Tata’s Disastrous New Move
The media is rife with discussions about Tata’s 1 Lakh car. Geez! Worst idea in centuries.
Read Small Car Boom Spells Urban Doom by Satish Dey.
The Indian government should ban this project ASAP!
Comments
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
So we can drive our fat ass SUVs. But if poor mass can afford the “Nano”. Govt. should ban it!
Wow, I am your regular reader, but I didn’t expect this kind of hypocritical cr*p from you.
It is indian govt’s problem to come up with sensible Auto policy. Why do we expect Tata to be so saintly?. They are in business to make money following land’s laws! If pathetic indian govt is ready to open the damn public transport for private cos., we can hope to get market driven solution. Blaming Tata for Govt’s poblems won’t achieve anything.
~Your regular reader
Sramana
I don’t see where your suggestion is going !!! If Indian roads are congested, ban affordable cheap cars ?? If environment is at risk, ban cars which might give upto 50 miles per gallon ?? But don’t ban expensive imports and luxury cars ??
For the first time, millions in India can afford a car for their families. People previously riding in two-wheelers (Scooters, bikes) can realize their dream of a car. In the traffic conditions in India, the scooters and bikes are at the biggest risk of accidents. Is it wrong for those folks to try to get a car (much safer option!!) they can afford ? Are not we denying them the basic thing towards becoming a developed economy, multitude of affordable choices to improve their lifestyle?
The crux of the issue, which I think everybody agress on, is lack of Infrastructure and lack of proper public transport. As notes by different folks in the previous article, European has been able to balance limited infrastructure (roads etc) with excellent public transit with strict regulations.
Also, India should concentrate on disciplining traffic and enforcing rules and regulations with rigour. That coupled with better infrastructure will help mitigate congestion and accident rates
Yes, the crux of the issue is infrastructure. Infrastructure takes time to build, especially when the country is trying to recover from 50 years of bad economic policies.
And CallMeCrazy, no one is driving SUVs on the streets of India. If you are my regular reader, you know well, that I am an out-and-out capitalist. So from Tata’s point of view, they are doing what capitalism suggests: trying to make money.
Meanwhile, the system will come to a standstill if a few hundred thousand small cars are launched onto the roads of Bombay, Calcutta, Bangalore …
What is the point of buying a car when you can’t get anywhere anymore with the congestion? The people you are referring to - who travel by scooters today - perhaps would get cars and feel safer, but they won’t get anywhere.
Cars were invented as a transportation mechanism. Not as a status symbol.
Where we are going, many more people would be able to boast that they have cars, but the primary function of cars, to go from one place to another, is going to be lost.
Sramana,
If you are a Pro-market Capitalist, then why such emotional outburst suggesting a BAN on the project? Why not take a stand to adopt Nation wide policy with reverse incentive based on size and mileage of car or congestion fee, etc. ?
Because, the issue is not just size and mileage, the issue is numbers.
Cheaper products typically get adopted in large numbers, and in this case, that numbers threat is alarming.
What car do you drive? what is the milage on it? how many miles do you put on it per day? how long have you had the a car? what is your carbon footprint? What do you think is the carbon footprint of a person for who can afford this car?
The answers to your questions are irrelevant.
You are missing the most important piece of the equation: the numbers issue.
That is the real threat for India.
I believe you are buying into the suggestions made by western media about the 1 Lakh car who do not understand the emerging market needs.
The way I see it is that the customers who will most likely buy these cars are the ones who could only afford two wheelers. The two wheelers are inherently unstable on Indian roads and they also have emissions. In comparison this car is having comparable mileage, adhere to high European emissions standards and will lead to a safer transportation for mass.
Your suggestion that infrastructure should change is well taken but that cannot be the responsibility of Tatas. Using that logic you can even hold Tatas responsible for increasing oil prices.
There are too many vested interests which Tatas alone should not be held responsible for solving.
Tatas did their part and that is innovate to make a product which serves the needs of millions of customers.
What one would hope is that infrastructure developers would try and think out of the box and figure out cheaper and faster ways of laying out the infrastructure while the regulators would figure out ways to quicken the decision making process of how to improve infrastructure. Similarly let someone figure out better mass transportation and make it attractive enough so that end customers stop thinking of buying this car.
