A Third World Crow and a First World Wren

re cheema #36:

Please read my reply under the mountains move thread #51. Sorry about that.

later

-sac

Daer sac(#31),

I think the decision against Microsoft was a correct one. Bill Gates climbed the ladder of success through equal opportunity and fair competition but now he doesn`t want to give the same to his competitors. I think this decision has exposed the paradoxes of capitalist philosophy, remember the invisible hand of Adam Smith that says more a person is selfish in market economy the more he will benefit the society as if guided by an invisible hand. `Not any more`, opines the US court, it also gives rise to monopolies, stifles equal opportunity and concentrates wealth in the hands of few. It seems Michael Douglas was a bit naive in exclaiming `Greed is good`.

As far as debate on capitalism and communism goes, well in practice an amalgam of the two gives better results. I will give socialist philosophy a credit in acknowledging need to cotinuously modify, one should delve into Marx`s dialectical materialism (although like ijtehad in Islam, it is seldom practiced by communist countries). The success of capitalist countries owes much to adopting socialist philosophy in matters like establishing welfare state, right to form unions and limiting maximum working hours. The communist countries have suffered by not giving heed to difference of opinion and by not synthesizing different contradictions of life.

TAhmed 321!

That was just a joke. I don`t think a stall in a an international event is to depict all these, which I mentioned.

Two more proposals by Pakistan Government.

1- Mandatory voting.

2- Mandatory Salaat.

Needs to be put there.

However our regime, tries to show its democratic nature, it reveals that the seeds of authoritarianism is there.

krashid,

If the purpose is to celebrate things that are distinctively Pakistani and to present a good and credible picture of to visitors (about 4 million are expected between June and October when the show ends), then the Pakistani stall serves the purpose (I say this as a private visitor, with no ax to grind!). The stall does not try to present Pakistan as some kind of a technologically advanced country which it is not, and the tonga and the bus (plus some really fine furniture) make the stall quite interesting. While we do have problems of the kind you mention (poverty, mullahs, a lowclass ``elite`` with sticky fingers), I think these can be safely ignored in such a show - the Chowk pages and newspapers are more appropriate for that.

TAhmed 321!

I was thinking, if they wanted to present something, to show the picture of Pakistan, they might put the following.

1- People praying in mosque and a terrorist firing on them, with Klashinkov.

2- A person after days work with his family, eating Daal and wife complainig, that they have not eaten meat for a month.

3- Fatwa, by Imam of Badshahi mosque, that whoever votes for people`s party will not go to heaven. Another Fatwa, recently issued by deputy chief of JUI that Building of Kalabagh Dam is Haraam.

4- A multibillionare, visiting a banker with his personal klashinkov bearing guard, telling him to write off multimillion dollar loan.

5- A school in rural area, without walls, desk (chatai) and off course without teacher.

May be by putting Tonga, they reflected all these things. i.e in which century are we living.

I have been in Europe past few days, and got a chance to see Expo 2000 at Hanover, Germany where 180 countries (all God`s crows, wrens and what - for want of a better word, I shall call Udays) showed off their stuff. Some observations: The big wrens (France, Germany etc.) were OK (though the biggest one, US, decided to annoy everyone by not showing up for the party), but the small wrens (Finland and so forth) were really swinging. Some crows were great (as a Pakistani, I approached the Paki pavilion with fears of being embarassed, and was thrilled to see a fine, all-natural exhibit complete with a tonga, a Paki-style christmas-tree bus, and so forth) others were silly (hope my Indian friends will forgive me for saying so, but their stall with the usual rantings of ``we invented zero and therefore the internet``, rockets shooting off to space, and so forth were just too nationalistic for my taste). There was one Uday I saw (Syria) complete with pictures of the Great Third World Leader all over the place.

re fairdinkum #26

Dear fairdinkum:

1)Microsoft products are technically not very sophisticated.

2)US actions against Micorsoft will not precipitate a global recession.

