(Warning to American readers: What follows is about cricket)
As I watched the aftermath of Harbhajan Singh's infamous slap, I couldn't help but feel that the way Sreesanth's breakdown was treated says something nice about Indian culture, or at least the Indian media. If Andrew Symonds had burst into tears, mucous running down his face, when Harbhajan called him a monkey, you can bet that the Australian press would have been all over him. Crybaby! Then again, maybe he'd have seen Harbhajan get the fine/ban he deserved for racism.
Here in India, though, despite Punjab's reputation for machismo, Sreesanth has been given a carte blanche for letting his tears flow. Even though he has repeatedly acted the tough guy on the pitch, nobody has dared to suggest that the next time he gives a batsman his baleful glare, the guy will just laugh and warn him that he might get his behind paddled, or caution him lest he get overwhelmed by his emotions. You can be sure that America's sports columnists would be over the moon at the opportunity. We've already joked about it in one movie (OK-a chick flick). But it's true. There's no crying in baseball.
More significantly, though, I wonder how Harbhajan would have been punished if Sreesanth had not bawled in Yuvraj Singh's arms on national TV. What if Sreesanth had instead fumed in anger, and complained to the board (like the Australians)? Would Harbhajan have received an 11-match ban, losing 30 million rupees? I think not.
The punishment needs to fit the crime. A little slap is certainly wrong--we can't condone violence--but 4 matches / 1 crore would have been more than sufficient to send that message. I think what is happening here is that the board is making up for its failure to punish Harbhajan for his much more serious offense--the racial slur he busted out in Australia. At that time, they blew with the prevailing wind rather than take a tough decision and send a clear message to the players. And now, no surprise, they're doing the same thing.
The only stunning thing was that India sided with the sensitive southie, instead of the tough guy from the north who did what any Bollywood hero would do and everybody is always talking about.... Delivered "one tight slap" to a guy who (frankly) has been asking for it since he first stepped on the pitch.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
electricity, heat and traffic
Does anybody know if Delhi (or any Indian city) has ever contemplated adopting climate-based work schedules, or even shifts, to reduce the burden on the power and transport infrastructure? It occurred to me the other day during the height of the BRT fiasco that there's never any traffic on the roads before about 8:30 a.m. Then there's a jam that lasts from about 9:15 until 11:30--when it appears most people actually start work. (Anyway, I can never get anybody on the phone before then).
At our house, there's a power cut most mornings around 10 a.m. and sometimes another one at 10 p.m.--not too long, thankfully--presumably because the guys who overcharge us need to shed some of the load. Then there's all that talk about not running your geyser (aka water heater) in the mornings, etc, etc.
What would happen if businesses were encouraged to run from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. -- perhaps with preferential power tariffs, guaranteed insulation from power cuts, or something? Others could continue their usual 11:30 to 7:30 schedule (during which time no work is done between 11:30 and 1 and 6 and 7:30 as far as I can tell). But maybe it would help a bit....
In any case, the roads would clear up if half the people finished their commute before the others got out of bed.
At our house, there's a power cut most mornings around 10 a.m. and sometimes another one at 10 p.m.--not too long, thankfully--presumably because the guys who overcharge us need to shed some of the load. Then there's all that talk about not running your geyser (aka water heater) in the mornings, etc, etc.
What would happen if businesses were encouraged to run from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. -- perhaps with preferential power tariffs, guaranteed insulation from power cuts, or something? Others could continue their usual 11:30 to 7:30 schedule (during which time no work is done between 11:30 and 1 and 6 and 7:30 as far as I can tell). But maybe it would help a bit....
In any case, the roads would clear up if half the people finished their commute before the others got out of bed.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
of scanty skirts and snazzy uniforms
First it was the purists decrying the dastardly practice of paying cricketers real money--though only a pittance compared with the sums paid to professional athletes in baseball, basketball, football and soccer. Now the BBC has even weighed in--against the bastardization of the game with cheerleaders, fireworks, music, Bollywood stars, and other fanfare.
Though I have to say there's something especially sleazy about the cheerleaders--perhaps because they had to be imported from foreign shores since no local woman would be caught dead with her tits out on national TV--and notwithstanding my general loathing for the monopolist tactics of the BCCI... I have to say that I love the Indian Premier League--pompous name or not. I don't care about the hoopla. I never watch Extraaaaaa Innings anyway, so I don't see much of it. But the games are fun, and it's refreshing to see the mix of international players on each side.
No, it's not because I'm an American and I can't sit through a One Day International or even (gulp) a Test. I've been known to watch a whole series at one go. And no, CNN/IBN, there are no cheerleaders in baseball, even in the debauched USA. Only football and basketball. And only in the pro games do they look and perform like a dance team selected from the country's top strip clubs. In college, they're a bit more like gymnasts, and the terribly short skirts can remain a tasteful nod to so-called "necessity"--like in women's tennis--so that dry-mouthed leches can retain their veneer of respectability.
Go Daredevils!
Though I have to say there's something especially sleazy about the cheerleaders--perhaps because they had to be imported from foreign shores since no local woman would be caught dead with her tits out on national TV--and notwithstanding my general loathing for the monopolist tactics of the BCCI... I have to say that I love the Indian Premier League--pompous name or not. I don't care about the hoopla. I never watch Extraaaaaa Innings anyway, so I don't see much of it. But the games are fun, and it's refreshing to see the mix of international players on each side.
No, it's not because I'm an American and I can't sit through a One Day International or even (gulp) a Test. I've been known to watch a whole series at one go. And no, CNN/IBN, there are no cheerleaders in baseball, even in the debauched USA. Only football and basketball. And only in the pro games do they look and perform like a dance team selected from the country's top strip clubs. In college, they're a bit more like gymnasts, and the terribly short skirts can remain a tasteful nod to so-called "necessity"--like in women's tennis--so that dry-mouthed leches can retain their veneer of respectability.
Go Daredevils!
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
fixing BRTS
Already, with a several million dollar destruction project lurking like an unacknowledged elephant in the room, the fingerpointing has begun. Who is to blame for the BRTS? Is nobody in charge? We need somebody in charge. A new committee! A new chairman! A new office! It would really be a lot of fun if I didn't rely on this route to get to Andhra Bhavan for the unlimited thali.
The latest "convoluted solution" according to CNN/IBN includes removing the Blueline buses from the corridor. I'm not sure that this makes any sense--surely since the centre lanes are virtually empty it would be better to push the Bluelines into them along with the fabled DTC "low floor, A/C buses". But I won't go into that.
In the meantime, they've decided to let taxis with yellow number plates use the (almost empty) center lanes. This makes no sense whatsoever. First of all, there aren't all that many taxis. Second, they are no better than cars in terms of environmental impact (or safety, or whatever). A much more sensible proposal would be to make the BRTS center lane available as a carpool lane--any vehicle allowed in provided it contains at least four passengers including the driver. This would alleviate some of the pressure on the two "slowspeed car lanes", and encourage people to share rides rather than take separate vehicles, thus reducing the number of cars on the road or simply rewarding those people with a smaller "carbon footprint." Fines for driving in the carpool lane with fewer than the required number of passengers should be set at Rs. 5000. I'm no expert on cops, bribery, etc. But perhaps it would work if all the fines were assessed by mail through the central office, and marshals were equipped with digital cameras to record the license numbers of offenders.
I know. I'm getting crazy here. Wait, maybe we could give them all Simputers! No, Nokia Communicators! No, laptops!
Maybe we should save everybody the headache and start ripping up the lane barriers again.
The latest "convoluted solution" according to CNN/IBN includes removing the Blueline buses from the corridor. I'm not sure that this makes any sense--surely since the centre lanes are virtually empty it would be better to push the Bluelines into them along with the fabled DTC "low floor, A/C buses". But I won't go into that.
In the meantime, they've decided to let taxis with yellow number plates use the (almost empty) center lanes. This makes no sense whatsoever. First of all, there aren't all that many taxis. Second, they are no better than cars in terms of environmental impact (or safety, or whatever). A much more sensible proposal would be to make the BRTS center lane available as a carpool lane--any vehicle allowed in provided it contains at least four passengers including the driver. This would alleviate some of the pressure on the two "slowspeed car lanes", and encourage people to share rides rather than take separate vehicles, thus reducing the number of cars on the road or simply rewarding those people with a smaller "carbon footprint." Fines for driving in the carpool lane with fewer than the required number of passengers should be set at Rs. 5000. I'm no expert on cops, bribery, etc. But perhaps it would work if all the fines were assessed by mail through the central office, and marshals were equipped with digital cameras to record the license numbers of offenders.
I know. I'm getting crazy here. Wait, maybe we could give them all Simputers! No, Nokia Communicators! No, laptops!
