Anger caused by violence is not new to India. Anger was felt during Partition, then during the three wars that the country fought with its neighbours in 1962, 1965 and 1971 and anger has been felt later in the numerous terrorist attacks that have killed and maimed thousands of our countrymen and women over the years.
Perhaps India has not been as angry as it is now, during and after the terrorist attacks in Mumbai on November 26 this year. The anger, maybe, is more visible now because of the proliferation of media houses and media reportage – television reportage in particular, offering us real-time and blow-by-blow accounts of all that happened. Anger is perhaps also more pronounced now as the elite class was hit along with a number of important and well-to-do overseas tourists and business people. Anger has brought change. Change in government, change in the way politicians are talking and acknowledging their mistakes, change in the seriousness with which we assess and view our internal security and change in the way citizens fearlessly express themselves on television and on the internet.
But anger needs to be controlled, it cannot be unbridled and it should not call for war. Because war we cannot afford, not earlier and more so now.
The dynamics of the world changed when terror attacked the
U.S. on September 11, 2001, and with the subsequent invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Allies became detractors and hatred knew no bounds. The Christian and Muslim worlds and peoples drifted further apart and emboldened fanatics to become even more ruthless and bloodier in their ways. September 11 gave U.S. militarists an opportunity of pursuing militaristic solutions rather than carefully exploring and patiently pursuing bi-lateral means and international community pressure, and the blundering of the U.S. confrontation in both countries lent misplaced credibility to Islamic extremists for their cause.
Today, wrongful actions of a few countries have led to chaos of frightful proportions. Iraq has been on the brink of civil war and Afghanistan and Pakistan have become the breeding grounds for terror groups of varied ideologies. Take the U.S. and Pakistan for instance. People they befriended, and used, to carry forward their own ideological wars with other nations have become enemies. The CIA mobilised Afghan tribal fighters to fight the Russians and the Taliban has turned against the U.S. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) supported terror groups to spread mayhem and violence in India and those groups have turned to create ethnic friction, fear and cause bloodshed in Pakistan as well. Incidents of suicide bombings are perhaps the highest in Pakistan after Iraq.
There may be relative peace in the developed geographies of the world because of better internal security measures. But there are tensions in those geographies which are developing because of weaker governments and internal security apparatuses and, more so, because of vested interests and myopic actions of the developed world.
The U.S. war on terror has made the geo-political scenario in South and Central Asia very fragile. Terror groups and their ideologies as well as terrorism have created an unprecedented negative interconnectedness among countries in South and Central Asia. Cross border terrorist bases and terror attacks have heightened suspicion and animosity among governments leading to constant finger-pointing. A terror attack on the embassy of one nation in another country immediately draws attention to the perpetrators’ origins in a third country. Instability can be quickened and enhanced with every wrong word or knee-jerked action by one country against another, giving terrorists new fodder to feed the minds of the thousands that they possess to carry out their perversions which they present as glorious causes.
India has to be careful and act responsibly in its reactions to the terror attacks in Mumbai vis-à-vis the findings of its investigations which have been reported as being planned by unscrupulous elements within Pakistan. Yes there is tremendous frustration in India with many people criticising the country’s passivity, over the years, in its approach with Pakistan. There are those who will also ask why we should be bothered about what is happening in Pakistan.
It is very obvious that there are elements in Pakistan, which include the ISI as well as leaders of terror groups, that want to bring friction into the closeness that was being forged between the two countries after the newly elected civilian government led by President Asif Zardari. The positive statements that were being made by him, in the HT leadership summit held in New Delhi some time ago, for instance, were a big departure from the vitriolic statements of Pakistani leaders in the past.
Zardari and his family, we should not forget, became victims of terror when his wife and mother of his children, Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated by a terror group in Pakistan. The democratic government of the country, which replaced General Musharraf’s regime, had a very challenging task from the day it took over. President Zardari is in a delicate situation. We could see that he is not entirely in control at the moment when he retracted his offer to send the ISI chief to India after the Mumbai attacks. While Zardari needs to show his nation that his government has its best interest in mind, he is faced with terror inside and near the borders of his country which he has to curb. He is obviously going to have to work very hard to reign in the army (and the ISI) and the fundamentalist religious factions.
