndrome will be the result at home.
How have we gotten into such a disastrous cul-de-sac?
It seems probable that U.S. military action against Iraq is now not a question of whether but of when. The U.S. government insists action is necessary because Iraq has been defying United Nations resolutions and represents an imminent danger to the world in general, and to the U.S. in particular. This explanation of the expected military action is so thin that it cannot be taken seriously. Defying U.N. resolutions or other international enjoinders has been commonplace for the last 50 years. I need hardly remind anyone that the U.S. refused to defer to a 1986 World Court decision condemning U.S. actions in Nicaragua. And President Bush has made it amply clear that he will not honor any treaty should he think it dangerous to U.S. interests. Israel has, of course, been defying U.N. resolutions for more than 30 years, and is doing so again as I write this commentary. And the record of other U.N. members is not much better. So Hussein has been defying quite explicit U.N. resolutions. What else is new?
Is Hussein an imminent threat to anyone? In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. That action, at least, did pose an imminent threat. The U.S. response was the Persian Gulf War, in which we pushed the Iraqis out of Kuwait and then decided to stop there--for good military and political reasons. But that left Hussein in power.
The U.N. passed various resolutions requiring Iraq to abandon nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons and mandated inspection teams to verify that it had done so. The U.N. also put in place a variety of embargoes against Iraq. As we know, over the decade since then, the system of constraints on Iraq put in place by these U.N. resolutions has weakened considerably, but not totally by any means.
Several weeks ago, Iraq and Kuwait signed an agreement in which Iraq agreed to respect the sovereignty of Kuwait. The foreign minister of Kuwait, Sheik Sabah al Ahmed al Jabbar al Sabah said his country is now "100% satisfied," adding that he had written the agreement himself. A spokesperson for the United States nonetheless exhibited skepticism. The U.S. is not about to be deterred simply because Kuwait is "satisfied." What is Kuwait, that it should participate in such a decision?
U.S. hawks believe that only the use of force--very significant force--will restore our unquestioned hegemony in the world. It is no doubt true that the use of overwhelming force can establish hegemony, as happened with the United States in 1945. But U.S. hegemony is not what it once was. The country's economic superiority in the world between 1945 and 1965 has been replaced with a situation in which the U.S. economic position is not significantly better than that of the European Union or Japan. This relative economic decline has cost the U.S. the unquestioned political deference of its close allies. All that is left is military superiority. And, as Machiavelli taught us all centuries ago, force is not enough: If that's all you have, then its use is a sign of weakness rather than of strength and weakens the user.
It is clear that, at this point, almost no one supports a U.S. invasion of Iraq: not a single Arab state, not Turkey or Iran or Pakistan, not Russia or the great bulk of Europe. There are, to be sure, two notable exceptions: Israel, which is cheering Bush on, and Great Britain--or rather its prime minister, Tony Blair, who declared last weekend in Texas that "doing nothing ... is not an option" with regard to Iraq. Yet an article in The Observer last month reported that "Britain's military leaders issued a stark warning to Tony Blair last night that any war against Iraq is doomed to fail and would lead to the loss of lives for little political gain."
I cannot believe that U.S. military leaders have drawn a different conclusion, although they may be more wary of stating that unpleasant truth to President Bush. Kenneth M. Pollack, formerly of the CIA and the Iraq specialist on Clinton's National Security Council, says military action in Iraq would require sending in 200,000 to 300,000 U.S. troops, presumably from bases in either Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, as well as additional troops to defend the Kurds in northern Iraq.
The U.S. seems to be counting on intimidating its allies into going along. But after Israel's occupation of West Bank cities, the remote hope that Saudi (or even Kuwaiti) bases would be made available to U.S. troops has almost surely disappeared. Turkey clearly has no interest in defending Iraqi Kurds, since such action would certainly strengthen the Kurdish movement in Turkey, against which the Turkish government fights with all its energy. As for Israel, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon--with Bush's strong support--is in the process of destroying as rapidly as possible the Palestinian Authority, which certainly won't help Bush build his anti-Iraq coalition.
Still, there will be an invasion, which will be difficult if not impossible to win. The action could well become another Vietnam. Just as in Vietnam, the war will drag on and will cost many U.S. lives. And the political effects will be so negative for the U.S. that eventually Bush (or his successor) will pull out. A renewed and amplified Vietnam syndrome will be the result at home.
Disunited Indian Family
Disunited Indian Family
Dear members of my extended family,
Over the past month, I've been corresponding with you in an attempt to view from your perspective the Gujarat developments, as well as the issue of minority-majority rights which has once again become the talking point in households like ours. Indeed, many of my friends have families that echo your feelings.
Your case is broadly as follows. One, in Hindu-majority India, secularism has become a tool to justify the wrongs done by the minorities: Islamic terrorism is glossed over, while Muslim obscurantism is encouraged, often by the state, as in the Shah Bano case.
As a result, Muslims obsessively cling to tradition, refuse to modernise and almost never condemn atrocities committed by fellow Muslims. Worse, most of them harbour trans-national loyalties. Two, the pseudo-secularist media indulges the minorities almost to the point of being anti-Hindu. It dismissed the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits and the burning alive of Hindus in Godhra, but was outraged by the retaliatory attacks on Muslims.
Unfortunately, my efforts to tackle these points have elicited the same response. At the humdrum level: But Muslims marry four times, they breed to outnumber us, they are zealous converts, they identify with Pakistan. At a more sophisticated level: Minority appeasement by the secularists has delivered the soft Hindu middle-class to the Hindutva crowd.
Before I go further, I would draw your attention to the October 31, 1992 issue of India Today, which ran a riveting cover story on the changes being forced in the Muslim community by its youth. Titled 'Young Muslims: Forging a New Identity', the story captured the aspirations of a generation for whom Pakistan held no meaning, that wanted to chart a path far away from the clergy.
The young people it profiled were not khandani mussalman, but from middle-class homes. Like Sameena Usmani, an engineering student at Aligarh Muslim University, who proudly posed in her riding breeches. Like Uzma, who challenged the maulanas to "stop the change" that had set in. Like Ayesha Shabnam, daughter of an illiterate housekeeper, who taught biology at the Humdard institute. Like Mohammad Yaseen, reader at AMU, who bristled at the mullahs: "The biggest disservice ever done by the mullahs was to oppose the Shah Bano judgment".
The story further spoke of Muslim ulema conducting mass literacy drives and criss-crossing the country, highlighting the social evils that had crept into Muslim society. It spotted the beginnings of a movement against practices like triple talaq and jahez (dowry). It quoted Babri Masjid Action Committee leader, Jawed Habeeb, as vouching for the safety of Muslims in secular India.
Two months later, there was another cover story on Muslims. This time in Sunday magazine. The title was, 'Indian Muslims: A time of grief, insecurity and doubt'. The accompanying photograph was of a frightened skull-cap wearing Muslim. What happened between the two cover stories was a momentous event. The demolition of the Babri masjid on December 6, 1992.
Could it be that this outright attack on their religion had driven back the modernisation process that had started in the community? While travelling in UP recently, I stayed one night with the family of a Maulvi. The Maulvi's daughter had married into a family in Ahmedabad. Oh, how proud she was of Ahmedabad: It was modern, and it allowed conservative Muslim girls like her the choice of combining regular school with madrassa education.
My heart sinks at the thought of what Sameena, Uzma, Ayesha and Yaseen would say today. I wonder if the Maulvi's daughter will still be proud of Ahmedabad. There are hundreds of other modern Muslims, now forced into ghettos. Mr Bandookwala's heart-rending story has been told. But there is M H Jowhar, management professional, visiting faculty at IIM-Ahmedabad and founder of the Society for the Promotion of Rational Thinking. Mr Jowhar, who was proudly secular and who took on the fundamentalist forces, today seeks safety and solace within his own wounded community.
Then there are the Muslims of Godhra, not those who burnt coach 6 of Sabarmati Express, but those who condemned the outrage, even apologised on behalf of their community (source: Jyoti Punwani). But the local Gujarati press refused to publish their statements. Pakistan never mattered to these Muslims. But if today some of them should think of it as an option, can we blame them?
Talking of trans-national loyalties, how would you describe the thousands of American-Indians who last year welcomed Atal Bihari Vajpayee to cries of: Desh ka neta kaisa ho? Atal Bihari jaisa ho? Which nation, pray, were they talking about? Are you confident that the anti-immigrant mood that is currently sweeping Europe, will not one day target our overseas relatives?
Don't the NRIs cling to tradition and custom? Should you not recognise this as a special need of all minority groups, whether they are the NRIs, the African-Americans, Indian Muslims or the Kashmiri Pandits? The Pandits certainly deserve better, both from the media and the BJP government. But yes, I wouldn't say that since they were once the ruling class, it is right for them to suffer today.
I should and I have always condemned terrorism. But last week, I watched a peculiar development on TV. The clip showed perfectly respectable Tamils attending a pro-Prabhakaran meeting in Chennai. Now, Prabhakaran is a proclaimed terrorist whose LTTE is banned by the US and India. Prabhakaran killed Rajiv Gandhi, who held a constitutional office. Can you imagine the consequences if Prabhakaran had assassinated a former American president?
By now, our American family members would have gone through several rounds of racial profiling. Had Prabhakaran been Muslim, the Indian government would have arrested you and me under POTA. And yet, the Tamils openly felicitate him without any of us coming to the slightest harm. Is terrorism by Tamils okay?
I can go on. You are wrong about the four wives. Of all Indian communities, polygamy is lowest among Muslims. They are also almost invisible on the job market. The appeasement was of the mullahs, just as today the appeasement is of the VHP (three of the accused in the Babri case are ministers).
By the way, have you ever wondered at the ease with which Mr Karunanidhi flaunts his three wives in public? Equally, have you wondered at the predominance of Hindu symbolism in Indian public life? The lighting of diyas, the breaking of coconuts. Finally, I wish you would react as angrily when the media buries dowry deaths on page 13 and ignores the public stripping of Dalit women, not to mention young lovers hanged to death by village panchayats because one of them was Dalit. Maybe we should turn some of the anger inward?