Maybe we should save everybody the headache and start ripping up the lane barriers again.
brt: what is it for?
According to the newspapers and TV channels, Delhi's newly opened Bus Rapid Transit System (or BRTS) has already been a dismal failure. The move to build separate lanes and bus stops in the center of the road for buses, so they don't have to weave back and forth amid the bicyclists, pedestrians and delivery carts to make their stops, has done nothing to relieve traffic congestion in the car lanes. But was that ever what it was intended to do?
From the outset, we've heard that the BRTS would be all things to all people. First, it was supposed to relieve congestion on the route and make things safer for bicyclists and pedestrians by reining in the (mad) bus drivers and encouraging car drivers to opt for public transport instead. Then, Post-Nano, it was the solution to Delhi's air pollution woes, a feat that can only be accomplished by reducing the number of drivers. Then, when the anti-Metro lobby got ahold of the idea, it was supposed to be a more equitable and humane form of transport for the millions of poor people who presently are at the mercy of the Bluelines and DTC, which hasn't upgraded its fleet in eons despite (I believe) a Supreme Court edict ordering it to do so.
Was it ever possible that it could accomplish all these things while simultaneously making the way faster and smoother for cars? Of course not. When you reduce the number of lanes from three to two, traffic slows down. That is an inescapable rule of urban planning. In order to ease congestion, the BRT essentially has to force people to give up their cars and take the bus. And because there are no other measures to do so--such as high license fees, restrictions on entering the city center, etc--the only way to do that is to MAKE CONGESTION WORSE.
Now the bus takes 30 minutes to do the route it takes you an hour and a half by car. We shouldn't be surprised. That was exactly what the BRT was designed to accomplish. But is it a good thing? Should the city be designed to improve the lives of the greatest number of people, or for the people who have money? Chaos has surely resulted. But maybe it is the kind of chaos that Delhi needs--lest we spend the tax money intended to develop the country building air-conditioned passages from every posh South Delhi house to every elite shopping mall and five-star hotel.
From the outset, we've heard that the BRTS would be all things to all people. First, it was supposed to relieve congestion on the route and make things safer for bicyclists and pedestrians by reining in the (mad) bus drivers and encouraging car drivers to opt for public transport instead. Then, Post-Nano, it was the solution to Delhi's air pollution woes, a feat that can only be accomplished by reducing the number of drivers. Then, when the anti-Metro lobby got ahold of the idea, it was supposed to be a more equitable and humane form of transport for the millions of poor people who presently are at the mercy of the Bluelines and DTC, which hasn't upgraded its fleet in eons despite (I believe) a Supreme Court edict ordering it to do so.
Was it ever possible that it could accomplish all these things while simultaneously making the way faster and smoother for cars? Of course not. When you reduce the number of lanes from three to two, traffic slows down. That is an inescapable rule of urban planning. In order to ease congestion, the BRT essentially has to force people to give up their cars and take the bus. And because there are no other measures to do so--such as high license fees, restrictions on entering the city center, etc--the only way to do that is to MAKE CONGESTION WORSE.
Now the bus takes 30 minutes to do the route it takes you an hour and a half by car. We shouldn't be surprised. That was exactly what the BRT was designed to accomplish. But is it a good thing? Should the city be designed to improve the lives of the greatest number of people, or for the people who have money? Chaos has surely resulted. But maybe it is the kind of chaos that Delhi needs--lest we spend the tax money intended to develop the country building air-conditioned passages from every posh South Delhi house to every elite shopping mall and five-star hotel.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
if a crowd roars in the stadium, and nobody covers it, does it make a noise?
Clearly, no country can afford to boycott the Beijing Olympics, despite the compelling reasons to do so. But the world's major media outlets could. Imagine the impact if no reporters turned up. The broadcast would go forward--too much money has been invested. But what if nobody tuned in?
A news media and fan blackout could actually be more effective than a national boycott.
The question is whether anybody has the balls, or we'll once again trot out our platitudes about objectivity.
I guess you already know the answer to that one.
A news media and fan blackout could actually be more effective than a national boycott.
The question is whether anybody has the balls, or we'll once again trot out our platitudes about objectivity.
I guess you already know the answer to that one.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
boycott!
I lived in Beijing from 1994 to 1996 and again in 1998. I still have many friends in China, and I consider myself to be "a friend to China" as the old phrase goes.
In spite, or perhaps because of that, I was dismayed to see that Beijing has once again opted for a violent solution to civil protest in Tibet over its continuous and absolute suppression of individual freedoms.
The only morally acceptable response is to to boycott the Beijing Olympics. If we don't, and we certainly will not, addicted as we are to cheap Chinese goods, nothing we will say about human rights will have a shred of credibility.
Already, I have been blacklisted by the CHinese embassy in Delhi because I foolishly sought a journalist visa to write what would have been a very complimentary article about the Chinese auto industry. (Meanwhile, in India, I have complete freedom to try to unearth stories of scandal and corruption wherever I may find them). I'm systematically forcing myself to forget my Chinese, driving it out with Hindi. Now I'll go a step further.
I will not watch a minute of the Olympics. I won't read a word about it. I don't care who wins. AS far as I'm concerned, it has already been a colossal failure for China, proving that no matter how fast their economy grows and how vibrant their people bloom, the government will remain paranoid, weak and petty.
In spite, or perhaps because of that, I was dismayed to see that Beijing has once again opted for a violent solution to civil protest in Tibet over its continuous and absolute suppression of individual freedoms.
The only morally acceptable response is to to boycott the Beijing Olympics. If we don't, and we certainly will not, addicted as we are to cheap Chinese goods, nothing we will say about human rights will have a shred of credibility.
Already, I have been blacklisted by the CHinese embassy in Delhi because I foolishly sought a journalist visa to write what would have been a very complimentary article about the Chinese auto industry. (Meanwhile, in India, I have complete freedom to try to unearth stories of scandal and corruption wherever I may find them). I'm systematically forcing myself to forget my Chinese, driving it out with Hindi. Now I'll go a step further.
I will not watch a minute of the Olympics. I won't read a word about it. I don't care who wins. AS far as I'm concerned, it has already been a colossal failure for China, proving that no matter how fast their economy grows and how vibrant their people bloom, the government will remain paranoid, weak and petty.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
cheap, not dirty
The unveiling of Tata Motors' people's car—perhaps the most highly anticipated vehicle in more than a decade worldwide--had all the frenzied atmosphere of a celebrity perp walk. A hundred or more photographers jostled for position in front of the dais where the as yet unnamed economy car was to be revealed. Usually cynical old hacks burst into applause and even whistles when chairman Ratan Tata, after implicitly comparing the company's achievement to the first flight by the Wright Brothers and the invention of the computer, revealed that the car will be called the Nano and despite all speculation to the contrary it will indeed retail for the target price of 100,000 rupees (or $2500). “A promise is a promise,” was the line that got them.
There was good reason for the excitement. The Nano has been under development for four years, during which time no pictures have leaked to the media and only a handful of details about it had been revealed. It costs less than half the amount that Maruti Suzuki—the current market leader in India—charges for its cheapest model. And, as Tata himself revealed at the press conference, the first models to roll off the company's assembly line in Singur, West Bengal, will get about 20 kilometers per liter of gasoline (50 mpg), pass the head-on crash test mandated by Indian regulators and also the offset and side impact crash tests required abroad, and meet stringent European emissions standards that have yet to be adopted in India.
Tata's emphasis on these performance features was well considered. He has repeatedly insisted that the Nano will outperform India's current emissions standards, pollute less per engine than the motorcycles and scooters it is intended to replace, and get roughly the same gas mileage as the market-leading Maruti models. But he has been beleaguered by doomsday predictions from India's leading environmentalists. The most notable among them was Nobel prize winning climatologist RK Pachauri, who said last month that he feared Tata's cheap car for the masses would prove to be an environmental nightmare. “We will emit less pollutants than the best two-wheelers in the country. I don't mean per passenger mile or anything. I mean per vehicle. So I am both amused and intrigued by why we are being banned as an environmental disaster.”
To be sure, pollution and traffic conditions in India's cities are grim. A ten-mile drive across town during the morning commute can take an hour and a half or even more, as drivers forge eight lanes out of two lane roads and scrum for position—horns blaring—like NASCAR competitors. Worse still, as Anumita Roy Chowdhury, associate director of New Delhi's Center for Science and the Environment, points out, more than half of India's cities suffer from air pollution levels that are officially classified as critical. In Delhi, for instance, which has the largest number of registered vehicles in the country, adding about a thousand new vehicles per day, but has also forced taxis, auto rickshaws and buses to shift to less polluting natural gas, respiratory diseases are 12 times more common than the national average. That's not surprising. In the city's central Connaught Place district, the density of air pollutants at peak hours ranges between 286 and 617 micrograms per cubic meter—as much as 30 times the level that the World Health Organization says is a safe target for such particles.
