Bharat Rakshak

Screw sports!! These are all the side effects of extra spending power. Just like the itch to meddle in everybody else's business. <P>India should focus on Education and Education alone. Build world class universities and researh centers. Compete on Intellectual power. Let there be no shame in us being called the nation of geeks. Last time someone called us "Nation of Shopkeepers" we opened up 1000s of businesses in Silicon Valley and elsewhere in world.<P>

I think sports is a special case. I think the reason why Indians are very backward in sports are because we are a sedentary people. Even playing badminton is a rare hobby, let alone football. When I worked in Sinpaore for some time, my Chinese colleagues used to go scuba diving and mountain climbing, but Indians, none. So by throwing money at sports we are not going to change our situation. Even poorer countries like Cameroon and Mozambique do better, as they have the spirit for physical activity.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nikhil Shah:<BR><B>India should focus on Education and Education alone. Build world class universities and researh centers. Compete on Intellectual power. Let there be no shame in us being called the nation of geeks. Last time someone called us "Nation of Shopkeepers" we opened up 1000s of businesses in Silicon Valley and elsewhere in world.<P></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Nikhil,<BR>Power to you. Education is the first basic step.<BR>Universities and Research centers are very good to be established. In my opinion, public libraries are also the ones to be revived at a rapid pace. The reason for that being, we are in the information age, and where do one common man, who does not go to school get the information from? Internet is probably not yet in the picture as less than 1% of the people are online. The question is where does a person go if he wants information on something??<P>Well public libraries are the ones that i could come up with. Information age would come by India, by increasing the reading in genral by the people.<BR>1. Libraries give access to information on many a field, if not all, and it might be a very good starting point. <BR>2. Libraries, are also better because they can be accessed by people of different ages.<BR>3. It might start with Chunnu Munnu comics, but it has a profound effect once the person gets into a habit.<BR>4. Also Print media in India needs to grow by leaps and bounds if it has to catchup with the ones in the west. <P><BR>On the other side we also need a culture of not tearing the pages from the books of the public library.<p>[This message has been edited by venkat_r (edited 03-08-2001).]

<B>India has potential to garner $ 100 billion FDI</B><P> <A HREF="http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/06032003.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/06032003.htm</A> <P>The report, which has come out with far-reaching recommendations said if "appropriate measures" were implemented, the country's economic growth would be pushed up 1-2 per cent to achieve eight per cent annually.

I think there is a big difference between just "sports" and modern day competetive sport.<P>Sports for sports sake defines the Indian involvement in sport, but to shine and win one needs a formal system in which:<P>1)It is relatively easy for a young enthusiast to play the sport of his choice<P>2)Coaches are well paid and don't have to scrounge for a living<P>3)The best sportsmen are handpicked and given the kind of nutrition that is required along with the exercise to convert the average skinny Indian youth into an appropriately muscled sports machine.<P>A visit to any nation that excels in sports shows a surfeit of sports centres in which one does not have to fight and claw one's way in to have a single weekly game of squash.<P>Sport requires as much investment in infrastructure as any other form of development.<P>JMT

Shiv: This investemtn in sports infrastructure can only come from the user, not from the tax payer. <BR>

Calvin - you have stated someting on a subject that is difficult IMHO to give a "black and white" - govt vs private opinion on.<P>I would guess that both GOI and pvt enterprise are needed. <P>Let me quote the example of Bangalore. Rich businessmen, industrialists and doctors have access to clubs in which they can have their golf, tennis, squash etc. But children who want to play football or cricket still play on the street. The government has built an olympic size swimming pool near where I live, and for many years now it has been run by a private industrial house. That pool produces some of the best swimmers in India, and some of the few Indians who get anywhere in competetive swimming.<P>The government needs to help foster the growth of sport by allowing playgrounds and fields to remain open and not illegally sold for building. The government can set aside areas for sports complexes that can perhaps be built an run by private bodies.<P>I admit that it is happening, but not at the pace at which we the privileged monitor monitoring, mouse-pushing, opinion giving BR members would want. Go 20 Km outside Bangalore and you get to small villages that have cable TV but no health centre, and certainly no sports club.<P>And sorry to go off on a tangent here, but India's deep rooted class system comes in the way of changing things quickly - and this is where Mao and China turned things upside down in a generation.<P>Certain jobs, and that includes nursing and presumably sports coaching occupy a lower rank in the scale of things in India than medicine, engineering or business. Note that I use the term "class system" and not "caste system" deliberately. Using the word caste makes it seem that the system operates only among hindus, or "higher caste" hindus. Unfortunately, the system exists across religious lines to a greater or lesser extent, though the "worst afflicted/worst perpetrators" may be hindus. When governmental and NGO means are used to nullify the obviously repugnant aspects of the caste system, the measures unfortunately do not remove deep rooted convictions among the population about the roles that different people are expected to play in society. My dog may soil the pavement, but it is the job of a sweeper (who, nowadays may be of any religion/caste) to clean that mess.<P>Dignity of labour is something India needs to learn, but the class/caste system IMHO is being perpertuated by picking out the most downtrodden and reserving the worst and lowest paid jobs for them. While market forces and expediency prevent these people from getting any higher, reservations prevent others from getting any "lower".<P>I just wonder if India would benefit from "reverse reservation" where communities who have never traditionally performed certain tasks are have jobs reserved for them to perform those tasks. China in fact did just that - but forcibly, in the cultural revolution where the intelligentsia were forced to perform manual labour. Presumably at least some understood the value of such labour.<P>

I think, at least in sports, what Calvin said is right. Sports "infrastucture" and all are easy words, but the people must have an inclination to sports in the first place. <P>Very poor countries like Cameroon and Nigeria, with perhaps even no "Ministry of Sports" are better off than India because of the sporting spirit at the village level. In this sense, Cameroon and USA are the same - success with minimum government control. In Russia today, athletes are paid almost nothing by the government, but they still have the spirit and enthusiasm and win medals. This spirit is absent in India and it needs to be encouraged much much more at school level. Then even without a bureacracy and state sponsored "infrastructure" we will be getting medals. Like our IT industry.<p>[This message has been edited by jairaj (edited 05-08-2001).]