Dear members of my extended family,
Over the past month, I've been corresponding with you in an attempt to view from your perspective the Gujarat developments, as well as the issue of minority-majority rights which has once again become the talking point in households like ours. Indeed, many of my friends have families that echo your feelings.
Your case is broadly as follows. One, in Hindu-majority India, secularism has become a tool to justify the wrongs done by the minorities: Islamic terrorism is glossed over, while Muslim obscurantism is encouraged, often by the state, as in the Shah Bano case.
As a result, Muslims obsessively cling to tradition, refuse to modernise and almost never condemn atrocities committed by fellow Muslims. Worse, most of them harbour trans-national loyalties. Two, the pseudo-secularist media indulges the minorities almost to the point of being anti-Hindu. It dismissed the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits and the burning alive of Hindus in Godhra, but was outraged by the retaliatory attacks on Muslims.
Unfortunately, my efforts to tackle these points have elicited the same response. At the humdrum level: But Muslims marry four times, they breed to outnumber us, they are zealous converts, they identify with Pakistan. At a more sophisticated level: Minority appeasement by the secularists has delivered the soft Hindu middle-class to the Hindutva crowd.
Before I go further, I would draw your attention to the October 31, 1992 issue of India Today, which ran a riveting cover story on the changes being forced in the Muslim community by its youth. Titled 'Young Muslims: Forging a New Identity', the story captured the aspirations of a generation for whom Pakistan held no meaning, that wanted to chart a path far away from the clergy.
The young people it profiled were not khandani mussalman, but from middle-class homes. Like Sameena Usmani, an engineering student at Aligarh Muslim University, who proudly posed in her riding breeches. Like Uzma, who challenged the maulanas to "stop the change" that had set in. Like Ayesha Shabnam, daughter of an illiterate housekeeper, who taught biology at the Humdard institute. Like Mohammad Yaseen, reader at AMU, who bristled at the mullahs: "The biggest disservice ever done by the mullahs was to oppose the Shah Bano judgment".
The story further spoke of Muslim ulema conducting mass literacy drives and criss-crossing the country, highlighting the social evils that had crept into Muslim society. It spotted the beginnings of a movement against practices like triple talaq and jahez (dowry). It quoted Babri Masjid Action Committee leader, Jawed Habeeb, as vouching for the safety of Muslims in secular India.
Two months later, there was another cover story on Muslims. This time in Sunday magazine. The title was, 'Indian Muslims: A time of grief, insecurity and doubt'. The accompanying photograph was of a frightened skull-cap wearing Muslim. What happened between the two cover stories was a momentous event. The demolition of the Babri masjid on December 6, 1992.
Could it be that this outright attack on their religion had driven back the modernisation process that had started in the community? While travelling in UP recently, I stayed one night with the family of a Maulvi. The Maulvi's daughter had married into a family in Ahmedabad. Oh, how proud she was of Ahmedabad: It was modern, and it allowed conservative Muslim girls like her the choice of combining regular school with madrassa education.
My heart sinks at the thought of what Sameena, Uzma, Ayesha and Yaseen would say today. I wonder if the Maulvi's daughter will still be proud of Ahmedabad. There are hundreds of other modern Muslims, now forced into ghettos. Mr Bandookwala's heart-rending story has been told. But there is M H Jowhar, management professional, visiting faculty at IIM-Ahmedabad and founder of the Society for the Promotion of Rational Thinking. Mr Jowhar, who was proudly secular and who took on the fundamentalist forces, today seeks safety and solace within his own wounded community.
Then there are the Muslims of Godhra, not those who burnt coach 6 of Sabarmati Express, but those who condemned the outrage, even apologised on behalf of their community (source: Jyoti Punwani). But the local Gujarati press refused to publish their statements. Pakistan never mattered to these Muslims. But if today some of them should think of it as an option, can we blame them?
Talking of trans-national loyalties, how would you describe the thousands of American-Indians who last year welcomed Atal Bihari Vajpayee to cries of: Desh ka neta kaisa ho? Atal Bihari jaisa ho? Which nation, pray, were they talking about? Are you confident that the anti-immigrant mood that is currently sweeping Europe, will not one day target our overseas relatives?
Don't the NRIs cling to tradition and custom? Should you not recognise this as a special need of all minority groups, whether they are the NRIs, the African-Americans, Indian Muslims or the Kashmiri Pandits? The Pandits certainly deserve better, both from the media and the BJP government. But yes, I wouldn't say that since they were once the ruling class, it is right for them to suffer today.
I should and I have always condemned terrorism. But last week, I watched a peculiar development on TV. The clip showed perfectly respectable Tamils attending a pro-Prabhakaran meeting in Chennai. Now, Prabhakaran is a proclaimed terrorist whose LTTE is banned by the US and India. Prabhakaran killed Rajiv Gandhi, who held a constitutional office. Can you imagine the consequences if Prabhakaran had assassinated a former American president?
By now, our American family members would have gone through several rounds of racial profiling. Had Prabhakaran been Muslim, the Indian government would have arrested you and me under POTA. And yet, the Tamils openly felicitate him without any of us coming to the slightest harm. Is terrorism by Tamils okay?
I can go on. You are wrong about the four wives. Of all Indian communities, polygamy is lowest among Muslims. They are also almost invisible on the job market. The appeasement was of the mullahs, just as today the appeasement is of the VHP (three of the accused in the Babri case are ministers).
By the way, have you ever wondered at the ease with which Mr Karunanidhi flaunts his three wives in public? Equally, have you wondered at the predominance of Hindu symbolism in Indian public life? The lighting of diyas, the breaking of coconuts. Finally, I wish you would react as angrily when the media buries dowry deaths on page 13 and ignores the public stripping of Dalit women, not to mention young lovers hanged to death by village panchayats because one of them was Dalit. Maybe we should turn some of the anger inward?
Finish each day and be done with it
"Finish each day and be done with it. You have done what you could; some blunders and absurdities have crept in; forget them as soon as you can. Tomorrow is a new day; you shall begin it serenely and with too high a spirit to be encumbered with your oldnonsense." --Ralph Waldo Emerson
"The rare individual who honestly satisfies this heart-hunger (praise) will hold people in the palm of his hand, and even the undertaker will be sorry when he dies." --Dale Carnegie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motivational Quotes 3-4
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor souls who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." --Theodore Roosevelt
"Winning is not everything. It's the only thing." --Vince Lombardi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For The Aspiring Netrepreneur... InfoPublishing
Build an online business based upon what you know
(from work experience, hobbies, passions, or past-times).
If you know your subject matter, and if you're motivated
to build a REAL business with growing, diversified revenues...
http://www.famous-motivational-quotes.com/infopublishing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motivational Quotes 5-6
"Don't let the fear of the time it will take to accomplish something stand in the way of your doing it. The time will pass anyway; we might just as well put that passing time to the best possible use." -- Earl Nightingale, speaker, author
"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." --Mark Twain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motivational Quotes 7-8
"Action may not always bring happiness; but there is no happiness without action." -- Benjamin Disraeli
"Dream lofty dreams, and as you dream, so shall you become. Your vision is the promise of what you shall one day be; your ideal is the prophecy of what you shall at last unveil."--James Allen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motivational Quotes 9-10
"Our real problem is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow." -- Calvin Coolidge
"Learn how to be happy with what you have while you pursue all that you want." --Jim Rohn
"The rare individual who honestly satisfies this heart-hunger (praise) will hold people in the palm of his hand, and even the undertaker will be sorry when he dies." --Dale Carnegie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motivational Quotes 3-4
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor souls who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." --Theodore Roosevelt
"Winning is not everything. It's the only thing." --Vince Lombardi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For The Aspiring Netrepreneur... InfoPublishing
Build an online business based upon what you know
(from work experience, hobbies, passions, or past-times).
If you know your subject matter, and if you're motivated
to build a REAL business with growing, diversified revenues...
http://www.famous-motivational-quotes.com/infopublishing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motivational Quotes 5-6
"Don't let the fear of the time it will take to accomplish something stand in the way of your doing it. The time will pass anyway; we might just as well put that passing time to the best possible use." -- Earl Nightingale, speaker, author
"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." --Mark Twain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motivational Quotes 7-8
"Action may not always bring happiness; but there is no happiness without action." -- Benjamin Disraeli
"Dream lofty dreams, and as you dream, so shall you become. Your vision is the promise of what you shall one day be; your ideal is the prophecy of what you shall at last unveil."--James Allen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motivational Quotes 9-10
"Our real problem is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow." -- Calvin Coolidge
"Learn how to be happy with what you have while you pursue all that you want." --Jim Rohn
BPO gives US more jobs than India
BPO gives US more jobs than India
EconomicTimes.com[ WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2004 11:06:32 PM ]
Is outsourcing creating more jobs than it is destroying in the US ? It is difficult to know for sure.
Wall Street Journal's Jon E Hilsenrath has explained just such a scenario. Last year, when executives at Infineon Technologies AG had decided to eliminate 40 high-paying engineering jobs at its San Jose research facility and transfer the work to India , there was chaos. After all, people had lost their jobs.
But, interestingly at the same time, the company had hired 150 engineers in the US for different departments.
Here, one may say that not all people face the pinch of outsourcing. While some of the Infineon workers in San Jose are directly affected, some of them have also gained from the employment created by foreign investment in the US .
But, Infineon's global job dance certainly raises a fundamental question about the shift of US jobs abroad . How does one count the number of jobs that are gained or lost as companies shift their operations around the world? The answer to this question is, however, not very clear.
As one gets down to think on these lines, there are certain other queries that cross the mind. Is the US government actually keeping a track of the jobs that are outsourced to cheaper destinations? Or is it that the statistics available on outsourcing are sketchy?
And finally the most important point: Is outsourcing creating more jobs in the US than it is destroying?
Many economists estimate that roughly 100,000 high profile jobs migrate overseas each year. And the figure is likely to increase to 600,000 by the end of this decade.
Ravi Aron, a Wharton School professor, calculated the impact of offshore outsourcing and noted that about 440,000 high profile US jobs were lost as a result of outsourcing between the year 2000 and 2004.
