If Out source jobs from U.S.stops what will be the fate of Indian I.T.Sector?

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sri aramakrishnan1 Ji and Sri sangom Ji,

As an ex moderator of this Forum, I do not remember curtailing any discussions of any politics as long as it conformed to the standards of the Forum.

The topic of this thread is the US policy towards outsourcing jobs to India, China and Germany, and when the discussion turned to outsourcing in general, then the chain of discussions followed, that one may take as foraying in to US politics.

Feel free to discuss the topic from the Indian point of view and if I am not mistaken, both the author of this thread and Sri Hari have outlined the impact of any such US policy for India and if you each have any particular insight in to how Indian politics is involved in shaping up this issue, please post.

If I am speaking out of turn, then I am sure that the moderators will correct me. Thanks.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri. aramakrishnan1, Greetings!

In this forum, there were few instances when someone raised valuable issues which affect the society, but they had some political touch. In all those instances, the moderators shot down such issues saying Politics should not be discussed here.

In the last roughly 18 months I have not seen this even once. May I ask what you base this on?

But I see 5 pages of Politics only in this particular post. Is it allowed only to talk of US politics and not Indian politics ?

I am going to go out on a limb and make a wild guess, of the people who actively participate in discussions in this forum, a majority of them live outside India. So, it is but natural that U.S. politics gets mentioned. But, in my experience, Indian politics gets discussed at least as often if not more. I just don't get it, on what are you basing this?

I thought it is right to raise this point, but if this is against the rules of this forum, I wish to withdraw this post immediately.

This is really unfair, you have absolutely no basis to worry or suspect that a simple question like the one you raise could be "against the rules of this forum".

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!

....On your posting to Sri Kunjuppu Ji, you have said,
"These tea-party proxies for big business (your Koch comment is a bulls-eye) cry foul,"

May I ask you from where you are getting the substantiation to allege this?

Have you read one of the web articles I have cited above in a response to Sri Kunjuppu Ji, about the Koch affair. Would appreciate your comment.

The web sites you cited don't refute the fact that Koch brothers are funding the Tea Party movement. They only want to point out that Koch brothers have funded conservative causes for a long time and there is nothing nefarious about it. What is at dispute is not whether they are funding the Tea Party movement, only whether they are doing it covertly to advance their political goals. Koch brothers support for entities like Americans for Prosperity, who are deeply involved in Tea Party movement, is irrefutable.

IMO, the Koch brothers are emblematic of what is wrong with American politics, unlimited stealth money in politics. The Koch brothers have unabashedly publicized their names when they donated money to non-partisan causes like the Lincoln Center, but they coyly hide behind veil of secrecy when they use their wealth to try to promote political goals that benefit them and their business enormously. See what the Center for Public Integrity has to say about Koch, here.

In summary, the following quote from Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity sums it up very well,

"The Kochs are on a whole different level. There's no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I've been in Washington since Watergate, and I've never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times."
​

There is much more, but I will stop with this. These are the reasons why I think the Tea party movement is being fooled to act as the proxy for Koch Brothers.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,

Yes, nothing refutes Koch brothers' contributions to libertarian/conservative causes. But what Charles Lewis says above is an opinion. Since when we hang folks on opinions, without any citation of proof?

It is very interesting that this issue of Koch brothers' funding has suddenly been raised now, two months before the elections! By the way, what is your position on Soros funding on several liberal causes? Do you have concerns with that?

I think, this is much ado about nothing, in the spirit of both the left and right wings throwing mud on each other, trying to fool others. This is an ideologically driven hogwash.

If you have any definitive proof about the Koch brothers funding the whole Tea party movement, then your protestations will be credible.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Ramacchandran]

Please visit the following webs in this matter and post your views

Should US stop outsourcing jobs to India? : Outsourcing


High unemployment rate, Ohio bans offshoring of IT projects - SiliconIndia

The Future of Outsourcing | Globalchange.com | Outsourcing, Future, Business, Jobs

 

[Ramacchandran]

Here he mentions that * India produces more than 870,000 new IT graduates a year and produces more than a million engineering graduates a year, plus 16 million others with engineering diplomas. India is leading the way in new areas of pharmaceuticals, biotech, electrical and mechanical engineering. China also.

* One in 5 UK workers at risk from outsourcing have difficulties reading and writing. The UK struggles to turn out just 8,000 IT graduates a year.


The education in U.K. and U.S.A. is costlier and further not all the Engineering Graduates are getting IT jobs that pays them a good salary. There are boys who is with BTech IT but working in BPO for Rs10,000 per month. The future for them depends on luck.

All the IT professionals are not well placed and all the well placed are not IT graduates

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!

...Yes, nothing refutes Koch brothers' contributions to libertarian/conservative causes. But what Charles Lewis says above is an opinion. Since when we hang folks on opinions, without any citation of proof?

Please remember, this is about Kunjuppu's comment,

"The tea party revolution is financed by the rich koch brothers and fox media."
​

Here is a statement from Melissa Cohlmia, the director of communications of Koch Industries,

"...no funding has been provided by Koch companies, the Koch foundations, Charles Koch or David Koch specifically (emphasis mine) to support the tea parties"
​

Oh they protest too much, and couch their statement into a non-denial denial. Their denial is limited to specifically funding Tea-party? If you are willing to look you will see that this emperor has no clothes. What is funny is the length to which Koch brothers go to deny connection with Tea-Part, but why?