All of these are great suggestions made in ivory tower but someone has to do them and at the same time not stop Tatas from doing what they are doing best.
You know that the problem’s solution is beautiful when a villager from rural India stands in a queue to make a booking for this 1 Lakh car while the rest of car companies around the world were telling her that car is not for her.
Excuse me, Siddharth, if you are one of my readers, you should know that I am one of the most opinionated people in the world. I am not one influenced by western or any other media. If anything, I tend to influence people with my rather strong opinions.
No, it is not the Tata’s fault. They are doing what they should - trying to make money.
It is the government that needed to make sure this car doesn’t get launched to urban consumers. I am not too bothered by the rural consumers. In fact, for them, this may be just fine.
But in urban settings, the infrastructure is simply not there to support such a move.
Anyway, as someone pointed out in a conversation earlier today, the Tatas and their lobbies in India are powerful enough that nothing would stop them.
No government, in other words, is capable of stopping this, I repeat, urban disaster in the making.
Once again, this car should not be allowed in the major metros in India.
banning is no answer, taking the innovation even further is the only way.
and thanks to tata for being in that process.
numbers, ha, the same is true about houses or borewells or pollution…. people continue to make babies, they have to live somewhere
education is the only thing that makes birthrate decline
autorickshaws will suffer first, the fat guys in ac tata safaris and toyota innovas can just remain on the cell phones while their drivers deal with it
buildings have to be knocked down for roads and parking, that is obvious, and won’t happen until congestion is complete
we need suffering in order to change. same in usa, petrol, gas, should be ten bucks a gallon, then some changes that are needed might happen
as for me, bangalore has won, i cannot go there anymore, except when i really really really need to . not to mention the roads to get there, which corrupt construction companies and one rainy season insure them to be a potholed hell.
“Once again, this car should not be allowed in the major metros in India.”
i would rather ban the wealthy, they make all the problems, and garbage, in the cities
You have really saddened me. You are asking the government to step in to stop a perfectly legal, ethical means of making a car. You must be kidding me. I discovered your website a couple of weeks ago and forwarded it to all I knew. But this post of yours, really forces me to rethink.
You are in the SF bay area, you have to be aware of the tremendous problems that we are seeing with traffic in the entire area. Have you ever been to LA - I am sure you must have and I am sure you must have experienced the traffic snarls first hand.
Heck, the US government should ban all sorts of cars, SUVs, bikes - they already have enough. Whatever they have should be distributed equally amongst all the families in the US. There should be just humans walking on the roads or they should telecommute.
The US government should ban working from the office. That is what causes all the traffic snarls.
Let the market take care of the tata small car. Why should the government have anything to do with it?
I am not surprised with your opinion that the Tata small car will be a disaster for Indian roads. You can have an opinion on that. But your idea of the government intervening on a perfectly good business case shows where you are going in your thought process.
Your thoughts go against today’s most fundamentally accepted principles of Civics, governance, business, ethics and equality.
Best regards, Siddharth
I have been reading your blog for almost a year now. Hence I am aware of your thought process to the extent what you display on your blog. And that is precisely the reason your comment about Indian government banning this car project unsettled me and prompted me to comment.
I agree that the urban infrastructure is failing. But that can be said for various big cities around the world. And then comparatively we are talking of degrees of failure of infrastructure. Imagine driving a car to midtown Manhattan to work. It is very frustrating exercise and it is similarly frustrating in urban locations in India.
If government really wants to solve this problem, what is needed is an alternate to driving cars which is quality public transport. Then market forces which are expensive parking and frustrating drives forces people to make a choice towards using public transport. If this does not work use of tax to increase the cost of owning and operating a car within city limits could be used. Make taxis and three wheel autos expensive thereby reducing traffic congestion and increased adoption of public transport.
This is assuming a scenario that the city was not planned well in the first place and now it it too late to plan it. It would need such surgical efforts by the regulators.
But my point is that Tatas were right in putting efforts to innovate a car which could be sold for 1 Lakh while solving a genuine problem which has possibility changing the way cars are used in India. Such an effort should be applauded.