Now the question arises as to whether the multinational companies have been able to churn out the same number of jobs that they have outsourced to cheaper destinations?
Let’s imagine for once, that the companies have been able to balance all the lost jobs by the creation of new jobs. Even then, for which posts have they signed up candidates? Are the firms hiring more number of entry-level candidates in order to cut down on costs? What about those employees who have lost the hi-tech jobs during the backlash?
EconomicTimes.com[ WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2004 11:06:32 PM ]
Is outsourcing creating more jobs than it is destroying in the US ? It is difficult to know for sure.
Wall Street Journal's Jon E Hilsenrath has explained just such a scenario. Last year, when executives at Infineon Technologies AG had decided to eliminate 40 high-paying engineering jobs at its San Jose research facility and transfer the work to India , there was chaos. After all, people had lost their jobs.
But, interestingly at the same time, the company had hired 150 engineers in the US for different departments.
Here, one may say that not all people face the pinch of outsourcing. While some of the Infineon workers in San Jose are directly affected, some of them have also gained from the employment created by foreign investment in the US .
But, Infineon's global job dance certainly raises a fundamental question about the shift of US jobs abroad . How does one count the number of jobs that are gained or lost as companies shift their operations around the world? The answer to this question is, however, not very clear.
As one gets down to think on these lines, there are certain other queries that cross the mind. Is the US government actually keeping a track of the jobs that are outsourced to cheaper destinations? Or is it that the statistics available on outsourcing are sketchy?
And finally the most important point: Is outsourcing creating more jobs in the US than it is destroying?
Many economists estimate that roughly 100,000 high profile jobs migrate overseas each year. And the figure is likely to increase to 600,000 by the end of this decade.
Ravi Aron, a Wharton School professor, calculated the impact of offshore outsourcing and noted that about 440,000 high profile US jobs were lost as a result of outsourcing between the year 2000 and 2004.
Now the question arises as to whether the multinational companies have been able to churn out the same number of jobs that they have outsourced to cheaper destinations?
Let’s imagine for once, that the companies have been able to balance all the lost jobs by the creation of new jobs. Even then, for which posts have they signed up candidates? Are the firms hiring more number of entry-level candidates in order to cut down on costs? What about those employees who have lost the hi-tech jobs during the backlash?
Outsourcing slowing new job creations
HOUSTON: Workforce reductions in the US technology sector, which fell to a three-year low in the first quarter, could be partly attributed to oustourcing which is slowing new job creation, according to a a new survey.
First-quarter job cuts in the high-tech sector -- which includes telecommunications, electronics, computer and e-commerce -- were 64 per cent lower than the 82,328 cuts announced in the previous quarter and 52 per cent lower than the first quarter of 2003 (61,032), according to the survey by Chicago-based Challenger, Gray and Christmas Inc.
"This may not mean that telecom is the weakest of the technology industries, but it is clearly the most volatile. While some areas in this industry are consolidating, others are expanding," said John Challenger, chief executive officer of the company said in a statement.
"Overall, technology job cuts appear to be waning, a trend which may temper some of the increasingly heated debate over the controversial practice of offshore outsourcing.
"However, while the latest survey data show that offshore outsourcing is not leading to a surge in job-cut announcements, one can still argue that it is slowing job creation in technology," he said.
According to the survey of Silicon Valley venture capital firms on employment trends, technology startups face difficulty getting off the ground if they don't outsource some company functions.
One company calculated the monthly cost of keeping one tech employee in Silicon Valley at $15,000; a worker with the same skills, responsibilities and job package would cost $2,500 a month in New Delhi .
That represents a savings of $12,500 every month or $150,000 per year. By sending 10 jobs to India , a startup can eliminate $1.5 million from its payroll, it noted.
First-quarter job cuts in the high-tech sector -- which includes telecommunications, electronics, computer and e-commerce -- were 64 per cent lower than the 82,328 cuts announced in the previous quarter and 52 per cent lower than the first quarter of 2003 (61,032), according to the survey by Chicago-based Challenger, Gray and Christmas Inc.
"This may not mean that telecom is the weakest of the technology industries, but it is clearly the most volatile. While some areas in this industry are consolidating, others are expanding," said John Challenger, chief executive officer of the company said in a statement.
"Overall, technology job cuts appear to be waning, a trend which may temper some of the increasingly heated debate over the controversial practice of offshore outsourcing.
"However, while the latest survey data show that offshore outsourcing is not leading to a surge in job-cut announcements, one can still argue that it is slowing job creation in technology," he said.
According to the survey of Silicon Valley venture capital firms on employment trends, technology startups face difficulty getting off the ground if they don't outsource some company functions.
One company calculated the monthly cost of keeping one tech employee in Silicon Valley at $15,000; a worker with the same skills, responsibilities and job package would cost $2,500 a month in New Delhi .
That represents a savings of $12,500 every month or $150,000 per year. By sending 10 jobs to India , a startup can eliminate $1.5 million from its payroll, it noted.
Media is a mixed blessingMedia is a mixed blessing
WHEN Hindus vandalise Muslim places of worship and plant small statues of Hanuman in each of these mosques, what does the media do - tell it like it is? In a State that is already burning? Star News and Aaj Tak decided not to show these Hulladia Hanumans as they were called, in Gujarat last month, even though neither news channel has much of a reputation for restraint. The Gujarat Samachar however saw no reason not to report this. On March 1, 2002 it carried a front-page box item, which said, "Reaction of Godhra in Ahmedabad. Several Mosques and Dargahs Ravaged - Hanuman Idol installed after destroying mosque at Paldi. The new idol is named Hulladia Hanuman."
Pictures of these Hanumans were not hard to come by in Ahmedabad. Vendors were hawking them in front of the District Magistrate and District Commissioner's offices. Yet how many of them did you see carried in the much-maligned metropolitan press? The Indian Express did carry one day a picture of one of these Hanumans planted on the razed remains of a mosque.
The more developed countries are much more evolved in the area of media ethics. Our media is still young, our regulations still in the pipeline. But while their ethical dilemmas are more conventional, ours defy imagination. Just pick a few examples from Gujarat. Should TV and print report that a foetus was ripped from its mother's womb and then burnt? Should they report that people were electrocuted in a room by avenging mobs? Should they carry pictures of bodies in wells?
So what do we do about media ethics when all hell is breaking loose?
Gujarat's leading newspapers did not tie themselves into knots asking the questions that the rest of the media has been torturing itself with since the violence broke out. They went right ahead and took the decisions that they thought would endear them to the popular mood. On February 28, Gujarat Samachar carried photographs of the dead on the Godhra platform and the burning bogies, above its masthead. Its banner headline below the masthead said (translated), "Most barbaric and shameful incident of the country at Godhra station". And below that, "60 roasted in the train". A box item enshrined Bal Thackeray's by-now famous quote about Hindus cowering like dogs with tails between their legs.
Its rival Sandesh, while matching the photographs and the banner, was more graphic. It said bodies of the burnt victims were glued to each other. The paper bristled with horror stories. Inside it said that two mutilated bodies of young girls had been found, something its rival, Samachar, denied the next day in a three-column story. Later the editor of Sandesh would tell the Editor's Guild team which went to Gujarat to look at the role of the media, that he had a paper to sell, and a rival to out-manoeuvre. His paper's circulation during the month of massacre was up by 150, 000, he is reported to have told them. The Guild team was shown a letter of congratulations sent by the Chief Minister to some Gujarati newspapers, for their coverage. And of course, none of those asked for his resignation as the press in the rest of the country did.
While on the subject of media and massacre, let's hark back not to the Gulf War, which is held to be the first milestone in live conflict reporting, but to Tiananmen Square in 1989 which was believed to be a watershed moment in defining different roles for television and print journalism. "Television became the raw `news' and print became the analysis and research-based reservoir of facts. While newspapers used to set the news agenda for both television and print, that was reversed by the live shots from Beijing." (Turmoil at Tiananmen. A study of U.S. press coverage of the Beijing Spring of 1989, The Joan Shorenstein Barone Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, Harvard University, 1992)
In retrospect, though some Pulitzers were won for the memorable coverage there, it was found to have suffered from biases, and endangered those whom it featured. It set a pro-student framework for the coverage: there was not enough objectivity about the students' movement, and the not-so-positive aspects of it. The technology outpaced the journalism, which created some serious problems. Lopsided access created lopsided coverage. The use of new technology allowed the inclusion of misleading or irrelevant materials, including unverified rumours that were hard to check and resist in the competitive pressure to provide something new. Some Chinese sources who appeared in news reports suddenly found themselves in danger. They were identified by authorities.
We suddenly have as much or more media than many a First World country. We do not have the financial or intellectual resources to monitor or research what that media does on an ongoing basis. Two organisations based in Delhi have begun to do this. But compared to the depth of research in some other countries, what we do here only scratches the surface of possibility. Meanwhile, because we need a Parliamentary majority in a fragmented polity to pass it, media regulation, on the anvil since 1997, simply does not come.
Television in India is young. Everything major that happens is a first: first war, first riot, first hijacking. Newspaper journalism is not young. The rules for it have been set time and again. That did not faze some of the regional press in Gujarat. The print media's provocative role is not new for this country, the Press Council was referring to it even back in 1968, which is when the All India Newspaper Editor's Conference came up with its code for coverage during communal riots.
Media ethics is an evolving field. In the U.S., the Radio-Television News Directors Association has a code of professional ethics and practices that was first evolved in 1946. But its current version, updated in the year 2000, reflects changes in broadcast journalism across half a century.
So far, going live has been an exciting tool for Indian channels. Now we need to look at safeguards others have put in place. The ease with which TV can go live can create problems. Safeguards for reporting in times of crisis, such as hostage taking, have to also be put in place. Television endangers lives, if you don't handle it with care in crisis situations. But equally, it saves lives when you wield its power against anti-social elements. People in Ahmedabad who were trying to get the State to intercede effectively in the mayhem, have said repeatedly since that the television coverage which irked the Government so much, saved lives.
