In my blog of July 4th I referred to a op-ed column highlighting the fact that if Elena Kagan was nominated, the Supreme Court bench of the United States would consist of six Catholics and three Jews. What it did not mention was that it also had Hispanics and blacks, perhaps proving the point, at least in the United States, race was becoming less of an issue, but religion still is.
Interestingly enough,this is also true in the higher echelons of the Christian Church hierarchy as the number of Catholics, and non – Catholic Christian denominations in Africa and other emerging markets gradually start to outnumber those in the West. You are now beginning to see the diversity of races in the College of Cardinals at the Vatican and it is a matter of time before you have a black or brown Pope.
I do not claim to be well read or very knowledgeable about religion, but from a layman’s perspective , apart from Hinduism & Buddhism, the three other major religions Judaism, Christianity ,and Islam classified as Abrahamic, are all monotheistic, the belief that there is one God or Supreme Being. Yet preachers from the later two religion over the centuries have chosen to convince their flock that the path they preach is the only right path and all other roads lead to hell and perdition.
The Indians brought Hinduism and Buddhism to Asia, the Arab traders, the Mongol invaders, the Turks brought Islam to Asia, India and parts of Europe. The Europeans brought Christianity to most parts of the world as conquerors.
An observation worth noting is that while Christianity and Islam seem to have followers among all races, white, black, brown and yellow, the religions which originated from the East, Hinduism and Buddhism tend to be predominantly among the Asians (brown or yellow) – expect for a relatively small number of people in the West who have adopted Buddhism or Hinduism. Why is that the case?
The answer perhaps is that the diversity resulted from the forced conversion by the Christian and Muslim adventurers / invaders whether they were in Asia, the America’s or elsewhere. The adventurers were followed by the priests or where the rulers were religious insisted on the segments of the population being converted whether it was the Mongols (or Moghuls as they got to be known) in the sub-continent, the Spaniards or the Portuguese in South America and the British and the various European colonial rulers in Africa and the rest of the world. The religions from the East did not insist on forced conversion.
The Europeans brought Christianity to the countries which they colonized. They built huge edifices in the form of Cathedrals and Churches wherever they went. The migrants to the West are now bringing their religion deep into the European cities and instead of forcible conversion which happened in the past, there is no such attempt, yet when ever a new temple or mosque is built in the cities in the West, it causes unease. But with the minorities gradually increasing in numbers this too shall pass.
After all at one stage even in the United States, Catholics and Jews were treated with unease. Now the above mentioned headline from the New York Times says it all.
It is a matter of time; this will be true for Hindu's, Buddhist's and Muslims. In case anyone has forgotten, President John F. Kennedy was the first Catholic President of the United States of America, elected in 1961, almost 175 years after America gained its independence. This despite the opening lines of its Constitution reading We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.
Obviously things have changed since then. In two of its most conservative states, Americans have elected (one already a Governor, the other potentially could be) two people whose parents were of Punjabi origin, but who converted to Christianity at an early stage, then hopefully the time is not too far away when the United States will again lead the way by electing a President who is a Jew, Hindu or Muslim.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Wine - The New Conspicous Consumption Item
Upfront disclosure - my palate cannot differentiate between a $2000 bottle of Lafite Rothschild or any other Bordeaux First Growth and a $30 bottle of Australian Wolf Blass. I cannot tell if the wine has " a velvety texture, and notes of spring flowers interwoven with camphor, melted licorice, creme de cassis,and pain grille. Not a blockbuster, it offers extraordinary intensity as well as a surreal delicacy/lightness " - Robert Parker's tasting notes of the 2003 Margaux or any of the other wonderful things which the wine tasters are able to detect with a sniff or a sip. My interest in wine is from the perspective of looking at it as an alternative investment.
Years ago a friend from Hong Kong gave me some advice on investing in wine. It sounds easy -provided you have the patience.I have yet to follow it - but have been tracking how wine investments perform. His logic was very simple. Focus on the top end, particularly those from a good vintage, buy and sit on it.If you do not need the cash leave it for your children. The prestigious estates produce a limited number of cases every year. With the yearly consumption the number of cases available gets fewer. If you are a wine aficionado or an Investment Banker , or a Private Equity Fund Manager , celebrating the closure of a very successful deal, you don't mind spending a few thousand dollars (euros or pounds) for a couple of bottles over dinner to indulge yourself or to impress your dinner companions. As the stocks keep running down, the price keeps going up. Sounds too simple?
