Can the north ever catch the south?
Topic started by Kiran (@ acb6db78.ipt.aol.com) on Thu Apr 11 17:20:01 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_15/b3778126.htm
Kiran Karnik, president of Nasscom, India's software industry association, was in Germany in March to drum up business for Indian info tech. It was shortly after riots had convulsed the northern Indian state of Gujarat, and Hindu zealots were threatening to touch off more violence by trying to build a temple where a mosque was torn down by rioters in Ayodhya 10 years earlier. The Germans all wanted to know the same thing: Was India going to blow up?
Karnik could understand their concern. In a 24-7 business like software and information-technology services, who wants to take a chance that a communal conflagration will disrupt business? But Karnik reassured his customers that the trouble had not affected the south, home to India's tech industry. "The south Indian states are more concerned with the economy," he said.
From afar, it sometimes seems as though all of India is in flames. But in fact, the world's second most populous nation increasingly is a country of two solitudes: the overpopulated and impoverished north, where religious tensions are giving foreign investors pause; and the go-go south, home to the majority of the nation's technical institutes, an educated workforce, and progressive legislators. The unrest is only deepening the national divide. For while New Delhi remains an island of investment in the north, states such as Maharashtra and Gujarat, once magnets for investment, are starting to lose ground to the south. Says Subir Gokarn, chief economist at Credit Rating Information Services of India Ltd. in New Delhi: "Informed foreign investors will look at India not as a whole but as islands of prosperity and poverty."
The growing divide between the four southern states--Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Kerala--and the rest of the country is prompting the south to become increasingly independent. Angry that the region's economic health has provided the central government with an excuse to limit federal funding, southern leaders are pushing for more decision-making power over education, employment, poverty alleviation, and infrastructure. "There can be no meaningful economic liberalization without decentralization," says Andhra Pradesh chief minister N. Chandrababu Naidu. There are even murmurs of secession. "Our India, with no Ayodhya temple talk, no Pakistan, no Delhi, no rabble-rousing politicians," muses an influential south Indian executive. "It's seditious, but what a delicious thought!"
Of course, no one seriously expects the nation to split in two. In fact, north and south have been regions apart for hundreds of years. Northern India endured a series of foreign invasions, and as a result developed a vibrant but confrontational culture. Southern India, far from New Delhi and bracketed on three sides by the Indian Ocean, instead developed strong commercial ties with foreigners. Moreover, the north's militant, caste-based brand of Hinduism is nothing like the south's peaceable faith, the product of 60 years of religious reforms that eroded the power of the caste system and separated church and state. In the south, says Kamala Ganesh, who teaches anthropology at the University of Bombay, "the political and religious divide has already taken place."
As a result, southern state governments can afford to be more pragmatic than their northern counterparts. Take chief minister Naidu. He travels the world with his laptop, selling investors on the virtues of his wired state. Locally, citizens can communicate with him through his Web site. Naidu and Karnataka chief minister S.M. Krishna have put a priority on liberalizing investment rules, cutting through red tape, and modernizing infrastructure. Naidu's hardball negotiations with New Delhi won him approval last year to operate international flights out of Hyderabad's airport. That means investors no longer have to travel through Bombay's chaotic facility. Both Hyderabad and Bangalore are building new airports.
Foreign investors have endorsed south India's rich business climate with their pocketbooks. Over the next three years, Lucent Technologies, Motorola, Texas Instruments, Cisco Systems, IBM, and Hewlett-Packard are all doubling their operations in Bangalore. "Bangalore was the natural choice for Cisco," says S. Devarajan, vice-president of Cisco's Indian global development center, the company's largest such facility outside the U.S. "The corridors of power are very clean here."
For its part, Tamil Nadu has managed to lure half of India's auto industry. Among the main players: Ford Motor Co. and Hyundai Motor India Co. Hyundai opened a $615 million plant there in 1998 to take advantage of the state's well-educated labor force, sophisticated infrastructure, and proximity to the modern Madras port. Hyundai India's president, B.V.R. Subbu, recalls being pleasantly surprised when a water line for the plant was in place four days ahead of schedule. "The local government is very responsive," says Subbu. "North and south are attitudinally different."
Moreover, the violence in the north is forcing existing foreign and domestic investors in India to start hedging their bets--all to the south's benefit. HSBC Holdings PLC has postponed its plans to open a branch in Baroda, Gujarat. "Political and economic stability is what companies look at when making investments," says Zarir Cama, chief executive of HSBC India. "Governments that espouse that, strongly and sincerely, win." The bank, which has been rapidly building up back-office operations in India, will now focus on southern India, creating 5,000 new jobs for the region by 2004. The World Bank has its India head office in New Delhi, but its back-office operations in Madras, the capital of Tamil Nadu. And General Electric Co., which has four call centers in and around Delhi, has expanded southward, attracted by the talent in Bangalore, where it is building its only research-and-development center outside the U.S., and to Hyderabad, where its new accounting back office is based.
