They say if one has to figure out where Private Equity money is headed, look for a country’s macro numbers. Fund managers would perhaps appreciate Finance Miniter Pranab Mukerjee’s pursuit of getting the math right. He is pegging the FY11 fiscal deficit at 5.5%, and is focused on getting the economy back to the pre-global slowdown levels of 9% and also figure out means to breach the double-digit barrier. He has placed a huge emphasis on infrastructure, affordable housing and education while choosing to raise a large chunk of his revenue from disinvestment and 3G auctions. In what appears to be a lesson learnt from the global financial meltdown, the FM has proposed to set up a Financial Stability and Development Council, which will monitor and maintain financial stability. Besides, he is open for the mushrooming of more new-generation private sector banks. Some of these policy directions have a huge impact on the way the economy will be steered in the coming fiscal.
What has perhaps really worked for Budget 2010-11 is that nobody expected anything transformational particularly as it comes when the global economy is just coming out of the grips of a worst slowdown. Budget 2010-11 has been the perfect case of no surprises and no bad news. In times like these, that actually translates into good news. Perhaps, everyone is just relieved that the finance minister did not rock the boat too much. Bringing growth to the pre-slowdown levels seems to be underlying theme of the Budget. What is significant is that the government wants to achieve higher growth but without losing sight of fiscal discipline. But, it might take more than conventional measures like hiking outlays to see some real action.
Friday, February 26, 2010
The Great Man- Sachin 10dulkar!
When Sachin Tendulkar travelled to Pakistan to face one of the finest bowling attacks ever assembled in cricket, Michael Schumacher was yet to race a F1 car, Lance Armstrong had never been to the Tour de France, Diego Maradona was still the captain of a world champion Argentina team, Pete Sampras had never won a Grand Slam.
When Tendulkar embarked on a glorious career taming Imran and company, Roger Federer was a name unheard of; Lionel Messi was in his nappies, Usain Bolt was an unknown kid in the Jamaican backwaters. The Berlin Wall was still intact, USSR was one big, big country, Dr Manmohan Singh was yet to "open" the Nehruvian economy.
It seems while Time was having his toll on every individual on the face of this planet, he excused one man. Time stands frozen in front of Sachin Tendulkar. We have had champions, we have had legends, but we have never had another Sachin Tendulkar and we never will.
When Tendulkar embarked on a glorious career taming Imran and company, Roger Federer was a name unheard of; Lionel Messi was in his nappies, Usain Bolt was an unknown kid in the Jamaican backwaters. The Berlin Wall was still intact, USSR was one big, big country, Dr Manmohan Singh was yet to "open" the Nehruvian economy.
It seems while Time was having his toll on every individual on the face of this planet, he excused one man. Time stands frozen in front of Sachin Tendulkar. We have had champions, we have had legends, but we have never had another Sachin Tendulkar and we never will.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Is Mumbai going the Kolkata way?
What do the Thackerays read? Did they read the report last week which said that more flights now operate from Delhi’s than from Mumbai’s airport? It wasn’t so long ago when Mumbai accounted for half of all flights in the country, so this is a big change. It is after all a global rule that any city which becomes the transport hub becomes the centre of much other activity as well.
And did they read, a couple of weeks earlier, that Bengaluru now has about the same number of hotel rooms as Mumbai (with Delhi having many more, of course)? They must have known for a long time that Delhi is a much bigger market for cars and two-wheelers, but do they know that Delhi is now the bigger retail market for both consumer durables and consumer softs? And do they realise that, when an international company decides to set up shop in India, Delhi and Bengaluru usually score over Mumbai as the preferred location?
For the best part of a century, Mumbai has prided itself as India’s commercial capital, but it is now more correct to call it the country’s financial capital. As the place where its stock markets, central bank, main commercial banks and other financial services institutions are located, Mumbai has no challenger as a financial centre. But as a business capital, though Mumbai still houses the Tatas, Birlas, Mahindras and Ambanis, it is clear that Delhi is upstaging Mumbai.