Even better, there are a number of individuals and some magazines who rate most of the wines produced, at least from the known vineyards. The single most influential person is an American, Robert Parker ,who started scoring wines more than thirty years ago. His 100 score is the equivalent of a perfect score.His rating has the ability to move the market for a particular Chateau. The others are Jancis Robinson who also writes for the Financial Times. The Wine Spectator magazine is also influential. For Burgundy wines there is Burghound.com. There are others. The big brokers from the United Kingdom, Barry Bros. & Rudd, Lay Wheeler, and Bordeaux Index and others all have their own tasters.
The United States and the United Kingdom were the biggest market for French wine but that is beginning to change. The Far East, particularly China has now developed a taste for fine wine and is having a significant impact on wine prices.
When I first moved to Hong Kong in the mid-seventies, the drink of choice for celebrations was Cognac. The more expensive the better. The most expensive Cognac would be ordered and then coke mixed with it. That was however a long time ago. The Hong Kong glitterati palate is now much more sophisticated.Investors from Hong Kong, including some of the top business men probably have the world’s best collection of rare wines. A few years ago the senior government bureaucrats, who enjoyed a good bottle as much as anybody else, decided that the revenue generated from the duty on wine was not worth the effort in collecting it and decided to exempt it from all duties. The result is that Hong Kong is now the biggest auction site/market for French wines.
As an indication of the serious interest in wine, when I left Hong Kong in 2005, the expensive wines - upwards of Dollars One thousand were kept in cabinets under lock and key, but now you can walk into any upmarket super market or a wine shop and you will see these wines lying on the rack.You will not see that in a average wine shop in London or New York.
In the meantime in China you have the new rich who have decided to follow in the footsteps of their Hong Kong cousins.China is now a rapidly growing market for the top end, with Lafitte Rothschild being the favorite. Not sure why, but perhaps the association with the Rothschild’s – the wealthy French-English banking family. This has driven the prices through the roof. A few years ago you could buy futures (in barrels before they are bottled) of a good vintage first growth with a Robert Parker score in the high nineties and with delivery a couple of years later, at around three and a half to four thousand sterling. This year the 2009( supposedly a very good year),Lafite Rothschild-China’s favorite wine, was priced at approximately eleven to twelve thousand sterling and is now reportedly trading at around over thirteen thousand a few weeks later.
How long is this euphoria going to continue? China’s middle class and the upper class is expected to keep growing, In the meantime their neighbor across the Himalayas, India is also developing a taste for wine (although whiskey and particularly Scotch is still the preferred drink). Stir in the need for one up man ship, particularly in North India and over the next few years, you will see these prices getting a boost.
If any of you have the desire to ride the tiger there are wine funds managed by some of the wine brokers. Alternatively you can invest in futures or buy physicals through the brokers who will store it for you. If you truly want to be one up, the wine brokers can probably locate a case or two from a good estate from the year you were born.
The consolation prize, if your investments don’t pay off is to drown your sorrows with your loved one, by drinking the damn thing. What was the line from Omar Khayam ?
A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread--and Thou
Beside me......
Years ago a friend from Hong Kong gave me some advice on investing in wine. It sounds easy -provided you have the patience.I have yet to follow it - but have been tracking how wine investments perform. His logic was very simple. Focus on the top end, particularly those from a good vintage, buy and sit on it.If you do not need the cash leave it for your children. The prestigious estates produce a limited number of cases every year. With the yearly consumption the number of cases available gets fewer. If you are a wine aficionado or an Investment Banker , or a Private Equity Fund Manager , celebrating the closure of a very successful deal, you don't mind spending a few thousand dollars (euros or pounds) for a couple of bottles over dinner to indulge yourself or to impress your dinner companions. As the stocks keep running down, the price keeps going up. Sounds too simple?