The south's growing critical mass is giving it extra clout in the capital. In fact, the man who launched India's economic reform program in 1991 was India's first southern Prime Minister, P. V. Narasimha Rao. Subsequent coalition governments have found key supporters among southern regional parties. These, especially Naidu's Telegu Desam party, have not hesitated to use their influence. As a religious moderate, Naidu has shown his displeasure with the Hindu nationalism of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. After the Gujarat riots in February, Naidu refused to send his representative to New Delhi, and says his continued support is dependent on the government adhering to a secular line. In early March, when the fight over the temple in Ayodhya nearly turned ugly, the southern leadership sent the respected religious leader, the Shankaracharya of Kanchi, to help find a peaceful solution. His presence was a pointed reminder to the BJP that the south represents 180 million Hindus who prefer to co-exist with other faiths.
Such progressive thinking has caught the attention of northerners who yearn for the south's prosperity, tech industry, and peaceful way of life. Even the chief minister of the communist-run state of Bengal is talking about making it the "IT capital of India." Clearly, in the future the central government will be under increasing pressure to make sure that the southern model of a modern India spreads to the rest of the country.
By Manjeet Kripalani in Bombay
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_15/b3778126.htm
Responses:
- Old responses
- From: Ashok (@ 12-226-20-115.client.attbi.com)
on: Tue Aug 20 19:00:13
>>I have no immediate plans to move to India, as I have two kids, both in full education and until they complete their education, I may have to stay. <<
Thats really unfortunate, we loose another person who could have helped india in a positive way!!! :(((((
- From: Indian (@ hor186074.uea.ac.uk)
on: Tue Aug 20 21:13:03
Rohit,
>> I have read many of your posts in several other threads and I have great admiration for your "Indianism". <<
Thank you.
I appreciate your concerns and a search for real solution.
>> that way it may save an individual from rating oneself on the intelligence scale that often. <<
True. Growth of Nation is indeed an essential factor. But, many argue that the countries in middle east are faring well just because of their natual resources.
>>I believe intelligence has more to do with cultural and environmental factors rather than the biological factors. <<
What are the best ways to improve one's intellectual ability ?
- From: Ashok (@ nat-52.laurelnetworks.com)
on: Wed Aug 21 13:36:35
Indian,
If you are really interested in some of these areas I dont know if you have heard about sristi. They are a good organization to help out in some of the critical things that we are talking about. the other organization is called AID (ASSoc. for india's development) you might have a chapter near you.
check their site out
http://www.sristi.org
http://www.aidindia.org
- From: Rohit (@ webcacheh01a.cache.pol.co.uk)
on: Wed Aug 21 15:34:50
Ashok,
>> “Isn’t it better to find out what lead him to the “evil”
Don’t you think these arguments go round circles? By the same token, please explain me, what leads our politicians and leaders to “corruption” and “selfishness”?
Indian,
You have earlier tried to point out about the different types of intelligence. There are two known phases of intelligence, namely “fluid intelligence” and “crystallised intelligence” and every human goes through these two phases as one grows older; but there is no such thing as “intelligence in the right direction” and “cunning intelligence”. There is variation in intelligence among the people in the same age group, and it is this variation which leads to the difference in performance and behaviour from one person to another.
Please note that in this particular instance, behaviour is meant as the “means” (with or without virtue) to reach the “ends” (what ever that may be).
- From: Indian (@ hor186074.uea.ac.uk)
on: Wed Aug 21 17:36:20
Ash,
Thanks for the sites. I know about those organisations, but was unable to recognise their importance.
Rohit,
>> Please note that in this particular instance, behaviour is meant as the “means” (with or without virtue) to reach the “ends” (what ever that may be). <<
Your above statement has answered many questions.
It reminded me of a sloka in bhagavadgita.
doore'na hy avaram karma buddh'i-yogaadh dh'ananjaya |
buddh'au saranam annnviccha kr.panaah phala -hethavah: || -II-49 || Chapter II -49
O' Arjuna mere action performed with attachment is inferior to action performed
with mind poised in evenness. Seek shelter in this state of unperturbed evenness
in a desireless mind. Those who work for selfish gains are indeed pitiable.
Many Thanks for a nice discussion.