I agree with both of your statements. But my point was a little different. You work at Bridge(a famous hangout for Irish nerds if I recall correctly :)) and you have to worry about building robust and scalable(I hope :) systems. Fine, go ahead and use whatever you think is the best. For the average consumer out there the requirements are not the same. Not everyone needs a BMW or Ferrari. Microsoft even now is the only company that gives the ``average`` consumer what he needs at a good price.Do you think the technical geniuses at IBM would ever have made anything for the consumers except their mainframe crap in the 80s? And as far as Microsoft stifling innovation and advances in technology, breakthroughs in technology in 9 out of 10 cases come out of small companies not large ones.The next Microsoft will not come from Redmond or Boston. It will most probably come from a skinny teenager on jolt-cola in Oshkosh Wisconsin or hopefully Muridke :)

In this age of plentiful capital big companies cannot stifle innovation even if they want to. The actions against Microsoft are wrong because it sets up a precedent for going after anyone who is an industry standard.The Justice department is on a roll(Worldcom/Sprint,Philip Morris etc.).It has to justify its humongous staff and budget.It will keep going after such imaginary threats without letting the market forces take care of predatory behaviour.Do you think a savings of a hundred bucks for Microsoft Office for the average user is ample reason to cause a loss of nearly 50% of most Microsoft stock holdings?(I don`t know the exact billions and I am too lazy to look it up).

I read Das Kapital quite a few years back and like most impressionable young kids was an avowed communist for several years. It is a work of brilliant analysis but sadly its conclusions were all wrong.I don`t think any book has heaped more misery on the human race than that wretched work. Enough said.

Giving debt relief to poor countries is akin to telling a junkie, don`t worry shoot up all you want, we got more for you.Read my lips ``Its the people``.No outside agency or Imran Khan can solve your problems.

I am more sanguine about the future than your cynicism about old boy networks and information concentration.Democratizaton of capital imperils the status-quo.There is something afoot when all the WASP investment bankers and Stanford MBAs want to be venture-capitalists. Imagine being able to package cashflows from Pakistani expatriates in the gulf or your cotton crop two years in advance. Someday in the not too distant future you and I will not barter away our souls to servicing the captains of industry in the first world. We will be right where we belong. In Pakistan, India or Ivory Coast.

Regards

-sac

P.S:Hope you have an escape route if the bridge collapses :)

Gymnosophist #27

I am as far away from understanding economics as anyone can be (Muslims are notorious for weak inthat).

That is why I wrote, that I have heard that massive amount of money was transferred to West (heard means reading newspaper).

As far as Problem with Anwar Ibrahim and Mohatir, I have enough political sense to read the news, prominence of news and meaning behind the news. You don`t have to explain me on this.

Your example of Indonesia is useless, because the third world countries have started to realize that basically whatever money comes in the form of aid is transferred back to West in some form.

The point is, it is the investment on human or people of a country which should be initial criteria and ultimate criteria. Taking help from West, or East or North or South does not matter, and it should be sought.

To give you an example. MahbubulHaque`s philosophy as a minister was that since people have poor savings habit, so money should be circulated to rich, who can then invest properly, which would result in overall development of country, and poor will benefit ultimately. He also left the development on market forces. So his policies, basically were to divert money from common man to people who can invest prudently. And forinvestment he left it to market forces. The result is a very powerful moneyed class (represented by Nawaz Sharif) who practically are kings. And common man was left at the mercy of them.

These are just political aspects. On economic aspects, I have no idea what is what.

Jagdeep #28

[That was great!]