Zardari faces a dilemma where he needs to keep the U.S. appeased because of the funding support that Pakistan receives to keep its economy functioning as well as the armament that its armed forces get, but at the same time has to contend with U.S. drone strikes within the country’s territory.
Democracy has always been evasive for Pakistan. Power has constantly been juggled between the political class and the army’s generals, and the interference by religious radicals has not made the situation any better.
However, after all the cycles of power, held sometimes by the army and at times by civilian rulers, it is certain that democracy and democratic ways will be the only answer to the country’s travails. What it needs at this hour is a strong statesman to bring credibility to the civilian government there, as also stability; a statesman who will be strong enough to bring in the rule of law and not pervert it for his (or his political party’s) vested interests.
Further instability in Pakistan will not only impact the country terribly but will drastically affect Afghanistan, India and surrounding countries as well. How? The mountains of Afghanistan are a safe haven for militant fundamentalists and despite the severe bombings during the initial days of the U.S. invasion and the on-going military campaigns by NATO forces, a sizeable number of militants remain. They have been causing terror within the country and have been a thorn for the Hamid Karzai-led government.
The U.S. needs Pakistan in its war on terror in Afghanistan but that war on terror has reached Pakistan’s geography affecting both the U.S. as well as the Zardari-led government. Not that the U.S. war on terror needs to be condoned. But until a better solution can be found, unfortunately, the fire that has been started by such a war will have to continue to be quenched militaristically.
Afghanistan’s disunity and warring ethnic and extremist factions are largely responsible for the abyss in which the country finds itself despite the strenuous efforts being made by President Karzai to keep his nation together and bring it stability and prosperity.
Does India and the rest of the world want another Afghanistan, in Pakistan, on its hands? The possibility of that happening is very real and something that needs to be uppermost in our minds if we do not want that to happen.
It is therefore in everyone’s interest that the democratic and economic position of Pakistan should be strong, that there should be stability and hence the civilian government will have to be given a chance.
War-mongering and war, if God forbid it takes place, will be detrimental in a situation where nations are presently reeling under either a recession or an economic slowdown. Economically, we cannot afford to have a war on our hands in this scenario and when people are even losing their jobs. There is no doubt that war does affect some sectors positively and offers employment, as we have read and heard so many times about the boost the U.S. armaments industries have received from the Gulf war onwards, but this does not justify war.
India has been forging ahead in signing free trade agreements with countries and trade blocs including one such agreement to be signed with the ASEAN. It is doing this with the mindset that lesser trade barriers will bring prosperity and healthy competition between economies and industries and positively impact the people of the signatory nations on the whole. In a war like situation, or war itself, trade and the efforts being made for enhancing trade will be severely hit. Sociologists constantly point out, as even those who study terrorism, that eventually the prosperity of people is critical to curtailing the making of terrorists. Revelations from the captured terrorist of the recent Mumbai terror attacks about his family’s modest background and penury is a pointer for the need to quickly eradicate poverty in countries like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and bridge the gap between the rich and the poor.
Having said all this it does not mean that India continue to be passive. India has already begun taking steps by putting on hold most of the forays it was making towards Pakistan through trade, the mobility of peoples of both countries and in sport. India will need to work closely and frenetically with the international community in getting the Pakistani government to act swiftly and ruthlessly not just for the sake of containing terrorist attacks in India but to safeguard the liberty, equality and fraternity of the Pakistani people.
Finally, it is easy for people who are within the comfort of their homes to talk about war however angry or passionate they may be about the attacks and destruction that took place in Mumbai. We should not forget that wars are not fought by us but by our armed forces which is comprised not by science fiction robots like those seen in Steven Spielberg’s movie, War of the Worlds, but by human beings who have families too.
