|
Re: India is the un-China, says Time
de usenet 06/21/2006 09:52
In article <1150828732.007804.218190@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
"mbl*" <mbplee@gmail.com> posted:
>
> Murphy wrote:
>
> > "Dr.Sahib.Pandit.Shri.Shri.Rainam Ji Maharaj Ji Ustad"
> > <praina246898@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1150789721.972649.132010@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7598_1724081,00050002.htm
> > >
> > > A "breathtaking shift" in US policy towards India - declaring it a
> > > strategic partner and offering it a bilateral deal to share nuclear
> > > know how - can be explained, according to Time magazine, simply by one
> > > phrase: India is the un-China.
> > >
> > > Washington's new approach to India is so explained by the American news
> > > magazine in its latest issue hitting the news stands on Monday with its
> > > cover story "INDIA INC - Why the World's Biggest Democracy is the Next
> > > Great Economic Superpower- and What it Means for America."
> >
> > As usual, time magazine is far behind the curve. India hit its climax last
> > year and is only going down. Backsourcing of jobs to the U.S. and the lack
> > of real talent in India are the biggest reasons and it's going to put
> > India's economy in a depression. This also means that Dr Shithead Sahib
> > will have to get a real job scooping shit instead of posting his spam shit
> > here all day.
>
> Back-sourcing: lack of talent is not the cause of this phenomenon. The
> fault is greed and the lack of knowledge of the people and the culture
> of the out-sourced country. All the executives saw was the labour cost,
> the ability to speak and understand English, and the ability to work a
> computer keyboard.All the promoters saw was the savings in money
> because of the differences in labour cost. On paper it looked like a
> profit making system.
>
> Let us look at just the "Telephone Answering Service". No one took into
> consideration whether a bright young Indian telephone operator would
> easily understand a broad Yorkshireman or a Scotsman who has never
> travelled out of Glasgow all his life with their heavy regional accent.
> Or vice versa, whether, these men could understand the accent of a
> young Indian who spoke like everyone else from their village? Or
> whether the Indian operator understood English colloqialisms or diction
> not normally used in India? The use of diction, varies with regions,
> and pronounciations also vary a great deal. Then there is the
> geography, and the references to local shops, that are by-words in
> England but never heard of in India. Like, the "chippy", or "Boots",
> or"visionexpress", or "MnS", or "Natwest", or "bt", or "2 quids
> worth", or "surgery", or "will it be a Chinese or Indian?"and so many
> phrases in common use here that makes no sense over there. So naturally
> there is complete frustration, and that leads to mistrust and
> suspicions. Would you dare make a bank transfer when you are not sure
> if you were properly understood?
>
> So The sponsor company management did not understand what was the real
> spoken English usuage in India, and the Indian manager assumed that
> there would be no problems, that could not be surmounted. This has led
> to a completely fiasco of that outsourced Telephone Answering Service.
> That is just one example of lack of understand of one another.
You have to realize something: a lot of companies simply don't
want voice contact with their customers. For them the accent
difference works wonders.
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/a5ljc
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti