Posted on 04/14/2005 8:14:45 PM PDT by jb6
New Delhi, April 14: If world businessmen go by laissez faire economics alone, a country like India offers the best deal anywhere, anytime. Even if parochial interests are keeping most EU and US companies country-bound today, then losses in the near future are definitely going to drive them eastward, to India.
In fact, Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria said that American car companies like General Motors, Ford and Daimler-Chrysler, one-time icons of motoring, are being driven to rack and ruin due to the huge benefits they offer their employees. On healthcare alone the American worker in these companies gets more than $6,500 per year. He goes on to add, “GM in fact, will pay a whopping $5.2 billion (2005) in medical and insurance bills for its active and retired workers.”
He raises a scenario of a rout for America’s Big Three as and when India’s and China’s carmakers start manufacturing for the US market.
Also, India has come out tops in a study by Mercer Human Resource Consulting as reported by DW-World De, a German website. The stats indicated that, as far as labour costs are concerned the desi worker has no real challenger, anywhere in the world.
As a corollary, said the world's largest employee benefits consultancy, employers looking for able and willing workers on the cheap, can find the best deals here.
While Belgium, Germany and Sweden have the most expensive labour, costing more than 50,000 euros a year, going to India makes far better sense at a mere fraction of the cost, 2,024 euros!
However, countries that have thrown off the Soviet Union’s yoke in the recent past are also relatively cheap, but they too look awesomely expensive at double that of India.
For instance, Latvia at 4,752 euros, Lithuania at 5,649 euros and Poland at 8,257 euros lose their competitive battle against India even though, when pitted against their European brothers, they win hands down. However, the language barrier that these countries pose is also working against them. India, where English is largely predominant, offers the best brains, dedicated workers and comprehensive infrastructure for even the most technically challenging jobs. That Indians are willing to work extended shifts adds to their appeal.
Japan and USA, where capitalism and managerial excellence rule, also do not emerge as better prospects to take your business to. While in the Land of the Rising Sun labour costs are in the region of 45,839 euros, Uncle Sam’s stands at 33,195 euros.
Putting all of these figures in perspective, one wonders why more European countries are not outsourcing. As it is, the European Union is fighting a virtually stagnant economy. And, if no alternatives are explored, at this rate, the labor costs are going to drive European Union into the ground. Ditto for US. However, even though their businessmen are quite gung ho about outsourcing, politicians are pandering to the nationalist sentiments there to put a spanner in the works of outsourcing.
However, it must be remembered that the EU countries offer very generous social security, annuity benefits, medical assistance besides a host of other incentives. In India these benefits will lead to an expenditure of just $100 at the highest. A people starting from virtual scratch, as India did after hundreds of years of foreign rule, will work for less.
By Y2K the die has been cast. With European and US workers unwilling to accept pay cuts, nor are they willing to outsource, there is no way Germany, France, Spain, US and the rest can keep their rich countries’ financial future safe. Unless they look to countries like India.
Both of you are right in a sense, but I'm not sure that's the real issue:
1) Yes, casteism is still a serious problem in India. It has by no means gone away, and still continues to blight the lives of many millions of people.
2) However, there *have* been significant inroads made into the problem since independence in 1947. A cultural and social system developed over three millenia, and applying to a billion people is not changed so easily. As has been pointed out, democracy has meant that lower castes control the political process in many - if not most - states. The previous President was a Dalit. And so on. There is much yet to do, but much has been achieved in 60 years.
Having said that, the South African comparison isn't appropriate. Sanctions against South Africa put pressure on the Government to change the aparthied regime, which it eventually did. Aparthied was an artificial legal and social structure created purely by government fiat in the 1920s or so. The vast (black) majority of the populace didn't want it. The Government could (and did) change it by changing the legal structure of the country, although the consequences are still being felt. Hence, sanctions, which directly affect the country and government were effective in forcing De Klerk to do what was in his power.