If we feel so strongly of not becoming victims of repeated terror attacks or about the deaths and injuries of the hundreds in Mumbai, we should first focus on internalising and making our country and our apparatuses stronger than in externalising and calling for war and attacks on the soil of another nation.
We are currently living in what could be a defining moment for India, and believe it or not, for Pakistan as well, to lead to bring peace not only in their region but perhaps achieve what the Western world, led by the U.S., could not do.
Copyright © Taarun Dalaya
Friday, December 12, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
26th November Mumbai terror strikes re-affirms India’s urgent need for a Homeland Security Body and Strategy to combat terrorism
Nothing can convince me more, as I have been watching television reports on the terror strikes in the south of Mumbai and in some iconic buildings like the 1903-built Taj Hotel (some of whose domes are currently burning due to the grenades lobbed by the terrorists) over the last six hours, that India will continue to be at the mercy of terrorists in bloodier ways in the absence of an effective and efficient Homeland Security body and strategy along the lines of what the United States of America has put together.
As I write these thoughts, news reports say that 78 people have died and 200 have been injured in these attacks.
It is a matter of shame for India, given its history of terrorist attacks, and a matter of pride for the U.S., since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, that not a single attack has taken place nor has been successful in the U.S. because of the streamlined manner in which its Homeland Security Department was established and runs and the commendable way its other security bodies work in unison with the department.
The U.S.’s Homeland Security is defined as “a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur”.
The U.S., it appears, has put together three remarkable documents which obviously form the basis of its approach towards a concerted approach towards its national security namely: National strategy for homeland security, National security strategy of the United States of America and National strategy for combating terrorism.
It is totally perplexing that India, a nation which has perhaps faced the maximum number of terrorist strikes by any country in the world, has been dilly-dallying in strengthening its internal security machinery or not learning sooner from the U.S. on how it went about creating such a superb terror prevention structure to protect its people and its properties.
Why did it take so long, till about two months ago when prime minister Manmohan Singh visited the U.S., for India’s national security adviser to learn more about the U.S. Homeland Security Department? Why has India been so ineffective in combating terrorism within the country? These are questions we need to ask in order to learn and move forward.
Having said that, it does not mean that we need to emulate the U.S. totally or adopt its strategic documents word for word. But we urgently need to put strategies and a body together which is in consonance with our policies, democratic principles and, more importantly, our own security interests.
However as long as India continues with its notorious tenacity towards disunity, fractured political interests of political parties and politicians, unenergetic and unimaginative government officials, terrorists will strike harder and bloodier and more innocent lives and the lives of law enforcement personnel will be lost. What India will also continue to lose will be its reputation in the world to protect its people and gain concentrated spotlight towards its stupor.
As I write these thoughts, news reports say that 78 people have died and 200 have been injured in these attacks.
It is a matter of shame for India, given its history of terrorist attacks, and a matter of pride for the U.S., since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, that not a single attack has taken place nor has been successful in the U.S. because of the streamlined manner in which its Homeland Security Department was established and runs and the commendable way its other security bodies work in unison with the department.
The U.S.’s Homeland Security is defined as “a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur”.
The U.S., it appears, has put together three remarkable documents which obviously form the basis of its approach towards a concerted approach towards its national security namely: National strategy for homeland security, National security strategy of the United States of America and National strategy for combating terrorism.
It is totally perplexing that India, a nation which has perhaps faced the maximum number of terrorist strikes by any country in the world, has been dilly-dallying in strengthening its internal security machinery or not learning sooner from the U.S. on how it went about creating such a superb terror prevention structure to protect its people and its properties.
Why did it take so long, till about two months ago when prime minister Manmohan Singh visited the U.S., for India’s national security adviser to learn more about the U.S. Homeland Security Department? Why has India been so ineffective in combating terrorism within the country? These are questions we need to ask in order to learn and move forward.
Having said that, it does not mean that we need to emulate the U.S. totally or adopt its strategic documents word for word. But we urgently need to put strategies and a body together which is in consonance with our policies, democratic principles and, more importantly, our own security interests.