Keep them cooking, er coming
it’s nice, fresh’n welcoming
am talkin’ of your writing
-------way of communicating.

rgds,

t

re: I had khichdi

The wren gets khichdi the whole lot

But that is not the end of the plot

There are a whole lot hungry crows

How much khichdi wren has heaven only knows

The crows need khichdi and wren needs crows

Who will do the dirty work wren really knows

Says to the crows why don¡¦t you see

You are good at medicine, engineering or IT

Come to my house and pluck fruit from the tree

I will be generous give you a spoon of MY khichdi

The crows think a spoon is better than nought

Whose khichdi it is any way they never thought

All those crows a spoon or half who ate

Start singing praises ¡¥wren is great¡¦

He is great and great is his deed

Saviour of crows a true saviour indeed.

Ref krashid #: 24

You say {China apart from first couple of years after its independence was shunned by both America and Russia. And was completely isolated.}

Russia withdrew all its experts from China in July 1960. That is some 11 years after Communist China was established. By 1956, Russia had supplied nuclear reactor and weapons technology to China. In addition, some Chinese-born nuclear scientists were expelled from the US in 1952 and they went to Beijing rather than Taiwan. Thus China had plenty of help in its technology sector, although the US portion was unintentional.

You say {Till 1971, they have to rely on their own resources, to sustain.}

So, for 11 years from 1960 to 1971, China isolated itself. This is also the time of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, two great disasters for the Chinese people.

You say {A couple of years back, when there was crises in Far Eastern financial markets. It is heard that a massive amount of capital was transferred to West on the prescription of IMF. The only country which did not budge under pressure was Malaysia.}

The IMF prescribed staying the course with complete convertibility of currency. Thus, when Thailand, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Malaysia had problems, the foreign investors who had brought in capital earlier took out their money. Mahathir Mohammed of Malaysia intervened and not only imposed foreign exchange controls so that capital cannot be taken out but also fixed the currency exchange rate at an untenable rate of Malaysian Ringgit 3.75 to a US Dollar. This kept imports reasonably cheap and Malasysian factories could import raw materials.

However, if you are an American company and you were told that the Indonesian rupiah or the Thai baht were freely convertible and you brought in the money on that guarantee, then imposing currency controls is at least breaking faith with the investors. These countries could have insisted on currency controls on capital accounts as India and China have done so that the investors know exactly what the risks were, coming in. The IMF also prescribed standard remedies such as removal of subsidies which could be maintained during good times because the government has the money but could not be maintained during times of crisis. But it is during bad times that the subsidies are needed more by the poor. But every country decided to maintain its popularity by continuing to subsidize basic commodities such as food and fuel even during good times when, precisely because employment levels are high, the subsidies could have been withdrawn.

On the other hand, the much vaunted Tiger economies did not have good economists who could steer the economy through good times and bad. Plus the fact is that these countries invested in prestige projects such as Malaysia`s new international airport and multi-media supercorridor which turned out to be complete duds. In Indonesia, all the profits were being taken out by Suharto and family who is estimated to have stashed away US$40 billion in foreign banks. If you have a complaint against IMF, you have an even larger complaint against that thief Suharto (whose wife, Madame Tien, was the original Madam Ten Percent, a la Zardari of Pakistan).

You say {And you know how West tried to topple his Govt. through Anwar Ibrahim.}

In what way? Anwar Ibrahim stood for election in the UMNO Party against Mahathir, got defeated and was even expelled from the UMNO. Is standing for election a foreign plot? Is it anti-democratic? In return, Anwar was arrested on trumped-up charges of sodomy (with a Pakistani, in case you didn`t know that) and has been jailed for 6 years. Also got beaten up.

You say {Self sufficiency as a nation or as a block gives much leverage in dealings with West, whose sole aim is to grab all the profits and not leave anything for others.}

Self-sufficiency can be attained by one of two things: you could work with whatever technology you currently have. In which case, it will take 25 years to build a dam. Or you could import bulldozers and cement (in case you don`t make any of the former or enough of the latter) and build it faster. You could pay for the imports with whatever products you can export or ask for a developmental loan. If you teach your people to sit on their collective socialist asses and not do anything, you will have nothing to export. At least, the Chinese made their folks work their collective socialist asses off making clothing and baskets (in the 1970s, you got 4 reed trivets for $1 at the local K-Mart, made in China, so the Chinese probably got 20 cents for that) but that ant labor produced the surplus that the Chinese could use to buy technology. Also they got tremendous investment from Taiwan, Japan and the US in factories to lower the high labor costs in those home countries and the value of the labor- added earned more foreign exchange for the Chinese. But the Chinese were smart enough not to have a convertible currency.