It is also certain that the Nano will inspire other manufacturers to develop their own cheap cars and force Maruti Suzuki, at least, to slash prices to continue to compete in the economy segment. And both developments will have the effect of rapidly increasing the number of new cars hitting the road in India over the next five years. But the assertion that Tata's Nano--a car for the masses that, it is claimed anyway, will emit fewer toxic particles than the millions of vehicles currently on the road—will drive the already terrible situation to the brink of disaster both suggests that the car manufacturer is responsible for everything from building roads to encouraging carpooling and implies that for some reason India's poor should not be allowed to drive cars so as to make life as convenient and pleasant as possible for India's rich. “Were we to succeed and sell 500,000 small cars every year, we would then, at the end of five years, constitute approximately 2.5 percent of all passenger vehicles in this country,” Tata said. “We could hardly be considered a nightmare, [as] has been raised about our small car.”
Indeed, the Nano is hardly the principal culprit. Currently, much of India requires only Euro 2 emissions standards, which are ten years out of date, the diesel fuel and gasoline sold in the nation's pumps is so dirty that even engines equipped with modern emissions technology still pollute more than the current European norms, and there are few, if any, government measures to penalize gas-guzzlers or discourage unnecessary driving. “Currently, if you look at the way our transport system is taxed,” says Chowdhury, “The tax is actually higher per person for a bus than it is for a car.”
The real danger, therefore, is not from the Nano itself but from its potential effect on policymakers, who have been somewhat schizophrenically pushing India as a global hub for the manufacturing of small cars and scrambling to improve the public transportation infrastructure to make its cities more livable. If Tata distracts India's leaders from the latter mission by convincing them that one day everybody from the shoeshine boy to the president will be driving a Nano, and India's economy will develop along the path beaten by America and Henry Ford's Model T, that will indeed be disastrous. But if all goes well, the Nano could actually have a positive environmental impact. By setting the benchmark for emissions standards higher, and still producing the car for less money than its competitors, Tata has scuttled the perception that a car has to run dirty to be cheap. And by raising the specter of cities choked by even worse gridlock, it could spur city and state governments into action on infrastructure and public transport projects like the introduction of low-cost airlines and the huge surge in air travel did for the Bangalore, Delhi and Mumbai airports. In India, nothing happens until it is clear that a disaster is around the corner if it doesn't.
Tata's Nano could be that kind of disaster. A good one.
There was good reason for the excitement. The Nano has been under development for four years, during which time no pictures have leaked to the media and only a handful of details about it had been revealed. It costs less than half the amount that Maruti Suzuki—the current market leader in India—charges for its cheapest model. And, as Tata himself revealed at the press conference, the first models to roll off the company's assembly line in Singur, West Bengal, will get about 20 kilometers per liter of gasoline (50 mpg), pass the head-on crash test mandated by Indian regulators and also the offset and side impact crash tests required abroad, and meet stringent European emissions standards that have yet to be adopted in India.
Tata's emphasis on these performance features was well considered. He has repeatedly insisted that the Nano will outperform India's current emissions standards, pollute less per engine than the motorcycles and scooters it is intended to replace, and get roughly the same gas mileage as the market-leading Maruti models. But he has been beleaguered by doomsday predictions from India's leading environmentalists. The most notable among them was Nobel prize winning climatologist RK Pachauri, who said last month that he feared Tata's cheap car for the masses would prove to be an environmental nightmare. “We will emit less pollutants than the best two-wheelers in the country. I don't mean per passenger mile or anything. I mean per vehicle. So I am both amused and intrigued by why we are being banned as an environmental disaster.”
To be sure, pollution and traffic conditions in India's cities are grim. A ten-mile drive across town during the morning commute can take an hour and a half or even more, as drivers forge eight lanes out of two lane roads and scrum for position—horns blaring—like NASCAR competitors. Worse still, as Anumita Roy Chowdhury, associate director of New Delhi's Center for Science and the Environment, points out, more than half of India's cities suffer from air pollution levels that are officially classified as critical. In Delhi, for instance, which has the largest number of registered vehicles in the country, adding about a thousand new vehicles per day, but has also forced taxis, auto rickshaws and buses to shift to less polluting natural gas, respiratory diseases are 12 times more common than the national average. That's not surprising. In the city's central Connaught Place district, the density of air pollutants at peak hours ranges between 286 and 617 micrograms per cubic meter—as much as 30 times the level that the World Health Organization says is a safe target for such particles.
It is also certain that the Nano will inspire other manufacturers to develop their own cheap cars and force Maruti Suzuki, at least, to slash prices to continue to compete in the economy segment. And both developments will have the effect of rapidly increasing the number of new cars hitting the road in India over the next five years. But the assertion that Tata's Nano--a car for the masses that, it is claimed anyway, will emit fewer toxic particles than the millions of vehicles currently on the road—will drive the already terrible situation to the brink of disaster both suggests that the car manufacturer is responsible for everything from building roads to encouraging carpooling and implies that for some reason India's poor should not be allowed to drive cars so as to make life as convenient and pleasant as possible for India's rich. “Were we to succeed and sell 500,000 small cars every year, we would then, at the end of five years, constitute approximately 2.5 percent of all passenger vehicles in this country,” Tata said. “We could hardly be considered a nightmare, [as] has been raised about our small car.”
Indeed, the Nano is hardly the principal culprit. Currently, much of India requires only Euro 2 emissions standards, which are ten years out of date, the diesel fuel and gasoline sold in the nation's pumps is so dirty that even engines equipped with modern emissions technology still pollute more than the current European norms, and there are few, if any, government measures to penalize gas-guzzlers or discourage unnecessary driving. “Currently, if you look at the way our transport system is taxed,” says Chowdhury, “The tax is actually higher per person for a bus than it is for a car.”
The real danger, therefore, is not from the Nano itself but from its potential effect on policymakers, who have been somewhat schizophrenically pushing India as a global hub for the manufacturing of small cars and scrambling to improve the public transportation infrastructure to make its cities more livable. If Tata distracts India's leaders from the latter mission by convincing them that one day everybody from the shoeshine boy to the president will be driving a Nano, and India's economy will develop along the path beaten by America and Henry Ford's Model T, that will indeed be disastrous. But if all goes well, the Nano could actually have a positive environmental impact. By setting the benchmark for emissions standards higher, and still producing the car for less money than its competitors, Tata has scuttled the perception that a car has to run dirty to be cheap. And by raising the specter of cities choked by even worse gridlock, it could spur city and state governments into action on infrastructure and public transport projects like the introduction of low-cost airlines and the huge surge in air travel did for the Bangalore, Delhi and Mumbai airports. In India, nothing happens until it is clear that a disaster is around the corner if it doesn't.
Tata's Nano could be that kind of disaster. A good one.
few defenders
Surprisingly, Ratan Tata has had few defenders in India in the leadup to the launch of his one-lakh Nano, a car that was first greeted with disbelief by global competitors and then scorn by environmentalists who have yet to take to bicycles themselves. In my estimate, there's more than a little racism and elitism here, along the lines of "brown people can't make good cars" and "the world will go to hell if poor people are allowed to drive."
One of the most interesting, though somewhat long-winded takes came from an unusual source--a guy named Vivek Sharma writing on a site called, of all things, domain-b.com.
One of the most interesting, though somewhat long-winded takes came from an unusual source--a guy named Vivek Sharma writing on a site called, of all things, domain-b.com.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
the world's cheapest wheels
When Tata Motors set out to build a $2,500 car, people said it couldn't be done. This week the company will unveil its vehicle of the future.
By Jason Overdorf
(Newsweek January 14, 2008)
Tata Motors is best known as a maker of industrial trucks from India's rust belt that launched the country's first completely indigenous passenger car, the Indica, 10 years ago. Next week the company will unveil another revolutionary new vehicle that will throw down the gauntlet in the highly competitive race to capture the first-time-buyer segment of the world's automobile market. Tata's not-so-secret weapon: the car is cheap. Unbelievably cheap.
Back in 2003, when chairman Ratan Tata revealed his plans to build a car that would cost less than 100,000 rupees (about $2,500 in today's dollars), rival carmakers said it couldn't be done. As time passed, and Tata kept at it, they hedged. Maybe it will be more like an enclosed motorcycle, they said. As tantalizing details about the car's design leaked, they started to get worried. Finally, in April, Renault-Nissan's Carlos Ghosn announced his own plans to build a $3,000 car in partnership with Indian motorcycle maker Bajaj Auto.