<B>India will have 21.3 million Net subscribers by 2005</B><P> <A HREF="http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=1097" TARGET=_blank>http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=1097</A> <BR>...<BR>India is expected to have the highest growth rates in the region with average subscriber growth of 44 per cent a year between 2001 and 2005, Gartner Dataquest said. India will have 21.3 million subscribers by 2005, making it the fourth largest market after China, Japan and South Korea. <P><BR>>> Though the growth rates are the highest, by 2005 the internet penetration would be about 2% for India, considered low for a world power.<P>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jairaj:<BR><B>, but the people must have an inclination to sports in the first place. <P></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> - I get the picture. Just saw "Lagaan" - the killer instinct is only in the movies eh?<P>No - I may be wrong, but I believe that even in societies with a negative sports "attitude" that we accuse Indians of having it is possible to manufacture good sportsmen by appropriate techniques. The erstwhile East Germany and now China are examples of nations with sports person manufacturing "factories"<P>I think it is worth a try anyhow. Sorry to digress from the main issue.<P>I admit that some nations just produce top sportsmen, but some others produce winners far in excess of what can be explained by mere "natural" talent and attitude. Infrastructure is required for this. Having said that _ I think that it may be wrong to consider India as not having sport aptitude at all. India does figure in some sports at medium levels - and very occasionally at the top. These include shooting, archery, wrestling, tennis, hockey, badminton, cricket (pah! don't mention cricket) Also perhaps billiards, chess, golf??. India is way down in track events - that just does not seem India's strength - so we never see sprinters, jumpers, leapers and gymnasts, soccer and basketball. Swimming is +/-. They are there somewhere, but not winning international accolades.<BR><p>[This message has been edited by shiv (edited 06-08-2001).]

I broadly agree with Calvin, that the investment in the infrastructure should come from the User and not the taxpayer. <P>This does not mean that, the athlete has to build his own stadium, but privitisation has to come in. I can give a personal example. In India, i was the captain of my college chess team and played in some tournaments for my city and state. The availability of the books on the game was very less if not non existant. In the early days, we used to get the russian books for a song ( heavy subsidy), Russia broke up, and after that even those books were very expensive. But overall there were very few books and people almost always xerox copied (Typical Indians ) some good books on chess that were not easily available. Now i come to USA and see that you can go to any chess store (or any book store) near your place and get any book in the world. Though, this might not a big stadium, this is infrastructure. Availability of resourses to the persons is the key. The only way this can increase is by increasing consumerism in India. By creating the demand, we can get anything and everything. Any other way, we are trying to major in minors. <P>Sports can be a very profitable business, and that side has to be explored. Govt has some role, in building the infrastructure, to some extent. If schools and universities are to have the facilities, and at every level, if govt takes the responsibility of the infrastructure then it will imporve. <B>Even if the private involvement is there in the sports, govt still has to be the responsible and the regulating body for the infrastructure. </B><P>I personally, do not agree to the opinion that we are good in some sports and not that good in other sports. That simply is not right. Before V.Anand , Indians had less success in Chess, and the same for P.T.Usha in atheletics. <P><p>[This message has been edited by venkat_r (edited 07-08-2001).]

I am having a hard time agreeing with most of the posts here. Is India a country of feeble people who cannot comptete in physical sports and win? Are we relegated to just being the 'brains' of the World with no body? This is nonsense. <BR> <BR>What we need is a CULTURE of sports. Many Indian kids want to get out and play something, it doesn't matter what. The idea is to harness that desire, make it very easy to do so and channel it towards World standards. It has to be a joint venture between public and private industry. <P>The bottom line is that we must find ways of rewarding the top players on par with World standards and make 'sports' a viable and honourable career path. <P>On the assumption that we should forget about sports and concentrate on education: Get real! No country will come away from the Olympics without some measure of it's stature as a World power in its' own eyes and that of all the others. <P>We need to create a system that is as single-minded and ruthless as the Chinese sports machine. We can do it. We have the talent hidden all over the place. Lets look for ideas in finding and nuturing them. <P>

Hear Hear victor.<P>good post.

As far as I am concerned, sports is nothing but entertainment. This is why people are willing to plonk down thousands of dollars to get the RIGHT to buy a hundred dollar ticket for A game in the US.<P><quote>The bottom line is that we must find ways of rewarding the top players on par with World standards and make 'sports' a viable and honourable career path. </quote><P>When we say that we have to find some way of rewarding these entertainers, I hope you are not suggesting a government job for having a set of physcial skills unrelated to the creation of value in the government entity?<P>AFAICT, sports does not create any wealth, and any expenditure on sports (and other arts, entertainment) is basically a drain -- a means of keeping the masses focused on issues other than the important ones.