Infrastructure was anyways getting worse and this car may expedite the worsening. But Tatas should not be singled out and punished for something which is not their primary responsibility.
You mention that Tatas and their lobbies will prevent such a ban. And I agree that in current situation government is not capable of such a ban.
But IMHO governments should not be capable of such ban!
Imagine an new entrepreneur coming up with such an innovation. Innovators values are aligned to make a product/service which best suits their customer needs and obviously make money while doing that. And then she should be punished because she succeeded at providing a product which customers love to have and is serving a valid necessity!
But it is governments imperative to ensure that infrastructure is planned.
I would love to hear your comments.
Hi Sramana,
Disclaimer: I donot own any TATA Motors shares.
I have been a longtime reader of your posts. I regret to read this irresponsible remark on a great innovation, which you have made sitting in a cosy home at Boston with all the material comforts. Rather than criticize the TATA Nano, it is the government who should be blamed for the bad state of infrastructure. It is really pathetic to see you comment Tata Nano as the worst idea in centuries. Any innovation that a Tesla Motors or a Ford or a Toyota is acclaimed, while a man who had the guts to change market dynamics and established thinking is criticized. The post is nothing but laughable.
This seems like a link bait
And god damn you have succeeded…
BTW, why do you think roads would get flooded with these cars any way?
I mean, INR 1.1 lakh is a large sum of money…more than double that of a bike…and a lot of people prefer to buy 2 bikes…for convinience (independence) and speed…(cities have so crowded roads that cars take 30 mins where bikes take just 10)…you can’t get parking space for cars…so many issues…
For example, my salary is 6 LPA…and I can easily afford to buy a small car…but I’m not even thinking of it…pretty much happy with bike…and TATA nano has nothing that will change this logic…
and when I’ll have my family, I’ll buy a car…but certainly not nano…
BTW Srmana…
You have certainly demoted your position, in terms of respect, at least in my eyes, because of this post…
ok, here is a very good link
http://www.celsias.com/2007/05/15/designing-cities-for-people/
and a quote from that,
One of the most remarkable modern urban transformations has occurred in Bogotá, Colombia, where Enrique Peñalosa served as Mayor for three years, beginning in 1998. When he took office he did not ask how life could be improved for the 30 percent who owned cars; he wanted to know what could be done for the 70 percent–the majority–who did not own cars.
Vibrancy - Bogotá, Colombia style
Peñalosa realized that a city that is a pleasant environment for children and the elderly would work for everyone. In just a few years, he transformed the quality of urban life with his vision of a city designed for people. Under his leadership, the city banned the parking of cars on sidewalks, created or renovated 1,200 parks, introduced a highly successful bus-based rapid transit system, built hundreds of kilometers of bicycle paths and pedestrian streets, reduced rush hour traffic by 40 percent, planted 100,000 trees, and involved local citizens directly in the improvement of their neighborhoods. In doing this, he created a sense of civic pride among the city’s 8 million residents, making the streets of Bogotá in strife-torn Colombia safer than those in Washington, D.C.
now of course political will is in global short supply, and cannot be outsourced, common sense never trumps greed, but i hope elitism is curable
enjoy, gregory
Hi Sramana,
Here is something for you to ponder on…
http://www.livemint.com/2008/01/13230332/The-Nano-inspiration.html
Regarding the TATA 1 lakh car, enough has been said - both pros and cons. I failed to see any post mentioning this — the fact the smaller towns - the tier 2 and tier 3 cities which are not yet choked fortunately, can now have a safer family transport. The urban conditions in India today cannot take the numbers of Nano, for sure.
Lots of indian semi-urban/rural public in have now been given a chance to dream , a choice which they may or may not exercise. That is indeed a fantastic gesture from Tata , i would say. These are people which everyone choses to ignore, and there is lot of aspiration among people to own a car. Good or bad, car is seen as ’status’ symbol in India. let us not deny the fact. it is not just a means of transport. and, this is hard to change.