Even better, there are a number of individuals and some magazines who rate most of the wines produced, at least from the known vineyards. The single most influential person is an American, Robert Parker ,who started scoring wines more than thirty years ago. His 100 score is the equivalent of a perfect score.His rating has the ability to move the market for a particular Chateau. The others are Jancis Robinson who also writes for the Financial Times. The Wine Spectator magazine is also influential. For Burgundy wines there is Burghound.com. There are others. The big brokers from the United Kingdom, Barry Bros. & Rudd, Lay Wheeler, and Bordeaux Index and others all have their own tasters.
The United States and the United Kingdom were the biggest market for French wine but that is beginning to change. The Far East, particularly China has now developed a taste for fine wine and is having a significant impact on wine prices.
When I first moved to Hong Kong in the mid-seventies, the drink of choice for celebrations was Cognac. The more expensive the better. The most expensive Cognac would be ordered and then coke mixed with it. That was however a long time ago. The Hong Kong glitterati palate is now much more sophisticated.Investors from Hong Kong, including some of the top business men probably have the world’s best collection of rare wines. A few years ago the senior government bureaucrats, who enjoyed a good bottle as much as anybody else, decided that the revenue generated from the duty on wine was not worth the effort in collecting it and decided to exempt it from all duties. The result is that Hong Kong is now the biggest auction site/market for French wines.
As an indication of the serious interest in wine, when I left Hong Kong in 2005, the expensive wines - upwards of Dollars One thousand were kept in cabinets under lock and key, but now you can walk into any upmarket super market or a wine shop and you will see these wines lying on the rack.You will not see that in a average wine shop in London or New York.
In the meantime in China you have the new rich who have decided to follow in the footsteps of their Hong Kong cousins.China is now a rapidly growing market for the top end, with Lafitte Rothschild being the favorite. Not sure why, but perhaps the association with the Rothschild’s – the wealthy French-English banking family. This has driven the prices through the roof. A few years ago you could buy futures (in barrels before they are bottled) of a good vintage first growth with a Robert Parker score in the high nineties and with delivery a couple of years later, at around three and a half to four thousand sterling. This year the 2009( supposedly a very good year),Lafite Rothschild-China’s favorite wine, was priced at approximately eleven to twelve thousand sterling and is now reportedly trading at around over thirteen thousand a few weeks later.
How long is this euphoria going to continue? China’s middle class and the upper class is expected to keep growing, In the meantime their neighbor across the Himalayas, India is also developing a taste for wine (although whiskey and particularly Scotch is still the preferred drink). Stir in the need for one up man ship, particularly in North India and over the next few years, you will see these prices getting a boost.
If any of you have the desire to ride the tiger there are wine funds managed by some of the wine brokers. Alternatively you can invest in futures or buy physicals through the brokers who will store it for you. If you truly want to be one up, the wine brokers can probably locate a case or two from a good estate from the year you were born.
The consolation prize, if your investments don’t pay off is to drown your sorrows with your loved one, by drinking the damn thing. What was the line from Omar Khayam ?
A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread--and Thou
Beside me......
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Displaying Our Common Heritage
I just read a news article about the museums in Taiwan and China working together to track down some of the missing Imperial Treasures. Apparently these are part of the collection of the Imperial Family accumulated over the last 1000 years.
Initially the effort was to hide the treasures to prevent it from falling into the hand of the Japanese invaders.The collection was packed into tens of thousands of wooden cases and hidden in the country side. Subsequently when the war ended and there was dissension between the Nationalist , headed by General Chiang Kai-Shek and the Communists by Chairman Mao Tse-Tung, the Nationalists shipped off the prime pieces to Taiwan when it declared independence. The museum was built into the side of a mountain. I remember visiting it in the mid-seventies. Some of the exhibits were exquisite.
Now that relations between Taiwan and China are improving, effort is being made to track down the missing pieces. It is after all a common heritage.
Reading about it made me wonder why the countries in the sub-continent do not make an attempt to at least display and share our mutual history. Can the museums from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh ( and perhaps Nepal and Sri-Lanka as well),not put on a display on a common theme in our respective countries or even a traveling exhibit shown in other countries. The political issues can be sorted out later. Much as we like to pretend we are different, we are children from the same womb and have much in common culture, history, race and religion.