However as long as India continues with its notorious tenacity towards disunity, fractured political interests of political parties and politicians, unenergetic and unimaginative government officials, terrorists will strike harder and bloodier and more innocent lives and the lives of law enforcement personnel will be lost. What India will also continue to lose will be its reputation in the world to protect its people and gain concentrated spotlight towards its stupor.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Why Barack Obama must win
Prior to begin writing my thoughts on "Why Barack Obama must win" I decided to visit Senator Obama's website to learn more about him. I have not read much about him because I felt that after having watched him speaking and been spoken of on television I had already learnt enough about who he was and his thinking.
Initially I was going to title this post "Why Barack Obama will win" but changed the title because even till now, perhaps a few hours before the people of the United States vote, I still have remnants of some doubts of his winning because of some factors that I feel could go against him. Let me express one factor before I come back to the actual title of my post. Though the U.S. has very high levels of literacy I believe that there is a clear distinction between being literate and being educated. While most Americans are literate, I do not think the country shares the same level of education among its peoples as it does for their literacy. Hence the limited level of education of the many would continue to confuse a majority of Americans about whether Senator Obama is Arab or Muslim or both. This confusion would hence dictate their votes against him for there is a strong bias towards people of Christian origin or faith in the United States.
Coming back to my title of this post, after months of hearing and seeing Senator Obama on television, I realised that there is one strong distinction between Senator McCain and Obama. Senator Obama clearly stands out as a independent visionary whose mind has been clearly tempered by years of "careful thinking" rather than by circumstances or by thoughts which would be convenient to hold for success in a particular political situation or which are tainted by objectives of opportunism.
Hence this makes Senator Obama an original thinker who has the strength to think differently and away from "herd mentality". This is one trait which will also distinguish him from being the usual politician who presides over the polity of the United States to that of a statesman which the country direly needs.
The other characteristic that I discerned about Senator Obama is his capacity to look at a "larger picture" and not succumb to vested interest thinking. For instance, he could display the courage of initiating changes in the country's foreign policy which,though capable of being misunderstood within his country, could have the potential of correcting the alienation of his country in the world and the criticism it has earned for its divisive and janus-faced foreign policies.
Senator Obama's possible winning and leadership will take place at one of the worst times the world has seen: The world is seeing increasing levels of mistrust between the Muslim and Christian worlds and its resultant effect on militant Islam. Tensions between the Unites States and Iran and Russia could have adverse consequences and create further rifts between several nations. The country is reeling under one of its worst financial crisis primarily because of powerful mistakes that emanated within it and which have now snowballed to a global crisis.
If Senator Obama wins it will not just be on the merits of his strengths but because a "higher power" conspired for him to be at a position which could have a lasting and posivite impact on the world.
Initially I was going to title this post "Why Barack Obama will win" but changed the title because even till now, perhaps a few hours before the people of the United States vote, I still have remnants of some doubts of his winning because of some factors that I feel could go against him. Let me express one factor before I come back to the actual title of my post. Though the U.S. has very high levels of literacy I believe that there is a clear distinction between being literate and being educated. While most Americans are literate, I do not think the country shares the same level of education among its peoples as it does for their literacy. Hence the limited level of education of the many would continue to confuse a majority of Americans about whether Senator Obama is Arab or Muslim or both. This confusion would hence dictate their votes against him for there is a strong bias towards people of Christian origin or faith in the United States.
Coming back to my title of this post, after months of hearing and seeing Senator Obama on television, I realised that there is one strong distinction between Senator McCain and Obama. Senator Obama clearly stands out as a independent visionary whose mind has been clearly tempered by years of "careful thinking" rather than by circumstances or by thoughts which would be convenient to hold for success in a particular political situation or which are tainted by objectives of opportunism.
Hence this makes Senator Obama an original thinker who has the strength to think differently and away from "herd mentality". This is one trait which will also distinguish him from being the usual politician who presides over the polity of the United States to that of a statesman which the country direly needs.