- From: Ashok (@ nat-52.laurelnetworks.com)
on: Thu Aug 22 11:44:39
>>Don’t you think these arguments go round circles?<<
Seems So.... ;)
>>By the same token, please explain me, what leads our politicians and leaders to “corruption” and “selfishness”?<<
Maybe they have lost faith in the system. Maybe they think that they cant do anything and since they cannot do anything atleast they might as well stel? I am not sure. Maybe they are irresponsible, however we do have to figure of why they do this and how it can be prevented by the system and keep such a system in place right? I mean maybe automate lot of the processes to that these guys have less of a chance to be "selfish" but by just saying taht they are irresponsible are we solviong anything? I mean saying that something is "irresponsible" and nto tryint to solve the problem is like newton saying the "apple just fell from the tree" and not going on with the analysis why? ROhit I have another question, is there any conflicting books which have disagreed with such a "rudimentary" (:-)))))) conclusion?
- From: Rohit (@ webcachem06b.cache.pol.co.uk)
on: Thu Aug 22 20:19:46
Indian,
>> “Many Thanks for a nice discussion.”
It was a pleasure having a discussion with you. Thank you for expressing your refreshing views.
Ashok,
>> “Maybe they have lost faith in the system.”
Who created the system? Why don’t they change it and make it functional? You want to change it why don’t they?
>> “Maybe they think that they cant do anything and since they cannot do anything atleast they might as well stel?”
Why can’t they do anything nice? When they have the power and if they feel that helpless, what extra have you, others and I got to change it?
>>Maybe they are irresponsible, however we do have to figure of why they do this and how it can be prevented by the system and keep such a system in place right?”
I have no doubts; they are irresponsible, corrupt and mindless. We don’t have sound correcting mechanism; people in power are not made accountable for their misdeeds, bad administration and mismanagement. Who is responsible for that drop and why?
>> “I mean maybe automate lot of the processes to that these guys have less of a chance to be "selfish" but by just saying taht they are irresponsible are we solviong anything?
If people are committing such actions because no one is checking on them or there is no mechanism to track their breaches and you see the automation as the solution; then what happened in the cases of Enron, Worldcom and such other big US companies? Wipro just announced “an error” in their profit calculations. I believe automation needs human input to perform the pre-programmed tasks; if the input data itself is manipulated; how a machine is going to rectify the unreliability in the data?
No, it wont solve anything just by saying, “they are irresponsible”, but it will point to the root of that behaviour and that may prompt you to rectify the actual cause first, before you can expect any positive outcome. Social factors, good or bad, are the creations of society, they don’t just exist, while irresponsibility, lack of intelligence, mismanagement, corruption, mishandling, lack of foresight, prudence, judgement, decision and such like abstract terms explain the mentality or the psyche of the people from which certain kind of behaviour stems, which in turn plays a crucial role in shaping the society. The question that we are trying to answer is; what is the origin of the problem? Is it society itself or peoples’ mentality, which shapes the society? Yes, it is understandable that existing social factors do influence human behaviour, but they are not the root cause of the problem, the real problem is the mentality of the people, which creates the paradox, further modifying peoples’ behaviour. Had people, through their good sense, formed a good civilised society, then it would enhance people’s behaviour accordingly and this is where a decent social environment becomes important. One can see how the whole social structure behaves like a closed loop system, where the initial input is expected from the people.
>> “I mean saying that something is "irresponsible" and nto tryint to solve the problem is like newton saying the "apple just fell from the tree" and not going on with the analysis why?”
If, irresponsibility, lack of intelligence or such human inability is not the real problem, then, first we must define the “real” problem, analyse it and then try to solve it; please explain me what is the “real” problem and what are we trying to analyse and then solve?
>> “ROhit I have another question, is there any conflicting books which have disagreed with such a "rudimentary" (:-)))))) conclusion?”
As it is always the case with most views, there are critics who disagree with the explanation. As I have said, I have drawn the same conclusion from my own observations and analysis before I read the book and any opposing views seemed to me as an attempt to find an escape route from these humiliating results. I have not read any book on psychology (I have a good collection of books on psychology, some 10 books) that places “concrete operations” higher than “abstract operations” in the stages of human intellectual development. However, regarding that particular study, it is up to individual to decide which explanation is more rational and most conceivable in the given context. I can understand your refusal or shall I say denial, but there is a sound base in that conclusion. Try broadening your reading in that field and see if you can find out both a favourable and credible explanation.
- From: Ashok (@ nat-52.laurelnetworks.com)
on: Fri Aug 23 11:03:13
Thanks rohit!
Well I agree with you on most of the counts except for this one....
"I have not read any book on psychology (I have a good collection of books on psychology, some 10 books) that places “concrete operations” higher than “abstract operations” in the stages of human intellectual development. "
about the definition of concrete and abstract. Oh well I guess I have to read a bit more on psychology, maybe then I would understand. But thanks for a wonderful conversation.
Tell your friend about this topic
Want to post a response?
Back to the Forum