Initially the effort was to hide the treasures to prevent it from falling into the hand of the Japanese invaders.The collection was packed into tens of thousands of wooden cases and hidden in the country side. Subsequently when the war ended and there was dissension between the Nationalist , headed by General Chiang Kai-Shek and the Communists by Chairman Mao Tse-Tung, the Nationalists shipped off the prime pieces to Taiwan when it declared independence. The museum was built into the side of a mountain. I remember visiting it in the mid-seventies. Some of the exhibits were exquisite.
Now that relations between Taiwan and China are improving, effort is being made to track down the missing pieces. It is after all a common heritage.
Reading about it made me wonder why the countries in the sub-continent do not make an attempt to at least display and share our mutual history. Can the museums from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh ( and perhaps Nepal and Sri-Lanka as well),not put on a display on a common theme in our respective countries or even a traveling exhibit shown in other countries. The political issues can be sorted out later. Much as we like to pretend we are different, we are children from the same womb and have much in common culture, history, race and religion.
Race,Religion & Politics - Race
I have often read that these three subjects should be avoided since they arouse so much passion. My intention here is not to arouse any controversy.
My decision to write on these subjects was initiated by an op-ed article in the New York Times ( June 25th,2010) The Triumphant Decline Of The WASP by Dr.Noah Feldman a Harvard Law Professor who pointed out that " five years ago, the Supreme Court, like the United States, had a plurality of white Protestants. If Elena Kagan .... is confirmed, that number will be reduced to zero, and the court will consist of six Catholics and three Jews". Interestingly it makes no mention of the fact that the panel now has Blacks and Hispanics , which would not have been possible a few decades ago. With Barrack Obama as the President, Bobby Jindal as the Governor of Louisiana and potentially Nikki Haley as future Governor of South Carolina ( two of the most conservative states in the United States with regards to race)it is becoming irrelevant in the United States.
Over the next fifty years with the dynamics of the world changing, not just from a wealth point of view but also from a demographic perspective,the issue of race (and probably religion)globally will become less of an issue than it has been for few centuries.
First on the issue of race. Why do you have racism? In my opinion racism is a result of migration ( either willing or forced). It results from the influx of people seeking wealth ( in the form of adventurers or conquerors )or those who were forcibly brought to provide cheap labor. To quote Willie Sutton the American bank robber who when questioned why he kept robbing banks, replied simply "because that is where the money is "The adventurers from Europe, went to the America's, Africa and Asia because that was where the wealth was. Similarly a few centuries later, the migrants from Asia and South America went to the United States, United Kingdom and Europe because that was where the money was.There will be some who will argue that American was settled by the pilgrims who wanted to avoid religious persecution, but the real wave came, as word went around that there was a lot of land and other riches to be obtained.
India or perhaps I should say the Indian subcontinent has had invaders ( from Alexander onwards ) most of whom came, conquered, settled down and blended into the local population.Their religion and cultures where accepted and adapted to suit India. Similarly the first wave of European adventurers came and adopted local customs, married locals and settled down.
In other areas such as the America's and Australia, the adventurers from Europe came and settled in the sparsely populated land mass, but in the process the native population were reduced to a minority.In Asia and Africa the numbers were just too large for that to happen, although this was attempted in some parts of Africa such as Zimbabwe and South Africa but were unsuccessful.
Race became an issue when the European countries started colonizing the world. The relationship between the rulers and the ruled transformed into a master – servant (or slave) relationship. The Caucasian’s were seen as the superior race because they ruled over countries which were populated by black, brown and yellow natives. As if this was not enough the colonial rulers complicated matters further by the forced “migration” of people , either in the form of slaves ( blacks to the America’s) or Indians as bonded labor to the certain sections of South America and the Indies, East Africa , Fiji, Mauritius, Malaysia and Sri Lanka. Let’s not even go into unilaterally drawn boundaries creating countries with total disregard to tribal, ethnic or language origins, thus creating pockets of minorities in countries around the world.
