IT vs Rest of India - Part IV
Going by the response over the last couple of days to my post. I have to agree that most think are of the view that IT pros are doing a great job by earning precious foreign exchange for the country and contributing to the stock market boom.
So according to the support Senthil has garnered, lets decide it that IT industry is doing fine the way it is.
Maybe should be given more tax concessions. Free power will not hurt either. After all foreign exchange matters right?
I mentioned IT industry’s responsibility bcos this is one industry where the majority of the bright educated middle-class student brigade march in.
Ironically even Senthil agrees that something has to be done by the “government” for the rural people. Maybe as time goes on Senthil & co will think twice abt that too. After all, will not money “trickle” to the rural areas as well? It might take a little longer but sure it will. So what if all the agricultural land turns plots by that time. We can buy good quality imported rice with all our foreign exchange.
Anyone who tries to point holes in some suggestion will always be viewed as an intellectual. Thats India’s tradition.
Meanwhilethis article shows that the Tatas had actually plans to invest in these emerging sectors from TCS IPO. Pity they did not listen to Senthil and Co’s opinions.
Needless to say, this is exactly what i was talking about and obviosuly it was sweet news for me. Nothing to beat the Tatas.
July 27th, 2005 at 12:29 am
prabhu,
Please dont take it personal.Right now iam thinking on your opinion, what can IT industries do to the society, or how effectively can they contribute.Even though i disagree with most of the things that you said, still u have seeded a small thought in my mind, that’s what opinions do.So think about what others are saying and dont trash it completely.
coming back to your post i already told these things in my comments
“pharmacheutical and automobile industries now are doing good because of the growth driven by the IT industries.Infosys wants to build its own hotel.Wipro wants to diversify etc are all again due to the growth of IT”.So i never said a company should not diversify.
‘Putting all your eggs in one basket is foolish’ an old proverb and the mantra of successful buisness men. Diversification will happen and should happen, that’s how buisness is done.So the enormourous growth of one particular cell that you were talking about will spread .actually i told this one also in my previous comments.
“So to answer ur question it is not one cell that is growing, many cells are growing, but the growth area is very less compared to the total area.”
we talked about philanthrophy because u thought that is the solution for stopping the growing difference between people in IT sector and other sector.I just pointed out it is wrong.
Think in black and white.In Yes or No.
1)Asking someone who is earning a lot to compulsarily donate, so that the other person will also come up
is this capitalism ? Yes or No
is this communism/socialism? Yes or No
2)Why does all the companies in the world want to do business in US/china
Are they business friendly?Do they provide every infrastructure thing needed for the companies?
My point is putting all the blame on IT companies is completly wrong.They are doing things what they are good at, finding a project and completing it on time and making more money.
I understand your point that we as individuals have to do something.Again i think philanthrophy is not the way.Unless and until people are illetrate and ignorant there will always be poverty.Unless and until people stop finding escape for there problems through religion and entertainment, there will always be poverty.You are advocating the same thing that a temple pilgrim does,he finds this big happiness and a sense of accomplishing something by donating 2 rupees to the begger outside.Dont you think philanthrophy has been happening from the days of kings, without any success.Every rich country in the world is rich not because they are a philanthrophic society, but because they are a well informed and entrepreneurial society.
We have to see to that everybody is educated and everybody thinks outside the 5000 year old tradition of a non risk taking/ non entreuprenurial life style and install the wish to make money.In shot it has to come from every villager and every poor guy,and we should do something to facilitate them realise there potentials.Be it from the govt or from an individual.
July 27th, 2005 at 1:26 am
I also want to let u know that, i admire your genuine concerns for the problems plaguing our country.we both acknowledge the problems but our solutions differ.
July 27th, 2005 at 8:34 am
@senthil
The crux of what i had written was not philanthropy. when i write something, i have a broad outline of what i am gonna write and am fully aware of the questions its gonna raise.
if u think why IT cos alone are blamed.i did not blame them for country’s poor footing in other areas.
all i said was people with vision will channelise and should channelise these resources to the other sectors and thats my primary concern.
on the other hand if this sector is treated more like a cash cow, we might as a nation will get into trouble in the long run.
I put the onus on the kowledge industry cos i dont think ambanis and ketan parikhs are ethical enough to think on a broad scale. and i dont think the film stars broader visions either.
surely i dont equate narayanamurthy and film stars on the same plane.
i have made it amply clear in my posts and in comments section that investing for benefits in other sectors is what i am advocating for. i dont think wipro,infosys or for that matter any company starting a research institute is philanthrophy.
they too can gain from the resources trained there.
Polaris is starting a course in financial technology in joint venture with IFMR.its no philanthropy i can assure you.i am saying more of these should happen.
“It is time these Indian cash rich companies thought about the vast untapped skilled,capable human resources but lagging in qualification and training and other promising sectors in India.
”
i have quoted from what i have written in part 3.