I have to say that Sports is the lowest priority in the scale of things. Right now what we desperately need is investment in infrastructure and education, once that need is largely satisfied, interest in sport, art and finer things in life will spurt. <P>Please dont think that I am saying that these fields is non existant in India. In the ninties, Chess for example, has made permanent gains. We have steadily gotten our young people interested and motivated. In the last decade we have 7 grand masters and 2 women grand masters. We also have a several knocking on the door. The avg age is mid 20's. <P>Why did this happen? It is all because of greater access to international travel and private corporate sponsorship.<P>Now let us take Tennis, our boys (LP+MB) have won several Grand Slams in doubles and were the #1. I guarantee you that this will motivate and capture several youngsters' imaginations in India. <P>Although the lack of sports infrastructure will indeed pinch, the good news is that more and more people will be able to afford to pay for the access to better facilities. This means that there is ample scope for private facilities to flower.<P>As they say while selling mutual funds "Past performance is not indicative of future returns" or something to that effect. Relax people, we are on the way up -- enjoy the ride.<P>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Calvin:<BR><B>As far as I am concerned, sports is nothing but entertainment. This is why people are willing to plonk down thousands of dollars to get the RIGHT to buy a hundred dollar ticket for A game in the US.<BR>.........<BR>AFAICT, sports does not create any wealth, and any expenditure on sports (and other arts, entertainment) is basically a drain -- a means of keeping the masses focused on issues other than the important ones.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well Calvin,<BR>Sports is mere entertainment, I would have agreed with you 6 months ago. The more we see it the more we make out of it that people who play any sports do not do so for entertainment. It is lot more inspirational than that. Probably the people who watch do and i hope you ment the statement for them. Yes it is pure entertainment. But entertainment is not waste of money - when was the last time we saw a movie or flipped a TV channel? <P>"Sports does not create any wealth" - Well we have to tell this to all the professional sports persons - especially to Tendulkar and probably to Azaruddin also. <P>Every catogory differes in its contribution to the wealth of the country - sports also has its place, though it might not be that overtly evident as other sectors mentioned in the CIA world fact book.<BR>Just to take an example of some of the developed countries, they have good sports persons representing them. We would not say that we need very good sports person to become a world power, but any world power genrally has people excel in sports. <P>But the sports depends on many factors like, general nutirtion, infrastructure, sponsorships, coaching facilities, expense of training, viability of a particular sport or game as a career, family support, Individual motivation and commitment, etc.. and can come good only if most of these conditions are met. Until then we see only some specific cases raising to the top.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Roberto:<BR><B>The sports is not a small issue.<P>Anglo-Saxon people were one of the best at organized, competitive sports, such as soccer, football, among other things. It helped their youth to develop not only a strong physique, but also aggressiveness, organizational ability, leadership, and competitiveness in general. This played no small role in its conquer of half the world.<P></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Amen to that. <P>Anecdote:<BR>My first tryst with this phenomenon was when i went to watch a young cousine of mine play basketball in the 5th Grade inter-school league in Suburban Chicago.<P>Sure many of us..including myself have been part of a intra-school or inter-school or even district or national level sporting event in India..but i am willing to bet its nothing like this.<P>These kids ve been playing competitively from the 1st grade onwards. Watching them gives you insights on stuff which we never have. Teamwork, playing with a stretegy, coordination, playing against the clock, competition, rewards, responsiblity, intuition..all this from four 9 minute quaters of Baskeball.<P>Watching these guys do all this..with their parents egging them on from the bleachers is a very very different environment from the half hearted rickety trips we used to make to play football at the inter-school level. Heck half the time was spent around the guy who sold "golas".<P>But then again when i see this same cousin fumble with elementary maths and think as "advanced" maths of what we studied in India, I know that we do things right India too.<P>Unfortunately too much of importance is given socially to academics and too little to competitive sports..and that is so true.<P><BR>

Why are we still seeing negative stuff in this thread??? It's so self-defeating. <P>Have we lost every event we have been challenging? Heck no! We have kicked *ss in a lot of them! <P>Most of the winning formula is POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT. There is absolutely NO place for negative thinking. <P>Keep the negative stuff out of this thread if you mean well for our players and be very specific about your gripes. Constructive critisicism should always be welcome. <P>Everyone knows we are not the best Olympic team today. But we will be tomorrow.

<A HREF="http://www.indianmanagers.com/mypage.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.indianmanagers.com/mypage.htm</A> <P><BR>Ambani's personal page.<P>Very important to hear what he says about the vision for India.<BR>One of them is buidling trust. Indians have lost the trust among themselves over the several centuries because of invasions. This needs to be built to create a dynamic India.

I didn't want to say this but... the Ambanis are a bunch of hypocrites. They weren't above using the mafia to further their interests and also successfully used politics to kill any competition they had in India and also to block anything unfavourable to them....I suppose this is all in the "national interest" and very inspirational.