The second wave of migration was effectively the “economic “ migration which resulted from the boom following the Second World War. It created a shortage of workers and the United States and Europe. It opened the doors for migrants to come and work in jobs which the locals were not interested in doing – in fields or the factory floors. Added to this was the flood of illegal migrants who came to escape the upheavals in their countries or simply to seek a better life for themselves and their children. Gradually this was followed by the migration of educated professionals. Their descendants, combined with the fresh flow, have reached numbers which are now causing concerns among the white population that they would become a minority in the future.
It is estimated that by 2050 you will have the browning of America and whites will be in the minority. There is also concern among certain segments in Europe that they might be following a similar pattern. According to estimates, in the United Kingdom the whites will be in the minority in a dozen cities by 2027. White Norwegians are expected to become a minority in their own country by 2021.One could probably look at similar statistics in other European countries.
When this happens or even before,one would hope it would be the end of racism and as an issue it will cease to exist.
My decision to write on these subjects was initiated by an op-ed article in the New York Times ( June 25th,2010) The Triumphant Decline Of The WASP by Dr.Noah Feldman a Harvard Law Professor who pointed out that " five years ago, the Supreme Court, like the United States, had a plurality of white Protestants. If Elena Kagan .... is confirmed, that number will be reduced to zero, and the court will consist of six Catholics and three Jews". Interestingly it makes no mention of the fact that the panel now has Blacks and Hispanics , which would not have been possible a few decades ago. With Barrack Obama as the President, Bobby Jindal as the Governor of Louisiana and potentially Nikki Haley as future Governor of South Carolina ( two of the most conservative states in the United States with regards to race)it is becoming irrelevant in the United States.
Over the next fifty years with the dynamics of the world changing, not just from a wealth point of view but also from a demographic perspective,the issue of race (and probably religion)globally will become less of an issue than it has been for few centuries.
First on the issue of race. Why do you have racism? In my opinion racism is a result of migration ( either willing or forced). It results from the influx of people seeking wealth ( in the form of adventurers or conquerors )or those who were forcibly brought to provide cheap labor. To quote Willie Sutton the American bank robber who when questioned why he kept robbing banks, replied simply "because that is where the money is "The adventurers from Europe, went to the America's, Africa and Asia because that was where the wealth was. Similarly a few centuries later, the migrants from Asia and South America went to the United States, United Kingdom and Europe because that was where the money was.There will be some who will argue that American was settled by the pilgrims who wanted to avoid religious persecution, but the real wave came, as word went around that there was a lot of land and other riches to be obtained.
India or perhaps I should say the Indian subcontinent has had invaders ( from Alexander onwards ) most of whom came, conquered, settled down and blended into the local population.Their religion and cultures where accepted and adapted to suit India. Similarly the first wave of European adventurers came and adopted local customs, married locals and settled down.
In other areas such as the America's and Australia, the adventurers from Europe came and settled in the sparsely populated land mass, but in the process the native population were reduced to a minority.In Asia and Africa the numbers were just too large for that to happen, although this was attempted in some parts of Africa such as Zimbabwe and South Africa but were unsuccessful.
Race became an issue when the European countries started colonizing the world. The relationship between the rulers and the ruled transformed into a master – servant (or slave) relationship. The Caucasian’s were seen as the superior race because they ruled over countries which were populated by black, brown and yellow natives. As if this was not enough the colonial rulers complicated matters further by the forced “migration” of people , either in the form of slaves ( blacks to the America’s) or Indians as bonded labor to the certain sections of South America and the Indies, East Africa , Fiji, Mauritius, Malaysia and Sri Lanka. Let’s not even go into unilaterally drawn boundaries creating countries with total disregard to tribal, ethnic or language origins, thus creating pockets of minorities in countries around the world.
The second wave of migration was effectively the “economic “ migration which resulted from the boom following the Second World War. It created a shortage of workers and the United States and Europe. It opened the doors for migrants to come and work in jobs which the locals were not interested in doing – in fields or the factory floors. Added to this was the flood of illegal migrants who came to escape the upheavals in their countries or simply to seek a better life for themselves and their children. Gradually this was followed by the migration of educated professionals. Their descendants, combined with the fresh flow, have reached numbers which are now causing concerns among the white population that they would become a minority in the future.