The other characteristic that I discerned about Senator Obama is his capacity to look at a "larger picture" and not succumb to vested interest thinking. For instance, he could display the courage of initiating changes in the country's foreign policy which,though capable of being misunderstood within his country, could have the potential of correcting the alienation of his country in the world and the criticism it has earned for its divisive and janus-faced foreign policies.
Senator Obama's possible winning and leadership will take place at one of the worst times the world has seen: The world is seeing increasing levels of mistrust between the Muslim and Christian worlds and its resultant effect on militant Islam. Tensions between the Unites States and Iran and Russia could have adverse consequences and create further rifts between several nations. The country is reeling under one of its worst financial crisis primarily because of powerful mistakes that emanated within it and which have now snowballed to a global crisis.
If Senator Obama wins it will not just be on the merits of his strengths but because a "higher power" conspired for him to be at a position which could have a lasting and posivite impact on the world.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
My thoughts on the financial crisis
Dear Kuntal:
I apologise for this delayed response.
Thank you for thinking of me as important enough to ask me questions related to the crisis that we are seeing because of the financial related developments that have emanated out of the U.S.
I must admit that I am not astute in these matters but at the same time I have to say that I have been trying to read a lot of what is being written on how what happened in the U.S. has affected it, the world, including us.
I do not think that capital markets can run an economy. Capital markets are representative of capitalism which is good but, as we can now see, cannot be given too much liberty to do what it wants by lowering regulations to drastic levels. Secondly, regulators cannot say that they have been taken by surprise or that they did not have enough control. They are among the most intelligent people who know and understand money and they have enough powers to bring in policies which bring in control. I am saying this in the context of the U.S.
The U.S. seems to be attracting and doing more damage than doing good. It has been following the path of "excesses" and excesses are fuelled by greed. Being a wealthy nation and obviously having faith in methods which brought it that wealth also made its people and law providers go overboard. High standards of living, high wages, huge liberty to credit, easy finance to get more housing than one needs, slump in its manufacturing and services sectors, greater outsourcing, etc., etc., are all keywords that come to my mind when I think about what has happened.
The pillars of an economy I feel are manufacturing and the services sectors. How can nations keep these alive and vibrant in a scenario of great wealth is what I think as a great challenge.
There will be repurcussions on countries like India and China definitely and the signs of the effect I think are still early. However my calculation is that the crisis-ridden Western world is increasingly going to look at India and China for many things, and perhaps even at a greater amount of investments, for the simple reason that 1.2 and 1.3 billion people will have needs, needs will create a market and the market will provide for the needs.
Times however are going to be really tough in the Western world and will get tougher. Things are not going to be easy either in the emerging Asian economies.
The crux of what happened as well as the answers ahead can rest in two ideals is what I think: Greed is at the end of the day not good for anyone and for a nation. Second, one has to be very careful of the Means to an End.
These are some of my thoughts. I hope they make some sense!
Best wishes
Taarun Dalaya
I apologise for this delayed response.
Thank you for thinking of me as important enough to ask me questions related to the crisis that we are seeing because of the financial related developments that have emanated out of the U.S.
I must admit that I am not astute in these matters but at the same time I have to say that I have been trying to read a lot of what is being written on how what happened in the U.S. has affected it, the world, including us.
I do not think that capital markets can run an economy. Capital markets are representative of capitalism which is good but, as we can now see, cannot be given too much liberty to do what it wants by lowering regulations to drastic levels. Secondly, regulators cannot say that they have been taken by surprise or that they did not have enough control. They are among the most intelligent people who know and understand money and they have enough powers to bring in policies which bring in control. I am saying this in the context of the U.S.
The U.S. seems to be attracting and doing more damage than doing good. It has been following the path of "excesses" and excesses are fuelled by greed. Being a wealthy nation and obviously having faith in methods which brought it that wealth also made its people and law providers go overboard. High standards of living, high wages, huge liberty to credit, easy finance to get more housing than one needs, slump in its manufacturing and services sectors, greater outsourcing, etc., etc., are all keywords that come to my mind when I think about what has happened.