Impart 'change management' to realise competitiveness -<BR> Kamath <P><BR> By Our Special Correspondent <P> CHENNAI, SEPT. 6. Two optimistic<BR> scenarios for the Indian economy - one<BR> on the performance of the real sector<BR> and another on India's potential to<BR> achieve global leadership in<BR> competitiveness - presented,<BR> respectively, by heads of the ICICI and<BR> Reliance Industries, set the tone today<BR> for the country's management fraternity to discuss issues of competitiveness. <P> ``Crucial segments of the manufacturing sector such as textile, steel and chemicals,<BR> are already over the hump, having crossed the stage of plant closures and seen the<BR> emergence of new capacities on a global scale. They are likely to emerge<BR> competitive in a couple of quarters'', said Mr. K. V. Kamath, Managing Director and<BR> CEO of ICICI, delivering the keynote address at the inaugural session of the<BR> three-day 28th National Management Convention organised by the All India<BR> Management Association devoted to the theme ``Building Sustainable Competitive<BR> Strength''. <P> The other sectors which were yet to reach the stage were expected to do so in a<BR> few more quarters. Similarly, Mr. Kamath said, the picture was bright in the services<BR> sector, which would be the ``growth engine of the future", and the infrastructure<BR> sector, where substantial investments were taking place. There was good progress in<BR> power despite some hiccups, roads (with its quadrangular link project) and<BR> telecommunications, besides ports, all of which would help Indian industry cut costs. <P> However, one area which would pose a problem was the high cost of financial<BR> intermediation despite the large availability of funds with banks. Indian industry<BR> should learn to reduce its debt- equity ratio. With the service sector contributing to 5<BR> per cent growth of the gross domestic product (GDP) and the manufacturing and<BR> agriculture sectors contributing each a little more than one per cent, the economy<BR> should be able to achieve eight per cent growth in the not distant future, Mr. Kamath<BR> said. <P> His advise to professionals and industrialists was to impart ``change management'' as<BR> the most crucial element for achieving competitiveness. <P> Mr. Mukesh Ambani, Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Reliance Industries, in<BR> a presentation that bore the Reliance stamp of ambitious and confident big picture<BR> and big numbers with reference to the Indian economy's - rather Indian people's -<BR> potential, however, warned that the economy would not be able to achieve<BR> competitiveness unless the country gave up the outdated approach of self-reliance<BR> and the colonial legacy of looking to the government for solutions and emphasis on<BR> ``administration'' rather than on management and leadership. <P> He warned against attempts to create demand or purchasing power through<BR> government schemes that could only benefit bureaucrats and politicians. Instead,<BR> priority should be given to public investment in education, including primary and<BR> higher education, and the private sector given a bigger role in higher technical<BR> education. Total deregulation in place of ``first stage'' and ``second stage'' reforms<BR> and thrust on efficiency and productivity alone would help reduce costs. ``You<BR> reform or deform, there cannot be stages in reform'', Mr. Ambani said. <P> Saying that foreign direct investment (FDI) had only led to mergers and takeovers,<BR> while greenfield projects, like those of Reliance, had contributed to economic growth<BR> and employment, he said the economy's potential could be realised only by a thrust<BR> on ``integration'' - of the agricultural and rural economy with the industrial economy,<BR> of the small industries with large industries, and of manufacturing with the services<BR> sector. <P> He said the power sector should be fully deregulated and there should be no<BR> government subsidy or prop for inefficient production. <P> Mr. A. C. Muthiah, Convention Chairman, said the lesson that Indian industry could<BR> draw from the country's IT industry was that competitive strength could be achieved<BR> by anticipation strategies, fine tuning and a commitment to stakeholders. <P> Mr. T. T. Thomas, President, AIMA, called for government intervention to identify<BR> and support core competitive businesses for at least ten years. Mr. S. K. Swamy,<BR> President, Madras Management Association (MMA), said the AIMA had entered<BR> into arrangements with the Annamalai University and the Aligarh Muslim University<BR> for doctoral programmes for working professionals. <P> The Governor, Dr. C. Rangarajan, in his message, said efficient planning and<BR> effective management were needed to cope with the challenges of the 21st century.