The move signaled that the race to create the world's best-selling starter car was on. The stakes are incredibly high, which is why the international auto industry is descending in unprecedented numbers on the New Delhi Auto Expo, where Tata will reveal the design for its People's Car for the first time on Jan. 10. The vehicle could have almost as large an impact in India as the original Volkswagen had in Germany back in 1938—perhaps doubling the size of India's passenger-car market overnight, and delivering a much-needed boost to the manufacturing sector in a country that has long suffered from so-called jobless growth. By encouraging parts suppliers to develop innovative ways to slash costs, it could also help build a highly efficient supply chain for the Indian automotive industry.
But the tremors won't be felt only in India. Small cars like VW's Gol, Nissan's Tsuru and Renault's Clio are already the top sellers in Latin America and Europe, and PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that about half the growth in automobile sales between 2006 and 2011 will come from Brazil, Russia, India and China, countries that are expected to buy mainly small, cheap vehicles. Even in gas-guzzling America, where the cheapest car is today the $10,000 Chevy Aveo, buyers are warming up to subcompacts. As a result, virtually all of the world's major automakers are striving to develop cheap, fuel-efficient small cars that can first be sold in emerging markets, then exported to the West.
Until the past year, these cars were meant to be sub-$10,000 vehicles like the Renault Logan. Now, with Tata setting the limbo stick much lower, the price target has been slashed to below $5,000. Add to that Tata's pole position in the bidding to buy the premium Jaguar and Rover brands from Ford Motor Co., and it truly looks like the Indian carmaker has arrived.
If successful, the People's Car could help shift the growth dynamic of the entire Indian economy, which has until recently been based more on service than manufacturing expertise. When Suzuki first brought the Maruti 800 (currently the world's cheapest car at about $5,000) to India in 1983, it completely transformed the domestic component business, laying the foundation for India's current emergence as an auto-parts hub. Suzuki's Indian factories have always built for the domestic market, but recently it announced it will sell an Indian-made hatchback in Europe next year. Others have also set up production in India, attracted by its large domestic market and growing components expertise. Hyundai has been the most aggressive in its efforts to make India a manufacturing hub. It exported more than 100,000 cars built here to Europe, South Africa and Latin America last year, and it chose India as the site for the global launch of its new compact model, the i10. But even Ford and General Motors, slower to see India's potential, have ramped up their efforts.
Analysts are even more bullish on Tata's plans. "There's no doubt this car is going to create a new [automotive] segment altogether," says Abdul Majeed, a partner in the automotive practice of PricewaterhouseCoopers. "If you look at the Indian automotive market, the bulk of it—over 70 percent—is two-wheelers. But the price gap between two-wheelers and four-wheelers has been very significant." The price tag for the People's Car is a bit more than double the cost of a midrange motorcycle, like Hero Honda's 100cc Splendor. Majeed forecasts that Tata's new car could encourage 10 to 20 percent of India's scooter and motorcycle buyers to purchase a car instead. If that happens, it would mean an additional 1.8 million vehicles sold per year—almost equal to the current size of the entire Indian passenger-car market.
Most analysts are waiting for a view of the car before pegging sales estimates—a task made difficult because Ratan Tata has played his cards very close to the vest in the three-year lead-up to the launch of the People's Car, revealing almost nothing about the design and features of the vehicle, or how the company managed to slash costs—both of which will define how the car affects the global industry. Prototypes have been as jealously guarded. Virtually all that is known for sure about the car so far—courtesy of a scripted "leak" by one of the company directors after Nobel Prize-winning climatologist R. K. Pachauri suggested the People's Car could be an environmentalist's nightmare if it vastly increases numbers on the road—is that it gets 25 kilometers per liter (59 miles per gallon) of gasoline, meets European emissions standards and matches the Maruti 800 in acceleration. It was also revealed that the car uses more plastic and fewer bolts than conventional designs, lending credence to rumors that Tata engineers visited Lotus in Malaysia to study adhesive bonding as an alternative to welding.
But its other cost-saving measures could have the biggest impact. Promising huge sales volumes, Tata has worked closely with components suppliers to bring the price of each part into a predetermined target range. The efforts are reminiscent of the techniques Tata used a few years back to bring down the price of the Ace, India's first mini-pickup truck, to about $6,000—close to the cost of the three-wheeled vehicles generally used for small jobs. In a considerable feat of engineering, the company came up with a design that allowed it to cut two engines for the Ace from the same block it used for the Indica. Not only did that allow the company to avoid building a new assembly facility, it also allowed it to capitalize on further economies of scale. If the People's Car shows more of the same, Tata—and India—may well win the race to miniaturize the automobile.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/84503
By Jason Overdorf
(Newsweek January 14, 2008)
Tata Motors is best known as a maker of industrial trucks from India's rust belt that launched the country's first completely indigenous passenger car, the Indica, 10 years ago. Next week the company will unveil another revolutionary new vehicle that will throw down the gauntlet in the highly competitive race to capture the first-time-buyer segment of the world's automobile market. Tata's not-so-secret weapon: the car is cheap. Unbelievably cheap.
Back in 2003, when chairman Ratan Tata revealed his plans to build a car that would cost less than 100,000 rupees (about $2,500 in today's dollars), rival carmakers said it couldn't be done. As time passed, and Tata kept at it, they hedged. Maybe it will be more like an enclosed motorcycle, they said. As tantalizing details about the car's design leaked, they started to get worried. Finally, in April, Renault-Nissan's Carlos Ghosn announced his own plans to build a $3,000 car in partnership with Indian motorcycle maker Bajaj Auto.
The move signaled that the race to create the world's best-selling starter car was on. The stakes are incredibly high, which is why the international auto industry is descending in unprecedented numbers on the New Delhi Auto Expo, where Tata will reveal the design for its People's Car for the first time on Jan. 10. The vehicle could have almost as large an impact in India as the original Volkswagen had in Germany back in 1938—perhaps doubling the size of India's passenger-car market overnight, and delivering a much-needed boost to the manufacturing sector in a country that has long suffered from so-called jobless growth. By encouraging parts suppliers to develop innovative ways to slash costs, it could also help build a highly efficient supply chain for the Indian automotive industry.
But the tremors won't be felt only in India. Small cars like VW's Gol, Nissan's Tsuru and Renault's Clio are already the top sellers in Latin America and Europe, and PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that about half the growth in automobile sales between 2006 and 2011 will come from Brazil, Russia, India and China, countries that are expected to buy mainly small, cheap vehicles. Even in gas-guzzling America, where the cheapest car is today the $10,000 Chevy Aveo, buyers are warming up to subcompacts. As a result, virtually all of the world's major automakers are striving to develop cheap, fuel-efficient small cars that can first be sold in emerging markets, then exported to the West.
Until the past year, these cars were meant to be sub-$10,000 vehicles like the Renault Logan. Now, with Tata setting the limbo stick much lower, the price target has been slashed to below $5,000. Add to that Tata's pole position in the bidding to buy the premium Jaguar and Rover brands from Ford Motor Co., and it truly looks like the Indian carmaker has arrived.
If successful, the People's Car could help shift the growth dynamic of the entire Indian economy, which has until recently been based more on service than manufacturing expertise. When Suzuki first brought the Maruti 800 (currently the world's cheapest car at about $5,000) to India in 1983, it completely transformed the domestic component business, laying the foundation for India's current emergence as an auto-parts hub. Suzuki's Indian factories have always built for the domestic market, but recently it announced it will sell an Indian-made hatchback in Europe next year. Others have also set up production in India, attracted by its large domestic market and growing components expertise. Hyundai has been the most aggressive in its efforts to make India a manufacturing hub. It exported more than 100,000 cars built here to Europe, South Africa and Latin America last year, and it chose India as the site for the global launch of its new compact model, the i10. But even Ford and General Motors, slower to see India's potential, have ramped up their efforts.
Analysts are even more bullish on Tata's plans. "There's no doubt this car is going to create a new [automotive] segment altogether," says Abdul Majeed, a partner in the automotive practice of PricewaterhouseCoopers. "If you look at the Indian automotive market, the bulk of it—over 70 percent—is two-wheelers. But the price gap between two-wheelers and four-wheelers has been very significant." The price tag for the People's Car is a bit more than double the cost of a midrange motorcycle, like Hero Honda's 100cc Splendor. Majeed forecasts that Tata's new car could encourage 10 to 20 percent of India's scooter and motorcycle buyers to purchase a car instead. If that happens, it would mean an additional 1.8 million vehicles sold per year—almost equal to the current size of the entire Indian passenger-car market.