Pictures of these Hanumans were not hard to come by in Ahmedabad. Vendors were hawking them in front of the District Magistrate and District Commissioner's offices. Yet how many of them did you see carried in the much-maligned metropolitan press? The Indian Express did carry one day a picture of one of these Hanumans planted on the razed remains of a mosque.
The more developed countries are much more evolved in the area of media ethics. Our media is still young, our regulations still in the pipeline. But while their ethical dilemmas are more conventional, ours defy imagination. Just pick a few examples from Gujarat. Should TV and print report that a foetus was ripped from its mother's womb and then burnt? Should they report that people were electrocuted in a room by avenging mobs? Should they carry pictures of bodies in wells?
So what do we do about media ethics when all hell is breaking loose?
Gujarat's leading newspapers did not tie themselves into knots asking the questions that the rest of the media has been torturing itself with since the violence broke out. They went right ahead and took the decisions that they thought would endear them to the popular mood. On February 28, Gujarat Samachar carried photographs of the dead on the Godhra platform and the burning bogies, above its masthead. Its banner headline below the masthead said (translated), "Most barbaric and shameful incident of the country at Godhra station". And below that, "60 roasted in the train". A box item enshrined Bal Thackeray's by-now famous quote about Hindus cowering like dogs with tails between their legs.
Its rival Sandesh, while matching the photographs and the banner, was more graphic. It said bodies of the burnt victims were glued to each other. The paper bristled with horror stories. Inside it said that two mutilated bodies of young girls had been found, something its rival, Samachar, denied the next day in a three-column story. Later the editor of Sandesh would tell the Editor's Guild team which went to Gujarat to look at the role of the media, that he had a paper to sell, and a rival to out-manoeuvre. His paper's circulation during the month of massacre was up by 150, 000, he is reported to have told them. The Guild team was shown a letter of congratulations sent by the Chief Minister to some Gujarati newspapers, for their coverage. And of course, none of those asked for his resignation as the press in the rest of the country did.
While on the subject of media and massacre, let's hark back not to the Gulf War, which is held to be the first milestone in live conflict reporting, but to Tiananmen Square in 1989 which was believed to be a watershed moment in defining different roles for television and print journalism. "Television became the raw `news' and print became the analysis and research-based reservoir of facts. While newspapers used to set the news agenda for both television and print, that was reversed by the live shots from Beijing." (Turmoil at Tiananmen. A study of U.S. press coverage of the Beijing Spring of 1989, The Joan Shorenstein Barone Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, Harvard University, 1992)
In retrospect, though some Pulitzers were won for the memorable coverage there, it was found to have suffered from biases, and endangered those whom it featured. It set a pro-student framework for the coverage: there was not enough objectivity about the students' movement, and the not-so-positive aspects of it. The technology outpaced the journalism, which created some serious problems. Lopsided access created lopsided coverage. The use of new technology allowed the inclusion of misleading or irrelevant materials, including unverified rumours that were hard to check and resist in the competitive pressure to provide something new. Some Chinese sources who appeared in news reports suddenly found themselves in danger. They were identified by authorities.
We suddenly have as much or more media than many a First World country. We do not have the financial or intellectual resources to monitor or research what that media does on an ongoing basis. Two organisations based in Delhi have begun to do this. But compared to the depth of research in some other countries, what we do here only scratches the surface of possibility. Meanwhile, because we need a Parliamentary majority in a fragmented polity to pass it, media regulation, on the anvil since 1997, simply does not come.
Television in India is young. Everything major that happens is a first: first war, first riot, first hijacking. Newspaper journalism is not young. The rules for it have been set time and again. That did not faze some of the regional press in Gujarat. The print media's provocative role is not new for this country, the Press Council was referring to it even back in 1968, which is when the All India Newspaper Editor's Conference came up with its code for coverage during communal riots.
Media ethics is an evolving field. In the U.S., the Radio-Television News Directors Association has a code of professional ethics and practices that was first evolved in 1946. But its current version, updated in the year 2000, reflects changes in broadcast journalism across half a century.
So far, going live has been an exciting tool for Indian channels. Now we need to look at safeguards others have put in place. The ease with which TV can go live can create problems. Safeguards for reporting in times of crisis, such as hostage taking, have to also be put in place. Television endangers lives, if you don't handle it with care in crisis situations. But equally, it saves lives when you wield its power against anti-social elements. People in Ahmedabad who were trying to get the State to intercede effectively in the mayhem, have said repeatedly since that the television coverage which irked the Government so much, saved lives.
Call centres in UK need to perk up
LONDON : Call centres in Britain must improve their image, according to a report published by Trade Secretary Patricia Hewitt.
The report warns that the trend towards outsourcing jobs overseas could be accelerated because countries such as India are overtaking Britain in IT skills.
The findings are included in the first comprehensive report on the call centre industry, entitled "The UK Contact Centre Industry: A Study". It was produced by independent consultants CM Insight and commissioned by the department of trade and industry.
The report predicts call centre jobs nationally would increase by 25 per cent over the next three years. But, it follows a wave of concern that jobs are being lost overseas, where wages are much lower.
The report states that the call centre industry now stands at "a critical point in its development".
Britain cannot compete with overseas locations on cost, so it must rely on a more highly skilled workforce, the report says.
But it warns: " India is able to supply a large number of qualified graduates for complex IT help desk functions. Indeed, in some areas, their expertise may exceed that which would be available to a UK-based call centre."
The report warns that the trend towards outsourcing jobs overseas could be accelerated because countries such as India are overtaking Britain in IT skills.
The findings are included in the first comprehensive report on the call centre industry, entitled "The UK Contact Centre Industry: A Study". It was produced by independent consultants CM Insight and commissioned by the department of trade and industry.
The report predicts call centre jobs nationally would increase by 25 per cent over the next three years. But, it follows a wave of concern that jobs are being lost overseas, where wages are much lower.
The report states that the call centre industry now stands at "a critical point in its development".
Britain cannot compete with overseas locations on cost, so it must rely on a more highly skilled workforce, the report says.
But it warns: " India is able to supply a large number of qualified graduates for complex IT help desk functions. Indeed, in some areas, their expertise may exceed that which would be available to a UK-based call centre."
US to outsource obesity to India
US to outsource obesity to India
ECONOMICTIMES.COM[ THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2004 10:57:23 PM ]
Tired with ranting at Indians for taking away their jobs and churning out jokes about outsourcing CEOs as well as the President, American wits are now busy sympathising with Indians for their outsourcing pains!
Can you imagine a situation where India is begging the US to stop outsourcing! No way, you say? And you are right. It is yet to happen, but up to their neck with outsourcing, Americans are busy dreaming up such scenarios.
"Outsourcing makes businesses more competitive, and we thought the influx of high-paying jobs was a good idea at first," says Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. " But the cost to our society has been enormous .
Starting with Indians acquiring American accents and studying their customs to work in call centres, apparently they are now turning into Americans themselves!
"These call centre and customer support workers have trained so hard to act American on the telephone that they have essentially become Americans," laments the Indian Prime Minister. "It is as if we suddenly had a huge influx of American immigrants. The cultural ramifications have been overwhelming."
What's more! The Americanised workers have been demanding reduced schedules which are closer to the typical 40-hour American work week. They have also fuelled a sharp rise in fast-food outlets and litigation. In short, they are now Americans.
And Americans are sure that this outsourcing of their lifestyle will be the ultimate Trojan Horse. Yes, with their jobs, the sedentary lifestyle and the flab are also getting outsourced.
The fat American wanting to outsource his flab to India is the next big thing and if Newsweek's Andy Borowitz is to be trusted, succeeding as well! To quote Borowitz, "The United States is rapidly outsourcing obesity to India and hopes to shed as many as three trillion pounds of unsightly cellulite annually, as announced by President George W Bush.”
The President says "that since most of the millions of jobs outsourced since he was elected President were extremely sedentary, those jobs are now making the people of India fat instead of us”.
Hoorah! Finally, a brownie point in favour of outsourcing! So after the American President feeling happy about offloading sedentary, fat-inducing jobs to Indians, we have the Indian Prime Minister crying hoarse about the loss of Indian cultural identity.
ECONOMICTIMES.COM[ THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2004 10:57:23 PM ]
Tired with ranting at Indians for taking away their jobs and churning out jokes about outsourcing CEOs as well as the President, American wits are now busy sympathising with Indians for their outsourcing pains!
Can you imagine a situation where India is begging the US to stop outsourcing! No way, you say? And you are right. It is yet to happen, but up to their neck with outsourcing, Americans are busy dreaming up such scenarios.
"Outsourcing makes businesses more competitive, and we thought the influx of high-paying jobs was a good idea at first," says Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. " But the cost to our society has been enormous .
Starting with Indians acquiring American accents and studying their customs to work in call centres, apparently they are now turning into Americans themselves!
"These call centre and customer support workers have trained so hard to act American on the telephone that they have essentially become Americans," laments the Indian Prime Minister. "It is as if we suddenly had a huge influx of American immigrants. The cultural ramifications have been overwhelming."
What's more! The Americanised workers have been demanding reduced schedules which are closer to the typical 40-hour American work week. They have also fuelled a sharp rise in fast-food outlets and litigation. In short, they are now Americans.
And Americans are sure that this outsourcing of their lifestyle will be the ultimate Trojan Horse. Yes, with their jobs, the sedentary lifestyle and the flab are also getting outsourced.
The fat American wanting to outsource his flab to India is the next big thing and if Newsweek's Andy Borowitz is to be trusted, succeeding as well! To quote Borowitz, "The United States is rapidly outsourcing obesity to India and hopes to shed as many as three trillion pounds of unsightly cellulite annually, as announced by President George W Bush.”
The President says "that since most of the millions of jobs outsourced since he was elected President were extremely sedentary, those jobs are now making the people of India fat instead of us”.
Hoorah! Finally, a brownie point in favour of outsourcing! So after the American President feeling happy about offloading sedentary, fat-inducing jobs to Indians, we have the Indian Prime Minister crying hoarse about the loss of Indian cultural identity.