<B>Stem Cell Research @ Reliance </B> <P>Silence and lack of transparency has often been the bane of India - govt. or companies. In Agra we had MEA that would refuse to tell journos anything about anything while TSP were having a field day. In the following article (wsj has subscription), Reliance's refusal to cooperate w/ Journalists puts a black mark on Indian advancements. Anybody who's anybody in NY/DC reads the WSJ, so this story is sure to get a lot of publicity. How do we improve our standards? Please read on & comment...<P><I>Mystery Surrounds Fertility Clinic<BR>Tied to a Stem-Cell Lab in India </I><P>By DANIEL PEARL, ANTONIO REGALADO and JESSE PESTA <BR>Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL<P>BOMBAY, India -- This city has two dozen fertility clinics, but none more mysterious than the one on the fourth floor of an office tower under construction at Hurkisondas Nurrotumdas Hospital, in the heart of India's economic capital.<P>Reliance Industries Ltd., an Indian petrochemicals giant with budding technology interests, says it was here that a new Reliance biotech company harvested donated embryos and produced seven of the 64 populations of stem cells that U.S. officials last month declared could be available for research purposes. But some of the city's most prominent gynecologists -- including five associated with the hospital itself -- say they weren't aware the clinic existed.<P>"Funnily, though I'm head of gynecology, it has not been brought to my notice," says Shirish Sheth, a doctor with Hurkisondas Nurrotumdas.<P>Reliable Source?<P>Facts about Reliance Industries' stem-cell research:<P>Began: April 2001<P>Total investments:<BR>$5 million<P>Investment plans:<BR>$25 million over five years<P>Embryo stem-cell lines: Seven (three in early stage, four in medium stage)<P>Other activities: Research involving umbilical cord stem cells, skin cells, tissue engineering<P>Source: the company<BR> <BR>"I'm not aware of the services, what is being provided from there," says the hospital administrator, Vikram Anand, from his office a stone's throw from the 21-story tower.<P>The Reliance Life Sciences clinic is something new in the history of test-tube fertilization: a fertility clinic set up as part of a commercial stem-cell laboratory. The company has kept it shrouded in secrecy, and the confusion surrounding it offers further evidence that the coveted cells lines on the Bush list are not completely understood.<P>Stem-cells derived from embryos are believed to be capable of forming human tissues that could help fight a variety of diseases. But because obtaining them involves destroying human embryos, such research has set off an emotional debate in the U.S. The Bush administration's new policy was intended to mollify some ethical concerns by allowing taxpayer money to fund research only on stem-cell lines already created when he announced the policy on Aug. 9. Furthermore, to make sure the embryos hadn't been made for research, the president approved funding only of research involving stem cells from embryos donated by fertility patients who no longer wanted them.<P>Reliance, a novice in biotechnology, says it followed even stricter ethical guidelines set by the U.S. National Institutes of Health last year in creating the cell lines: It used only excess embryos after in-vitro fertilizations performed at its Bombay clinic, obtained signed consent forms from the patients, and didn't give donors financial compensation.<P>The company says the NIH contacted it in late July and had conferences by telephone and videophone before putting Reliance on a list of 10 laboratories world-wide that met President Bush's eligibility guidelines for becoming a source of stem cells.<P>NIH officials say that by the middle of June, the agency had identified at least four of the Reliance cell lines. They say they have on file a faxed copy of Reliance's patient consent forms dated July 27 but that the name of the clinic is missing from the documents. Thursday, the NIH said it is moving to seek additional legal assurances from Reliance and the nine other groups with approved cell lines that their cells meet President Bush's criteria for federal funding. It has sent a legal document to each lab, asking it to certify that their cells do, in fact, meet rules laid out in the president's televised address last month.<P>To appear on the Bush list of allowable cell lines, laboratories had to have the stem cells extracted from embryos by Aug. 9. But the opening date of Reliance's fertility clinic is a matter of some confusion and calls into question whether the company could have met that deadline. In an interview last week, K.V. Subramaniam, Reliance Industries' senior executive vice president, said Reliance's fertilization clinic "started last month" and would produce cells for future use. But a few days after the first interview, Mr. Subramaniam said the clinic started running early this year.<P>Firuza Parikh, a pioneer of in-vitro fertilization in India, who is director of both Reliance Life Sciences and the fertility clinic, echoed that, saying the clinic opened in March, as did a Reliance spokesman. But one of Reliance Life Sciences' equipment suppliers said the Reliance clinic couldn't have started accepting patients before mid-May, because equipment hadn't arrived until then.<P>Even opening in March, the new Reliance fertility clinic would have had to work unusually fast to produce excess embryos that quickly. Normally, a fertility clinic sees its first patients several months after opening and fertilizes eggs a month or more after a patient's first appearance. It takes four weeks to stimulate a patient's ovaries to get the eggs and one week to grow the embryo before implanting it in the mother's uterus. Once that process is completed, fertility doctors usually keep spare embryos frozen for years, until there is no chance the patients would want to use them for another pregnancy. Only then are they deemed "excess."<P>On Tuesday, a receptionist at Reliance Life Sciences said the clinic doesn't yet have any brochure or written information. Dr. Parikh, who also runs a fertility clinic at another hospital in Bombay, said she doesn't need to "advertise" the clinic because she is so well known. She won't allow journalists to enter the facility, citing concerns about contamination.<P>Reliance wouldn't make available copies of individual patient-consent forms, citing patient confidentiality. Asked how many in-vitro fertilizations the Reliance clinic has performed, Dr. Parikh said, "I don't see why I should answer." Fees, she said are more than $1,000 -- comparable with other clinics.<P>The difference is that one floor above the fertility clinic, Satish M. Totey leads a team trying to develop cells from the embryos into different life forms. Reliance last week released photographs and a brief video of a laboratory assistant blowing through a tube into a solution that the company said contained embryos. Dr. Totey, hired six months ago from a government biotechnology lab, says establishing cell lines will take another two to three months, and further "characterization" will take another six months.<P>Dr. Parikh, says she maintains a "Chinese wall" between the clinic and the research lab, and Reliance has set up its own ethics committee, dominated by outsiders.<P>Reliance, which says it decided one year ago to enter biotechnology, says it always keeps its new ventures quiet as long as possible to avoid alerting competition. Indeed, in an interview in March, the company's managing director, Anil Ambani, denied having major biotechnology ambitions.<P>Reliance says it hopes to concentrate its stem-cell research on diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, and is in discussions with unnamed American companies to perform joint research that would lead to commercial patents. "We are not interested in selling the cell lines. We are interested in collaborative research," a Reliance spokesman says. "As of now, we are not talking about grants."<P>Reliance Industries, which began as a textile-trading firm and moved into polyester, petrochemicals and oil refining, is by some measures India's largest company, and also one of its most controversial. The company faced allegations in the mid-'90s of improprieties in the handling of share certificates -- it characterized the incidents as innocent mistakes -- and it has a long reputation for using strong political connections to help dominate businesses, even when it is late entering. Reliance downplays that reputation, says it has a strong five-year old ethics policy, and has circulated a recent survey of business executives naming Reliance as "most admired business house" in India.<P>The Indian government has been drafting guidelines that would likely require projects like Reliance's to get approval from a government ethics committee, but the guidelines are still waiting government approval, according to the chairman of bio-ethics committee, Sankar Valiathan.<P>India has no movement akin to the pro-life movement that made embryo-based research controversial in the U.S., and some biotech advocates have said India needn't put American-style restrictions on labs. Still, India is sensitive to any hint that developing countries are taking advantage of its poverty and huge population. Critics of clinical trials in India, for instance, claim that many fail to inform patients of their rights and risks. V.K. Vinayak, an advisor to India's Department of Biotechnology, says India's ethics rules will probably govern laboratories' procedures for getting patient consent and the "respect they are showing to the embryos."<P>Write to Daniel Pearl at daniel.pearl@wsj.com, Antonio Regalado at antonio.regaldao@wsj.com and Jesse Pesta at jesse.pesta@wsj.com

Can we say that this is a step in the right direction... Making the India brand bigger and popular <P><A HREF="http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/02261815.htm" TARGET=_blank>Roorkee University designated as IIT </A>