Of course, let us hope, the Govt. under pressure does something about urban infrastructure having a super-efficient public transport.. ( also impose a huge tax on cars prohibiting one from owning cars)
This move can only mean a bigger drop in market share for Jaguar and Land Rover IF acquired by Tata.
There is already a perception of poor quality coming from Indian manufacturing and this “vehicle” further reinforces the stereotype.
@Sean ..thats a really stupid comment…for your information the Tata Nano has passed almost all of the quality requirments and the emission tests….
Also I dont know where your quoting from
“There is already a perception of poor quality coming from Indian manufacturing and this “vehicle†further reinforces the stereotype.”
For your information some of the top automobile companies are now operating from India ..you should come to chennai and see the FORD factory …also probably visit parts of pune to gauge the quality of Indian manufacturing companies prior to making such statements .
@Saramanamitra
I totally disagree with your views …. Isnt it the Govt’s responsibility to provide roads and infrastrucure. Also is it wrong to provide a better sense of living…
Its a definitely better mode of transport than a two wheeler with 4 people riding on it. the second thing is that it is fuel efficient [has passed euro three norms ] and thirdly its really compact …
considering all this I wonder how you ‘ve made that statment …..
Okay, let me try to address your points one by one:
<
ol>
As I said, this car is fine for rural areas where the congestion problem is not acute. Second / Third tier cities - may be. I’m not sure. See this article I wrote sometime back: http://sramanamitra.com/2007/10/28/mckinsey-study-on-the-growth-of-india%e2%80%99s-middle-class/
The forecast for urbanization is alarming. 400 Million people will be living in urban settings in India, with a concentration in the 8 largest cities.
If this population becomes an entirely car-oriented population, it is going to be an urban disaster. This is my main point.
How to prevent this disaster? There are good ideas in your above comments. Congestion surcharge, enhanced public transport, etc. are all good ideas. I don’t think it is constructive to compare India’s course of development with other places where development has failed and similar problems are arising. Particularly, those of you who cite Manhattan as an example - the truth is, even the wealthiest in Manhattan don’t drive cars. They take taxis and subway. Taxis are a good solution, because there is no need to park the cars. Los Angeles is extremely congested. Even on Route 101 here in Silicon Valley, there are discussions of putting tolls. The point is, that people are trying to address problems that have already been created. All these are means of government intervention. “Ban” can be accomplished by many means. Slapping a big surcharge achieves the same results as a ban, pretty much.
What is the point of creating problems, instead?
One of you gives the example of making babies … that people continue to make more of them. Great, let’s encourage that too! Drive the population problem up … ? What are you talking about, Gregory?
Some people are taking the position that let things come to a grinding halt, and then change will come. Buildings will get knocked down. Roads and Parking lots will get built. I simply don’t like this. Prevention is better than cure, in my opinion. And certainly, a lot less expensive and painful.
That SUVs should be banned, I have no disagreement on. The government in the US also has the Detroit lobby and the oil lobby to deal with, and would therefore never have the guts to do so. Pity.
As for who should be blamed, government for the infrastructure or Tata for their innovation, I am not in the blaming game. I am identifying a problem in the making, and looking for a solution. I suggest, readers, you do not look at the past. The country needs to build a sustainable system in which commerce can happen, people can participate in a market economy, household income levels can be raised across the board. If major blocks of this infrastructure collapse, that 7-8% growth rate that Indian has finally managed to get to, will also stop.
There is much on your comments that I have not addressed. Some I find unworthy of commenting on because of their complete lack of logic. As for those who find my position “saddening”, I have to say, too bad, we agree to disagree.
One final point on Tata’s innovation. I have no problem on the pure innovation aspect of the product, especially if it actually turns out to be a good product. I will reserve my judgment on that until after people have started using it.
Einstein, I believe, celebrated his breakthrough discoveries in Nuclear Physics. However, when the “application” became the atom bomb, he was deeply saddened by the outcome.
I am simply pointing out, that the application of Tata’s innovation may bring the Indian urban roads to a standstill.
Banning a particular vehicle which meets all government norms would certainly not be legal even if TATA’s didn’t have a strong political lobby.