It is very interesting that this issue of Koch brothers' funding has suddenly been raised now, two months before the elections! By the way, what is your position on Soros funding on several liberal causes? Do you have concerns with that?

This is a straw man. What is the reason for roping in Soros? If Soros is doing the exact same thing as Koch brothers, would that then be proof that Koch brothers are not funding Tea-Party? Does not make any sense.

However, since you mention Soros, let me point out two big differences between Soros and the Koch Brothers, (i) the causes Soros funds do not benefit him or his investments (just two days ago he gave $100 million to Human Rights Watch. Whereas, the Koch brother's funding goes to causes that promote their own business interests -- there is nothing wrong with that but it is a difference between Soros and them, and (ii) Soros does not try to hide his funding the way Koch brothers do.

I think, this is much ado about nothing, in the spirit of both the left and right wings throwing mud on each other, trying to fool others. This is an ideologically driven hogwash.

There is nothing more insincere or bogus than the equivalency a lot of people claim, between the so called extreme left and extreme right, particularly the people of the establishment/corporate media. Let us look at some of the statements from the Republican leaders and candidates for high office -- these are not ordinary street protesters carrying signs that depict Obama as a Nazi. These are people occupying, or aspiring to occupy, leadership positions among the conservatives.

• Michele Bachman claimed in 2008 that some in congress are anti-American and must be investigated.
• Sharon Angle, running for the Senate seat from Nevada advocates "second amendment" remedies and says Harry Reid must be taken out. (second amendment is about gun ownership rights)
• Scare tactics like "headless body" by Arizona's governor Jan Brewer, "Kill the grandma" by a retinue of Republican members of congress
• Senior Republican members of congress including such luminaries as Senators Inhofe and Shelby, and Indiana Congressman Dan Burton either directly question whether Obama was born in the U.S., or give aid and comfort to those who do.
• Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and Senate Minority Leader Mich McConnell say they are taking Obama's word on his Christianity, aiming to milk the issue more without sounding too crazy
• Glenn Beck calls Obama a racist in Fox without drawing any rebuke from anyone on the right
• Recently, when Dr. Laura Schlessinger quit her radio talk-show gig for reasons stemming from her n-word laden rant, Sarah Palin's advice to her was "don't retreat....reload".
• Rush Limbaugh routinely makes outrageous racist comments such as using the racially charged terms "boy" and "man-child" to refer to Obama, saying Barak Obama is "the Magic Negro", etc., and yet Rush is the most revered or feared member of the Republican party. Congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia had to profusely apologize to Rush for mildly criticizing Rush. Even Colin Powell noticed this and commented on Larry King, "I know of several instances where sitting members in Congress or elsewhere in positions of responsibility in the party made like criticisms of Rush and within 24 hours they were backing away because there is a strong base of support for Mr. Limbaugh."

Notice that I have only cited complete lies and crass politically motivated invectives from the the right. I am not getting into outrages opinions that may have some obscure defense -- for example, Newt Gingrich says the Islamic Center in lower Manhattan can be built if Saudi Arabia allows building Churches there, as if there is some equivalency between the two -- like the equivalency between right and left. Even Bush unequivocally said the fight is not with Islam. For Gingrich the standards of USA and Saudi Arabia are equivalent? The same people, with no sense of irony, beat their chests and proclaim USA is a shining city on a hill. I have not included these kinds of instances in my bulleted list above -- it only contains completely insane things.

Now it is your turn, do tell us some outrageous and false statements intended to mislead and scare people -- not policy differences, but personal attacks like what I have listed -- coming out of people on the left holding responsible positions.

So, I say, there is no equivalency between the left and the right. One can disagree with the left and not be vilified; but disagree with the right and you are un-American, socialist, communist, terrorist sympathizer, etc., etc. So, pleaze, reject the left if you want, call them stupid if you must, but don't draw this false equivalency between the left, who may be deluded in your books, with the crazy wing nuts on the right.

Cheers!

 

[Nambi]

I am a member of Swadeshi Jaagran Manch (SJM) that the Brahmins know well through Shri.Gurumurthiji of Indian Express (Now the SJM is more popular than Gurumurthiji with all the communities). Swadeshi was a movement initiated leaders of India for her independence from the British monarchy and it used the economic ideology of 'Self sufficiency' as a tool in its mission. SJM uses similar approach the fight the evils of Globalization now around the world. Swadeshi policy is therefore framed as economic policy of 'Localization' by SJM.

SJM believes that 'localization' is good for all the economies, including US. Therefore SJM does not feel US as wrong if its States decided not to outsource jobs across continents. They have every right to do it for the reason that is what is right for them.

Tamil communities were migrating in large scale for centuries and it is foolish to project that only the recent IT boom as the only opportunity for them in the history to migrate. The intensity of migration during independence movement in the form of indentured labor was much severe and in fact Gandhiji went to South Africa only for the cause of migrant labor problems. He advised the migrant community to identify themselves as locals in South Africa and to fight for their rights in that way. It is not proper to blow-up your problem as a feud between Indian and US economy.