It is estimated that by 2050 you will have the browning of America and whites will be in the minority. There is also concern among certain segments in Europe that they might be following a similar pattern. According to estimates, in the United Kingdom the whites will be in the minority in a dozen cities by 2027. White Norwegians are expected to become a minority in their own country by 2021.One could probably look at similar statistics in other European countries.
When this happens or even before,one would hope it would be the end of racism and as an issue it will cease to exist.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Indians of American Parentage in US Politics
A lot is being made out of Americans of Indian parentage raising their profile in the United States political scene. Bobby Jindal being the first American of Indian parentage being elected as the Governor of Louisiana and Nikki Haley being the Republican candidate for Governor of South Carolina. What is interesting is that both of them belong to the Republican party and these states are very conservative.Does not quite fit the image of the Republicans being the conservative party. What has happened to the Democrats?
A little known historical fact which I am surprised that the Indian newspapers do not mention when they write about children of overseas Indians doing well, is that the first Asian American Congressman, Dalip Singh Saund,was of Indian origin and was born in Amritsar. He went to the University of California, Berkley, for post graduate studies and stayed on. The Democratic candidate was elected from California to the United States House of Representatives in 1955 and served till 1962 when a severe stroke ended his political career. Coincidence that all of them are of Punjabi origin .
A little known historical fact which I am surprised that the Indian newspapers do not mention when they write about children of overseas Indians doing well, is that the first Asian American Congressman, Dalip Singh Saund,was of Indian origin and was born in Amritsar. He went to the University of California, Berkley, for post graduate studies and stayed on. The Democratic candidate was elected from California to the United States House of Representatives in 1955 and served till 1962 when a severe stroke ended his political career. Coincidence that all of them are of Punjabi origin .
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Drama on the sports field
Over the last few weeks I like hundreds of other million viewers, have been watching the soccer World Cup Matches. In between I have also been watching Asian cricket series between India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.
First of all I confess that I am not much of a sports fan. I rarely ever watch soccer matches. Cricket only when India is playing.
Cricket used to be a gentlemanly game but has become increasingly competitive. While the sledging between Australia and England has been often been written about, until a couple of years ago, in almost every match between Australia and India, there would be altercations and heated words would be exchanged. In the recent India Pakistan match again there were heated exchanges between the players and the referees had to intervene.
While the posturing was amusing to watch, it is nothing compared to what goes on in the soccer field. Players elbowing, tripping, kicking shins, pushing or pulling other players were par for the course in almost every single match. And of course the drama queens ( there should the equivalent of a faker of the match award for the player who was the most convincing in faking a serious injury and being allowed to get away with it ) for the players who would lie spread eagled on the ground holding on to their face, eyes, legs, stomachs until the referee gave his verdict and the next minute they would have a miraculous recovery.The offender on the other hand with the expression "who me ? your eyes must be deceiving you"look on his face is amusing to watch.
I guess this is what adds to the excitement of watching live sports. However from my perspective I have failed to understand how you can enjoy a sports event sitting on the 40th row with the players being relatively dwarfed, and not being able to view the critical shots. I would much rather prefer sitting at home in an air conditioned room and viewing the game on television. You can see the close up and replays of the goal or a cricket player being clean bowled.
However my friends who are into sports look at me disparagingly and say you don't understand the rhythm , the excitement and the camaraderie of watching from the stands - even if you are not wearing the increasingly weird "loyalty"costumes which the fans wear these days. The painted faces remind me of Mel Gibson in Brave Heart,waving their county flags,but instead of swords and battle axes, they have their vuvuzelas.
Well I guess to each his own.
First of all I confess that I am not much of a sports fan. I rarely ever watch soccer matches. Cricket only when India is playing.
Cricket used to be a gentlemanly game but has become increasingly competitive. While the sledging between Australia and England has been often been written about, until a couple of years ago, in almost every match between Australia and India, there would be altercations and heated words would be exchanged. In the recent India Pakistan match again there were heated exchanges between the players and the referees had to intervene.