And denying the common man the option of owning a car doesn’t seem a fair solution to our cities’ traffic problem. The solution should be such that its fair to all levels of society. What you are suggesting would just make the divide bigger between the different classes.
You might find Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar’s take on blaming NANO for pollution interesting (same can be applied to your traffic congestion theory) ..
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/S_Aiyar_Attack_policies_not_Nano/articleshow/2695666.cms
Dont blame the nano … blame the policies …
The used car market has been offering a similar price point for years. If price alone was driving demand, then we should have seen the roads clogged up already. The entire discussion around Nano has just been another case of ‘India-haters’ vs ‘Non-resident know-it-alls’ vs ‘the NRDI - Newly Resurgent Defensive Indian’.
Yes, but the Used Car market doesn’t have an active credit-financing option to tag along. If the Tata’s are serious about this project, which I believe they are, they will put together a very attractive financing solution around buying these cars.
I think, Madhu, you are absolutely on the point. Throw out all these useless know-it-all Non-Resident Indians. They all hate India. They have no value to add.
“Prevention is better than cure…”
Prevention also means intervention and as an all out capitalist believing in market forces taking care of itself I am surprised you say that. It’s like asking a stock trader not to buy a stock because it will make that stock overpriced!
Look, I don’t think in any country in the world city / town / state / country policy is governed by the market. If that were the case, then Governments would not exist.
Who do you think enforces tolls on bridges and roads? Who enforces emission standards? Who
administers architectural consistency in buildings in cities that have done a decent job of preservation?
These are responsibilities of the government, and market forces cannot tackle them.
Your argument lacks practicality, Ashwin.
As I said, the Tatas did what they are supposed to do under capitalist terms. But this particular “venture” is going to have certain consequences, and it is now up to the government to prevent mass scale negative consequences from happening.
Ok I agree that completely leaving it to market forces is not practical. But is banning practical? We want right government intervention, not more (as you suggest by banning) or less (as I suggested earlier about totally leaving it to market forces).
Removing/reducing petrol subsidies, some kind of gas tax that would be utilized for expanding road network/public transportation are some of the options.
Yes. Petrol/gas tax, Congestion tax, Toll - if they’re large enough, they would tantamount to banning.
And they need to be large enough.
Whether you like it or not, the rich will be afford to pay these surcharges more easily than the middle-class, and yes, it will continue to keep things stratified.
But that, I am afraid, is Capitalism. Those who have the ability to make money also enjoy the privileges of wealth. This is a system that is not worth contesting. I think some of you who have commented on this thread would like to do so … all I can say, is please go read Atlas Shrugged and “check your premises”.
From ongoing thread I agree with you that congestion taxes for urban cities makes sense. These are already present in some fashion (expensive and difficult to find parking spaces, irritating drives and so on).
But what is really missing in these urban cities is decent public transport and government will to make these happen in appropriate timeline.
Take a look at this article where a 34 year old IAS officer single handedly changed public transport in Indore with help from private sector.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Columnists/Blueline_solution_in_Indore/articleshow/2625137.cms
And as I see it private sector in India is currently in a mode where they would grab any opportunity if government regulations would open the doors. And that is not happening or is happening very slowly.
Now although the private sector would act in their benefit, their acts would help middle class too. Making urban cities affordable for middle class is in benefit of cities because it needs working class to fuel its growth.
And congestion taxes would be for every car manufacturer and would not single out Tatas for their car.
You mentioned Einstein’s dilemma. What we are talking about is second and third order effects of ones action which are very difficult to predict.
But I believe the question one has to ask is “Would the world be better off without people like Einstein pushing their own thinking to bring out what other considered infeasible?”
I hope that the system we live in would never ever get to a point where people like Einstein would be punished because they created break through which could potentially be abused by some one else.
And that is precisely the reason I feel ban against Tatas is not justified.
Siddharth
Siddharth,
You are preaching to the choir. The “ban” has been discussed at great length in the above comments. I think you are being rather simplistic and underestimating the readers’ and this authors’ intellect.
Sramana
Punish the poor and reward the rich? Are you insane? Is this a link bait?