The developmental loans from the World Bank and the IMF are at concessional rates and to countries that would not be able to borrow from Western banks (such as India till the 1990s). But with oil and gas, Malaysia and Indonesia could get foreign loans easily from banks. Is it wrong for the banks to demand their money back? If the money was lent out in dollars, the banks want the loans returned in dollars rather than worthless ringgits or rupiahs. Is that a Western plot or an IMF scheme to rob poor Indonesia? Why did Singapore not have such severe problems as Malaysia?

You say {You are confusing two things.

Capitalism, Imperialism, and Multinationals with Education and R&D.}

No, I think you are taking up the Mahathir Mohammed view that the IMF is out to get him. Countries have to live by the contracts they signed voluntarily, just like you have to pay your mortgage on your house whether you have a job or not. If you don`t pay, the bank takes back your house. The same way, if Indonesia doesn`t pay, Citibank is going to repossess whatever assets were given as collateral. This is not Citibank`s fault; it is due to the corruption endemic in these societies. So look for the real reasons as opposed to the cop-out of imperialism and multi-national companies.

An Indian put it to me rather succinctly two years back: he called them the concubine economies of America.

Re: sac # 23

Dear sac,

I read your post aloud in my office and about ten guys wanted to write back to you about technical inferiority of Microsoft products. The funny part is that most of them are Microsoft certified engineers, and developers. Let me assure you that technically, Linux (and Unix) is far superior an operating system than any of the existing Microsoft operating systems including windows 2000.
By the way, if you are in finance industry in North America, you must know Bridge…If you don’t, I suggest you inquire about our various products at your earliest…:) Visit us at www.bridge.com (the company is about to go under, so you better hurry up! :)

You say,

“To keep the record straight most capitalists(whatever that means but I`ll be happy to be labelled one :)) do not agree with the actions against Microsoft.It is not only a asinine action it has opened a pandora`s box of problems where big brother will become a nuisance in your everyday life. Don`t call me when you HAVE to install Linux and Staroffice with IPX. Be prepared to shell out a couple of grand and lots of time with your resident geek to create a simple spreadsheet :) Barring a Republican victory the justice department actions are sure to a precipitate a global recession.”

You must be joking! So, the world economy depends on Microsoft’s false accounting? Their strong-arm tactics to put their competitors out of business is what’s keeping the US and the world economy going? And if the consumers complain about inferior quality of products at atrociously high prices, they shouldn’t do that because if Microsoft goes down, we’ll have a recession? And so, we should all just keep quiet? Is this what you are selling us as capitalism? Microsoft is the biggest nuisance in IT industry at the moment. Because of them we have lost 40 years of research and development work of some of the most highly regarded people in the IT and communication industry. I say “DOWN WITH MICROSOFT”

You say,

“I`ve always been perplexed to see some of the biggest apologists of socialism and its ilk ``isms`` happen to be people who are the biggest beneficiaries of capitalism and have never had to endure the bread-line in their lives. Is it some sort of a sense of guilt at their good fortune that causes them to feel that way? I don`t know. Capitalism is an imperfect system in an imperfect world. We can work on making it better but does that mean we have to look to Das Kapital for inspiration? If the IMFs and World Banks of this world mess-up things big-time does that mean we throw the baby out with the bath-tub?”