Most analysts are waiting for a view of the car before pegging sales estimates—a task made difficult because Ratan Tata has played his cards very close to the vest in the three-year lead-up to the launch of the People's Car, revealing almost nothing about the design and features of the vehicle, or how the company managed to slash costs—both of which will define how the car affects the global industry. Prototypes have been as jealously guarded. Virtually all that is known for sure about the car so far—courtesy of a scripted "leak" by one of the company directors after Nobel Prize-winning climatologist R. K. Pachauri suggested the People's Car could be an environmentalist's nightmare if it vastly increases numbers on the road—is that it gets 25 kilometers per liter (59 miles per gallon) of gasoline, meets European emissions standards and matches the Maruti 800 in acceleration. It was also revealed that the car uses more plastic and fewer bolts than conventional designs, lending credence to rumors that Tata engineers visited Lotus in Malaysia to study adhesive bonding as an alternative to welding.
But its other cost-saving measures could have the biggest impact. Promising huge sales volumes, Tata has worked closely with components suppliers to bring the price of each part into a predetermined target range. The efforts are reminiscent of the techniques Tata used a few years back to bring down the price of the Ace, India's first mini-pickup truck, to about $6,000—close to the cost of the three-wheeled vehicles generally used for small jobs. In a considerable feat of engineering, the company came up with a design that allowed it to cut two engines for the Ace from the same block it used for the Indica. Not only did that allow the company to avoid building a new assembly facility, it also allowed it to capitalize on further economies of scale. If the People's Car shows more of the same, Tata—and India—may well win the race to miniaturize the automobile.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/84503
Thursday, January 03, 2008
this just in: i ramble for rupees, too
Check out my latest word spew in Outlook. Don't worry, it's not a treatise about Narendra Modi or anything.
The headline reads:
Objective Observations By A Ludicrous Freak
Often, it all ends up as a strange, involuntary, one-man circus act by a bald white man
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20080114&fname=JDCol+Jason&sid=1
The headline reads:
Objective Observations By A Ludicrous Freak
Often, it all ends up as a strange, involuntary, one-man circus act by a bald white man
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20080114&fname=JDCol+Jason&sid=1
Thursday, December 27, 2007
5:30 am - the annoying righteous
As I am once again driven from bed by a mob of drum-toting chanters intent on proving to the neighborhood how devout they are, I can't help but think (once again) god must be hard of hearing. Why else is such volume necessary? To wake me up? To get revenge on all the non-religious folks who don't crawl out of bed before the sun comes up? Nope. Apparently, although he/she is all powerful, all knowing and all seeing, god is not all hearing. It explains a lot, actually. Otherwise he/she really isn't much on the ball.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
cashless in the hinterlands
Here's my latest article from Newsweek. Old news for some people, I know. But maybe a few new tidbits in there....
Cashless in the Hinterlands
By Jason Overdorf
Mobile banking might save the government and banks money and reduce fraud that plagues the public-distribution system.
Newsweek Dec. 8
Mobile phones are making life better for people in remote, underserved areas of India. They no longer have to walk kilometers to public call offices to use a telephone—an essential tool for buying and selling goods based on the latest market data, getting credit from lenders and other commonplace activities. So far, most of the benefits have come from one of the phone's simplest features: voice calls.
With more than 250 million mobile users and 6 million new ones added each month, India now has the "teledensity" to support more-sophisticated mobile technologies, which could have a big impact on Indian society and the economy in the next few years. (An extra 10 mobile phones per 100 people in a typical developing country leads to an additional 0.59 percentage points of growth in GDP per person, according to a London Business School study.) These include "voice broadcast" services that would let a truck owner inform residents of a village about a scheduled trip to the city, or doctors announce the availability of polio vaccinations. A more complex system would allow a small business, say, to keep track of shipments. What's holding up these services is the lack of mobile banking.
With urban markets nearing saturation, global giants like Nokia are now looking to appeal to the hinterlands. Reliance Communications, which has offered Internet service over its mobile phones since 2002, is sponsoring a contest this year for developers to invent new rural services. "We want to really take advantage of our mobile platform, our data network, and our ability to provide the mobile Internet experience to bridge the digital divide," says Mahesh Prasad, president of applications and development.
Several small companies are at work on mobile banking for small businesses. New Delhi-based ekgaon technologies has developed a system for tracking transactions made by so-called Self Help Groups, which pool members' money and offer small loans to poor people. The system uses a camera-equipped mobile phone to scan forms and a voice-recognition system. A.Little.World, a mobile software business in Mumbai, has developed a microfinance and payment system that lets customers perform banking transactions through a local agent affiliated with a bank (a practice allowed for the first time in January 2006). Customers get a secure electronic identity via phone or smart card; agents take deposits and dispense cash. Biometric data, such as fingerprints, make the phones and smart cards more secure than paper-based banking. A.Little.World has extended such services to about 400 local businesses acting as agents. And it's now working on a national rollout with the State Bank of India—the biggest player in the rural market. Meanwhile, ekgaon, whose partners include CARE, WorldVision and the World Bank, has a pilot transaction-management system for 10,000 Self Help Groups, with plans to extend it to 14 Indian states.
Mobile banking services can reduce the cost of transactions for loans and other services—the main obstacle to providing banking for the poor—by as much as three quarters, according to ekgaon's chief operating officer Rohit Magotra. Mobile transactions could have an even broader effect applied to India's social-security payments and public-distribution system, which sells essential goods to the poor at subsidized rates. By March 2008, people in 8,000 villages in Andhra Pradesh will get their benefits zapped via mobile phone to their smart cards, which they may eventually use instead of cash to buy goods at the ration shop. A.Little.World, which is building the system, says a nationwide service could help reduce fraud in the public-distribution system. It would also mean going from a bankless world to a cashless one, maybe even faster than America or Europe.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/74440
Cashless in the Hinterlands
By Jason Overdorf
Mobile banking might save the government and banks money and reduce fraud that plagues the public-distribution system.
Newsweek Dec. 8
Mobile phones are making life better for people in remote, underserved areas of India. They no longer have to walk kilometers to public call offices to use a telephone—an essential tool for buying and selling goods based on the latest market data, getting credit from lenders and other commonplace activities. So far, most of the benefits have come from one of the phone's simplest features: voice calls.
With more than 250 million mobile users and 6 million new ones added each month, India now has the "teledensity" to support more-sophisticated mobile technologies, which could have a big impact on Indian society and the economy in the next few years. (An extra 10 mobile phones per 100 people in a typical developing country leads to an additional 0.59 percentage points of growth in GDP per person, according to a London Business School study.) These include "voice broadcast" services that would let a truck owner inform residents of a village about a scheduled trip to the city, or doctors announce the availability of polio vaccinations. A more complex system would allow a small business, say, to keep track of shipments. What's holding up these services is the lack of mobile banking.
With urban markets nearing saturation, global giants like Nokia are now looking to appeal to the hinterlands. Reliance Communications, which has offered Internet service over its mobile phones since 2002, is sponsoring a contest this year for developers to invent new rural services. "We want to really take advantage of our mobile platform, our data network, and our ability to provide the mobile Internet experience to bridge the digital divide," says Mahesh Prasad, president of applications and development.
Several small companies are at work on mobile banking for small businesses. New Delhi-based ekgaon technologies has developed a system for tracking transactions made by so-called Self Help Groups, which pool members' money and offer small loans to poor people. The system uses a camera-equipped mobile phone to scan forms and a voice-recognition system. A.Little.World, a mobile software business in Mumbai, has developed a microfinance and payment system that lets customers perform banking transactions through a local agent affiliated with a bank (a practice allowed for the first time in January 2006). Customers get a secure electronic identity via phone or smart card; agents take deposits and dispense cash. Biometric data, such as fingerprints, make the phones and smart cards more secure than paper-based banking. A.Little.World has extended such services to about 400 local businesses acting as agents. And it's now working on a national rollout with the State Bank of India—the biggest player in the rural market. Meanwhile, ekgaon, whose partners include CARE, WorldVision and the World Bank, has a pilot transaction-management system for 10,000 Self Help Groups, with plans to extend it to 14 Indian states.
Mobile banking services can reduce the cost of transactions for loans and other services—the main obstacle to providing banking for the poor—by as much as three quarters, according to ekgaon's chief operating officer Rohit Magotra. Mobile transactions could have an even broader effect applied to India's social-security payments and public-distribution system, which sells essential goods to the poor at subsidized rates. By March 2008, people in 8,000 villages in Andhra Pradesh will get their benefits zapped via mobile phone to their smart cards, which they may eventually use instead of cash to buy goods at the ration shop. A.Little.World, which is building the system, says a nationwide service could help reduce fraud in the public-distribution system. It would also mean going from a bankless world to a cashless one, maybe even faster than America or Europe.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/74440
new best beer candidate
And the winner is.... Kingfisher Draft in the ugly yellow can! Yep, that's right folks. It's better than the original (by a mile) and even better than the export variety packaged in the little pint bottles. Pricewise it's nice, too. Rs. 35 for 500 ml, compared with Rs. 20 for 330 ml for the pints (last year's winner).