Do not bother about Indian IT sector for it will take care of itself. There seems to be a dearth of right leadership to migrant Indians now in US. You have to consolidate yourself and identify yourself as a local or local group first. You can certainly protect your right in that manner in a more concrete manner. Take lesson from the experience of Gandhiji in South Africa. Refrain from propagating economic fear in to India for your vested interest.

 

[pannvalan]

1. India has already lodged a formal protest to USA against this retrograde step which is nothing but protectionism.

2. India has also taken up the issue with WTO.

3. I recall here what Deng Xiaoping said, when USA wanted to impose economic sanctions against China, after the Tianmen Square incident.
"China is such a large market that Americans can ill afford to neglect. Their attempts to impose economic sanctions against China will recoil on
them. Therefore, I am quite sure that they will change their stand, after thinking twice".

This holds good for India too. When Bill Clinton wanted to stop outsourcing by American companies, Bill Gates openly declared that in such
eventuality, Microsoft would not hesitate to shift their corporate headquarters to India.

Therefore, my assessment is in the short run, there will be some impact on the Indian I.T. sector, but it will not last long. We will continue to
march ahead with renewed vigour and pride.

 

[sangom]

1. India has already lodged a formal protest to USA against this retrograde step which is nothing but protectionism.

2. India has also taken up the issue with WTO.

3. I recall here what Deng Xiaoping said, when USA wanted to impose economic sanctions against China, after the Tianmen Square incident.
"China is such a large market that Americans can ill afford to neglect. Their attempts to impose economic sanctions against China will recoil on
them. Therefore, I am quite sure that they will change their stand, after thinking twice".

This holds good for India too. When Bill Clinton wanted to stop outsourcing by American companies, Bill Gates openly declared that in such
eventuality, Microsoft would not hesitate to shift their corporate headquarters to India.

Therefore, my assessment is in the short run, there will be some impact on the Indian I.T. sector, but it will not last long. We will continue to
march ahead with renewed vigour and pride.

Shri Pannvalan,

It is said that one's strength lies in knowing one's weaknesses as also strengths. India is a large country and perhaps we may continue to subsist with our local resources for a pretty long time but then that will not give us Forign Exchange unless we can compete in the export market. Some years back there was anews item about the Indian markets being flooded with Chinese made cellphones at very cheap prices whereas those mfd. here cost many times more. The Commerce Minister had to tell the local cellphone mfrs (all foreign cos like Nokia, Samsung) that if they cannot make their products cheap they should not complain because the GOI had permitted Chinese imports.

So, the confidence which Deng Xiaoping exhibited cannot be imitated by the Indian PM. And there lies the difference.

Indian IT so far has done only "factotum" type of jobs, no original software developed and patented, no fresh areas ventured into. What even our prestigious companies are given to do is just "contract-jobs" of massive work items which require lot of man-power which is cheaper here. Some years ago Intel was beseeched (by Indian interests) to set up a chip-research unit here. The software for starting further research itself cost more than a crore of rupees. But because of lack of suitable hands with aptitude for such work (original, unconventional thinking and converting it into a programme for the computer), I was told that the project did not get off the ground!

 

[sangom]

I am a member of Swadeshi Jaagran Manch (SJM) that the Brahmins know well through Shri.Gurumurthiji of Indian Express (Now the SJM is more popular than Gurumurthiji with all the communities). Swadeshi was a movement initiated leaders of India for her independence from the British monarchy and it used the economic ideology of 'Self sufficiency' as a tool in its mission. SJM uses similar approach the fight the evils of Globalization now around the world. Swadeshi policy is therefore framed as economic policy of 'Localization' by SJM.

SJM believes that 'localization' is good for all the economies, including US. Therefore SJM does not feel US as wrong if its States decided not to outsource jobs across continents. They have every right to do it for the reason that is what is right for them.

Shri Nambi,

Please see my post #60 above in regard to what self-sufficiency can do for the country. Of course, if US takes some decision we cannot make them change it unless we have the necessary leverage to make them do what we want.

Tamil communities were migrating in large scale for centuries and it is foolish to project that only the recent IT boom as the only opportunity for them in the history to migrate. The intensity of migration during independence movement in the form of indentured labor was much severe and in fact Gandhiji went to South Africa only for the cause of migrant labor problems. He advised the migrant community to identify themselves as locals in South Africa and to fight for their rights in that way. It is not proper to blow-up your problem as a feud between Indian and US economy.

Do not bother about Indian IT sector for it will take care of itself. There seems to be a dearth of right leadership to migrant Indians now in US. You have to consolidate yourself and identify yourself as a local or local group first. You can certainly protect your right in that manner in a more concrete manner. Take lesson from the experience of Gandhiji in South Africa.

The problem with migrant communities in following your advice to "consolidate yourself and identify yourself as a local or local group first", is, IMO, fraught with danger. Whether it is the "Madrasi" in the heartland of N. India or Indians in S. Africa or New Guinea, it is necessary that they are either to convert the country for themselves like the Europeans did in the Americas, or, they should dissolve into the mainstream. Sticking as a separate local group - like an oil drop in water - always creates endemic problems for the migrants as may be seen from the hostility experienced by the S. African Indians or the Indians in New Guinea.

Refrain from propagating economic fear in to India for your vested interest.