Urban india is stealing the limelight. Did you forget the rural India? There are more people living in rural India. What mode of transport they use when the monsoon sets in?
If you want to control the urban traffic, just tax those car owners heavily. Tax them three or four times more. Tax both the rich and poor equally. Force everyone to get out of the car and use public transport.
India is a democracy. You can’t be unfair to the people.
What rubbish. Read the prior posts before commenting.
I am not talking rubbish. First come out of ‘know it all attitude’ and listen. McKinsey and their numbers will not teach you everything. I can talk with authority no less than a non resident Indians sitting in Boston or San Francisco. I represent the middle class, speaking from the happening place witnessing all the developments and also experiencing(suffering) all the daily traffic problems here. I agree with all the problems. But your half baked solution to the problem is irritating me.
“The Indian government should ban this project ASAP!”
BAN. Is this how you address the problem? It can’t be more stupid.
I am wondering how you can suggest a ban in your right mind? Whatever may be the problem, you can’t take away the BASIC RIGHT TO EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.
What you are saying is nothing better than saying this:
“Population explosion is the root cause for many problems in India. We must control population growth for better living standards. Poor children are more burden to the society than affluent. So government must enforce compulsory family planning on poor families with iron hand and ban all the poor people from giving birth to children. By doing this government can improve the living standard of next generation Indians.”
Above approach may sound logical but it is short sighted and unacceptable. I am voicing against such a decision and you are saying I am rubbish.
What I am trying to convey is:
Right to equal opportunity is basic right of all human beings in a Democracy. It must be preserved at all cost. You can’t jeopardize right to equal opportunity for any reason. There must be a BETTER SOLUTION THAN BAN. So go and find out a different solution for all our problems. Try to control the traffic problem with incentives and disincentives. DO NOT try to BAN THE PROJECT and widen the DIVIDE BETWEEN RICH AND POOR. It is already widening. It can only lead to social unrest if it keeps widening. You fail to see the bigger picture.
If you want to ban Nano today, then it is easy to come up with a list of hundred things to ban tomorrow.
Just allow the people to learn to adjust with the situation. Things may not be as worse as you think. For example
People may own a small car but still use two wheelers and public transport for their daily work. I know some of my friends here who own small cars but use it occasionally. They rarely use cars during peak hours. ( It is a false assumption that if they own a car they will use it every day)
If majority of the people own cars, government may come under immense pressure to accelerate infrastructure development projects. Nothing can put more pressure on the government than a collective and urgent need of majority of citizens in a democracy. So first create a need and force the government to improve the infrastructure. This is more effective strategy than writing 100 request letters and blog posts begging politicians to focus on infrastructure.
I have no problem if people own cars and don’t drive them. Rich or poor. If the car is a status symbol that they need to show off to their friends and neighbors, then there is no problem. That’s what I am hearing you say. And it sounds like rubbish to me.
The “ban” topic has been discussed at length above. You can read it rather than ranting on something that also sounds like rubbish to me. I have not said a thing against equal opportunity. However, equal opportunity cannot be achieved by launching the Tata Nano.
The “ban” will come in the shape of taxes and surcharges, tolls, etc. which will naturally weigh much more heavily on the middle class wallet than on the rich. The rich will just pay the tolls and continue to live their lives. The middle class, if they buy nanos, will have to keep their cars at home.
If you call that equal opportunity, well, be my guest.
I don’t call it equal opportunity.
My ideas are rooted in practicality, not in idealistic bullshit.
If you are a regular reader of my blog, you must know that I always encourage divergent opinions. However, if the points of view don’t have a logical basis, it doesn’t add any value.
My (unsolicited) advice to you is to learn to think logically.
Problem with this blog post particularly is inappropriate use of the word “banâ€. Blogs are posted for quick reads before starting work or going to bed late night. You like it or not, only very few people have time to go through all the comments. Most of us who just read your blog post have no other choice but to assume that you are suggesting a total ban on Tata’s Nano project.
How else would one interpret these words
“The Indian government should ban TATA’s 1 lackh car project ASAP!â€
Most of us agree with two things.
1. Small cars from Tata and other vendors will increase the number of car owners in India. It will also put more cars on the Indian roads.