Now: Who represents Paulaner over here, anyway? I want that stuff down below Rs. 100 a pint pronto!
Now: Who represents Paulaner over here, anyway? I want that stuff down below Rs. 100 a pint pronto!
what to do for xmas and new year's?
Readers:
What the hell is going on in Delhi for Christmas and New Year's Eve? So far, I've read about a couple buffet dinners for Christmas, some church services (of course), and that's it! Aren't there supposed to be legions of turkey roasts at the various five stars? Which one is the best (and cheapest?)
As for New Year's Eve, do I HAVE to go to Mumbai and watch one of those floor shows with Rakhi Sawant (see earlier post). Or can I get my groove on here, even though I have no posh friends with luxurious farmhouses?
Where to go? What to do?
What the hell is going on in Delhi for Christmas and New Year's Eve? So far, I've read about a couple buffet dinners for Christmas, some church services (of course), and that's it! Aren't there supposed to be legions of turkey roasts at the various five stars? Which one is the best (and cheapest?)
As for New Year's Eve, do I HAVE to go to Mumbai and watch one of those floor shows with Rakhi Sawant (see earlier post). Or can I get my groove on here, even though I have no posh friends with luxurious farmhouses?
Where to go? What to do?
Sunday, December 16, 2007
no sex for the poor
Yet another slam on Rakhi Sawant in the paper the other day, this time by some fifth-tier would-be star who's doing a sexploitation flick and trying to spin it as highbrow stuff. (Why, why, why do Bollywood people try to do this? High brow talk and Bollywood don't mix any better than high brow movies and Bollywood. Maybe it's because they're such "vorashous" readers?)
Anyway, on to my point. She said something like "It's not tarty like Rakhi Sawant," and I immediately thought here it is again: the upper / upper middle class suggesting that you can't be sexy (only slutty) if you come from a family of modest means. First it was Mallika Sherawat, who was hammered for wearing revealing clothes that were far less revealing than Malaika Arora's. Now it's Rakhi Sawant.
Seems to me it's not what they wear, or what they say (though the fact that they're outspoken appears to be a bigger offense). It's who they are. "Regular" folks who dare to challenge the upper crust's monopoly on moral transgression. The implicit argument appears to run: If they don't remember their "place" as women, next thing you know, they'll be forgetting their "place" as poor provincials. And it's amazing the amount of firepower that's brought into play to try to keep that from happening. All the stars bring out the knives on the chat shows. The newspapers jump on the bandwagon. And on and on.
Anyway, on to my point. She said something like "It's not tarty like Rakhi Sawant," and I immediately thought here it is again: the upper / upper middle class suggesting that you can't be sexy (only slutty) if you come from a family of modest means. First it was Mallika Sherawat, who was hammered for wearing revealing clothes that were far less revealing than Malaika Arora's. Now it's Rakhi Sawant.
Seems to me it's not what they wear, or what they say (though the fact that they're outspoken appears to be a bigger offense). It's who they are. "Regular" folks who dare to challenge the upper crust's monopoly on moral transgression. The implicit argument appears to run: If they don't remember their "place" as women, next thing you know, they'll be forgetting their "place" as poor provincials. And it's amazing the amount of firepower that's brought into play to try to keep that from happening. All the stars bring out the knives on the chat shows. The newspapers jump on the bandwagon. And on and on.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
India blowing its big chance...
In case you haven't seen this week's Newsweek, the cover story is "Why India is blowing its big chance" and the subject is (you guessed it) the nuclear deal with the US. Read below for my contribution: a tidbit on why the economy keeps trundling along despite Mr. Singh's recent woes.
I also wrote my own bit on the nuclear deal for Newsweek Japan (in Japanese, of course). I don't speak it or write it, but apparently I am infinitely translatable.
Those of you who hate long blog posts can stop reading now.
As for the rest of you... Imagine the following is in Japanese.
Deal or No Deal
By Jason Overdorf/New Delhi
Not long back, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told a group of executives that his fractured mandate has made it difficult for his government to do “what is manifestly obvious” to maintain his country's impressive economic growth. For Singh, who is renowned, and sometimes even criticized, for his humility, that was as acerbic as it gets. But the message hidden between the lines is the one that international observers should heed: If doing the obvious is difficult, then achieving the unexpected and controversial is well-nigh impossible. And unfortunately, by pushing forward a nuclear deal with the United States, that is exactly what the man often called India's weakest prime minister in history has set out to do.
To many, the nuclear pact, which was clinched between the two governments in August, does indeed seem obvious. For India, it is essentially an invitation to come in from the cold without substantially altering its nuclear policies. The pact would finalize the rollback of sanctions imposed when India tested its first nuclear device in 1974, allowing for the free transfer of technologies classified as “dual use” because they can be used for both peaceful and military projects. That in turn would spark a boom in the construction of nuclear power plants in a country which desperately needs more electrical power to meet its future targets for economic growth. For the US, the deal would provide a measure of international oversight for India's nuclear program by requiring international inspections of some of its facilities, even though it would not bring India under the ambit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It would facilitate billions of dollars worth of business agreements. And, perhaps most importantly, it would put an official stamp of sorts on India's gradual alignment of its foreign policy objectives with America's, making the one-time leader of the Cold War's Non-Aligned Movement into a full-fledged, bankable US ally.
But there's the rub, according to policy analyst Pratap Bhanu Mehta, president of New Delhi's Centre for Policy Research. India's left sees the deal as the first step in a major overhaul of India's foreign policy that will force it to take a strong position against Iran—which some see as a natural regional ally; reorient its military spending from Russia and other former principal allies toward the US; and take on a pre-scripted role as the US-friendly counterbalance to China in Asia. “Part of it is a trust deficit,” says Mehta. “The prime minister wants to say, 'Trust me, I'm not going to sell India out to the US. And the others are saying, 'Well.... you sort of are.'” Many in the left, in fact, believe it was only their opposition that prevented India from sending troops into Iraq. As a result, India's communists--who hold 59 seats in the parliament and thus have the power to bring down Singh's United Progressive Alliance coalition government if they choose—said in no uncertain terms that they will withdraw support for the UPA and force new elections if Singh moves to implement the pact. This week, the deal received a new lease on life as the left relented and agreed to allow the government to send negotiators to talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on a nuclear safeguards agreement that needs to be signed before the pact can be implemented. But many observers suggest the move is designed to allow Singh to save face by conveniently letting the IAEA talks fail.
Because the question of a strategic alignment with the US is a sticky one, Singh, who has yet to give up, has of late begun to emphasize the economic benefits of the deal. India desperately needs more electrical power, the argument runs, and foreign-built nuclear plants will help meet that need while decreasing India's reliance on oil and gas imports and improving carbon emissions. "It's imperative for India to diversify its energy portfolio and enhance the share of nuclear energy because its heavy and growing reliance on [imported oil and natural gas] is going to be expensive and inflationary," argues Professor Anupam Srivastava, director of the Asia Program at the University of Georgia's Center for International Trade & Security. "The government cannot subsidize energy imports beyond a point, which makes 8-10 percent economic growth simply unaffordable. And as this growth slows down to around 5%, foreign capital and technology investment will also slow down, and in turn reduce India's ability to leverage economic gains in other strategic sectors."
To avert that problem, India plans through the pact with the US to increase the share of nuclear power in its energy mix from around three percent to as high as 20 percent by 2050—a goal that would involve building more than 40 new nuclear facilities. For US nuclear suppliers, but also for French, Canadian and Russian firms, this could mean orders running into many billions of dollars over the next several years. However, the deal's opponents argue that India's nuclear power targets may be overly ambitious, and may not even be necessary. In one recent study, for instance, the international development consultancy Dalberg found that even though India will need to increase its power generation capacity from today's 127 gigawatts to around 960 gigawatts by 2032 to meet its GDP growth target of 9%, that increase can be achieved without a dramatic increase in nuclear power production and the biggest gains in emissions will come through the use of clean coal technologies. “[The government's] projections are essentially doubling what they have done historically, so there are big questions about whether they'll be able to hit these numbers,” says John Stephenson, a senior consultant at Dalberg. “And even if they do hit these numbers, it [nuclear power] is a marginal energy source.”