If you feel that a discussion about the probable repercussions on US banning the outsourcing etc., will "create fear in to India" then the only comment I can make is that it looks like a dictatorial decree. And who do you think will get afraid? Already Computer Engg/Computer Science seats in engg. colleges have become less sought after and our youngsters know what will suit them best to face their future life. Secondly, whose "vested interest" are you referring to, not clear?

 

[Nambi]

Post 60 is not by any economist. Also SJM is now about Localization and it differs from Self Sufficiency significantly in its coverage.

Nothing is without danger. I think that it is time the migrant people of Indian Origin should consolidate then leaving it to Corporate Leaders to negotiate your case. 'Corporate + Politics' of USA is worser then the 'Caste + Politics' of India.

My simple advise was to forget about repercussions in India. India will handle it. Why should you bother about status of Engineering College admissions in India?

By your 'vested interest' I meant those who want to play double game by preparing a base in India as a safety net. Though it is not a bad idea, it makes one to play game like an MNC. Migrants have to prove their worth to the country that has given them the opportunity. They should not ditch that country when it requires them badly.

Shri Nambi,

Please see my post #60 above in regard to what self-sufficiency can do for the country. Of course, if US takes some decision we cannot make them change it unless we have the necessary leverage to make them do what we want.

The problem with migrant communities in following your advice to "consolidate yourself and identify yourself as a local or local group first", is, IMO, fraught with danger. Whether it is the "Madrasi" in the heartland of N. India or Indians in S. Africa or New Guinea, it is necessary that they are either to convert the country for themselves like the Europeans did in the Americas, or, they should dissolve into the mainstream. Sticking as a separate local group - like an oil drop in water - always creates endemic problems for the migrants as may be seen from the hostility experienced by the S. African Indians or the Indians in New Guinea.
If you feel that a discussion about the probable repercussions on US banning the outsourcing etc., will "create fear in to India" then the only comment I can make is that it looks like a dictatorial decree. And who do you think will get afraid? Already Computer Engg/Computer Science seats in engg. colleges have become less sought after and our youngsters know what will suit them best to face their future life. Secondly, whose "vested interest" are you referring to, not clear?

 

[pannvalan]

Dear Sangom,

Comparison of India with China may not be correct in all respects, but we cannot overlook many similarities between the two. China has two distinctive advantages - one party rule bordering on autocracy and starting globalisation 15 years earlier than India.

India has two distinctive advantages. One is democracy and the well established institutions and judicial processes. The other being English literates are in larger number.

India is lacking in basic research and hardware development. But, it requires long term efforts and huge investment. So, it will happen in another decade or two. But, hardware without a good software particularly application software is useless. India has a clear edge in this field.

No need to call this is euphoria. We are very much aware of own constraints and trying to overcome them in phases. Although I have put the time horizon of 2050 for this to happen, it may occur much earlier as Dr. Abdul Kalam and others have forecast.

One shall not forget the good strides made by India in Space Technology, Automobile Engineering, Pharmaceuticals etc. A day will soon come we will manufacture all the parts of an automobile - including engines of two wheelers to air-crafts to submarines.

Similarly, in foodgrains production, banking and finance which includes insurance, nuclear power etc. our next generation youth are going to excel in the whole world. Other countries will look up to us for leadership and guidance. It is not just wishful thinking. May be, it will happen a little later, that's all.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom,

Comparison of India with China may not be correct in all respects, but we cannot overlook many similarities between the two. China has two distinctive advantages - one party rule bordering on autocracy and starting globalisation 15 years earlier than India.

India has two distinctive advantages. One is democracy and the well established institutions and judicial processes. The other being English literates are in larger number.

Shri Pannvalan,

Much as I would like to have the same level of optimism as your post exhibits, my assessment of the ground level realities does not allow me to be so hopeful.

When it comes to power in the international fora, the Chinese model of autocracy passing off as a democratic set-up, does not make it any way discriminated against but is only feared. The low cost manufacturing which China gets can never be done in India for anything, from pins to planes. As far as Globalization is concerned India is perhaps more globalized than China is in many respects but that is not, in any way, useful when it comes to hard foreign exchange reserves, in which China is head and shoulders above us; even after 10 or 20 years this difference will continue because leakages due to corruption are many times more in the case of India than in the case of China.

China being a sort of militaristic country, they are very soon going to have a million English-fluent younsters with computer training. By then India will lose its competitive edge on that front also because the comparative wage rates for IT will be much lower in China at any time compared to those in India.

India is lacking in basic research and hardware development. But, it requires long term efforts and huge investment. So, it will happen in another decade or two. But, hardware without a good software particularly application software is useless. India has a clear edge in this field.

I may not be knowing much about hardware, software, etc., but as of today we are nowhere near what China has achieved and I think Indians will never be able to do anything original but only copy what the west has already done, be it Space Technology, Automobile Engineering, Pharmaceuticals etc. We have yet to start thinking of a completely indigenous automobile engine. Pl.see:

People’s Processor: Embrace China’s Homegrown Computer Chips | Magazine

to know where China is. Without our own chipset/RAM we cannot talk about hardware development. I fail to see the relevance of your statement that, "hardware without a good software particularly application software is useless." We have not patented any radically new application software which can have an international demand, nor do we have any hardware of our own except perhaps UPS systems, the thin outside casings for computers also comes from China cheaper than a locally mfd. one would cost; ask any chap who is assembling and selling computers and peripherals for a fraction of the branded products.