For that matter “Narayana hrudyalaya” project is not just philanthrophy. its about common sense to the maximum benefit of the common man.
check out more here
http://www.hrudayalaya.com/Pages/IndiaToday.htm
I am not asking anything for free. be innovative is all i am asking for.
philanthropy was just one issue as a symbolic instance. not the principal issue.
most IT cos make sure they dont employ the admin and house keeping staff.
they outcourse them to other service providers. u have to see to believe the way they are being treated. that face is the ugly face of capitalism.
it was more like “if charitable institutes can make such a big difference why can’t money rich IT cos”.
I kept unscrupulous business men out of the question since i do not expect them to care for anything other than themselves, so i had to talk about IT cos.
i may be stupid but not that stupid to advocate philanthrophy to the whole of india.
if all my 4 parts on this issue gave u that impression , then i have to admit i am not good enough in communicating what i wanted to communicate.
July 27th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
why should free power be given to IT industry??
does other industries also get free power like Oil industries which are more essential for survival…
on an average every month a s/w company with more than 1000+ employees consume more 5laks unit of power…
July 27th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
@sathish
that was a sarcastic remark more than anything else.:)
July 28th, 2005 at 12:03 am
Hi Prabu,
Your sarcastic remark gives me impression that our/some views/ideas caused you distress, well if thats the case, then let me make it clear i don’t have any such intention or anything personal towards your views.
Well, Tatas decision hardly surprises me because even before they entered into IT sector, they have very well established in other sectors and more importantly this isn’t done due to some philanthropy(I’m saying this because i thought that this is what your contention is against until i had read your comments on part 3) but this is their well thought out strategy and this can be proved by their statement in the news item, here is the excerpt:
“Unlike the steel sector, telecommunications goes through a cycle of growth with potential to realise the return on investment. Though the slope of growth may not be steeper, there is no cycle of ups and downs as it does not depend on supply and demand.”
As i said even this wouldn’t bring uniformity in our wages among different sectors and doesn’t have major impact, or does it?. It only help select few as i argued and for rest it remains same. My solution is, as i always stated: FDIs, perhaps to get a better perspective this time, let us take china’s FDI statistics, they have accumulated $1.0966 trillion by December of 2004 and that amount is staggering compared to what our companies can do and imagine what can be achieved if we remove restrictions in FDI in all sectors, open our markets, implement labor reforms! This will bring comprehensive development to our all sectors than select few.
I’m bit short of time so couldn’t write in detail.
July 28th, 2005 at 12:27 am
@shuuro
surprising in all the 4 parts the one that really got stuck was philanthropy which covered a para in part 3.
just read all the 4 parts and the comments and tell me where i specifically mentioned philanthropy over business interests?
i clearly said capitalism with human face.
Tatas investing. i am asking why at all? if they are so happy with IT why the hell shud they go to other sectors. bcos they have a roadmap.
i read what u had marked. by the way does that page not have anything related to financial services, pharma,fin services?
shuuro, i am not saying all will be
equal overnight. but the steps have to be taken.
if Tatas invest in pharma, healthcare,education,insurance,financial services etc, more educated graduates will get employed in those sectors. this is a step to reduce the disparity. as more playwers enter those streams the disparity will come further down.
and with due respect to yr patience and knowledge and intelligence i do not believe in FDIs.
that is why i had left out even IT MNCS like CTS, Accenture,IBM, SAP out of the scene.
was enron deal a proper one?
was the rates quoted by enron to the SEBs reasonable?
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1904/19041020.htm
http://www.zmag.org/content/Economy/gumaenron.cfm
i dont think FDIs changing India shuuro.
its a different matter that we are restarting the same project. that is indian political leadership for u. And you wanted the govt to bring economic growth:)
July 28th, 2005 at 7:56 am
Anyway my point about tatas is misinterpreted or perhaps i didn’t make myself clear, sorry about that. What i meant is tatas are doing what is best for their group with well calculated strategy and this decision has nothing bearing to goodwill towards public to generate more jobs. Their group is very much diversified even before they entered into IT industry, they want to use their profits in IT into other sectors, this doesn’t remove disparities, where as it only helps select few and we need more companies to get into that sector as rightly suggested by you but for that to happen we need investment. Now tell me how many rich companies we have in India, which have touched billion dollar mark in profits? this is my point which i think you fail to understand!
Forget about Enron, their financial irregularities are well known but at the same time, tell me will you discard load of apples just because you got few rotten apples in it?. Why can’t you think about foreign direct investment in private sectors, there we wont have corrupt politicians right? Perhaps you agree with me that FDIs amount is staggering when compared to investments from our local companies? I guess you believe that it is more respectable to depend on local companies than foreign investment, right?
If this is the case then we know where we both disagree and agree!
” that is why i had left out even IT MNCS like CTS, Accenture,IBM, SAP out of the scene.”
Are you by any chance proponents of anti-globalization?