The pillars of an economy I feel are manufacturing and the services sectors. How can nations keep these alive and vibrant in a scenario of great wealth is what I think as a great challenge.
There will be repurcussions on countries like India and China definitely and the signs of the effect I think are still early. However my calculation is that the crisis-ridden Western world is increasingly going to look at India and China for many things, and perhaps even at a greater amount of investments, for the simple reason that 1.2 and 1.3 billion people will have needs, needs will create a market and the market will provide for the needs.
Times however are going to be really tough in the Western world and will get tougher. Things are not going to be easy either in the emerging Asian economies.
The crux of what happened as well as the answers ahead can rest in two ideals is what I think: Greed is at the end of the day not good for anyone and for a nation. Second, one has to be very careful of the Means to an End.
These are some of my thoughts. I hope they make some sense!
Best wishes
Taarun Dalaya
Saturday, August 23, 2008
My article predicted current TATA deadlock at Singur!
Craters in the big CAPEX rush
Since the past year reports of new investments announced in places like Uttaranchal and West Bengal have created much excitement for their state governments, the new investors comprising vehicle makers like Tata Motors, Bajaj Auto, TVS Motors, Ashok Leyland and many of their suppliers.
A growing domestic demand as well as the hope to enlarge exports have been the obvious reasons for enhancing capacities elsewhere as there is a limit to what a company can produce in one or a few places alone. These are the prime factors that have dictated multi-manufacturing locations in the country where we see a dotting of earlier vehicle making bases mainly in the north and south of India. With a vehicle parc of around 7 cars and 50 motorcycles per 1000 people and improved road infrastructure and networks that will push up the usage of commercial vehicles, there is huge potential in India for the vehicle manufacturing community.
However, like the IT sector, the automotive industry is in a business where product and technology life cycles are increasingly getting limited and hence companies in this business now have to work faster in product and technology development as they did, say a decade ago. They will need to do whatever it takes, to meet the “pull” from market forces, to survive.
No vehicle maker now has the luxury, like Bajaj Auto did in the past, for the consumer to wait for years till his booking fructified into final delivery of the vehicle. It was fine a decade plus when first-ever manufacturing sites or new capacity investments in industrial belts could wait for long periods to get the resources they required in terms of power, roads and more importantly in obtaining and training the manpower to run their new investments. In those days the consumer was necessary but not the king or queen. Today the consumer is king and queen and any delay to get what he or she desires in terms of a preference of mobility will deviate their minds to other choices in a matter of days if not a day.
The reality on the ground despite the excitement of the new CAPEX announcements is that locations like Pantnagar in Uttaranchal and Singur in West Bengal are not turning out to be cakewalks. While the former is not mired in political drama it will face tremendous hurdles especially in terms of manpower and the infrastructure required to house them near enterprises --despite the fact that resources such as power will not be a problem. The latter’s progress, no one could ever imagine in their worse nightmare, is being held up by a hunger strike of an opposing party leader!
The West Bengal government should have done its homework better especially in consensus building before it nose dived excitedly into alluring and giving Tata Motors the offer of land for its car project. At the same time one also wonders if the company did its own independent research or where it fell short if the research was done, before it said yes to the offer. Even if this issue gets sorted out it has no doubt been very embarrassing for both the West Bengal government and Tata Motors and taken off on a very bad foot. Bad publicity cannot be taken lightly and will have its consequences.
The fiscal and non-fiscal incentives offered by the Uttaranchal government are very enticing. These look good on paper and will transpire mostly on paper. But where are the requisite people who will be able to handle functions of engineering enterprises? TVS Motors, it is understood, has been clever in its strategy to do final assembly but what will happen to companies that plan to manufacture there?