No need to call this is euphoria. We are very much aware of own constraints and trying to overcome them in phases. Although I have put the time horizon of 2050 for this to happen, it may occur much earlier as Dr. Abdul Kalam and others have forecast.

One shall not forget the good strides made by India in Space Technology, Automobile Engineering, Pharmaceuticals etc. A day will soon come we will manufacture all the parts of an automobile - including engines of two wheelers to air-crafts to submarines.

Similarly, in foodgrains production, banking and finance which includes insurance, nuclear power etc. our next generation youth are going to excel in the whole world. Other countries will look up to us for leadership and guidance. It is not just wishful thinking. May be, it will happen a little later, that's all.

I have my grave doubts about India "going to excel in the whole world" in the foreseeable future. Since my time is anyway not much (I am already 70), I cannot take a bet on that. I will be very glad if India's very borders are not redrawn in the near future - Kashmir which is already an ominous-looking thing, Tripura, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, etc. are all very, very vulnerable and our GOI is just not capable of making any meaninful moves in any of these cases excepy hoping piously. I would therefore say that you are day-dreaming.

 

[pannvalan]

As far I am concerned, I am distressed by only these facts.

1. Any political party says or does something while in power and says or does just the opposite while in opposition.

2. High degree of corruption so widespread that people have started to accept it as part of their routine life.

3. In sensitive and critical issues, there is no consensus amongst our parties and bureaucrats.

4. Yes, porous borders on the north and east causes great concern. Unfortunately, in this issue also, we have no clarity. The media show some real
video clippings showing Chinese laying roads or constructing bridges inside our borders near Nepal, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh and their army
movements are also shown. But, this news is wantonly underplayed and conveniently forgotten in course of time.
then the army chief denies it or the defence minister rubbishes it.

However, my point is despite all these, India could move forward considerably during the last 2 decades and it deserves full credit for that.

 

[pannvalan]

Remember, other major countries like UK, Japan, France, Germany and Russia were never under foreign rule. In case of USA, it attained independence 2 centuries ago. Our independence is only 63 years old. So, if one considers this, our progress is satisfactory and it surely holds out some promises for the future.

 

[Nara]

... I think that it is time the migrant people of Indian Origin should consolidate then leaving it to Corporate Leaders to negotiate your case.

Dear sir, your advice is too vague, what do you mean by "consolidate"? Who are these "Corporate Leaders"? What is to be negotiated, in other words, what are the demands?

'Corporate + Politics' of USA is worser then the 'Caste + Politics' of India.

You are right about Corporations having too much influence in U.S. politics. Let me give couple of examples from the recent past.

1. Liz Fowler was a VP of Wellpoint, a major Health Insurance company. She became a senate staffer for Senator Max Baucus who is the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee that wrote the health care legislation that passed earlier this year. Now, she has moved to the Health and Human Services department of the Obama administration to help implement the law. This is a really neat trick, an insurance company executive moves into the legislative branch and makes sure the legislation is loaded with goodies and free of anything that may affect the bottom line of insurance companies. Then goes into the executive branch to make sure the benefits to the insurance companies written into the law, flow to them uninterrupted. Is it not interesting that the man behind the Healthcare Legilation, Senator Max Baucus, admitted late last month that he did not even read the bill, he left it to his staffer Liz Fowler?!!
2. During the BP oil spill earlier this year, Obama negotiated with BP and setup a $20 billion fund to pay for the cleanup and recovery. Everyone was happy. But details are slowly coming out. BP is allowed to fund this $20 billion dollar only from revenues from the Gulf, not other operations, thus ensuring continued BP operations in the Gulf. Now, BP is threatening that the $20 billion fund may not be fully funded if they are prevented from drilling in the Gulf.

What is most distressing is, this is not good enough for the right-wing, for them Obama is a damn socialist!!!

Yes, in the U.S. we have Corporation+Politics, which is bad enough, but, in India, what we have in India is not just Caste+Politics, but Caste+Corporation+Politics

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,
I was two minds about responding to your posting. It is obvious that you read many ideologically oriented leftist websites, which by the way now include a majority of the so called 'mainstream' press (and by the way, irrespective of Fox's claim that they are 'fair and balanced', they definitely skew towards promoting the conservative/republican agenda). This is exactly why I form my opinions on major issues using my own filters. I refuse to be drawn in to this labeling game, played by both sides.

The way the right had treated President Clinton was an abomination. This man, who I thought could have been one of the greats of all time, because he was instinctively moderate, unfortunately put himself in a position, unworthy of a President. His predecessors did more stupid things, but he did not understand the times after the Senator Towers confirmation hearings and has paid the price. Since then, there is no common ground between the parties.

You called President Bush as 'Dubya', which in my opinion is not fit for calling a person who occupied a high office. There is no denying that President Bush was called names, his intelligence questioned and even today, people like you, even with the post mortem analysis of the Iraq invasion (I have posted several studies) still claim that he lied! I did not support Bush on his financial policies, but I supported his foreign policies. But what all I know is that if someone is caricaturing him as a clown, then I would not listen to them, because, then they have lost me. Here is a person elected to the highest office twice, and yet, some 'intellectuals' think that he is dumb and more importantly base his quality of leadership on the basis of destroying him personally, instead of evaluating his policies. I voted for President Carter, because I thought that he was a brilliant man, but today I know him to be brilliant but dumb.