However, focusing on the energy aspect of the agreement—whether to insist it is necessary or to denigrate it as trivial—is to ignore its real significance. And assuming, as do many pundits in India, that the ever closer political and economic relationship between India and the United States has attained an inevitable momentum may be a mistake. “India above all wanted to end its status as a 'nuclear outcaste,'” explains Teresita C. Schaffer, director for South Asia at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The deal would accomplish this.” On the other hand, if Singh fails to push it through after the US has agreed to virtually all of India's demands, it could have serious consequences for India's future ability to conduct bilateral negotiations with the US and other nations. “It [India] will start to look like a country that can't take yes for an answer,” Schaffer says.
Meanwhile, this deal could be a “now or never” proposition. President George W. Bush's status as a conservative hawk who was willing to invade Iraq over the perceived threat of the proliferation of nuclear weapons grant him an authority to revisit the usefulness of the NPT in much the same way that former President Richard Nixon's anti-communist credentials made rapprochement with Mao Zedong politically feasible. If India blinks now, the deal will run into next year's American electoral campaign—guaranteed to put it on hold—and whatever president succeeds Bush will likely have neither the desire nor the mandate to put it back on the table. “I genuinely doubt that any successor, whether Republican or Democratic, would be in a position to make the same offer,” says Sumit Ganguly, a professor of political science at the University of Indiana.
Likely, that's music to the ears of India's communists.
I also wrote my own bit on the nuclear deal for Newsweek Japan (in Japanese, of course). I don't speak it or write it, but apparently I am infinitely translatable.
Those of you who hate long blog posts can stop reading now.
As for the rest of you... Imagine the following is in Japanese.
Deal or No Deal
By Jason Overdorf/New Delhi
Not long back, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told a group of executives that his fractured mandate has made it difficult for his government to do “what is manifestly obvious” to maintain his country's impressive economic growth. For Singh, who is renowned, and sometimes even criticized, for his humility, that was as acerbic as it gets. But the message hidden between the lines is the one that international observers should heed: If doing the obvious is difficult, then achieving the unexpected and controversial is well-nigh impossible. And unfortunately, by pushing forward a nuclear deal with the United States, that is exactly what the man often called India's weakest prime minister in history has set out to do.
To many, the nuclear pact, which was clinched between the two governments in August, does indeed seem obvious. For India, it is essentially an invitation to come in from the cold without substantially altering its nuclear policies. The pact would finalize the rollback of sanctions imposed when India tested its first nuclear device in 1974, allowing for the free transfer of technologies classified as “dual use” because they can be used for both peaceful and military projects. That in turn would spark a boom in the construction of nuclear power plants in a country which desperately needs more electrical power to meet its future targets for economic growth. For the US, the deal would provide a measure of international oversight for India's nuclear program by requiring international inspections of some of its facilities, even though it would not bring India under the ambit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It would facilitate billions of dollars worth of business agreements. And, perhaps most importantly, it would put an official stamp of sorts on India's gradual alignment of its foreign policy objectives with America's, making the one-time leader of the Cold War's Non-Aligned Movement into a full-fledged, bankable US ally.
But there's the rub, according to policy analyst Pratap Bhanu Mehta, president of New Delhi's Centre for Policy Research. India's left sees the deal as the first step in a major overhaul of India's foreign policy that will force it to take a strong position against Iran—which some see as a natural regional ally; reorient its military spending from Russia and other former principal allies toward the US; and take on a pre-scripted role as the US-friendly counterbalance to China in Asia. “Part of it is a trust deficit,” says Mehta. “The prime minister wants to say, 'Trust me, I'm not going to sell India out to the US. And the others are saying, 'Well.... you sort of are.'” Many in the left, in fact, believe it was only their opposition that prevented India from sending troops into Iraq. As a result, India's communists--who hold 59 seats in the parliament and thus have the power to bring down Singh's United Progressive Alliance coalition government if they choose—said in no uncertain terms that they will withdraw support for the UPA and force new elections if Singh moves to implement the pact. This week, the deal received a new lease on life as the left relented and agreed to allow the government to send negotiators to talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on a nuclear safeguards agreement that needs to be signed before the pact can be implemented. But many observers suggest the move is designed to allow Singh to save face by conveniently letting the IAEA talks fail.
Because the question of a strategic alignment with the US is a sticky one, Singh, who has yet to give up, has of late begun to emphasize the economic benefits of the deal. India desperately needs more electrical power, the argument runs, and foreign-built nuclear plants will help meet that need while decreasing India's reliance on oil and gas imports and improving carbon emissions. "It's imperative for India to diversify its energy portfolio and enhance the share of nuclear energy because its heavy and growing reliance on [imported oil and natural gas] is going to be expensive and inflationary," argues Professor Anupam Srivastava, director of the Asia Program at the University of Georgia's Center for International Trade & Security. "The government cannot subsidize energy imports beyond a point, which makes 8-10 percent economic growth simply unaffordable. And as this growth slows down to around 5%, foreign capital and technology investment will also slow down, and in turn reduce India's ability to leverage economic gains in other strategic sectors."
To avert that problem, India plans through the pact with the US to increase the share of nuclear power in its energy mix from around three percent to as high as 20 percent by 2050—a goal that would involve building more than 40 new nuclear facilities. For US nuclear suppliers, but also for French, Canadian and Russian firms, this could mean orders running into many billions of dollars over the next several years. However, the deal's opponents argue that India's nuclear power targets may be overly ambitious, and may not even be necessary. In one recent study, for instance, the international development consultancy Dalberg found that even though India will need to increase its power generation capacity from today's 127 gigawatts to around 960 gigawatts by 2032 to meet its GDP growth target of 9%, that increase can be achieved without a dramatic increase in nuclear power production and the biggest gains in emissions will come through the use of clean coal technologies. “[The government's] projections are essentially doubling what they have done historically, so there are big questions about whether they'll be able to hit these numbers,” says John Stephenson, a senior consultant at Dalberg. “And even if they do hit these numbers, it [nuclear power] is a marginal energy source.”
However, focusing on the energy aspect of the agreement—whether to insist it is necessary or to denigrate it as trivial—is to ignore its real significance. And assuming, as do many pundits in India, that the ever closer political and economic relationship between India and the United States has attained an inevitable momentum may be a mistake. “India above all wanted to end its status as a 'nuclear outcaste,'” explains Teresita C. Schaffer, director for South Asia at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The deal would accomplish this.” On the other hand, if Singh fails to push it through after the US has agreed to virtually all of India's demands, it could have serious consequences for India's future ability to conduct bilateral negotiations with the US and other nations. “It [India] will start to look like a country that can't take yes for an answer,” Schaffer says.
Meanwhile, this deal could be a “now or never” proposition. President George W. Bush's status as a conservative hawk who was willing to invade Iraq over the perceived threat of the proliferation of nuclear weapons grant him an authority to revisit the usefulness of the NPT in much the same way that former President Richard Nixon's anti-communist credentials made rapprochement with Mao Zedong politically feasible. If India blinks now, the deal will run into next year's American electoral campaign—guaranteed to put it on hold—and whatever president succeeds Bush will likely have neither the desire nor the mandate to put it back on the table. “I genuinely doubt that any successor, whether Republican or Democratic, would be in a position to make the same offer,” says Sumit Ganguly, a professor of political science at the University of Indiana.
Likely, that's music to the ears of India's communists.
clear skies ahead?
India's economy reaches the "takeoff" point. But will tumultuous politics put it in a holding pattern?
By Jason Overdorf/New Delhi
(Newsweek Web extra - November 24, 2007)
India's politics may be in turmoil, but so far the chaos hasn't put a crimp in the country's economy. Last quarter, GDP grew by more than 9 percent, a huge improvement over the 3.5 percent the country averaged in its first 30 years.
The explanation for the disconnect, according to a recent report by Lehman Brothers, is that India's economy has reached what experts call a "takeoff" point where the "old blocks and resistances to steady growth [have been] finally overcome." The report predicts that India's economic momentum has become virtually unstoppable, thanks to two main factors: an average 6.9 growth rate in per capita GDP since 2003, and a trade-to-GDP ratio that has doubled over the past seven years.
The surge in per capita GDP to about $800—from less than $350 in 1995—has more than doubled the size of India's middle class to about 50 million, increasing demand for consumer goods and stimulating manufacturing. The increase in the trade-to-GDP ratio shows that India's economy has finally opened up to the world as dramatically as China's and South Korea's did before it. Meanwhile, a boom has boosted India's investment-to-GDP ratio into the 30 to 40 percent range, from about 15 percent in the early 1990s—hitting the level many analysts believe was essential to the rapid growth experienced in other parts of Asia. And the trends, according to Lehman Brothers, suggest that India is just getting started. If it continues to make economic reforms, such as simplifying taxes, loosening labor laws and changing the pension system to help build a healthy corporate bond market, the economy could soon hit China's mythic 10 percent annual growth rate.