BPO job
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ SATURDAY, MAY 08, 2004 11:21:05 PM ]
NEW DELHI: And now, BPO companies have found the perfect way to cope with the high attrition rate that had become a major headache: Hiring older employees on a part-time basis.
It has been touted as one of India's biggest success stories of recent times. And in keeping with its image, the BPO industry is growing, and growing fast.
A recent ICRA study suggests the size of the domestic market will touch $12 billion by 2006 and employ 400,000 people. But if the sector is reputed for its great job opportunities and good pay packets, it's also known for high attrition rate.
Companies like GE, Wipro-Spectramind, V-Customer and many others have been doing it for some time. Part-timers account for 15-20 per cent of the workforce, say experts.
Nasscom forecasts the ratio of part-timers and middle-aged employees to fresh-graduate full-timers in the BPO sector is likely to increase in the future.
"Companies are beginning to look beyond recruiting fresh graduates on a full-time basis at retired professionals and housewives on a part-time basis. The advantage is that they tend to prefer stable jobs and are less prone to 'job-hops' for a marginal increase in compensation. It also helps to considerably increase the base for recruitment," says Nasscom president Kiran Karnik.
According to Ganesh Kejriwal of Megamind, "With part-timers becoming popular, a broad range of people are now in circulation, which was not possible earlier."
So, you have students, aspiring artists and young professionals rubbing shoulders with housewives and retired defence officers.
What attracts the bunch is the shorter schedule - five hours most often - with ample free time to pursue other interests.
As Raja Varadarajan of Wipro Spectramind says, "It's a mutually beneficial arrangement for both the company and the employee." An arrangement, which is fast becoming popular
NEW DELHI: And now, BPO companies have found the perfect way to cope with the high attrition rate that had become a major headache: Hiring older employees on a part-time basis.
It has been touted as one of India's biggest success stories of recent times. And in keeping with its image, the BPO industry is growing, and growing fast.
A recent ICRA study suggests the size of the domestic market will touch $12 billion by 2006 and employ 400,000 people. But if the sector is reputed for its great job opportunities and good pay packets, it's also known for high attrition rate.
Companies like GE, Wipro-Spectramind, V-Customer and many others have been doing it for some time. Part-timers account for 15-20 per cent of the workforce, say experts.
Nasscom forecasts the ratio of part-timers and middle-aged employees to fresh-graduate full-timers in the BPO sector is likely to increase in the future.
"Companies are beginning to look beyond recruiting fresh graduates on a full-time basis at retired professionals and housewives on a part-time basis. The advantage is that they tend to prefer stable jobs and are less prone to 'job-hops' for a marginal increase in compensation. It also helps to considerably increase the base for recruitment," says Nasscom president Kiran Karnik.
According to Ganesh Kejriwal of Megamind, "With part-timers becoming popular, a broad range of people are now in circulation, which was not possible earlier."
So, you have students, aspiring artists and young professionals rubbing shoulders with housewives and retired defence officers.
What attracts the bunch is the shorter schedule - five hours most often - with ample free time to pursue other interests.
As Raja Varadarajan of Wipro Spectramind says, "It's a mutually beneficial arrangement for both the company and the employee." An arrangement, which is fast becoming popular
BPO job
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ SATURDAY, MAY 08, 2004 11:21:05 PM ]
NEW DELHI: And now, BPO companies have found the perfect way to cope with the high attrition rate that had become a major headache: Hiring older employees on a part-time basis.
It has been touted as one of India's biggest success stories of recent times. And in keeping with its image, the BPO industry is growing, and growing fast.
A recent ICRA study suggests the size of the domestic market will touch $12 billion by 2006 and employ 400,000 people. But if the sector is reputed for its great job opportunities and good pay packets, it's also known for high attrition rate.
Companies like GE, Wipro-Spectramind, V-Customer and many others have been doing it for some time. Part-timers account for 15-20 per cent of the workforce, say experts.
Nasscom forecasts the ratio of part-timers and middle-aged employees to fresh-graduate full-timers in the BPO sector is likely to increase in the future.
"Companies are beginning to look beyond recruiting fresh graduates on a full-time basis at retired professionals and housewives on a part-time basis. The advantage is that they tend to prefer stable jobs and are less prone to 'job-hops' for a marginal increase in compensation. It also helps to considerably increase the base for recruitment," says Nasscom president Kiran Karnik.
According to Ganesh Kejriwal of Megamind, "With part-timers becoming popular, a broad range of people are now in circulation, which was not possible earlier."
So, you have students, aspiring artists and young professionals rubbing shoulders with housewives and retired defence officers.
What attracts the bunch is the shorter schedule - five hours most often - with ample free time to pursue other interests.
As Raja Varadarajan of Wipro Spectramind says, "It's a mutually beneficial arrangement for both the company and the employee." An arrangement, which is fast becoming popular
NEW DELHI: And now, BPO companies have found the perfect way to cope with the high attrition rate that had become a major headache: Hiring older employees on a part-time basis.
It has been touted as one of India's biggest success stories of recent times. And in keeping with its image, the BPO industry is growing, and growing fast.
A recent ICRA study suggests the size of the domestic market will touch $12 billion by 2006 and employ 400,000 people. But if the sector is reputed for its great job opportunities and good pay packets, it's also known for high attrition rate.
Companies like GE, Wipro-Spectramind, V-Customer and many others have been doing it for some time. Part-timers account for 15-20 per cent of the workforce, say experts.
Nasscom forecasts the ratio of part-timers and middle-aged employees to fresh-graduate full-timers in the BPO sector is likely to increase in the future.
"Companies are beginning to look beyond recruiting fresh graduates on a full-time basis at retired professionals and housewives on a part-time basis. The advantage is that they tend to prefer stable jobs and are less prone to 'job-hops' for a marginal increase in compensation. It also helps to considerably increase the base for recruitment," says Nasscom president Kiran Karnik.
According to Ganesh Kejriwal of Megamind, "With part-timers becoming popular, a broad range of people are now in circulation, which was not possible earlier."
So, you have students, aspiring artists and young professionals rubbing shoulders with housewives and retired defence officers.
What attracts the bunch is the shorter schedule - five hours most often - with ample free time to pursue other interests.
As Raja Varadarajan of Wipro Spectramind says, "It's a mutually beneficial arrangement for both the company and the employee." An arrangement, which is fast becoming popular
Education and success-Is there a correlation
Education and success-Is there a correlation?
The following points could be discussed under this topic:
This is a topic which provides ample scope for dialectics. One can argue for and against it.One of the best examples is Bill Gates who went on to become the richest man in the world despite dropping out of hid education. Closer home we have the example of Dhirubhai Ambani. What a person learns and what he really wants to do has no correlation many a times. A person succeeds only if he likes what he does.The argument for education will be that , in practice, it is your marks and qualifications that opens doors for you.While one can become successful without education, education brings about a richness in one's life. One is able to appreciate many facets of life due to the extended knowledge that education provides. It opens a new window and provides a different perspective towards things, ability to distinguish between ethical and unethical, moral and amoral ....etc.......
The following points could be discussed under this topic:
This is a topic which provides ample scope for dialectics. One can argue for and against it.One of the best examples is Bill Gates who went on to become the richest man in the world despite dropping out of hid education. Closer home we have the example of Dhirubhai Ambani. What a person learns and what he really wants to do has no correlation many a times. A person succeeds only if he likes what he does.The argument for education will be that , in practice, it is your marks and qualifications that opens doors for you.While one can become successful without education, education brings about a richness in one's life. One is able to appreciate many facets of life due to the extended knowledge that education provides. It opens a new window and provides a different perspective towards things, ability to distinguish between ethical and unethical, moral and amoral ....etc.......
Globalisation versus nationalism
The stern travel advisory that foreign nations issued in June urging their citizens to leave India provokes a set of questions that should be debated against the context of globalisation and liberalisation.Do governments on account of their obligation to safeguard their citizens have overriding "rights" to expect compliance, in matters such as where, when and for what purposes, citizens should travel?Should MNCs subordinate their responsibility towards their host society, not to mention their shareholders, to comply with the directives of their parent government?Should the political risk assessments of foreign office functionaries be accepted as gospel notwithstanding the fact that most companies carry out their own sophisticated internal assessments?
I ask these questions not because I have any doubts about the motives for the June advisory. I can appreciate governments acting with prophylactic caution in anticipation of what could have become a logistical nightmare of large-scale evacuation had the border situation spiralled out of control.I ask these questions because, right or wrong, the advisory triggered reactions that tells us something important about the context in which MNCs and governments operate today. The CII, for instance, saw the advisory as a form of economic sanction; others as a component of a broader geopolitical plan to pressure India and Pakistan to de-escalate; yet others as simply a misreading of ground realities.The advice also put MNCs in an awkward situation. They had to decide whether to accept the advice and evacuate all expatriates notwithstanding possibly their own more optimistic assessment but risking thereby the disruption of operations and the erosion of carefully built up local relationships. Or to demur and then risk criticism from their embassy.They also had to consider the impact on staff morale. After all, if the situation was indeed dire enough to warrant immediate evacuation of foreigners then surely the security of local staff who after all are no less a part of the organisation also needed to be addressed.
This article cannot answer all of these questions but it can provide one backdrop against which I believe, the answers should be formulated.There will no doubt be other perspectives. The point is to ensure that in the event border tensions escalate again the resultant actions and reactions will be less divisive and preemptory.We live in a world today, which is in many respects truly global. This does not mean that the nation state and nationalism is dead; rather that there is now greater interaction amongst societies.There are a large number of issues in which governments and companies (not to mention NGOs and the public) have overlapping, though often conflicting, interests.Global terrorism, environment, narcotics , AIDS, are but a few such issues. The challenge for governments in this "new order" is to manage the tension between, the "germ of a universal consciousness" (to quote the scholar Raymond Aron) in the value of transnational cooperation and liberal open market norms on the one hand, and the continued pull of national self interest and "unilateralism" in decision making on the other. The travel advisory in June has highlighted this challenge. MNCs face a not too dissimilar set of challenges.