This brings me back to our discussion. You have said that my bringing up George Soros contributions towards liberal causes, a 'straw man'. Professor, his contributions were not 'transparent' at first, but they became apparent only after some conservatives dug in to the details. My point is this: Political contributions by big money both to the left and right by vested persons is the norm. There is no morality involved. You claim that somehow Soros contributes out of unselfishness while Kochs are doing it on 'selfish/money' motives. Dear Professor, believe me, believing in 'ideology' is far worse than any monetary profit motive.

Now about the republicans, democrats and the 'moral equivalency'. You believe what you believe, because you think that all religions are bad and the substitute is a 'moral' central secular authority who dispenses benevolently on the poor and the needy. If this were only true! I believe that one needs God to be moral. Secularism is useful in terms of making sure that one religion does not dominate and dictate, but if we lose the common religious teachings that our founders believed in, then, I think we will become an intolerant society and mimic China (by the way, I have visited China several times and unlike some, I DO NOT admire that society).

I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh (though I do not think he is a racist), and i don't even know who Sharon Angle is. But i know one thing. I believe in the basic decency of the American people and I refuse to believe that they will elect in to office any racists anymore.

I used to live in Minnesota. That is one of the most liberal states in our Union, reflecting the values of the people from the Nordic countries (unlike Wisconsin, where I also lived). I think Michelle Bachmann's invitation for the press to delve in to what some congressmen were doing is not at all what mcCarthyism was about. Just my POV.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!

Please remember, this is about Kunjuppu's comment,

"The tea party revolution is financed by the rich koch brothers and fox media."
​

Here is a statement from Melissa Cohlmia, the director of communications of Koch Industries,

"...no funding has been provided by Koch companies, the Koch foundations, Charles Koch or David Koch specifically (emphasis mine) to support the tea parties"
​

Oh they protest too much, and couch their statement into a non-denial denial. Their denial is limited to specifically funding Tea-party? If you are willing to look you will see that this emperor has no clothes. What is funny is the length to which Koch brothers go to deny connection with Tea-Part, but why?

This is a straw man. What is the reason for roping in Soros? If Soros is doing the exact same thing as Koch brothers, would that then be proof that Koch brothers are not funding Tea-Party? Does not make any sense.

However, since you mention Soros, let me point out two big differences between Soros and the Koch Brothers, (i) the causes Soros funds do not benefit him or his investments (just two days ago he gave $100 million to Human Rights Watch. Whereas, the Koch brother's funding goes to causes that promote their own business interests -- there is nothing wrong with that but it is a difference between Soros and them, and (ii) Soros does not try to hide his funding the way Koch brothers do.

There is nothing more insincere or bogus than the equivalency a lot of people claim, between the so called extreme left and extreme right, particularly the people of the establishment/corporate media. Let us look at some of the statements from the Republican leaders and candidates for high office -- these are not ordinary street protesters carrying signs that depict Obama as a Nazi. These are people occupying, or aspiring to occupy, leadership positions among the conservatives.

• Michele Bachman claimed in 2008 that some in congress are anti-American and must be investigated.
• Sharon Angle, running for the Senate seat from Nevada advocates "second amendment" remedies and says Harry Reid must be taken out. (second amendment is about gun ownership rights)
• Scare tactics like "headless body" by Arizona's governor Jan Brewer, "Kill the grandma" by a retinue of Republican members of congress
• Senior Republican members of congress including such luminaries as Senators Inhofe and Shelby, and Indiana Congressman Dan Burton either directly question whether Obama was born in the U.S., or give aid and comfort to those who do.
• Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and Senate Minority Leader Mich McConnell say they are taking Obama's word on his Christianity, aiming to milk the issue more without sounding too crazy
• Glenn Beck calls Obama a racist in Fox without drawing any rebuke from anyone on the right
• Recently, when Dr. Laura Schlessinger quit her radio talk-show gig for reasons stemming from her n-word laden rant, Sarah Palin's advice to her was "don't retreat....reload".
• Rush Limbaugh routinely makes outrageous racist comments such as using the racially charged terms "boy" and "man-child" to refer to Obama, saying Barak Obama is "the Magic Negro", etc., and yet Rush is the most revered or feared member of the Republican party. Congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia had to profusely apologize to Rush for mildly criticizing Rush. Even Colin Powell noticed this and commented on Larry King, "I know of several instances where sitting members in Congress or elsewhere in positions of responsibility in the party made like criticisms of Rush and within 24 hours they were backing away because there is a strong base of support for Mr. Limbaugh."

Notice that I have only cited complete lies and crass politically motivated invectives from the the right. I am not getting into outrages opinions that may have some obscure defense -- for example, Newt Gingrich says the Islamic Center in lower Manhattan can be built if Saudi Arabia allows building Churches there, as if there is some equivalency between the two -- like the equivalency between right and left. Even Bush unequivocally said the fight is not with Islam. For Gingrich the standards of USA and Saudi Arabia are equivalent? The same people, with no sense of irony, beat their chests and proclaim USA is a shining city on a hill. I have not included these kinds of instances in my bulleted list above -- it only contains completely insane things.