But that's a big if. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's reforms—most of which he made as finance minister between 1991 and 1996 (one reason he doesn't get credit for them now)—succeeded so well that they eliminated any sense of urgency. In this sense, the prime minister may be a victim of his own achievements. The problem, says Subir Gokarn, chief economist at Crisil, a credit-rating agency, is that "when the economy is doing so well, you cannot create a constituency for reform." The ability to make big changes, he explains, is "independent of the individual, independent of the party, independent of the system. When there's a widespread perception of crisis, then reform happens. When there isn't, it doesn't." In 1991, such a crisis atmosphere came from an exchange-rate drop that nearly depleted India's foreign-exchange reserves. But the country has faced no similar threat since 2004.
Thus reform has slowed dramatically. Singh's government has failed to take steps like relaxing India's stringent labor laws and selling off state-owned industries. That said, it has managed to make some important improvements in recent years—despite fractures within the governing coalition and the lack of an outside prod. For instance, after becoming prime minister in 2004, Singh, despite local opposition, began measures to allow foreign direct investment in the retail sector and to facilitate the creation of large domestic retail chains. He also moved to encourage public-private partnerships in infrastructure projects—potentially bringing more money and better management to one of India's biggest laggards. And he unleashed what could be the biggest stimulus for India's manufacturing sector since 1991, setting up a huge number (386) of special economic zones last year, where industry will enjoy preferential tax policies and government assistance in acquiring land. (Between 1965 and 2004, by contrast, India established only eight.)
The alignment of economic agendas between India's two largest political parties—Congress and the BJP--is perhaps the best sign of all for the country's economic future. Politics in India can prove unstable; four different governments ruled during the 1990s; the BJP-led alliance held sway from 1998 to 2003, and a coalition led by the Congress Party has ruled since 2004. But as the politicians have traded seats, economic reforms have continued apace. This suggests that despite some resistance and reluctance to make further changes, both of the major parties believe there's no going back on reforms already undertaken. Moreover, as the Lehman Brothers report points out, "The general pattern in democracies worldwide is that governments find it easier to push through reforms—and other potentially controversial legislation—earlier in their term of office." That means the 2009 general elections might give the Indian snowball another push, bringing 10 percent growth into view at last.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/72071
By Jason Overdorf/New Delhi
(Newsweek Web extra - November 24, 2007)
India's politics may be in turmoil, but so far the chaos hasn't put a crimp in the country's economy. Last quarter, GDP grew by more than 9 percent, a huge improvement over the 3.5 percent the country averaged in its first 30 years.
The explanation for the disconnect, according to a recent report by Lehman Brothers, is that India's economy has reached what experts call a "takeoff" point where the "old blocks and resistances to steady growth [have been] finally overcome." The report predicts that India's economic momentum has become virtually unstoppable, thanks to two main factors: an average 6.9 growth rate in per capita GDP since 2003, and a trade-to-GDP ratio that has doubled over the past seven years.
The surge in per capita GDP to about $800—from less than $350 in 1995—has more than doubled the size of India's middle class to about 50 million, increasing demand for consumer goods and stimulating manufacturing. The increase in the trade-to-GDP ratio shows that India's economy has finally opened up to the world as dramatically as China's and South Korea's did before it. Meanwhile, a boom has boosted India's investment-to-GDP ratio into the 30 to 40 percent range, from about 15 percent in the early 1990s—hitting the level many analysts believe was essential to the rapid growth experienced in other parts of Asia. And the trends, according to Lehman Brothers, suggest that India is just getting started. If it continues to make economic reforms, such as simplifying taxes, loosening labor laws and changing the pension system to help build a healthy corporate bond market, the economy could soon hit China's mythic 10 percent annual growth rate.
But that's a big if. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's reforms—most of which he made as finance minister between 1991 and 1996 (one reason he doesn't get credit for them now)—succeeded so well that they eliminated any sense of urgency. In this sense, the prime minister may be a victim of his own achievements. The problem, says Subir Gokarn, chief economist at Crisil, a credit-rating agency, is that "when the economy is doing so well, you cannot create a constituency for reform." The ability to make big changes, he explains, is "independent of the individual, independent of the party, independent of the system. When there's a widespread perception of crisis, then reform happens. When there isn't, it doesn't." In 1991, such a crisis atmosphere came from an exchange-rate drop that nearly depleted India's foreign-exchange reserves. But the country has faced no similar threat since 2004.
Thus reform has slowed dramatically. Singh's government has failed to take steps like relaxing India's stringent labor laws and selling off state-owned industries. That said, it has managed to make some important improvements in recent years—despite fractures within the governing coalition and the lack of an outside prod. For instance, after becoming prime minister in 2004, Singh, despite local opposition, began measures to allow foreign direct investment in the retail sector and to facilitate the creation of large domestic retail chains. He also moved to encourage public-private partnerships in infrastructure projects—potentially bringing more money and better management to one of India's biggest laggards. And he unleashed what could be the biggest stimulus for India's manufacturing sector since 1991, setting up a huge number (386) of special economic zones last year, where industry will enjoy preferential tax policies and government assistance in acquiring land. (Between 1965 and 2004, by contrast, India established only eight.)
The alignment of economic agendas between India's two largest political parties—Congress and the BJP--is perhaps the best sign of all for the country's economic future. Politics in India can prove unstable; four different governments ruled during the 1990s; the BJP-led alliance held sway from 1998 to 2003, and a coalition led by the Congress Party has ruled since 2004. But as the politicians have traded seats, economic reforms have continued apace. This suggests that despite some resistance and reluctance to make further changes, both of the major parties believe there's no going back on reforms already undertaken. Moreover, as the Lehman Brothers report points out, "The general pattern in democracies worldwide is that governments find it easier to push through reforms—and other potentially controversial legislation—earlier in their term of office." That means the 2009 general elections might give the Indian snowball another push, bringing 10 percent growth into view at last.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/72071
Friday, November 16, 2007
travel, wedding season, and general laziness
I must apologize for my long absence from this space.... The truth is that, in what is a rare occurrence, I've actually been busy. First my good school friend (yes, practically chaddi buddies, if I'm spelling that correctly) came to visit and we went off to Udaipur and then, somewhat randomly, to Leh. Then I started to get a bunch of unexpected writing assignments.
I don't know how I feel about the latter. I need the money, I like the the idea that people want me to work for them. But somehow the work itself never seems as fun as the stuff I do on my own initiative. Nevertheless, it seems to be the role of the freelancer never to say no, like some actor trapped forever in an improvisational sketch.
At the same time, we suddenly have started meeting people again, after many months spent in despair over the exodus of all our friends. It's almost funny, as in recent weeks it seems like *everybody* we meet is someone that we like so well (I know, I'm talking like we're a psychological unit, but on this score we are agreed) that we have to scheme ways to meet them again and again. Having friends, or trying to have friends, can be such a chore.
Anyway, between actually making enough money to live on, seeing a little of the country, and meeting people that I like, I've hardly had any time to complain about Delhi, fantasize about the book I'm supposed to be writing, fight with Shailaja, surf the property ads for apartments in Ghaziabad, or to ramble on existentially here, my regular access to The Void.
I don't know how I feel about the latter. I need the money, I like the the idea that people want me to work for them. But somehow the work itself never seems as fun as the stuff I do on my own initiative. Nevertheless, it seems to be the role of the freelancer never to say no, like some actor trapped forever in an improvisational sketch.
At the same time, we suddenly have started meeting people again, after many months spent in despair over the exodus of all our friends. It's almost funny, as in recent weeks it seems like *everybody* we meet is someone that we like so well (I know, I'm talking like we're a psychological unit, but on this score we are agreed) that we have to scheme ways to meet them again and again. Having friends, or trying to have friends, can be such a chore.
Anyway, between actually making enough money to live on, seeing a little of the country, and meeting people that I like, I've hardly had any time to complain about Delhi, fantasize about the book I'm supposed to be writing, fight with Shailaja, surf the property ads for apartments in Ghaziabad, or to ramble on existentially here, my regular access to The Void.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
another newsweek article on india's economy
In case you weren't bored enough by the plethora of articles on India's economy, here Newsweek superstar George Wehrfritz and I do a little channeling of Thomas Friedman to pump up India a little before the stock market tanks. The premise: India doesn't have much of an export economy, so it will be safer in a US recession than China.
BTW: Can anybody say "bubble?"
Read on at http://www.newsweek.com/id/43340
BTW: Can anybody say "bubble?"
Read on at http://www.newsweek.com/id/43340
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)