India (2002)

If I have to blame one thing and only one thing, I will spare the Indian politician and blame the &quot;babu-giri&quot;, Indian Civil Services, which is still modeled around its colonial predecessor. These are people recruited in their 20s and have a lifetime appointment in the system. Some are wise enough to get foreign education when possible, but most live in this bureaucratic bubble, and methodically eke their fiefdoms. These guys are the policy wonks, district level executives and every thing in between, and they do not have one frigging Idea, how the private sector works. They are worshipers of process and people are not in the picture. This culture permeates to every level, a culture of gatekeepers and fiefdoms, from the Secretary to PM to the peon in the municipal office.<p>India was called hope of Asia in 50s. The hope and promise was nothing new, and the delivery was never there.

This seems like an outdated story (seems like it&#x27;s a 2001 article). (I&#x27;m ignoring fundamental problems like corruption etc. below) As far as the anti-foreign investment sentiment goes, it sounds repulsive on face value, but those of us (Indians) who&#x27;ve lived in the US would want a Walmart (just as an example) destroying all the mom and pop shops? I think a cautious approach for foreign investment is the way to go, the income inequalities in India is already pretty bad, opening the floodgates without adequate measures of certain protectionist policies (not blanket protectionism) would make it worse. We need to realize that India is too big a market for multi-national companies to ignore completely; the Indian govt. should have the upper hand in any deal. And it should strike a deal which is in the interest of the Indian people.

Jim you really don&#x27;t get India, do you. The intelligent, educated and high tech India that you talk about and are surprised about has actually existed for ten thousand years now. It has nothing to do with modernity, its just that quest for knowledge is deep rooted in that culture. You mention India where phones don&#x27;t work and traffic jams are commonplace, in other words, India where its inconvenient to lead a modern life, even thats existed for ten thousand years, even during the harshest days of starvation under British rule Indians were reasonably happy and not many people revolted for 250 years (they had to be prodded to do so for the last 50 years). In a way, they were ok with it and had accepted it as a way of life. What in western countries is a huge inconvenience, in India it feels like something that you will get used to eventually. The feeling of its ok to be inconvenienced and still be happy in life is deep rooted in the culture.If you notice, both these things, quest for knowledge and resilience towards inconvenience is needed in spiritual quests, something which India pioneered to the world. India is in every way consistent with what it should be if you look at it its whole existence and not just take a snapshot of its past 100 years and correlate it with what is happening in the world. And thats precisely the reason why I think India will thrive in the coming decades and centuries. It&#x27;s quest for knowledge will propel it forward and its resiliency towards not being inconvenienced by petty things would keep the momentum intact.

The article is honest but the last paragraph makes me question whether it really was..<p>&gt; India really is not a rational country. The English mushed India together in the panic of independence in 1947, but little heed was given to ethnic, religious, linguistic, historic, national, or geographic considerations which is one reason India has had problems with every one of its neighbors since. India as we know it will not survive another 30 or 40 years. This of course does not have to end in disaster, but it probably will given the chauvinism of its government and the way history has always worked.<p>Really? A democracy of 1.3 billion people which has held together for &gt; 60 years and endured &gt; 4 major wars will just topple? I find that very unlikely.<p>The fact is that despite a lot of troubles, the country has managed to remain more or less true to its principles of democracy and secularism, instead of devolving into a chaotic mess that most of the neighboring countries have faced. One reason is that the Indian Military has historically been apolitical, unlike many neighboring countries. I don&#x27;t really understand how it has managed to stay together this way but I really hope that it does continue.

There are 2 amazing things about this article: 1. It was written a while ago, and the general description of the country and its problems are just as true. 2. This quote: &quot;In the eastern section of India, there is a company called Bengal Fertilizer, which was built in the early nineties. The government spent $1.2 billion on it and it took seven years to complete. It now employs 1550 people with complete work schedules, vacations, canteens, unions, etc. And yet they have never produced an ounce of fertilizer.&quot;<p>A good piece of writing - quite critical about the country, but also comes from a place of affection for the country.

Funnily enough, after reading the first paragraph, it still sounds like a recent article even though it has been years. In fact, the country probably has taken two steps back under Manmohan Singh.<p>To a certain extent, even if the article was recent, it&#x27;s not a surprise. Democracies are SLOW and India is still a social democracy trying to be a capitalistic democracy - so even slower.<p>Democracies move fast only during a crisis. Otherwise, they are inherently slow.<p>Even in the US, a majority of top issues have not changed much since the 90s. Politicians have been debating pretty much the same thing without much progress...

We (Indians) can look all over for the causes of what ails India, but not at the one place where a majority of the blame lies: ourselves.<p>We will bemoan the corrupt system; but given a chance to make life a little bit easier, not hesitate to offer a bribe.<p>We will spew venom at the useless politicians who do nothing but line their pockets; but then turn around and vote for one based on caste&#x2F;religion.<p>We will express angst at the garbage that litters our cities; but not hesitate to toss it out the window (or our home&#x27;s garbage on the street).<p>Gandhi said, be the change you want to see. I&#x27;m not a fan of Gandhi, but in this he was right. We must change our behavior, before we can expect the system to change.

Heh. It reads like the usual &quot;business&quot; article with several apriori assumptions. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I&#x27;m OK with bias as long as people don&#x27;t claim to be neutral.<p>* Capitalism good, Socialism bad * All countries should emulate the west. * &quot;Not Business friendly&quot; - Code for this country won&#x27;t let us exploit their people.<p>Then we come to the actual substance.<p>&gt;First, revenues from software made by Indian companies is taxed while export revenues are tax-exempt. In other words, an Indian company has no incentive to do local business.<p>Uh, yeah. Sure. All the people doing exactly that don&#x27;t exist. They have no incentive !!<p>&gt;By then, India may have learned to practice true economic reform, taking a lesson from their neighbors in China.<p>Why would anyone want to take a lesson from China? - Which BTW continues to forcibly exert control over the lives of her people (including businesses).<p>&gt;Maybe then they will understand that a free-market economy isn&#x27;t necessarily a new form of colonialism.<p>Wow. Dude, India has been trading and doing business with East Africa, the Middle East, all of south Asia including China since like 6 AD. We &#x27;understand&#x27; how to trade just fine.

&gt; No bubble ends with two-year lows. Bubbles end with 10 or 15 year lows<p>It seems like the software bubble ended with lows for maybe half that time. Is there anything peculiar to software or that time that made it different than other bubbles in history?

Can a title be more vague?<p>I think it may make sense to use this title in the original article as the site might carry some context but using it in HN doesn&#x27;t seem too efficient.

&gt; You can get just about anything in China or even in parts of Africa, but not here.<p>Any concrete examples? I think this is inappropriate any more.

Jim Rogers, you may know me from such books as:<p>Investment Biker<p>A Bull in China<p>Adventure Capitalist<p>Hot Commodities<p>(seriously, <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.jimrogers.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.jimrogers.com&#x2F;</a>) This guy has traveled the world and learned lots of puns.

I think this is from 2002, a pretty long time ago. The infrastructure issues don&#x27;t seem to have gone away though.

How old is this article ?<p>From the content this looks pretty old, like India having 25 states etc.

How is this relevant now? We are in 2015 not 2001.