Globalisation and liberalisation has given them greater freedom of action and a greater say in policymaking in many countries.It has opened up new avenues for investment and growth and facilitated a "footloose" manufacturing and marketing strategy wherein components are often manufactured in one country, assembly is done in another and sales of the final product are made to a third.The challenge for companies is to run a multinational and multicultural operation that respects local, religious, cultural and national identities, but simultaneously, operates within well defined and agreed global principles.The challenge is compounded by the heightened expectations of the public regarding environmental and social performance. Companies that do not behave responsibly risk harsh reactions and possibly the withdrawal of their licence to operate and grow.Companies make a commitment to local relationships and wider community development not simply out of philanthropy.The call for the unilateral evacuation of expatriate staff without consideration of the impact on local stakeholders belied recognition of the complexity of the various commitments that globalisation entails.These arguments should not be unduly stretched. There is no denying that governments and companies must forewarn visitors against travel to potential trouble spots; nor that foreigners especially westerners are often the targets of random attacks; and that most people feel a heightened sense of insecurity in a foreign land.There is also no denying that globalisation has not altered the "enduring national nature of citizenship".
A primary driver behind the June advisory was domestic public opinion -- what if indeed one of their citizens got hurt? Equally, however, one must not deny that in this emergent "new order" the adoption of narrowly self interested policies have consequences, often unintended, that can reach well beyond the target audience.The June order has dealt the Indian tourist industry a severe blow and the Indian IT companies are scrambling to reassure their international clients of uninterrupted service.Notions of sovereignty predate the imperatives of globalisation. A clash is not therefore surprising. The question is whether, notwithstanding the conflicting constituencies of governments and industry, the consequences of such a clash can be contained.The tools of technology exist to share and scrutinise information and facilitate collaboration. Next time a border crisis occurs it should be deployed to bring together all concerned parties (CII, embassies, companies, NGOs) to ensure that at least each eschew the simplistic "unilateralism" of the status quo ante.
I ask these questions not because I have any doubts about the motives for the June advisory. I can appreciate governments acting with prophylactic caution in anticipation of what could have become a logistical nightmare of large-scale evacuation had the border situation spiralled out of control.I ask these questions because, right or wrong, the advisory triggered reactions that tells us something important about the context in which MNCs and governments operate today. The CII, for instance, saw the advisory as a form of economic sanction; others as a component of a broader geopolitical plan to pressure India and Pakistan to de-escalate; yet others as simply a misreading of ground realities.The advice also put MNCs in an awkward situation. They had to decide whether to accept the advice and evacuate all expatriates notwithstanding possibly their own more optimistic assessment but risking thereby the disruption of operations and the erosion of carefully built up local relationships. Or to demur and then risk criticism from their embassy.They also had to consider the impact on staff morale. After all, if the situation was indeed dire enough to warrant immediate evacuation of foreigners then surely the security of local staff who after all are no less a part of the organisation also needed to be addressed.
This article cannot answer all of these questions but it can provide one backdrop against which I believe, the answers should be formulated.There will no doubt be other perspectives. The point is to ensure that in the event border tensions escalate again the resultant actions and reactions will be less divisive and preemptory.We live in a world today, which is in many respects truly global. This does not mean that the nation state and nationalism is dead; rather that there is now greater interaction amongst societies.There are a large number of issues in which governments and companies (not to mention NGOs and the public) have overlapping, though often conflicting, interests.Global terrorism, environment, narcotics , AIDS, are but a few such issues. The challenge for governments in this "new order" is to manage the tension between, the "germ of a universal consciousness" (to quote the scholar Raymond Aron) in the value of transnational cooperation and liberal open market norms on the one hand, and the continued pull of national self interest and "unilateralism" in decision making on the other. The travel advisory in June has highlighted this challenge. MNCs face a not too dissimilar set of challenges.
Globalisation and liberalisation has given them greater freedom of action and a greater say in policymaking in many countries.It has opened up new avenues for investment and growth and facilitated a "footloose" manufacturing and marketing strategy wherein components are often manufactured in one country, assembly is done in another and sales of the final product are made to a third.The challenge for companies is to run a multinational and multicultural operation that respects local, religious, cultural and national identities, but simultaneously, operates within well defined and agreed global principles.The challenge is compounded by the heightened expectations of the public regarding environmental and social performance. Companies that do not behave responsibly risk harsh reactions and possibly the withdrawal of their licence to operate and grow.Companies make a commitment to local relationships and wider community development not simply out of philanthropy.The call for the unilateral evacuation of expatriate staff without consideration of the impact on local stakeholders belied recognition of the complexity of the various commitments that globalisation entails.These arguments should not be unduly stretched. There is no denying that governments and companies must forewarn visitors against travel to potential trouble spots; nor that foreigners especially westerners are often the targets of random attacks; and that most people feel a heightened sense of insecurity in a foreign land.There is also no denying that globalisation has not altered the "enduring national nature of citizenship".
A primary driver behind the June advisory was domestic public opinion -- what if indeed one of their citizens got hurt? Equally, however, one must not deny that in this emergent "new order" the adoption of narrowly self interested policies have consequences, often unintended, that can reach well beyond the target audience.The June order has dealt the Indian tourist industry a severe blow and the Indian IT companies are scrambling to reassure their international clients of uninterrupted service.Notions of sovereignty predate the imperatives of globalisation. A clash is not therefore surprising. The question is whether, notwithstanding the conflicting constituencies of governments and industry, the consequences of such a clash can be contained.The tools of technology exist to share and scrutinise information and facilitate collaboration. Next time a border crisis occurs it should be deployed to bring together all concerned parties (CII, embassies, companies, NGOs) to ensure that at least each eschew the simplistic "unilateralism" of the status quo ante.
Tangled Website
Mummy, do all fairy tales begin with 'Once upon a time...'? asks a daughter being tucked in and put to bed with a story. "No, dear", says the mother, wearily, having waited for hours for her husband to come home. "Some of them begin with "Sorry darling, I was held up in the office".
This cartoon story might have helped in the past to draw the chestnuts from the fire. But modern housewives see through excuses when the spouse attempts to pull the wool over her eyes. The Bible spoke of the seven deadly sins and what the price to be paid was. Now British marriage counselling firms, psychologists and sociologists have added on eighth deadly sin - the Internet, to the earlier list.
The poet did say "What a tangled web we weave/ When we first practise to deceive". Here the tangled web is the website surfed on the sly, the cyber-pornography sites revisited, and e-mail relationships which are built on sand. Britain's largest charitable marriage counselling organisation, Relate, with nearly 100,000 couples as members, has disclosed that their staff and psychologists have identified the Internet as a "relationship-breaker", posing the same kind of threat to harmonious domesticity and mutual trust, as long working hours did in the past.
Almost one in every 10 British couples was seeking 'virtual' companionship through Internet and the most vulnerable age group was 25 to 35. Voltaire did mention how ''man is born free, but everywhere, he is in chains".
The Internet chains have come on the wings of science and technology but are no less restrictive for all that.
Some obsessive web-surfers, cyber-pornography viewers and e-mail relationship seekers, have started referring to their time away from the Internet friend as 'widowhood' and 'widower-hood' - a sequel which the progenitor of Windows 95, and its sequels had not fully thought of.
The pitch is also queered, since Internet introductions provide easy and ready access to old school and college companions and hold promise of reviving old flames and rekindling adolescent romances.
Just as the ubiquitous cellphones have the potential of tearing down the walls of shyness, gender differences and privacy, the Internet has opened the floodgates of virtual companionship and enticing the many who were hitherto looking at these developments feeling "lonely in a crowd".
Some observers say that Boccacio's Decameron and Vatsyayana's Kama Sutra have come alive again in the 21st century.
This cartoon story might have helped in the past to draw the chestnuts from the fire. But modern housewives see through excuses when the spouse attempts to pull the wool over her eyes. The Bible spoke of the seven deadly sins and what the price to be paid was. Now British marriage counselling firms, psychologists and sociologists have added on eighth deadly sin - the Internet, to the earlier list.
The poet did say "What a tangled web we weave/ When we first practise to deceive". Here the tangled web is the website surfed on the sly, the cyber-pornography sites revisited, and e-mail relationships which are built on sand. Britain's largest charitable marriage counselling organisation, Relate, with nearly 100,000 couples as members, has disclosed that their staff and psychologists have identified the Internet as a "relationship-breaker", posing the same kind of threat to harmonious domesticity and mutual trust, as long working hours did in the past.
Almost one in every 10 British couples was seeking 'virtual' companionship through Internet and the most vulnerable age group was 25 to 35. Voltaire did mention how ''man is born free, but everywhere, he is in chains".
The Internet chains have come on the wings of science and technology but are no less restrictive for all that.
Some obsessive web-surfers, cyber-pornography viewers and e-mail relationship seekers, have started referring to their time away from the Internet friend as 'widowhood' and 'widower-hood' - a sequel which the progenitor of Windows 95, and its sequels had not fully thought of.
The pitch is also queered, since Internet introductions provide easy and ready access to old school and college companions and hold promise of reviving old flames and rekindling adolescent romances.
Just as the ubiquitous cellphones have the potential of tearing down the walls of shyness, gender differences and privacy, the Internet has opened the floodgates of virtual companionship and enticing the many who were hitherto looking at these developments feeling "lonely in a crowd".
Some observers say that Boccacio's Decameron and Vatsyayana's Kama Sutra have come alive again in the 21st century.
US uses BPO key to Indian market
US uses BPO key to Indian market
ECONOMICTIMES.COM[ WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2004 11:54:05 PM ]
As the US job market scene brightens up, the US government has gone on record saying that it is not against outsourcing of jobs to India and other countries, despite the outcry against it in certain sections of American society. Rather, it would like an opening of markets in India to provide more jobs to Americans.
Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca said that the administration led by George W Bush has made it clear that "we do not oppose outsourcing."
"What we would like to see in exchange," she said, "is an opening of markets in India and other countries, which in turn provide more jobs in the United States . That is the way the policy has been formulated."
Rocca was testifying on June 22 before the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the House International Relations Committee on 'US Policy Towards South Asia.' The Committee was chaired by Representative James Leach (Republican).