I don’t know, I am no apologist of socialism or any of its ilk “isms”, so I can’t comment on that. But I have endured bread line. Yes we can work on making this imperfect capitalist system better, and that’s what I am talking about (and that`s what I think udayakumar is also complaining about) when I say that IMF, the World Bank and other such aid organization need a philosophical overhaul. By the way, Das Kapital is interesting…. It’s probably the most in-depth analysis of capitalism - and you don’t have to read it for inspiration, just an academic interest will do. Coming back to our discussion, take Africa as an example; most African countries on aid from one or more of these aid organizations are more dependent today than they were 30 years ago. The whole ethos of helping the poor countries to get back on their feet by giving them aid has failed miserably. There should have been a gradual shift away from aid dependence for the poor countries to really get back on their feet. This hasn’t happened. The recent debt relief program, essentially a political exercise on the part of rich countries, is, however, a step in the right direction. But I still believe that unless donor countries press for a massive restructuring of these aid organization including re-evaluation of the whole ethos of aid for poor countries, there is very little hope for the third world. And, as far as I am concerned, if it takes throwing the baby out with the bathtub to achieve this, then so be it.


You say,

“The new-economy is one in a lifetime opportunity for the developing world(whose state is probably your biggest beef with capitalism) to wake up from its slumber. A world that does not respect old boy networks and monopoly on information by the privileged few and unshackled by all forms of government controls is a distinct possiblity if we get out of the individual`s way. That individual is you, I and every decent human being on this planet.”

Well, when industrialization started, it was the new economy then, and now it is the IT and communication providing economic growth and prosperity, and tomorrow, well, who knows! However, you have to realize that old boy networks are pretty strong and when you say that the new economy doesn’t respect it, I am afraid you are wrong. Unfortunately, information is still restricted to a privileged few, and before you quote India as an example, let me tell you that growth in IT industry alone is never going to bring India out of the vicious circle of poverty. No matter what Indians brag about on this site, they are still one the world’s most poorest country, and are likely to remain one for foreseeable future. However, I do regard South East Asian countries as role models for countries like Pakistan.

Take care,

Thanks & Regards

I do believe that most people figure out what is good for themselves, and make headway towards getting there, if they have the freedom to do so.

Poverty and lack of resources is one barrier. The effect of decisions in the state capital or New Delhi or Washington DC or World Bank or IMF for which one has absolutely no input is another barrier. I believe that globalization is alright as long as the people being globalized have a say in what happens to them.

If free markets are the answer to everything, then one should ask the question as to why the largest corporations, say, the Fortune 100, are run like command economies. After all, many of these are larger economically speaking than most nations.

If one does not have a right to speak against a system because one draws sustenance from it, then equally, one who draws sustenance from a system may be biased or compelled not to point out its flaws.

-arun gupta

Gymnosophist #22

You are confusing two things.

Capitalism, Imperialism, and Multinationals with Education and R &D.

China apart from first couple of years after its independence was shunned by both America and Russia. And was completely isolated.

Till 1971, they have to rely on their own resources, to sustain.

Then America realized the importance of China as a counterweight to Russia. (China was no friend of Russia at that time).

Still now Chinese policies are related to their country and their people.

Compared to that India was not shunned by both super powers (America and Russia). So it has tried to invest in infrastructure with Russian help, which is still paying dividend to India.

A couple of years back, when there was crises in Far Eastern financial markets. It is heard that a massive amount of capital was transferred to West on the prescription of IMF. The only country which did not budge under pressure was Malaysia. And you know how West tried to topple his Govt. through Anwar Ibrahim.

As Deng said ``It does not matter if a cat is white or black, as long as it catches the mice``.

Self sufficiency as a nation or as a block gives much leverage in dealings with West, whose sole aim is to grab all the profits and not leave anything for others.

re dL #20:

More enjoyable than the original :)

re fairdinkum #18:

Dear fairdinkum:

Its time we discussed this a little more.To keep the record straight most capitalists(whatever that means but I`ll be happy to be labelled one :)) do not agree with the actions against Microsoft.It is not only a asinine action it has opened a pandora`s box of problems where big brother will become a nuisance in your everyday life. Don`t call me when you HAVE to install Linux and Staroffice with IPX. Be prepared to shell out a couple of grand and lots of time with your resident geek to create a simple spreadsheet :) Barring a Republican victory the justice department actions are sure to a precipitate a global recession. But I digress.