While the posturing was amusing to watch, it is nothing compared to what goes on in the soccer field. Players elbowing, tripping, kicking shins, pushing or pulling other players were par for the course in almost every single match. And of course the drama queens ( there should the equivalent of a faker of the match award for the player who was the most convincing in faking a serious injury and being allowed to get away with it ) for the players who would lie spread eagled on the ground holding on to their face, eyes, legs, stomachs until the referee gave his verdict and the next minute they would have a miraculous recovery.The offender on the other hand with the expression "who me ? your eyes must be deceiving you"look on his face is amusing to watch.
I guess this is what adds to the excitement of watching live sports. However from my perspective I have failed to understand how you can enjoy a sports event sitting on the 40th row with the players being relatively dwarfed, and not being able to view the critical shots. I would much rather prefer sitting at home in an air conditioned room and viewing the game on television. You can see the close up and replays of the goal or a cricket player being clean bowled.
However my friends who are into sports look at me disparagingly and say you don't understand the rhythm , the excitement and the camaraderie of watching from the stands - even if you are not wearing the increasingly weird "loyalty"costumes which the fans wear these days. The painted faces remind me of Mel Gibson in Brave Heart,waving their county flags,but instead of swords and battle axes, they have their vuvuzelas.
Well I guess to each his own.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Indians succeed at home just as well as they do abroad !!
Yesterday I once again received a chain email which has been making the rounds for the last seven years or longer, about how well Indians do overseas. It mentioned about Rajat Gupta(ex-Mckinsey) Victor Menezes( ex-Citibank) Rana Talwar(ex-Citi,ex-Standard Chartered ) and so on. I think it was originally written by a journalist and has been picked up and circulated since then. The point being made was that Indians only succeeded when they are out of India and freed of restraints, they suddenly blossom.I am sure the latest version will probably include Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal, who are Americans of Indian parentage, but as a friend in marketing once said " why let facts spoil a good story ".
Obviously these people have not been visiting India to see the changes which have been happening. If you compare the list of 50 industrialists and the industries they were from ninety sixties to that of now you will find a tremendous change. My guess would be that only 25% (if that) of the names remain the same. The others are new and most of the industries they are new as well. It used to be textiles, tea, some heavy engineering. Now its real estate , software, entertainment, petroleum, telecoms.The majority of these new generations are self made or perhaps second generation like the Amabani's but who contributed to the accumulation of the family wealth.
Yes we all know how difficult it is to operate in India, but these new generation of business men work within the same system and know which buttons to press and which politician and bureaucrat to "lobby" and have succeeded and are now among the richest families in the world. In the past they would have been labeled as beneficiaries of the the License Raj, but this is no longer the case. This new generation is no longer confined to the Indian borders. They are spreading their wings both to the east and west.
Even among professionals who have done well are not just those who remained abroad after completing their studies. A lot of them got their initial boost while still working in India, stood out and were then sent overseas by their employers. These include, Victor and Rana. In addition you have V Shankar and Jaspal Bindra from Standard Chartered, Haresh Manwani and Manvinder Banga of Unilever, Ajay Banga of Master Card and the list goes on and on.
The common complaint about why things in India don't work ( Infrastructure) is because " we are a democracy" does not apply to these people.They have succeeded in spite of us being a democracy.
What these critics fail to understand is that every country goes through a transition. The UK went through it during the late seventeen hundreds and early eighteen hundreds and the United States in the late eighteen hundreds and early nineteen hundreds.Read Charles Dickens and about Tammany Hall politics in New York to find out how rampant corruption was among politicians and the judiciary.
Where I do agree with the critics is that with the flow of information and with the level of education and an active media,the pace of change for the better is way too slow. It should be faster.
Fortunately India is in the sweet spot, which happens not just once in a lifetime but probably once every few centuries. There are so many opportunities to make money that people who are in a hurry will cut corners and seek an easy solution as they did in London and New York. Unfortunately when you are making 100 percent, you don't mind parting with 10-15 percent to move things along faster.I am not condoning it.I am merely stating a fact.
Regardless of what we wish for, I would argue that there is not a single country in the world which is totally free of corruption. Its a matter of degrees and form. One is sometime amazed at the level of petty corruption ( in India we are desensitized to this ) which you see in other countries.Members of Parliament in our former colonial masters have been to known to raise questions on your behalf for a few hundred quid. Also a large number of them have been caught out fudging their expense claims for petty amounts.Yet most of these MP's have gotten off scot free or or a mild rap on the knuckle. Compare that against a corrupt policeman in Bihar or Delhi with a family of five who probably earns a few thousand rupees a month .Who would you sympathize with ?