Whenever there is any India-China comparision, all I hear is bad news about India and good news (albeit grudgingly) about China. This attitude obscures the fact that the Chinese economy is in an extremely precarious state.<P>Do you know the NPAs of Indian banks? - 5%<BR>And that of Chinese banks? - 50%<BR>Now , if this is not an issue to lose sleep over I don't know what is.<BR>The Chinese state sector (SOEs) eats up 70% of these loans and produces 30% of the goods and services. They also employ 300 million people, most of whom are going to lose their jobs in re-structuring.<BR>Such mind numbing economic problems do not exist in India.<BR>Now, someone may pessimistically point out, that the Chinese leadership is taking bold decisions to solve these problems. I ask you, do they have any choice?<BR><I>Dubte ko tinke ka sahara</I><BR>The drowning man will clutch at any straw.<BR>The fact is that Chinese leaders are keenly aware of their position. That is why they make policies which will pull in more investment, than the Indian govt. <BR>The logic is quite simple. For the Indian and the Chinese govt., the main riority is the same - survival.<BR>How they approach it is different.<BR>If the Indian Govt. pushes for reform too hard, throwing out people from their jobs it will touch off protests and the opposition will leap at the chance to attack the govt. Hence the reform movement is slow.<BR>But the Chinese govt. does not have the luxury of time. If it does not restructure now, it may not last the next 5/10 years.<BR>The difference in approach lies in the fact that the Indian govt. is trying to win the next election, and the Chinese govt. is trying to prevent the next Tiananmen Square massacre. This gives them a slightly more longer time frame in which to take the decisions.<BR>Of course, the Chinese govt. is helped immensely by the fact that there is no opposition in China, trying to push them away from power, and also by the fact that their population is fearful of its wrath after 1989. So they can implement any kind of decision and expect to get away with it.<P>Their way of doing business is also something that should be considered. But before we do that we have to look at history first.<P>Historically, capitalism has been the most value-destroying economic system ever designed. No capitalist country has ever prospered without subsidies. The colonial countries could never have produced the large scale economies if they did not have colonies. The state before WW2 is known so I will not elaborate on that, just a few lines.<BR>Britain and France built empires and profitted by sucking their resources. Later, Germany,Japan,Italy, which were rising industrial powers wanted their own colonies to rob. This, naturally was resented by the established powers, and this ultimately resulted in the WW2.<BR>The break with the past comes with WW2. After the war, in order to prevent another WW, the capitalist powers decided, to partition the rest of the world in order to rebuild the devestated economied of the imperial countries. USA, in its own interest, as well as being the only large industrial power (relatively) untouched by the war took over as the manager of the new dispensation. <BR>The change in the new system was that now the (former) axis powers were also to be the beneficiaries of the new system.<BR>Hence, the Americas were to be the under the US banner (no change here), Africa was to be retianed for the benefit of Europe (big change, loss of entire Asian assets), Japan was to benefit from SEA (big change, since earlier it had rights over smaller portions of SEA, and that too were contested by the European+Russians+Americans).<BR>Oh yes, one change for America was the gaining of ME, which someone has rightly described as the greatest prize of the material world.<BR>The two major regions to stay out this system were India and China. Possibly because we were too cohesive and underpenetrated by outside system to be corrupted.<P>Anyway, China is changing this state by actively co-opting itself into this system. But not fully, it is attempting to simutaneously woo and challenge USA. Its success in this direction is far from decided. <P>Anyway, back to the topic.<BR>What I am trying to say is that no Industrial country has ever become an Industrial power without sucking value out of some place and relocating it some place else. This relocation is then held up as 'production' and is touted as the proof of the success of Capitalism. In this process of relocation , a lot of value is destroyed. Hence the need for subsidisation. The imperial countries managed to succk subsidies out of the colonies. The post WW2 Industrial 'powers' have done the same to the 'neo-colonies'.<BR>Even India's 'successes' in the public sector are proof of the same. They were subsidised by the hard working public and private business class.<BR>Now finally , the point which I want to make - that China's 'success' is also a result of the same subsidisation. And the good news , that like all other examples, it is also unsustainable.<BR>Where do the subsidies for the Chinese economy come from? From the Chinese banks, as should be obvious from the stats I quoted above. <BR>Indian NPAs-5%.<BR>Chinese NPAs-50%.<BR>And what does this fact mean, that the Chinese banks are subsidising the Chinese industry. It means, effectively that the Chinese public is subsidising their economy. That the Chinese people are the 'new colony' for the Chinese economy.<P>This is the reason that Chinese govt. HAS to attract as much FDI as it can, because it has no choice. Its troubles will begin the day FDI sources will start to dry up, as they surely will one day. The attack on WTC and the ensuing war do not help them at all. What are the options before the Chinese govt., once FDI begins to dry up? Declare the banks bankrupt? It may be logical economic sense, but it will certainly ensure the end of the CCP, or at the very least the moderate CCP.<BR>Oh, and I didn't mention one more compulsion of the Chinese govt. That the present leadership does indeed have an opposition, it is the hardline communists. This bunch of geriatrics ensures that nothing but 'roses and fragrance' comes out as news about the Chinese economy, by puting the Reformers into defensive. Since China is still officially, Communist. Of all the big things that Deng did for China, one thing he did not do was remove Communism. But of course he could not do so . Communism is a nice sounding excuse for totalitarian power, which he did not wish to relinquish.<P>On the whole, as the globaleconomy shrinks, and funds become more scarce, I predict a very, very interesting time for China, and CCP.

<B>The difference in approach lies in the fact that the Indian govt. is trying to win the next election, and the Chinese govt. is trying to prevent the next Tiananmen Square massacre. </B><P>abhischek, though i am not into comparing China and India on every topic, one observation that you have made is really striking. that both the govts and countries in genral are looking for "Survival"<P>Change is the basis of nature and neccessary for survival. The country which adopts more and changes rapidly to meet the new environment will last longer. Here it seems like though China is acting because of some big compulsions than India, it is to be seen that China is acting and India is taking its time. In a changing world the fast eat the slow. The compulsions are not the end, the actions based on the compulstions and the results based on that actions are to be measured for any yardstick of success.