She denied that there was any " India-bashing " on the part of the Bush Administration with respect to outsourcing of jobs.
"If there was more opening of markets in India, it would also help the furore die down because it would- by its nature - increase a lot of jobs here and elsewhere as well," Rocca added.
The issue of outsourcing was raised during the question-answer session by the Delegate from American Samoa, Eni Faleomavaega (Democrat), who wanted to know about the US administration's position on it.
"What are we talking about in terms of jobs? I mean, these are American companies now doing business with Indian companies and, in reading reports of the media, it seems like there's a whole problem that we're outsourcing, to imply millions of jobs. Is this India-bashing fair?" he asked.
Rocca said: "I don't have the latest numbers at my fingertips, and certainly India's not the only country to which the US companies outsource jobs.
"I think the US Trade Representative has made it clear that we do not oppose outsourcing. What we would like to see in exchange is an opening of markets in India and other countries, which in turn will provide more jobs in the United States. That's sort of the way it's been formulated. But I don't think you've heard any India-bashing on the part of the administration with respect to outsourcing of jobs."
Republican Congressman Thomas Tancredo, who had repeatedly tried to limit the number of visas given to overseas professionals in the US, said, there was an explosion in the number of L1 category visas granted to foreign companies to bring professionals.
"Already there are somewhere near a million people here as a result of the widespread abuse of visas," he alleged.
"Many of the people are brought here saying that they are uniquely qualified but the real reason is that they would work for less. The Indian Government has agreed to the case," Tancredo said.
Rocca assured the Congressman that "our Consulate people are taking the visa fraud issue very, very seriously."
ECONOMICTIMES.COM[ WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2004 11:54:05 PM ]
As the US job market scene brightens up, the US government has gone on record saying that it is not against outsourcing of jobs to India and other countries, despite the outcry against it in certain sections of American society. Rather, it would like an opening of markets in India to provide more jobs to Americans.
Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca said that the administration led by George W Bush has made it clear that "we do not oppose outsourcing."
"What we would like to see in exchange," she said, "is an opening of markets in India and other countries, which in turn provide more jobs in the United States . That is the way the policy has been formulated."
Rocca was testifying on June 22 before the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the House International Relations Committee on 'US Policy Towards South Asia.' The Committee was chaired by Representative James Leach (Republican).
She denied that there was any " India-bashing " on the part of the Bush Administration with respect to outsourcing of jobs.
"If there was more opening of markets in India, it would also help the furore die down because it would- by its nature - increase a lot of jobs here and elsewhere as well," Rocca added.
The issue of outsourcing was raised during the question-answer session by the Delegate from American Samoa, Eni Faleomavaega (Democrat), who wanted to know about the US administration's position on it.
"What are we talking about in terms of jobs? I mean, these are American companies now doing business with Indian companies and, in reading reports of the media, it seems like there's a whole problem that we're outsourcing, to imply millions of jobs. Is this India-bashing fair?" he asked.
Rocca said: "I don't have the latest numbers at my fingertips, and certainly India's not the only country to which the US companies outsource jobs.
"I think the US Trade Representative has made it clear that we do not oppose outsourcing. What we would like to see in exchange is an opening of markets in India and other countries, which in turn will provide more jobs in the United States. That's sort of the way it's been formulated. But I don't think you've heard any India-bashing on the part of the administration with respect to outsourcing of jobs."
Republican Congressman Thomas Tancredo, who had repeatedly tried to limit the number of visas given to overseas professionals in the US, said, there was an explosion in the number of L1 category visas granted to foreign companies to bring professionals.
"Already there are somewhere near a million people here as a result of the widespread abuse of visas," he alleged.
"Many of the people are brought here saying that they are uniquely qualified but the real reason is that they would work for less. The Indian Government has agreed to the case," Tancredo said.
Rocca assured the Congressman that "our Consulate people are taking the visa fraud issue very, very seriously."
cloned human
The group which claimed the first birth of a cloned human last week has said a second such baby was born to a Dutch lesbian couple on Friday.
Brigitte Boisselier, Chief executive of the US-based Clonaid organisation told a French news agency the child, a girl, weighed 2.7 kilograms (six pounds), but would not specify in which country the natural birth had taken place.
Sceptical international scientists are still awaiting DNA proof that the first baby - a girl named Eve - is indeed an exact genetic match of her 31-year-old American mother.
US President George W Bush has called on Congress to outlaw human cloning while French President Jacques Chirac described the development as "criminal and contrary to human dignity".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Talking Point discussion has now closed. Thank you for your comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can understand the idea of being able to recreate organs and limbs for people, but believe cloning human life is very disturbing. Progression through science is all very well, but when dealing with a living being you have to draw the line somewhere. We have no right to play God and I can only see problems arising from this. Has anyone even stopped to question over the mental state of the cloned humans? They'll be ridiculed and in the limelight for life. And for no fault of their own.
Brad, UK
If human cloning is to be banned, will someone please tell me who/what is going to enforce this ban? I foresee a minefield of problems looming here!
Alan Hall, UK
The best thing we can opt for is to have our best minds at the forefront of research instead of letting a misguided sect take the reins
Niaal, Australia
How long will the scientific elite debate the issue while fanatics stumble blindly onto the world stage? Surely the best thing we can opt for is to have our best minds at the forefront of research instead of letting a misguided sect take the reins.
Niaal, Australia
I feel that human cloning should definitely be banned. What it is doing is upsetting the natural balance of nature. The original purpose of science and technology was to aid us in our pursuits of a better life for human kind but human cloning makes no sense whatever achieving this. Is our thirst for advancement in science worth forsaking our ethical beliefs? I hope not.
Grace, Singapore
Once collective human knowledge crosses a barrier, it is difficult to reverse it through social, political or religious constraints. How could an effective ban on cloning be defined and why should we do it? I wonder if many people who are vocal against cloning really understand the process, the results and potential benefits in treating genetic and congenital defects. Also wonder why we did not have this kind of a reaction against test tube babies, which is also an unnatural process.
Anuj Rikhye, Toronto, Canada
Our energies should go into managing cloning, not banning it
Michael, Canberra, Australia
The question is wrong. Human history has shown that one a technology is developed, it will be used. Our energies should go into managing cloning, not banning it.
Michael, Canberra, Australia
For all the moralistic bluster about human cloning, has anyone really considered what the legal status of the resultant children would be? If a person is a clone, will they be afforded full human rights? This is surely a dichotomy. If you give them human rights, then you tacitly condone the means by which they were conceived. If you withhold such rights, then you are saying that not all human are created equal, and you might as well scrap human rights altogether.
L Moran, New Zealand
I think human cloning is great. Glad science beat bad legislature. Genetic Research will allow us to save our own lives, and increase our own potential as human beings. Life will be longer, and happier. Also it opens many doors for more creative and imaginative thinking. No knowledge is inherently bad. Cloning is no more evil then a copper vein in a mine. It waits to be discovered and used by someone for better or for worse.
Matt Joyce, United States
My main objection to cloning is not the morality issue but that cloning is idiotic. The reason we have thrived as a species is that sexual reproduction is a more successful strategy than asexual reproduction because it mixes and matches genes. Cloning is voluntary asexual reproduction. In cloning, reproductively we're turning ourselves into amoeba. I don't think we'll ever have enough knowledge to consciously guide human development in the right direction. Even worse, the idea of cloning is built on a myth. Given that we are formed by both nature and nurture, another person with your genes is going to be you. It's an insane alliance of vanity, egoism and science.
Gary Pollard, Hong Kong
Where do we ban cloning - in our country or throughout the world? We can ban it where we live, but what about a country half way around the world? How do we force, or at least convince, them to ban it in their society? We cannot. Do we let them continue what we consider inhumane? It's for the world leaders to decide on an international platform.
Hamza Sheikh, Houston, TX, USA
How long is the US going to stop latest developments in the world? Like Napster was freedom of music and now it is dead - the same way now for cloning. Are we coming to the death of a civilization as when in earlier times, new inventions were banned? A definite loss for science and human race.
Vinay, NYC, USA
Just because we can doesn't mean we should. Look at the atomic bomb. Technology is great, but at what cost? We are eventually going to be the death of ourselves. And it will all be because we didn't know when to say no. I am all for medical innovations, and progress, but cloning humans, is just going too far.
TH, United States
Brigitte Boisselier, Chief executive of the US-based Clonaid organisation told a French news agency the child, a girl, weighed 2.7 kilograms (six pounds), but would not specify in which country the natural birth had taken place.
Sceptical international scientists are still awaiting DNA proof that the first baby - a girl named Eve - is indeed an exact genetic match of her 31-year-old American mother.
US President George W Bush has called on Congress to outlaw human cloning while French President Jacques Chirac described the development as "criminal and contrary to human dignity".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Talking Point discussion has now closed. Thank you for your comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can understand the idea of being able to recreate organs and limbs for people, but believe cloning human life is very disturbing. Progression through science is all very well, but when dealing with a living being you have to draw the line somewhere. We have no right to play God and I can only see problems arising from this. Has anyone even stopped to question over the mental state of the cloned humans? They'll be ridiculed and in the limelight for life. And for no fault of their own.
Brad, UK
If human cloning is to be banned, will someone please tell me who/what is going to enforce this ban? I foresee a minefield of problems looming here!
Alan Hall, UK
The best thing we can opt for is to have our best minds at the forefront of research instead of letting a misguided sect take the reins
Niaal, Australia
How long will the scientific elite debate the issue while fanatics stumble blindly onto the world stage? Surely the best thing we can opt for is to have our best minds at the forefront of research instead of letting a misguided sect take the reins.
Niaal, Australia
I feel that human cloning should definitely be banned. What it is doing is upsetting the natural balance of nature. The original purpose of science and technology was to aid us in our pursuits of a better life for human kind but human cloning makes no sense whatever achieving this. Is our thirst for advancement in science worth forsaking our ethical beliefs? I hope not.
Grace, Singapore
Once collective human knowledge crosses a barrier, it is difficult to reverse it through social, political or religious constraints. How could an effective ban on cloning be defined and why should we do it? I wonder if many people who are vocal against cloning really understand the process, the results and potential benefits in treating genetic and congenital defects. Also wonder why we did not have this kind of a reaction against test tube babies, which is also an unnatural process.