Suppliers will face even tougher times. They have had no choice but to follow their customers and will have to ply them with parts under the usual axiom of keeping their costs and prices low. Input costs are said to be high in Uttaranchal. Those suppliers who opt for supplying products from their existing locations would have to dole out large sums on transportation. While it is easier for big vendors, who are cash rich, to invest in Uttaranchal, it will be the smaller ones that will have a more uphill task of catering to business interests. Entrepreneurs are already thinking of innovative ways. One such person said that he would have to initially manufacture sub-assemblies in his existing location and transport them for further value addition at his upcoming facility in the state. He would also have to engage in manpower rotation where skilled people would be shipped out to the state and new recruits would be sent to the existing base for training. How this innovative jugglery will work out remains to be seen.
Some vendors have blatantly refused to go to Uttaranchal saying that they already have enough challenges to deal with and do not want more while some companies are finding it difficult to convince their managers to locate there despite lucrative offerings.
Though CAPEX is inevitable to meet the growing demand for vehicles, proper planning and realistic homework is more important. Lessons learnt by companies in regions such as Gurgaon, where infrastructure is still a huge problem despite the large number of investments that have taken place and the MNC-owned BPO operations which have sprung up, should not be ignored.
One wonders how seriously state governments such as the one which runs Uttaranchal can be taken when despite having a sector like the automotive industry running there, with large-scale investments, does not mention the sector among the list of preferred industries on the website of its promoter the State Industrial Development Corporation of Uttaranchal Ltd!
(Published in June 2007 edition of Autocar Professional Magazine)
Since the past year reports of new investments announced in places like Uttaranchal and West Bengal have created much excitement for their state governments, the new investors comprising vehicle makers like Tata Motors, Bajaj Auto, TVS Motors, Ashok Leyland and many of their suppliers.
A growing domestic demand as well as the hope to enlarge exports have been the obvious reasons for enhancing capacities elsewhere as there is a limit to what a company can produce in one or a few places alone. These are the prime factors that have dictated multi-manufacturing locations in the country where we see a dotting of earlier vehicle making bases mainly in the north and south of India. With a vehicle parc of around 7 cars and 50 motorcycles per 1000 people and improved road infrastructure and networks that will push up the usage of commercial vehicles, there is huge potential in India for the vehicle manufacturing community.
However, like the IT sector, the automotive industry is in a business where product and technology life cycles are increasingly getting limited and hence companies in this business now have to work faster in product and technology development as they did, say a decade ago. They will need to do whatever it takes, to meet the “pull” from market forces, to survive.
No vehicle maker now has the luxury, like Bajaj Auto did in the past, for the consumer to wait for years till his booking fructified into final delivery of the vehicle. It was fine a decade plus when first-ever manufacturing sites or new capacity investments in industrial belts could wait for long periods to get the resources they required in terms of power, roads and more importantly in obtaining and training the manpower to run their new investments. In those days the consumer was necessary but not the king or queen. Today the consumer is king and queen and any delay to get what he or she desires in terms of a preference of mobility will deviate their minds to other choices in a matter of days if not a day.
The reality on the ground despite the excitement of the new CAPEX announcements is that locations like Pantnagar in Uttaranchal and Singur in West Bengal are not turning out to be cakewalks. While the former is not mired in political drama it will face tremendous hurdles especially in terms of manpower and the infrastructure required to house them near enterprises --despite the fact that resources such as power will not be a problem. The latter’s progress, no one could ever imagine in their worse nightmare, is being held up by a hunger strike of an opposing party leader!
The West Bengal government should have done its homework better especially in consensus building before it nose dived excitedly into alluring and giving Tata Motors the offer of land for its car project. At the same time one also wonders if the company did its own independent research or where it fell short if the research was done, before it said yes to the offer. Even if this issue gets sorted out it has no doubt been very embarrassing for both the West Bengal government and Tata Motors and taken off on a very bad foot. Bad publicity cannot be taken lightly and will have its consequences.
The fiscal and non-fiscal incentives offered by the Uttaranchal government are very enticing. These look good on paper and will transpire mostly on paper. But where are the requisite people who will be able to handle functions of engineering enterprises? TVS Motors, it is understood, has been clever in its strategy to do final assembly but what will happen to companies that plan to manufacture there?