It isn’t hard to understand why. Greater Delhi (including Gurgaon and Noida) offers substantially cheaper office space of comparable quality, and lower living costs. It is quite simply an easier place to live in, and offers a better quality of life (public transport, choice of universities, golf courses, intellectual discourse). While there may be car thefts galore in Delhi, there is no organised gangland of the kind that Mumbai lives with. Above all, there is no one in Delhi to protest against migrants coming to make the city their home. Indeed, the city has thrived on migrants — as have other cities. It is not an accident that Kannadigas are in a minority in Bengaluru, and perhaps Bengalis in Kolkata. Successful cities are magnets.
As the national capital, Delhi has some natural advantages — and, let’s face it, it has been a relatively pampered city for decades (it shows!). But who is to account for the decline of what used to be the country’s premier metropolis? Not its good citizens, its hardworking millions, but its rulers — which is where the Thackerays and others come in. The city is an organisational mess (multiple authorities working at cross-purposes), a civic disaster, a transport nightmare, a housing impossibility, and a sprawling eyesore of slums.
None of it need be this way. When the textile mills shut down, Mumbai had a once-and-never-to-return opportunity to re-invent itself, to make mid-town Mumbai a modern, citizen-friendly living-cum-work-cum-recreation hub with homes and offices and parks of the kind that would have revitalised the city. That opportunity was lost as the city surrendered to the builder-developer mafia (and Raj Thackeray made a killing too).
So why have the Thackerays, who lord it over the city and declare who belongs and who doesn’t, watched passively as Mumbai has given way at the seams, and focused on dividing people, setting off street violence? Do the Thackerays really believe that Mumbai will not lose jobs if banks and companies lose the freedom to hire whom they choose? There was a time when businesses fled Kolkata. Heaven forbid, but there could come a time when they decide to stay away from Mumbai too.
And did they read, a couple of weeks earlier, that Bengaluru now has about the same number of hotel rooms as Mumbai (with Delhi having many more, of course)? They must have known for a long time that Delhi is a much bigger market for cars and two-wheelers, but do they know that Delhi is now the bigger retail market for both consumer durables and consumer softs? And do they realise that, when an international company decides to set up shop in India, Delhi and Bengaluru usually score over Mumbai as the preferred location?
For the best part of a century, Mumbai has prided itself as India’s commercial capital, but it is now more correct to call it the country’s financial capital. As the place where its stock markets, central bank, main commercial banks and other financial services institutions are located, Mumbai has no challenger as a financial centre. But as a business capital, though Mumbai still houses the Tatas, Birlas, Mahindras and Ambanis, it is clear that Delhi is upstaging Mumbai.
It isn’t hard to understand why. Greater Delhi (including Gurgaon and Noida) offers substantially cheaper office space of comparable quality, and lower living costs. It is quite simply an easier place to live in, and offers a better quality of life (public transport, choice of universities, golf courses, intellectual discourse). While there may be car thefts galore in Delhi, there is no organised gangland of the kind that Mumbai lives with. Above all, there is no one in Delhi to protest against migrants coming to make the city their home. Indeed, the city has thrived on migrants — as have other cities. It is not an accident that Kannadigas are in a minority in Bengaluru, and perhaps Bengalis in Kolkata. Successful cities are magnets.
As the national capital, Delhi has some natural advantages — and, let’s face it, it has been a relatively pampered city for decades (it shows!). But who is to account for the decline of what used to be the country’s premier metropolis? Not its good citizens, its hardworking millions, but its rulers — which is where the Thackerays and others come in. The city is an organisational mess (multiple authorities working at cross-purposes), a civic disaster, a transport nightmare, a housing impossibility, and a sprawling eyesore of slums.
None of it need be this way. When the textile mills shut down, Mumbai had a once-and-never-to-return opportunity to re-invent itself, to make mid-town Mumbai a modern, citizen-friendly living-cum-work-cum-recrea
So why have the Thackerays, who lord it over the city and declare who belongs and who doesn’t, watched passively as Mumbai has given way at the seams, and focused on dividing people, setting off street violence? Do the Thackerays really believe that Mumbai will not lose jobs if banks and companies lose the freedom to hire whom they choose? There was a time when businesses fled Kolkata. Heaven forbid, but there could come a time when they decide to stay away from Mumbai too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