Hi,<BR> I agree largely with Abhishekcc. China is a closed country whose government controls what is reported and what isn't. hence we hear only about the "good" things that are happening there and nothing whatsoever about the darker side. India is an open country and government's actions largely are open for people to see and discuss threadbare. Additionally, the responsibility of the Indian government to its people is much higher. this makes it much harder to take quick decisions on critical issues because the government very often has to weigh alternatives, all of which have unfortunate effects on one group of people or the other. There are no clear cut choices. In decisionmaking in a country like China, it appears that the govt can afford to ignore people who are 'invisible' and does take measures which are exceedingly harsh and strike at an individual's basic liberties. As an example of this, how many people know that people in China need permits to move and work in cities. I have read that the countryside in China faces severe and terrible problems, and the gulf between urban and rural are growing. No govt in India can afford to ignore the rural areas in India. <P> Democracy and representative government are in the long run required for stable policy making. When a decision is made in a nation like India, it is often made after a great deal of debate, and as a consequence of some sort of consensus in the public. Thus, measures once taken in India have a great deal of solidity because they are not based on the whims of a small clique and imposed from above; thus change is more permanent.

that writeup was quite good. could you provide a source for the NPA percentages cited ? I have ample use for such material elsewhere in the "jihad"

Here are some details: <A HREF="http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/lardy/20010621.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/lardy/20010621.htm</A> <P>My intension is not to convert this as another China thread

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rudra Singha:<BR><STRONG>could you provide a source for the NPA percentages cited ? I have ample use for such material elsewhere in the "jihad"</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'll try to locate them. Both are from different places. The Indian stat is from TOI Business pages ( a couple of months back), and the China stat is from a western mag., about three months old. I'll find them contact you.<P><I>In a changing world the fast eat the slow. </I><BR>I agree with you here. No matter what the reason , we should not lag behind China, or anybody else for that matter. In a global marketplace, only that country with the best policies will win.<P>But it is important to know why India is not going ahead with the necessary policies.<BR>The problem is that since the demise of 'Nehruvianism' , no other idealogy has been able to hold centre stage. So the result has been political fragmentation. The current drift which masquarades as policy is a direct result of this lack of 'a guiding principle' . Whatever you might say about the Nehruvianism, the fact is that it provided a foundation for all decisions (right or wrong). But currently there is no 'guiding principle'. <BR>There is no 'Hindu Rashtra', and none seems to be coming up, and the fragmented remains of Nehruvianism have no more strength.<BR>The only certainity seems to be the market.<BR>Nehruvianism has been replaced by consumerism.<BR>I am not decrying the fall of Nehruvianism or the rise of consumerism, just stating a fact.<P>While the middle class supports the economic reforms and consequent opening up of the markets, it is ambivalent about labour reforms. This is so probably because the labour reforms do not impinge directly upon its interests, and the middle class of today, unlike the middle class of the past , has no vision of what the larger society should look like. The middle class today is more self centered hence it feels the need to support the needs of the industry over labour, but becuase of the socialist hangover (which still hasn't gone away completely), and an inherent Indian ethos of fairness, it stops short of reducing the rights that labour already has. And since it is THE class which makes or breaks a policy, hence its ambivalence is reflected in the govt. drift. <BR>If today the middle class were to side with one side or the other in this tug of war, the industry or the labour class, I believe that the GOI would have a policy in place by evening.<BR>But that does not seem to be happening, hence I guess we will have to wait until the next crisis for a decision. Or for Arun Shourie.<P>We all know and get frustrated by the fact most of India's problems are man-made, they are policy generated , not system- or foreign-hand- generated.<P>While China has pulled out all stops to its economic development, I believe that it has peaked, or has at most 2 to 3 years of growth left. I have no stats for this, just my gut feeling <P>At any rate, India has more potential than China, so it is only a matter of time before we get off our behinds and do something about it.<P>In my write up above, I had mentioned that a crisis promoted radical reform. On thinking about it, I noticed that a crisis is indeed round the corner.<BR>That is the shrinknig economic oppurtunities for the middle class in the present economic slowdown/recesion/correction . Time will soon come that middle class will again support radical reform. <P>And for a change the govt. seems to vigilant enough to grab the oppurtunity when it will present itself, like it did in passing the new Anti-terrorism law.

Actualy, according to a study, I read in economictimes some time back(I will see if I can find the link), more then labor reforms top things constraining India are Infrastructue(i.e. lack of it), beauracracy and small scale reservation.

I used labour reform as a symptom of the entire GOI thinking on reforms. This being the most politically sensitive issue, it tests the political will of the govt., any govt. that has been in Delhi.

<B>The middle class today is more self centered hence it feels the need to support the needs of the industry over labour, but becuase of the socialist hangover (which still hasn't gone away completely), and an inherent Indian ethos of fairness, it stops short of reducing the rights that labour already has. And since it is THE class which makes or breaks a policy, hence its ambivalence is reflected in the govt. drift. </B><P>Amen, to that<BR>On another note, if we see the exports and domestic consumption of China, or the domestic consumption and Exports of US and EU countries in general, it is evident that India needs to raise in these levels. The market follows simple rule - Supply Vs Demand - It does not matter if it is a domestic demand or a export demand. If the exports outgrow heavily the domestic demand then global recession will hit the industry hard - this is somewhat situation in Indian IT sector.

