> India also said we'll provide food and accommodation just like you do when we > visit your home. So success of the party is measured in terms of how > >satisfied the guests are.If the guests rave about it, it is a success. If > India can make it happen with a modest amount of money, it is a bigger > success.
*** While it sounds like a reasonable proposition, let me as you this: Would you, as a guest, badmouth the hosts if things didn't turn out too well? Assuming your answer would be like mine, I would submit, the proposition would not work too well as a yardstick for the success or lack thereof. Failure actually would be something catastrophic, unlikely to happen. *** Therefore the only meaningful way to measure 'success' would be to weigh it against the goals the organizers set for themselves, what they proposed or promised or implied. > ^^^^ Yes it can be corrupt yet successful. However in this case corruption > led to incompetent contractors and delays in construction resulting in the > possibilty of a flop.Next few weeks will tell. *** Pointing to corruption as the ONLY reason for the failures is really an inability to accept the truths about India's ineptitudes and incompetencies. I realize it is hard for the 'knowledge brigades' accept such realities, particularly when they have a need to defend this national identity/pride thang. It is so easy to point to corruption, something that is presumably a problem caused and perpetuated by those who are outside the realm of the educated, the competent and so forth. But the truth however is far from it. If I had to point to the real cause of the failures thus far, I would point to: Planning and management incompetence, dearth of technical and vocational skills, and a serious attitudinal problem rooted in culture. Misgovernment that creates and sustains corruption merely enhances the negative forces. >I was just speculating ahead of time. What's your speculation? *** I don't feel the need to predict or speculate :-). Time will tell. On Sep 27, 2010, at 2:05 PM, Dilip Deka wrote: > > > --- On Sun, 9/26/10, Chan Mahanta <cmaha...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 26, 2010, at 9:43 PM, Dilip Deka wrote: > >> I see two scenarios coming out of the CWG fiasco. >> 1. India pulls it off at the last minute. CWG goes on and has a happy ending >> despite some minor mishaps. India claims a big success and brags about it, >> "See, >> we told you. It could be done. DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE INDIA". > > > **** First off: Define success. What will constitute a success, let alone a > BIG one? > ^^^^ India is the host and they invited their friends from the CW to come and > play. India also said we'll provide food and accommodation just like you do > when we visit your home. So success of the party is measured in terms of how > satisfied the guests are.If the guests rave about it, it is a success. If > India can make it happen with a modest amount of money, it is a bigger > success. > >> 2. The CWG is a flop with major disasters and it starts major reform in >> India in >> terms of corruption. This happens because the middle class Indians get >> insulted >> and upset. It always takes a big event to make big changes. > > **** Similarly, WHAT would determine if it was a flop? > > ^^^^ It's a flop if the guests return home unhappy. In the analogy of a party > if that happens even after spending a huge sum of money, it is a bigger flop. > > Only then one can delve into your question. Speaking of which, why do you > assume that > in case of a FLOP, Indians would consider it an insult and demand reforms to > eradicate corruption. > Is it CORRUPTION that is at the root of a possible flop? Why could it not be > corrupt yet successful? > > ^^^^ Yes it can be corrupt yet successful. However in this case corruption > led to incompetent contractors and delays in construction resulting in the > possibilty of a flop.Next few weeks will tell. > > I see a problem with the assumption that corruption is the cause for a > possible flop. Does > competence not have a place in the equation? Nobody has accused China of > being free of corruption, but they proved how COMPETENT they are. In other > words competence and corruption are NOT mutually exclusive. Few would > complain IF competence could be demonstrated, would they? > > ^^^^ See response above. If competence was demonstrated despite corruption, > only a few would have been mad. Now everyone is mad.Let's wait and see how > the corrupt organizers (mind you some brits may be involved too) pull it off. > I was just speculating ahead of time. What's your speculation? > > > > > > >> >> What do you see? Alternate scenarios? >> Dilip Deka >> _______________________________________________ >> assam mailing list >> assam@assamnet.org >> http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org > > > _______________________________________________ > assam mailing list > assam@assamnet.org > http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org > _______________________________________________ > assam mailing list > assam@assamnet.org > http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org _______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