Suppliers will face even tougher times. They have had no choice but to follow their customers and will have to ply them with parts under the usual axiom of keeping their costs and prices low. Input costs are said to be high in Uttaranchal. Those suppliers who opt for supplying products from their existing locations would have to dole out large sums on transportation. While it is easier for big vendors, who are cash rich, to invest in Uttaranchal, it will be the smaller ones that will have a more uphill task of catering to business interests. Entrepreneurs are already thinking of innovative ways. One such person said that he would have to initially manufacture sub-assemblies in his existing location and transport them for further value addition at his upcoming facility in the state. He would also have to engage in manpower rotation where skilled people would be shipped out to the state and new recruits would be sent to the existing base for training. How this innovative jugglery will work out remains to be seen.
Some vendors have blatantly refused to go to Uttaranchal saying that they already have enough challenges to deal with and do not want more while some companies are finding it difficult to convince their managers to locate there despite lucrative offerings.
Though CAPEX is inevitable to meet the growing demand for vehicles, proper planning and realistic homework is more important. Lessons learnt by companies in regions such as Gurgaon, where infrastructure is still a huge problem despite the large number of investments that have taken place and the MNC-owned BPO operations which have sprung up, should not be ignored.
One wonders how seriously state governments such as the one which runs Uttaranchal can be taken when despite having a sector like the automotive industry running there, with large-scale investments, does not mention the sector among the list of preferred industries on the website of its promoter the State Industrial Development Corporation of Uttaranchal Ltd!
(Published in June 2007 edition of Autocar Professional Magazine)
Friday, April 18, 2008
Bridging Inequality Is the Need of the Hour
Prof. Prahalad's (C.K.) view that entrepreneurship--not government handouts--is the key to development in India is indeed valid, keeping in mind that even after 60 years of independence and numerous experiments by the country's policymakers, a large part of India remains very poor.
Undoubtedly the encouragement to create a larger pool of entrepreneurs around India will lead to several benefits, the immediate one being employment generation. However, the need of the hour is not the creation of a larger pool of entrepreneurs but the bridging of a huge gap between the haves and the have-nots, which will only happen if India's existing employers and entrepreneurs changed their "feudalistic" attitude toward sharing wealth and profits with their employees.
Until the existing pool shows a change in its mind-set and most Indians inculcate a respect for labor, like people in developed nations, no amount of entrepreneurship will impact what I think is India's need of the hour: bridging its inequality gap.
(My comment posted on the Indiaknowledge@Wharton website on an article mentioning Prof. C.K. Prahlad's views on entrepreneurship in India.)
Undoubtedly the encouragement to create a larger pool of entrepreneurs around India will lead to several benefits, the immediate one being employment generation. However, the need of the hour is not the creation of a larger pool of entrepreneurs but the bridging of a huge gap between the haves and the have-nots, which will only happen if India's existing employers and entrepreneurs changed their "feudalistic" attitude toward sharing wealth and profits with their employees.
Until the existing pool shows a change in its mind-set and most Indians inculcate a respect for labor, like people in developed nations, no amount of entrepreneurship will impact what I think is India's need of the hour: bridging its inequality gap.
(My comment posted on the Indiaknowledge@Wharton website on an article mentioning Prof. C.K. Prahlad's views on entrepreneurship in India.)
Friday, March 14, 2008
Andrea Bocelli you are mankind's gift from God
The first time I heard you sing, Andrea, I knew you were a gift from God. Meant to uplift us all with your magical voice and music; you are my muse, the light when I am surrounded by obstacles and spells of darkness in my own creative pursuits. You are my sense of purpose. Through your music you encourage me to make a difference. I know your voice is the miracle which alleviates those stricken in body and in mind. The unifier of those who have distanced themselves from each other, buried in misunderstanding, conflict and despair. I know little of the kind of music in which you specialise and still you make me understand the feelings that you intend conveying, the depth with which you wish to touch our hearts and make us feel special, feel loved and feel our place in the universe along with you. I am blessed to be a part of your years as you are among life’s biggest blessings. You are the bridge between me and my creator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