In the United States significant election campaign donors get rewarded with plum ambassadorial posts or political appointments. Lets not even go into the pork barrel projects in the United States of the Senators and Congressmen which ensure their re-election. Is Mamta Banerjee doing any thing different when she locates projects in West Bengal? Its all about the vote bank honey!!
See http://www.economist.com/node/16380025
If you are unable to access it , read the Economist June 19th-25th, Page 38th, Column " Money from Wall Street "
The only difference between India and other countries is that some of these process are formalized. Also once the wheels are greased you achieve your objectives. In India that might not be the case and might require the equivalent of a couple of " Patiala Pegs" .
Obviously these people have not been visiting India to see the changes which have been happening. If you compare the list of 50 industrialists and the industries they were from ninety sixties to that of now you will find a tremendous change. My guess would be that only 25% (if that) of the names remain the same. The others are new and most of the industries they are new as well. It used to be textiles, tea, some heavy engineering. Now its real estate , software, entertainment, petroleum, telecoms.The majority of these new generations are self made or perhaps second generation like the Amabani's but who contributed to the accumulation of the family wealth.
Yes we all know how difficult it is to operate in India, but these new generation of business men work within the same system and know which buttons to press and which politician and bureaucrat to "lobby" and have succeeded and are now among the richest families in the world. In the past they would have been labeled as beneficiaries of the the License Raj, but this is no longer the case. This new generation is no longer confined to the Indian borders. They are spreading their wings both to the east and west.
Even among professionals who have done well are not just those who remained abroad after completing their studies. A lot of them got their initial boost while still working in India, stood out and were then sent overseas by their employers. These include, Victor and Rana. In addition you have V Shankar and Jaspal Bindra from Standard Chartered, Haresh Manwani and Manvinder Banga of Unilever, Ajay Banga of Master Card and the list goes on and on.
The common complaint about why things in India don't work ( Infrastructure) is because " we are a democracy" does not apply to these people.They have succeeded in spite of us being a democracy.
What these critics fail to understand is that every country goes through a transition. The UK went through it during the late seventeen hundreds and early eighteen hundreds and the United States in the late eighteen hundreds and early nineteen hundreds.Read Charles Dickens and about Tammany Hall politics in New York to find out how rampant corruption was among politicians and the judiciary.
Where I do agree with the critics is that with the flow of information and with the level of education and an active media,the pace of change for the better is way too slow. It should be faster.
Fortunately India is in the sweet spot, which happens not just once in a lifetime but probably once every few centuries. There are so many opportunities to make money that people who are in a hurry will cut corners and seek an easy solution as they did in London and New York. Unfortunately when you are making 100 percent, you don't mind parting with 10-15 percent to move things along faster.I am not condoning it.I am merely stating a fact.
Regardless of what we wish for, I would argue that there is not a single country in the world which is totally free of corruption. Its a matter of degrees and form. One is sometime amazed at the level of petty corruption ( in India we are desensitized to this ) which you see in other countries.Members of Parliament in our former colonial masters have been to known to raise questions on your behalf for a few hundred quid. Also a large number of them have been caught out fudging their expense claims for petty amounts.Yet most of these MP's have gotten off scot free or or a mild rap on the knuckle. Compare that against a corrupt policeman in Bihar or Delhi with a family of five who probably earns a few thousand rupees a month .Who would you sympathize with ?
In the United States significant election campaign donors get rewarded with plum ambassadorial posts or political appointments. Lets not even go into the pork barrel projects in the United States of the Senators and Congressmen which ensure their re-election. Is Mamta Banerjee doing any thing different when she locates projects in West Bengal? Its all about the vote bank honey!!
See http://www.economist.com/node/16380025
If you are unable to access it , read the Economist June 19th-25th, Page 38th, Column " Money from Wall Street "
The only difference between India and other countries is that some of these process are formalized. Also once the wheels are greased you achieve your objectives. In India that might not be the case and might require the equivalent of a couple of " Patiala Pegs" .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)