I agree with you that no idealogy in today`s age has proven to be perfect. However what has been proven is what does NOT work. I`ve always been perplexed to see some of the biggest apologists of socialism and its ilk ``isms`` happen to be people who are the biggest beneficiaries of capitalism and have never had to endure the bread-line in their lives. Is it some sort of a sense of guilt at their good fortune that causes them to feel that way? I don`t know. Capitalism is an imperfect system in an imperfect world. We can work on making it better but does that mean we have to look to Das Kapital for inspiration? If the IMFs and World Banks of this world mess-up things big-time does that mean we throw the baby out with the bath-tub?

The ONLY test of any model no matter how impressive on paper is how it performs in the real world. Just as some counter arguments about religion by saying ``Oh this is not real Islam. The prophet never wanted it this way``, one can easily counter arguments against capitalism by saying ``The invisible hand was not supposed to work this way``. But the point is the real world rejected that model and socialism and communism. It has its own dynamics. Ariane rocket still blows up despite the advances made in ballistics. Shall we give up trying to blast rockets into space?

The new-economy is one in a lifetime opportunity for the developing world(whose state is probably your biggest beef with capitalism) to wake up from its slumber. A world that does not respect old boy networks and monopoly on information by the privileged few and unshackled by all forms of government controls is a distinct possiblity if we get out of the individual`s way. That individual is you, I and every decent human being on this planet.

later

-sac

Ref krashid #: 19

You say {Instead of looking to others, we have to find the route of development in ourselves.}

I do not have a problem with that.

You say {Inspite of isolation of China for 25 years by all, it persisted and West has to bend.}

The only reason China is where it is today is because of US-Soviet rivalry. The US built up China as a counterweight to Russia. China had zero technology in 1974. Even their nuclear program had complete support from the Soviet Union which supplied blueprints and equipment (partially before aid was withdrawn due to Sino-Soviet differences) for its uranium enrichment plants.

You say {And people like you are more than ready to play as a pimp for America to perpetuate the injustice being continued in this world.}

What is injustice? Promising people of Madras water, giving out a contract in return for kickbacks so that today the people of Madras have to buy water from tankers; or using the project money wisely and completing the project in time? Who do you think can afford to buy the water: those who are in the upper-middle class to the rich or those who live in slums? Do you think handing out buckets as a political ploy when there is no water to be had is justice or cynical exploitation of the people?

What is injustice: allowing 30 million people to starve to death as China did during the Great Leap Forward or putting one`s pride aside and living ship-to-mouth as India did in the 1960s on PL-480 aid? Who would have died: the rich or the poor? Who would have been impoverished by the high cost of food: the rich or the middle-class?

Back at the turn of the century, Los Angeles diverted a whole river from sparsely populated Owens valley. While one may argue that the farmers of the area were cheated, today a metropolitan area of 8+ million people flourishes because somebody used technology. They bought the 8 feet diameter pipes needed for the project from Germany. You think people in the US complained about exploitation of the US by Germans? No, they raised money by selling bonds and used the money to buy those huge pipes. Either you raise the money yourself, go to the World Bank for a loan or do without water. What choice does the poor Madrasi have, or for that matter, the average Karachian?

You say {I would recommend you to read some good book, on the exploitation of Hindustan (of Muslim rule) by British for their development (and as an extension America).}

I probably have read more books on Indian history than you have. I know the reparations paid by Mir Jaffar emptied the treasury in Murshidabad but that was simply the loot accumulated for years by Siraj-ud-dowla and his forebears. I know the 24-Parganas district in Bengal enriched the personal treasury of Clive. But his take was no better or no worse than the take by the Nawabs before him. Similarly, all that Nadir Shah or Tamerlane ttok away from Delhi was the accumulated loot of the Moghuls. So don`t expect me to shed tears for the robbers who were in turn robbed by the British.