Now it is your turn, do tell us some outrageous and false statements intended to mislead and scare people -- not policy differences, but personal attacks like what I have listed -- coming out of people on the left holding responsible positions.

So, I say, there is no equivalency between the left and the right. One can disagree with the left and not be vilified; but disagree with the right and you are un-American, socialist, communist, terrorist sympathizer, etc., etc. So, pleaze, reject the left if you want, call them stupid if you must, but don't draw this false equivalency between the left, who may be deluded in your books, with the crazy wing nuts on the right.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Nambi Ji,
Welcome. My comments are in 'blue' below:

I am a member of Swadeshi Jaagran Manch (SJM) that the Brahmins know well through Shri.Gurumurthiji of Indian Express (Now the SJM is more popular than Gurumurthiji with all the communities). Swadeshi was a movement initiated leaders of India for her independence from the British monarchy and it used the economic ideology of 'Self sufficiency' as a tool in its mission. SJM uses similar approach the fight the evils of Globalization now around the world. Swadeshi policy is therefore framed as economic policy of 'Localization' by SJM.
Dear Sir, can you elaborate on the 'evils of Globalization' around the world? From where I sit, this phenomenon of 'Globalzation' is rather beneficial for a country like India. Am I wrong?

SJM believes that 'localization' is good for all the economies, including US. Therefore SJM does not feel US as wrong if its States decided not to outsource jobs across continents. They have every right to do it for the reason that is what is right for them.
Please elaborate on this. Does 'localization' mean that ALL self sustaining production and consumption is local only?

Tamil communities were migrating in large scale for centuries and it is foolish to project that only the recent IT boom as the only opportunity for them in the history to migrate. The intensity of migration during independence movement in the form of indentured labor was much severe and in fact Gandhiji went to South Africa only for the cause of migrant labor problems. He advised the migrant community to identify themselves as locals in South Africa and to fight for their rights in that way. It is not proper to blow-up your problem as a feud between Indian and US economy.
I agree.

Do not bother about Indian IT sector for it will take care of itself. There seems to be a dearth of right leadership to migrant Indians now in US. You have to consolidate yourself and identify yourself as a local or local group first. You can certainly protect your right in that manner in a more concrete manner. Take lesson from the experience of Gandhiji in South Africa. Refrain from propagating economic fear in to India for your vested interest.
Sir, if I may say so, your analysis is not correct. While the 'migrant' workers of South Africa might have needed Gandhi Ji's leadership, the situation in the USA is much different. As a community, we Indians are at the top of the economic chain here and as such, what would we be fighting for? More equality?

Regards,
KRS

 

[Ramacchandran]

U.S. Can not cope with the aim of stopping out sourcing jobs to India
1) It has not required qualified men/ engineers to work hard like an Indian
2) Indians will work for 16 Hrs a day continuously and with skill that the same job may take 4 days for an American. The pay is only 30 percent than that of an American. If an American is paid U.S. dollars 2000 a week, the same job Indians will do for 500 dollars.

The efficiency of an Indian is faster than a rocket they send to outer space.

If U.S. collect extra taxes, companies will pay the tax and detect in the wage of an Indian.

 

[Nambi]

I do not want to frame any text here as your demand. In a democracy for a developing economy, everyone has to work with an agenda for next stage of development. Also one should not feel foolishly comfortable like a sea turtle just put in the kettle for cooking.

When the world has shrunk as a Globla village, then everything is local. The problem today is that the world has indeed shrunk as Global village for some. They are advocating Globalization (in fact thrusting it) for the majority of others to whom it can only be a killer brew.

As I am an important office bearer of SJM, I do not want to eloborate more on it here. Please visit us and you can get to know more about SJM.

Dear Sri Nambi Ji,
Welcome. My comments are in 'blue' below:


Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!

It is obvious that you read many ideologically oriented leftist websites,

You called President Bush as 'Dubya', which in my opinion is not fit for calling a person who occupied a high office

You believe what you believe, because you think that all religions are bad

Sir, all of these are besides the point. I took issue with the equivalency you drew between what you labeled extreme left and extreme right. I cited several instances where the leadership of the Republican Party and Tea Party enthusiasts -- both represent the conservative POV in the U.S. -- engaged in totally crazy and cooky talk. These are direct quotes, not opinion expressed in some website that you may want to label "left".

BTW, you have repeatedly stated that you don't like to be labeled "left" or "right". You even proclaim:

I refuse to be drawn in to this labeling game, played by both sides.

Yet, in the same post you say the following also:

It is obvious that you read many ideologically oriented leftist websites, which by the way now include a majority of the so called 'mainstream' press.....

So, you don't want others to label you, but you are free to do so even while claiming you don't want to be drawn into the labeling game, is that it?

...I form my opinions on major issues using my own filters. I refuse to be drawn in to this labeling game, played by both sides.....

I thought could have been one of the greats of all time, because he was instinctively moderate, ....

I did not support Bush on his financial policies, but I supported his foreign policies.....

I voted for President Carter, ....

I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh

I believe in the basic decency of the American

I used to live in Minnesota.....

I appreciate you explaining what you think, but this is not about what you think about your own views, or what you think about mine.

I don't hold a brief for George Soros. I have no interest in defending him or what he does.