In India, the caste problem is the result of two thousand years of history. It is not in the Government's power to snap its fingers and make it go away - and at any rate, successive governments over the decades have genuinely been trying to solve the problem.
What will sanctions do? They won't help the situation at all, except to make people in Western countries feel as if they've done their bit for the problem when they've made it worse. It's foreign investment and economic development which lift people out of poverty, and help to achieve things beyond what their caste dictates. If you allow the status quo to remain, then that is license for the caste system to continue..
Dude, what the heck are you talking about? grey_whiskers is talking about Segregation. Either you don't know what you're talking about or you're the troll here.
Oh and don't tell me that the caste system is nothing major. I've worked with plenty of Indians and grew up with several Indian friends. I've heard enough horror stories about the caste system. There is no equality or fairness when a man's potential is determined by his place of birth in society. As an Orthodox Christian, there is absolutely no way you can sell me on that idea.
How are these people a minority if they are just poor (substituting as you suggested). For a minority they must be treated seperately by race, gender or birth. Guess it runs a bit deeper then just economics, hugh?
Strawman Apples and Oranges. We're talking about outed caste people who happen to be in the lowest caste, you're trying to compare them to the plight of war refugees.
I don't wonder, what with their double digit unemployment already.
The biggest obstacle to Ford and GM in the US is pensions as well as health insurance for retirees. Huge legacy costs with no return.
I was not drawing a parallel between the Caste system in India and apartheid, as practiced and realized by the participants and victims; even in my first post, I was pointing out that the PC crowd in the West (if they were consistent) would be condemning both as one form or another of "racism". Then, if the treatment meted out by the West to the country was at all similar, then *POOF* ! -- greatly reduced foreign investment in India.
Full Disclosure: Please read all my earlier posts in this thread... Cheers!
Its far from true.. people who do not understand how the situation is back home, are spreading malicious lies about Hinduism and even India.
It has been argued that Caste system is intrinsic to Hinduism... no denying that.. but Hinduism itself is merely the name given to all philosophies and beliefs originating from the people located to the east of Indus river. Its more like a way of life, and caste system was the way early Indo-Europeans organized their pre-ancient society. But it wasnt as if they wanted perennial persecution of lower castes by sanctioning some authoritative theological mandate, by establishing caste system, as is being maliciously reported by some folks around. They thought it was the most efficient way to sustain their society, of their time and age.
Oh BTW, if you think Christianity itself is immune from caste system, think twice.. Christians have retained the same caste system in most of rural India.. the upper castes who converted to Christianity, will NEVER marry or treat any lower caste christians in an equal manner, even after dozens of generations.. even muslims (especially in rural Pakistan) still retain their "caste" titles even though their ancestors converted to Islam a millenia ago, especially if they belong to the upper caste landed community.
And surprisingly, some people who are infact discreetly seeking proselytization end up blaming "hinduism" alone for it ? Well, the nature of Hinduism itself is such that it has no control over the conduct of the people, it being not an organized religion like Christianity or Islam, with absolutely no laws (other than the Indian constitution and manu's laws, a religious text written by an ancient king that are more or less obsolete and no one cares about them now) governing people's culture. Rather, its more or less up to the culture to decide how it wants to practice a set of philophies that hinduism offers, not the other way round.
Modern day caste system has got nothing to do with religion itself.. its more of a social problem, thats more prevalent in country-side, while its almost died out in urban localities. Caste system has often been rightly compared to racial "differences" in US.. But its not the color of your skin that is the basis, only the birth.
Secondly, you cannot attribute this system to India itself, as India being a secular state doesnt have any state religion.. to undo the inequalities caused by caste system, people in power made sure that the constitution was framed and organized by the leader of "untouchables", even though he was very well known for his extreme anti-Hindu views.. this guy was born to an untouchable caste, but brought up by a brahmin, and married a brahmin woman.. inspite of that, he loathed hinduism so much that he converted to Buddhism, wrote various articles against that religion and was very much feared even by landed powerful, upper castes.