The farmer paid between 20% and 33% in taxes to the Moghul emperors. The British levied a 10% tax on farm income AFTER they built the canals that irrigated Punjab and turned it from a desrt into the granary of the subcontinent. So who benefitted the Punjabi more: the Moghuls or the British? And while you are lecturing me about history, please name the canals built by the Moghuls or by any number of sultans and maharajas.

You say {But not to understand the designs of West to keep our nations in perpetual poverty is a folly.}

Britain discouraged industries in India, there is no doubt. Did that prevent Bombay from starting hundreds of textile mills to process Gujarati cotton locally instead of exporting it to Manchester? It might have taken till 1900 but those textile mills were started and made Bombay prosperous. And why is every one of them shutdown for the last decade or longer? Because of the politics of envy by which political parties have encouraged the unions to go on strike. Did not Jamsetji Tata start his steel plant in India against British obstacles and succeed magnificently? And the Tata-started airline, nationalized into Air India, is on sale for the highest bidder today. The comment in Singapore: why would Singapore Airlines want to invest in this loser?

Yes, don`t take that sleek Boeing 747 on your next flight to the US. Take a rust bucket built in a Karachi shipyard to New York.

You say {And don`t forget, the fruit you are eating now is the seed sown by pseudo-socialist, Nationalist Nehru for infrastructure and not the West.}

The high school I attended was rescued from bankruptcy by two local philanthropists. To this day, that school bears the names of those rescuers and celebrates annually Donors` Day in commemoration of their good deed. The first college I attended was founded by the Society of Jesus.

I shall grant you that the engineering college I attended was started only in 1962. Unlike the IITS, this was a Regional Engineering College and received no aid from any foreign country, in terms of lab equipment or guest leturers. But the institutions whose names were legend were Bengal Engineering College, Guindy Engineering College, Roorkee College of Engineering and Dhanbad School of Mines, all started by the British. Because the graduates of those institutions built the dams, the canals, the railways and the bridges. The IITs in the 50s and early 60s were all-India competitive colleges with a budding reputation and those early grads have labored in India as factory superintendents and power station executive engineers unlike today`s crowd which takes off on the next flight to the US.

You say {Any country trying to find an independent path of progress found itself in the clutches of IMF and World Bank, as a leverage for designs of West.}

Japan also lost money in the 90s as its bubble economy collapsed. It still has not recovered to its glory days of late 1980s. Who do you blame: Japan for its stupid economic policies or the IMF? Just because Suharto robbed his people with the projects aided by the World Bank, is the World Bank to blame? If Suharto`s government gives out the contract for a refinery to his son, should the World Bank refuse to aid the project or figure that it will generate employment for the common people and agree to fund it? Can Suharto`s son not hide behind benamis like scores of Indian and Pakistani industrialists and politicians do and still get the funding from the World Bank?

All of this crap about self-sufficiency is baloney unless it is accompanied by indigenous R&D. India insisted for years that any new technology brought into the country should be indigenized in 5 years. The result is we still have the 1964 Morris Oxford being produced while the world has moved on to more fuel-efficient models. Look at Brazil that introduced gasohol (petrol blended with alcohol) much before the US did; they had to because they had no petroleum unlike the US. You think anybody in India will do any original R&D to improve the product as Japan did with its imported technology? No. That is because Indian businesses are run by a bunch of Marwaris who have survived for centuries trading and see no reason to alter their behavior. Tell me one world-class product manufactured in India, Pakistan or Bangladesh before you talk about economic self-sufficiency. (High-grade iron ore doesn`t cut it because the useless Desis don`t do anything except mine it.)