2. Indian infrastructure is in a poor state. It is not yet ready to handle explosion of small cars.
We agree that government should intervene and discipline the purchase and use of small cars by imposing heavy tax etc. I think you are actually suggesting “strict discipline†when you say “banâ€. If that is the case please go and edit your post and add a small note to clarify your choice of word. It will at least save some time. It will save your readers from unnecessary provocation.
Regular users of two wheelers and public transport will know the difficulties in that mode of transport. Imaging these situations.
You are sick and you want to visit a doctor but it is raining heavily outside.
You want to travel to a nearby town with your family and kids to visit your parents or friends on a Sunday (traffic on inter city highways on Sundays is not bad).
You want to go out on a picnic or visit a temple with your children.
You want to buy groceries for your weekly usage.
So please understand that people are not motivated to buy cars just for the status symbol. There are many valid reasons other than the element of status symbol. If everyone owns a 1 lackh car, small cars will cease to be a symbol of status. That is what happened with cell phones in India. Owning a cell phone used to be a privileged status symbol of the rich, but not anymore. Charging high toll fees and taxes is better than outright ban of the project.Customers have a choice to decide between paying high taxes and not buying. Let us decide when to purchase, when to use it and whether to pay high toll fee and tax. I think you also agree with that. So please edit your blog post and add a note of clarification to avoid confusion and wrong conclusion.
Government can even plan a better tax/toll system to inflict equal suffering for rich and poor. ( like more tax/toll for rich users, frequent users, luxury car users, peak hour time users etc etc). Anyway this is a separate topic for discussion and debate.
Senthil,
I have said above that Tata Nano for rural / small town situations may be just fine.
In terms of the “ban” usage, I think I have succeeded in getting you all to think about the subject and examine its pros and cons more deeply.
Haven’t I?
If I have, then I am rather pleased with that usage
And, NEVER propose “punishing” the rich for their wealth, or else, you are advocating against capitalism. India is hyper-dependent today on the class of people who are capable of creating industry and jobs. heck, the entire world
is dependent on this class of people. Looks like you really need to go read Atlas Shrugged ASAP.
One final point - I don’t write this blog with this much effort and care to reward the readers who don’t care to read my writing
with equal attention and care. Hence, I will NOT edit the post. You are proposing to dishonor my work. How can I tolerate that?
Cheers,
Sramana
Oh thanks. I just saw your new post elaborating this one. It obviates any need for editing this post. “Saving face” as Chinese would say.
I would like to spend more time on blogs that I read. But google reader is faster than what I can catch up. Information overload is really a huge problem even with RSS feeds.
I did what I did (use the word “ban”) with full understanding of what I was doing.
In terms of time management, only read those that have something insightful to say. Skip the rest. Over-reading of superficial info is detrimental to building knowledge and perspective. Go deep, rather than “spray and pray”.
Sounds like they need zipcars in India’s urban centers. Shared usage through privately-owned or communally owned vehicles will make vehicles available for all of the above mentioned needs at a fraction of the cost. Paying for fractional ownership or rental is a way to share the cost of full purchase price, tax, parking and insurance (if available and customary) over many more families. Of course toll costs will still apply independent of ownership structure.
This may be a huge opportunity for a forward-thinking entrepreneur to start a car fractional ownership/rental business, possibly modeled on the zipcars.com in the US. Even in areas with great public transportation and infrastructure like New York, zipcars are widely used. Through fractional usage models, occasional use of a newer bigger car actually costs much less than each family owning a small inexpensive, or old, less reliable used car. Zipcars does best in urban centers where population density drives up the cost of owning cars, and provides lots off potential users of service.
In rural areas, community co-ops could buy vehicles for shared usage in a similar model. Both private and communally owned shared ownership/usage of cars will make vehicles available to the greatest number of people efficiently and have the least impact on traffic and infrastructure as well as family budgets.
This is NOT the sign of the technologist, especially people who hail from my good old Ames Street!
Time will tell whether Nano is disaster to India or not. Am sure, TATA is more competent than 1000 such technologists from best schools with myopic vision and lack of real dreams!
~Sukhoi