You called President Bush as 'Dubya', which in my opinion is not fit for calling a person who occupied a high office

Dubya is just a nickname, not an epithet. If you want my opinion of him, here it is, he is a great politician, he carefully cultivated a common-man persona, and all the clulessness were not genuine, some were. Through his policies he took our country to the edges of ruin. He is certainly one of the worst presidents, and quite likely the worst. Two things I like about him, (i) he was unequivocal in reminding Americans this war is not against Islam -- wish he will come out and say this one more time, and (ii) his AIDs initiative in Africa. These are my personal opinions, I don't expect anyone to agree 100%.

... and i don't even know who Sharon Angle is.

Sharon Angle is the Republican candidate for Senate from Nevada. She beat Sue Lowden in the primary who was the favorite to win, but her numbers took a nose dive after she suggested bartering for health care, like chicken for checkup. Now we have Sharon Angle looking to unseat Harry Reid. She keeps talking about second amendment remedies and god's plan for rape victims to argue that the state must force rape victims who become pregnant to have the baby. Just so you know what the present-day Republican mainstream is thinking.

Cheers!

p.s.
Shri KRS, I know you are a busy man and you are able to post only occasionally. But these delays in your response is kind of disorienting for me. After a post, I wait for a couple of days, and then move on to other topics. Then, after my mind has all but forgotten the exchange, I am getting pulled back. This is not your problem, it is mine. Just thought I will mention it.

 

[Nara]

Folks, here is another one, talking about Obama, Newt Gingrich says, "He was authentically dishonest." The one-time Speaker of the House of Representatives and a 2012 Republican Presidential hopeful, hints Obama may just be a Kenyan usurper. Read all about it here.

Some excerpts from Newt Gingrich:

• What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together ....
• This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president,

At no time did any comparable political figure on the so called left say anything close to this about anyone on the right. The conservative political space is now occupied by crazies and the cooky, and that is not the as bad as the depressing spectacle of the supposedly intellectual heavyweights of the right, like Newt, shamelessly pandering to them.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,
I respectfully submit that both your characterization and inferences are wrong. One needs to understand the background for these comments (which you have selectively not provided) and intent on vilifying one party alone! It was not too long ago, when the Democratic Majority Leader Reid called President Bush as a 'Liar'. If I remember, President Carter, Senators Kerry and Kennedy had used similar words to describe President Bush. Let us not pretend that all Republicans are unholy and all Democrats are angels! Both sides have their share of ugliness.

However, back to this posting, I do not understand why are you so exercised about Newt's comments. His comments were based on an article by Dinesh D'Souza, published in Forbes: Forbes.com - Magazine Article

I have posted the above article for people to read and decide for themselves - Dinesh, whether one agrees or not, is a well accepted academic with a conservative agenda. If one reads the article, he has very valid points, drawn from President Obama's own statements to explain his world view. I don't see why his views can not be interpreted as being based on a particular world view of his father - and this is important to understand the man! I don't see why this is racially motivated! Again, I only see the left kicking up dust over this and calling this racism, or worse! This is becoming so predictable and routine, it is really funny.

I have myself often questioned Obama attending a church preaching 'liberation theology' for so long and suddenly disowning all that. This goes to the political point of how his world view shapes his policies. I think every American is entitled to know this angle and come to their own conclusions. Same as presenting and holding views by some (even documented in a movie!) that President Bush went in to Iraq for personal reasons.

Perhaps you and I are probably the only ones interested in these arguments here. But I wanted to make sure that folks from India at least will have a different POV to consider; because in my opinion, they are all fed only the left's view of the world, fed constantly by selective media from the west!

By the way thanks for your long post before the last one. Please bear with me - I will respond to it soon, since you have made some very interesting observations!

Regards,
KRS

Folks, here is another one, talking about Obama, Newt Gingrich says, "He was authentically dishonest." The one-time Speaker of the House of Representatives and a 2012 Republican Presidential hopeful, hints Obama may just be a Kenyan usurper. Read all about it here.

Some excerpts from Newt Gingrich:

• What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together ....
• This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president,

At no time did any comparable political figure on the so called left say anything close to this about anyone on the right. The conservative political space is now occupied by crazies and the cooky, and that is not the as bad as the depressing spectacle of the supposedly intellectual heavyweights of the right, like Newt, shamelessly pandering to them.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!

Dear Professor Nara Ji,
I respectfully submit that both your characterization and inferences are wrong. One needs to understand the background for these comments

The comments I have cited here, are from crazy land, no context can change comments like "second amendment remedies" and the ones by Newt Gingrich. The reason one is "exercised" about Newt's comments is he wants to be president and an equivalency is made between these guys and the left.

Calling Bush a liar is something that can be argued, I happen to believe he did and so do millions of rational people, but only kooks think Obama was born in Kenya and the sad fact people like that are now populating the American right.

BTW, Dinesh D'Souza is NOT a neutral source, he has a long track record of being a right-wing hack, right from his college days. Further, iIt is rather lame to suggest that Newt, the supposed intellectual heavyweight of the Republican party was just mimicking Dinesh.

I have enough criticism for the Democratic party, even more so, since I expect more from them. But, as of the present time, they don't have any kooks and crazies at the top of their party. There is no equivalency between what you call extreme left and extreme right. Extreme right has gone to kookoo land.

Cheers!