Agreed, the more Indian economy is oriented towards internal consumption, the better for us. One reason for the collapse of the East Asian economies was their over dependance on export. This meant that they were naturally more vulnerable to outside manipulation. Also, most of them were competing in a very narrow range of products, ie. electronics. There was an over supply, and demand was not that much. Now, China is also an export oriented economy, but it escaped the collapse, Why? Because it was producing goods of a different category, much lower down the tech ladder, ie, toys, hammers, utensils, pens, etc. Hence it escaped the collapse. Also, the SEA countries are sh!t-scared that China is now entering the electronics market as a producer. It means the end of their ( already very ) bleak chances of recovery.<BR>I think the best way for India to generate a collapse of Chinese model is to compete in its own line. This is not very difficult, it does not need any significant input in terms technology or capital, only labour , of which we have a lot. Except for electronics.<P>But this is beside the point. What I try to say when I silently root for some form of protectionaism is that unless people have a job, they won't consume much. First job security, then open markets. That should be the priority. Of course, when I mean job security, I don't mean the socialist model, where people get paid for sitting on their behinds. I meant that there should be some policies which decrease the level of chaos in the market, euphemistically called the market forces. Because investment takes place only when the investor is assured of a reasonable ROI. When you have excessively underpriced products from a country or even a particular company, it drives the other companies out of business. This underpricing may be a temporary ploy, or it may be due to efficient processes.<BR>You look at only the fact that the consumer is the winner. Of course he is, and this is one way of judging success/failure of market development. What you are not looking at are the people who have been thrown out of a job due to their compaies getting closed. These people are going to decrease their consumption, and you have a recession on your hands. It is precisely this search for 'effeciency' that creates a recession. Do you think it is only a coincidence that a global recession started at the same time that the Chinese goods burst into the global market? I think not.<P>The govt. is doing the right thing for a change, in defending the Indian Industry from the Chinese Black Hole, it should be supported in this initiative.<P>Bottomline - The Indian consumer is important, but not more important than the Indian Industry, because he will consume only when he has a job, and he will have a job only when the factories are running.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by abhischekcc:<BR><STRONG><BR>The govt. is doing the right thing for a change, in defending the Indian Industry from the Chinese Black Hole, it should be supported in this initiative.<P>Bottomline - The Indian consumer is important, but not more important than the Indian Industry, because he will consume only when he has a job, and he will have a job only when the factories are running.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I guess then all the economic policies from 1947-1990 were great, because that is precisely what govt. was doing. <P>The best way to remove inefficiencies is to get exposed to global competition. Internal consumption alone hasn't helped Indian industry to become competitive in the last 50 years, I don't see how that would suddenly change.

Policy not Poverty the cause of Indian woos<P> <A HREF="http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2001/11/05/business/CASS05.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://inq.philly.com/content/inquirer/2001/11/05/business/CASS05.htm</A>

We have to protect our industry because the developed nations protect every sphere of the economy they have natural disadvantages in. Agriculture is subsidized to the tune of 300 billion a year by US and western Europe. Steel, aviation, textiles are all heavily subsidized. It is a massive sham they pull on us by calling for open markets whenever it suits their interest.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atish:<BR><STRONG>We have to protect our industry because the developed nations protect every sphere of the economy they have natural disadvantages in. Agriculture is subsidized to the tune of 300 billion a year by US and western Europe. Steel, aviation, textiles are all heavily subsidized. It is a massive sham they pull on us by calling for open markets whenever it suits their interest.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Providing subsidies is not a bad idea in itself, it's the way they are being used in India that is causing all the problems. e.g. free power to all farmers. If the same money was used to set up subsidised cold storage, India would be an agriculture superpower. So, India has to remove the misdirected subsidies, and move them into sectors which prove to be more efficient. Also, over-protection rather then the protection has been the norm in India for last 50 years. An e.g. of that was the Ambassador car. The funny thing was that though it was claimed that we produce it in India and so, we are self reliant, in the long run it actually cost us more money to make that car India even in terms of foreign exchange component then importing a low end car would have cost. The foreign exchange component being, some auto components which were not manufactured in India at that time and extra fuel used, nothing to talk about polluition cost. So, protection is ok, but only if done in a sensible manner. That does not seem to be happening in India even now in a lot of areas.

In an all-time ranking by medals, Romania occupies the 14-th position, out of 95 countries who have won Olympic medals. <P>SELF-FLAGELLATION ALERT. WE MUST CATCH UP TO ROMANIA.

The problems in our economic policy are manifold. For 50 years entrepreneurs and businessmen have been treated as criminals and worse. Property of honest citizens has been confiscated in the name of socialism and nationalization. The interests of labor have been sacrificed to the careers of trade union leaders. Free enterprise has been curbed. Bureaucratic strangleholds on every aspect of business. And criminal rates of direct and indirect taxation. Indian industry and business has to be protected because it has been crippled over decades. In time with real and meaningful reform Indian industry will kick ass so hard that it would be the greatest economic miracle in history anywhere. But until that happens we have to protect our own. Else prepare for dumping by the Chinese and the West, massive job losses (that is already happening) and economic subjugation.<BR>The middle class will slowly be unable to afford the phoren goods they desire so badly now.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atish:<BR><STRONG>The problems in our economic policy are manifold. For 50 years entrepreneurs and businessmen have been treated as criminals and worse. Property of honest citizens has been confiscated in the name of socialism and nationalization. The interests of labor have been sacrificed to the careers of trade union leaders. Free enterprise has been curbed. Bureaucratic strangleholds on every aspect of business. And criminal rates of direct and indirect taxation. Indian industry and business has to be protected because it has been crippled over decades. In time with real and meaningful reform Indian industry will kick ass so hard that it would be the greatest economic miracle in history anywhere. But until that happens we have to protect our own. Else prepare for dumping by the Chinese and the West, massive job losses (that is already happening) and economic subjugation.<BR>The middle class will slowly be unable to afford the phoren goods they desire so badly now.</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>you are right in identifying the problem, but I am sorry that I do not agree with you on the solution. Protectionism breeds inefficiency. Money has to be moved from the unproductive, ineffiecient and antiquated industries to the productive ones. And, unless economy is opened to world class goods, there will be no incentive to do so. Indian companies even now have competed well with Chinese companies. There has been no big increase as was expected in the imports. As, for dumping, opening up does not imply you do not do anything against dumping. Even WTO allows for that.