Anuj Rikhye, Toronto, Canada
Our energies should go into managing cloning, not banning it
Michael, Canberra, Australia
The question is wrong. Human history has shown that one a technology is developed, it will be used. Our energies should go into managing cloning, not banning it.
Michael, Canberra, Australia
For all the moralistic bluster about human cloning, has anyone really considered what the legal status of the resultant children would be? If a person is a clone, will they be afforded full human rights? This is surely a dichotomy. If you give them human rights, then you tacitly condone the means by which they were conceived. If you withhold such rights, then you are saying that not all human are created equal, and you might as well scrap human rights altogether.
L Moran, New Zealand
I think human cloning is great. Glad science beat bad legislature. Genetic Research will allow us to save our own lives, and increase our own potential as human beings. Life will be longer, and happier. Also it opens many doors for more creative and imaginative thinking. No knowledge is inherently bad. Cloning is no more evil then a copper vein in a mine. It waits to be discovered and used by someone for better or for worse.
Matt Joyce, United States
My main objection to cloning is not the morality issue but that cloning is idiotic. The reason we have thrived as a species is that sexual reproduction is a more successful strategy than asexual reproduction because it mixes and matches genes. Cloning is voluntary asexual reproduction. In cloning, reproductively we're turning ourselves into amoeba. I don't think we'll ever have enough knowledge to consciously guide human development in the right direction. Even worse, the idea of cloning is built on a myth. Given that we are formed by both nature and nurture, another person with your genes is going to be you. It's an insane alliance of vanity, egoism and science.
Gary Pollard, Hong Kong
Where do we ban cloning - in our country or throughout the world? We can ban it where we live, but what about a country half way around the world? How do we force, or at least convince, them to ban it in their society? We cannot. Do we let them continue what we consider inhumane? It's for the world leaders to decide on an international platform.
Hamza Sheikh, Houston, TX, USA
How long is the US going to stop latest developments in the world? Like Napster was freedom of music and now it is dead - the same way now for cloning. Are we coming to the death of a civilization as when in earlier times, new inventions were banned? A definite loss for science and human race.
Vinay, NYC, USA
Just because we can doesn't mean we should. Look at the atomic bomb. Technology is great, but at what cost? We are eventually going to be the death of ourselves. And it will all be because we didn't know when to say no. I am all for medical innovations, and progress, but cloning humans, is just going too far.
TH, United States
Is the patents bill good for India
Global pressure, coercion, ignorance, cowardice and conspiracy and not national interest are forcing India's Parliament to amend our exemplary Patents Act 1970 under threat from WTO and its TRIPS treaty.America's Super 301 places India on 'priority watch' threatening sanctions.
India has buckled supinely. Public debate was throttled. Signing WTO was deliberately not fully discussed in Parliament.Bills to implement TRIPS are being cascaded through on voice votes and minimum attention. The Joint Committee (1999-2001) ignored most suggestions and toed the line - with many legal stalwarts barely attending meetings. Parliament became Geneva's rubber stamp.The issues are simple. A patent is a monopoly which, in a free trade treaty is, itself a contradiction. But, we know that 60-90 % of patents are, and will be, owned by foreigners.
Why has India followed TRIPS to grant 20-year monopolies to foreigners through patents? The argument that research will stop without the incentive of luxurious returns is bogus.Research gets huge tax benefits. Good returns follow in 3-4 market years. India's sovereign Parliament could have declared a shorter patent of 5-10 years from the date of sealing.To protect public health, patents should be given only for molecules. Patented combinations can last forever. Researchers are troubled by issues relating to micro-organisms, genetic research and steps in basic research being patented.This will stifle basic research. Doha required stronger compulsory licensing provisions, fixed royalties of around 4 % and better public interest provisions enabling a modified licence of right as scheduled by the government for health, food and energy and research.Poor nations with ailing needs should be empowered to break corporate monopolies at will to meet their needs. The Parliament cannot mindlessly translate treaty into law.American law declares that its law will prevail over the WTO. India would have been better off telling WTO that its sovereign parliament does not accept certain provisions.It was cowardice not to do so. The promise of a possible third amendment is illusory. Yet, another ruse.
India has buckled supinely. Public debate was throttled. Signing WTO was deliberately not fully discussed in Parliament.Bills to implement TRIPS are being cascaded through on voice votes and minimum attention. The Joint Committee (1999-2001) ignored most suggestions and toed the line - with many legal stalwarts barely attending meetings. Parliament became Geneva's rubber stamp.The issues are simple. A patent is a monopoly which, in a free trade treaty is, itself a contradiction. But, we know that 60-90 % of patents are, and will be, owned by foreigners.
Why has India followed TRIPS to grant 20-year monopolies to foreigners through patents? The argument that research will stop without the incentive of luxurious returns is bogus.Research gets huge tax benefits. Good returns follow in 3-4 market years. India's sovereign Parliament could have declared a shorter patent of 5-10 years from the date of sealing.To protect public health, patents should be given only for molecules. Patented combinations can last forever. Researchers are troubled by issues relating to micro-organisms, genetic research and steps in basic research being patented.This will stifle basic research. Doha required stronger compulsory licensing provisions, fixed royalties of around 4 % and better public interest provisions enabling a modified licence of right as scheduled by the government for health, food and energy and research.Poor nations with ailing needs should be empowered to break corporate monopolies at will to meet their needs. The Parliament cannot mindlessly translate treaty into law.American law declares that its law will prevail over the WTO. India would have been better off telling WTO that its sovereign parliament does not accept certain provisions.It was cowardice not to do so. The promise of a possible third amendment is illusory. Yet, another ruse.
Kids today are not what they used to be
Kids today are not what they used to be
The following points could be discussed under this topic:
The environment in which kids grow today are different. kids today are exposed to different kinds of media like radio, television Internet etc. They learn many things quickly and mature faster.They have a lot of information in their access compared to before. There are a lot of negative influences too. Kids are more demanding. Also exposure to these media can cause negative effect on them.
From the education point of view, competition has become so fierce that it forces them to compete from the beginning. This leads to non inculcation of values like sharing and giving.
From the parents aspect, we have a scenario where both the parents are working and are able to buy the kids all materialistic things but are unable to spend time with them...etc...
The following points could be discussed under this topic:
The environment in which kids grow today are different. kids today are exposed to different kinds of media like radio, television Internet etc. They learn many things quickly and mature faster.They have a lot of information in their access compared to before. There are a lot of negative influences too. Kids are more demanding. Also exposure to these media can cause negative effect on them.
From the education point of view, competition has become so fierce that it forces them to compete from the beginning. This leads to non inculcation of values like sharing and giving.
From the parents aspect, we have a scenario where both the parents are working and are able to buy the kids all materialistic things but are unable to spend time with them...etc...
INDIAPAKISTAN NEPAL BHUTAN BANGLADESH SRI LANKA Terrorism Update LatestSouth AsiaPublicationIndia
INDIAPAKISTAN NEPAL BHUTAN BANGLADESH SRI LANKA Terrorism Update LatestSouth AsiaPublicationIndia > Documents > Acts & Ordinaces > The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 Assessments Backgrounder Bibliography Documents Data Sheets Timelines Terrorist GroupsAssessmentBibliographyDocumentsData SheetsTerrorist GroupsTimelineStates of IndiaAssessmentBackgrounderBibliographyDocumentsData SheetsTimelinesTerrorist GroupsAssessmentBibliographyDocumentsData SheetsTimelinesTerrorist GroupsAssessmentBackgrounderBibliographyDocumentsTimelinesAssessmentBackgrounderBibliographyDocumentsData SheetsTimelinesTerrorist GroupsAssessmentBibliographyDocumentsDatasheetsTimelinesTerrorist GroupsOverviewDocumentsFaultlinesKnights of FalsehoodGlobal Threat of TerrorStores South Asia Countries States Of India Terrorists Camps Afghanistan USA - Afghanistan Warmap
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 The Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, 2001The Unlawful Activities Act, 1967Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act, 1911The Criminal Law Amendment Bill, 1995The Religious Institution Ordinances, 1988The Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982The Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982The Armed Forces (Assan and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958(THE) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (PREVENTION) ACT, 1987Prime Minister’s Statement on July 2001 Indo-Pak summitPrime Minister’s Opening Statement during the July 14-16 SummitSTATEMENT BY DEFENCE AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER ON INDO-PAK SUMMITTerrorist
Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act 1984The National Security Act, 1980 Distributed Areas (Special Courts Act),1976 Scheme for Surrender-Cum-Rehabilitation of Militants in the North-East The SAARC Convention (Sippression of Terrorism) Act, 1993 List Papers
The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002
The Prevention of Terrorism Act, enacted on March 28, 2002, replaced the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) 2001. The Act has now come into force after the President of India gave his assent.
THE PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT, 2002
Act No. 15 of 2002
An Act to make provisions for the prevention of, and for dealing with, terrorist activities and for matters connected therewith.
Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 The Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, 2001The Unlawful Activities Act, 1967Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act, 1911The Criminal Law Amendment Bill, 1995The Religious Institution Ordinances, 1988The Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982The Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982The Armed Forces (Assan and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958(THE) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (PREVENTION) ACT, 1987Prime Minister’s Statement on July 2001 Indo-Pak summitPrime Minister’s Opening Statement during the July 14-16 SummitSTATEMENT BY DEFENCE AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER ON INDO-PAK SUMMITTerrorist
Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act 1984The National Security Act, 1980 Distributed Areas (Special Courts Act),1976 Scheme for Surrender-Cum-Rehabilitation of Militants in the North-East The SAARC Convention (Sippression of Terrorism) Act, 1993 List Papers
The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002
The Prevention of Terrorism Act, enacted on March 28, 2002, replaced the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance (POTO) 2001. The Act has now come into force after the President of India gave his assent.
THE PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT, 2002
Act No. 15 of 2002
An Act to make provisions for the prevention of, and for dealing with, terrorist activities and for matters connected therewith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)