And yes, he was primarily responsible for the country having the most stringent affirmative action policies on this planet.. to "undo" the past wrongdoings. No wonder, he is revered more than Gandhi by most of his people - lower castes of all religions: Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims.
This episode would have some parallel in American history had the ruling white, christian folks of this country asked Malcolm X or Elijah Mohammad to re-draft their constitution.. if not MLK jr.
It is quite unfortunate, that inspite of these sacrifices, caste system is attributed to both India (which is a secular, not Hindu, state) and Hinduism (which didnt authorize caste "persecutions") very much unfairly.
No, I understood your point the first time. And my point remains.
You are saying that both aparthied and the caste system are a form of racism, and hence to avoid hypocrisy, should be treated the same by the West.
I am saying, that although they have some commonalities (they are both forms of discrimination against an underclass of society), the differences between them are so great, so fundamental, that they should not be treated the same. They cannot be: the reasons behind them, and the strategies to remove them are too different.
So it isn't hypocritical to treat them differently: they *are* different, despite some superficial similarities. And I pointed out those differences in my last post.
Then I guess they don't practice true Christianity. The first rule of Christianity is to love God utmost. The second is to love thy neighbor as you love theyself. As Christ said: "Treat the least amongst you as you would treat me."
Not exactly. I was observing that if apartheid and the caste system were treated the same (economic sanctions and divestment), then those articles in the Hindu Times and other places which are crowing over the decline of the West would have a distinctly more somber tone.
It is true that India is a democracy, and that many govt. officials are of lower castes. But that and four dollars will purchase a Starbucks iced coffee. In practice, many of the opportunities for the lower castes are still not there to an extent which would have US liberals and lawyers up in arms, were the inequity applied to any other group.
Full Disclosure: I am not a liberal, and so I don't believe in the divestment claptrap as anything other than self-masturb*tory symbolism. I just wish the internal progress in India would go at a faster pace: and am glad at least that the most recent election has taken the socialists in charge of the economy down a peg.
Cheers!
KC -- you guys related? ;-P
I disagree with BOTH of you -- you are each taking extreme positions and the truth is in between. I don't believe India would go past the US anytime soon, but I think they will be good competition to the US
There are numerous, cases of violence committed by upper caste christians in my state against their lower caste "brethren". Yes, its ironic since both Islam and Christianity seem to stand against racial discrimination, but apparently its only on paper, just like Hinduism.
But I dont think anyone can claim that Christianity is a "solution" for solving the racial/caste inequity problem. Even if someone had brutally imposed Christianity or communism or whatever, on the entire people, caste system would still exist.
But having lived long enough in either to study both cultures in detail, Indian culture is certainly more tolerant than American.
Hmm, given that India was colonized by the Brits, ( and I have seen 'recently' an article on how native-born Indians beat a bunch of native-born Brits on a British history test), you might recall Wilberforce on slavery.
But I dont think anyone can claim that Christianity is a "solution" for solving the racial/caste inequity problem. Even if someone had brutally imposed Christianity or communism or whatever, on the entire people, caste system would still exist.
Which brings us back to Jim Crow in the US South ("the Bible Belt"), eh?
In practice there HAS been hyprocrisy in much of the US on this issue.
But there is a difference between hypocrisy on an issue, where at least the ideals exist, and having separate, unequal treatment DICTATED by the moral code.
For the last sentence, Christianity by definition should NEVER be "imposed" by force...and speaking of Islam, it was originally spread in large measure, by forced conquest.
Cheers!
No, but we agree alot.
Yeah, those guys were from IITs (Indian institutes of technology), probably quite famous for exporting brainy researchers to American grad schools ;)
IITs were not established by the Brits... they were established by Indian govt soon after Independence, to exploit natural inclination of pursuing science and technology related careers by Indian middle class.
IITs have an acceptance rate of only 2%, making them one of the most difficult univ in the world to get into.. and unlike Harvard or yale, that take students based on their GPA and other superficial stuff, without testing their problem solving aptitude (there is a stupid exam called SAT, but everyone knows its farcical as it doesnt even test students' engineering or physics skills)
Its an open secret that the majority of Harvard or even MIT undergrads would flunk an IIT entrance exam ;)
IIT's entrance exam, is perhaps one of the toughest in the world (comparatively harder than even Tsinghua or Univ of Tokyo, which have similar technology based entrance exams). And no wonder, those kids end up occupying top slots in some of world's most prominent corporations.
Which brings us back to Jim Crow in the US South ("the Bible Belt"), eh? In practice there HAS been hyprocrisy in much of the US on this issue.
Yes, there is hypocricy in parts of US, but atleast many Americans admit to that ;)
Racism is ubiquitous and multi-faceted, and most of the times not soliciting any religious/moral approval. Afterall, many black africans themselves indulged in blatant racism, even as a state policy. Like when Idi Amin, the former ruler of Uganda, expelled all people of Indian origin out of the country as they didnt fit into his vision of Uganda.. or what is going on currently in Zimbabwe, against white settlers, even though they have nothing to do with any colonialism of the past.
But there is a difference between hypocrisy on an issue, where at least the ideals exist, and having separate, unequal treatment DICTATED by the moral code.
There sure is.. afterall, southern baptists even claimed that slavery had a biblical sanction.. some supremacist upper caste Hindus claim a similar religious sanction. Of course, they are in a minority.
For the last sentence, Christianity by definition should NEVER be "imposed" by force...and speaking of Islam, it was originally spread in large measure, by forced conquest.
It shouldnt be, but in practice, it was imposed over indigenous peoples of latin America, polynesia, etc. through brute force and violence. History is testimony to that.
Yeah, those guys were from IITs (Indian institutes of technology), probably quite famous for exporting brainy researchers to American grad schools ;)
Its an open secret that the majority of Harvard or even MIT undergrads would flunk an IIT entrance exam ;)
Is that why you're at Texas A&M ?
My point was that Wilburforce was a Christian, and instrumental in ending slavery under the British Crown.
The comment about the Indian students and the British history exam was in the hope that you had similar knowledge of British history to give credit where it was due.
IIT's entrance exam, is perhaps one of the toughest in the world (comparatively harder than even Tsinghua or Univ of Tokyo, which have similar technology based entrance exams). And no wonder, those kids end up occupying top slots in some of world's most prominent corporations.
Yes, that must be why so many students from India come to study in the US...like Texas A&M. :-)
Racism is ubiquitous and multi-faceted, and most of the times not soliciting any religious/moral approval. Afterall, many black africans themselves indulged in blatant racism, even as a state policy. Like when Idi Amin, the former ruler of Uganda, expelled all people of Indian origin out of the country as they didnt fit into his vision of Uganda.. or what is going on currently in Zimbabwe, against white settlers, even though they have nothing to do with any colonialism of the past.
Good PointTM! Most people decrying racism won't admit this.
There sure is.. afterall, southern baptists even claimed that slavery had a biblical sanction.. some supremacist upper caste Hindus claim a similar religious sanction. Of course, they are in a minority.
There are Biblical mentions of slavery: as when St. Paul adjures those Christians who are slaves to respect their masters. On the other hand, he does say "If you can avail yourself of freedom, do so."
And the Old Testament (Judaic law) forbids Israelites from enslaving fellow Jews--it is reserved (in effect) for those conquered during war, or for foreigners who offer themselves up as slaves because they have no other means of subsistence. And even then, the Jews are admonished to treat the slaves fairly and with respect. NOT exactly the stuff of which classical racism is composed.
It shouldnt be, but in practice, it was imposed over indigenous peoples of latin America, polynesia, etc. through brute force and violence. History is testimony to that.
That's odd--there are contemporary accounts of Muslim violence against Hindus and others, even in India; as opposed to (say) Mother Teresa; and yet you single out Christianity as more worthy of blame. Curiouser and curiouser...
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.