New regulation by the Chinese government requires vendors to gain accreditation for their products and once accredited, they can be included in the government’s procurement catalog of products (known as -indigenous innovation).  If a company/vendor is not accredited, they can still sell their products to government agencies, though they do not get priority over those in the catalog.  The deadline for companies to apply for accreditation was last Thursday, however most industry groups did not hear of the regulation until well into the month of November.  Did China have a motivation for keeping this important regulatory policy hush- hush for days, if not for weeks-on-end? Many believe China acted this way in response to the US government’s recent regulations to boost their own economy, through the stimulus funds approved by congress earlier this year.

China is not the only country that is using procurement policies to their benefit, as the US and the EU have engaged in the same kind of policies to boost their stifling economies. As part of the ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) of 2009, mandates for steel, iron and manufactured goods were put in place, making it illegal for these goods to be produced outside US, so long as the goods are produced for ARRA public buildings/projects. This stipulation on goods will continue to have an effect on US suppliers, like those of India and China. In particular, India’s steel industry has seen significant growth within US markets, particularly within the automobile industry, however this regulation will negatively impact that growth; likely even cause a decline in the industry’s profits over the long run.

Other types of ARRA funds were directed at US small businesses to stimulate their growth. The funds support the hiring of local employees to small American businesses while also implementing compliance norms on ethics for sub-contractors performing work outside the US. The hiring of local employees and the implementation of compliance norms will undoubtedly have an effect on Indian companies, costing them more money, but to what extent?

The EU is working on a similar plan to support its own small businesses, which will undoubtedly have a similar affect on India’s economy, as well as the economies of other nations. The Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) is the only legally binding agreement in the WTO focusing on government procurement. Since India is currently not a part of the GPA, it would be in the country’s best interest to become part of it. China is one step ahead of India, already initiating negotiations for entry to the GPA.

Entry into the GPA can have remarkable benefits for both China and India’s economic recovery. International trade negotiations as well as general WTO negotiations can be made with other GPA member nations, essentially valuing all GPA members as if they were domestic bidders in the procurement process. Indian suppliers would be bidding right along with domestic ones, increasing the value of those goods and services since they can be purchased at the same price.

Both the US and EU have implemented regulations to boost small businesses; but will India’s government do the same? While it is negotiating its entry into the GPA, India’s government could benefit from a similar type of implementation; one that encourages small to medium sized companies to focus on research, development and technological innovation. If both the US and EU are encouraging growth within their own economies, it is time for India to follow suit. Just as developed countries have implemented regulations to boost their own economies, India should be as concerned about its own. Entry into the GPA, as well as India’s government implementation of a Small Business Act to support its own small business owners, could have a profound effect on not only the economy of India but also its relations with the rest of the world; namely members of the WTO and GPA.

November 2009 marks a new entry for the record books - we have just witnessed the largest gold purchase in history!  India bought two hundred metric tons of gold from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).  To help visualize the magnitude of this weight in gold, imagine 44 (yes, 44!) elephants!  This US$6.7 billion sale is the largest of all time.  This also marks the first time the IMF has sold gold in over 9 years.  This huge purchase marks a departure from the US dollar and also highlights India’s strong cultural ties to this precious metal.

This large gold purchase illustrates the volatility of the US dollar.  Gold has become a preferred investment as the dollar value fluctuates and shows signs of diminished value against other currencies.  How does this make you feel about your US dollar savings account?  Interested in buying some gold?  Gold is valued at $1128/oz today (12/10/09), wow!

Besides being a wake-up call to the value of the US dollar and the large amounts of gold India now is holding, this news also helps to illustrate the strong feelings India has for gold.  Understanding India’s relationship with gold helps to put this news in perspective.

India is the world’s largest consumer of gold.  This is in part due to their religious attachment to gold.  In the Hindu religion, gold is linked to the incarnation of the “Creator” Brahma.  Indians also see the metal as a symbol of prosperity, purity and good fortune.  There is also a strong belief that golden ornaments should be worn for specific ceremonies and occasions.

This belief is evidenced by the very ornate Indian brides.  The gold purchased for a wedding typically accounts for about half of the total cost of a wedding.  Gold is a form of adornment, and also is an investment that can be passed down through the generations.  According to Wikipedia, India has “the longest continuous legacy of jewelry making anywhere” in the world, dating back more than 5,000 years!

Here in the US, we typically think of jewelry being in the form of earrings, necklaces, rings and bracelets.  India’s plethora of adornments is almost overwhelming.  Here is a list of types of accessories commonly worn by brides:

- Shringar Patti (tiara)

- Maang Tikka (smaller tiara)

- Nath (nose ring)

- Chudi (bangles)

- Hathphool (bracelet with rings)

- Anguthi (finger rings)

- Bichhua (toe ring)

- Payal (anklet)

- Mangal Sutra (necklace with black beads)

- Kamarband (waist band)

- Baaju Band (arm bands)

I don’t know about you all, but I personally look forward to seeing all of the gold creations that await us in India.  It is an amazing metal that stands the test of time.  I look forward to purchasing something nice for myself to serve as a reminder of our amazing journey in India…

-Catherine Kristensen

China and India have a lot in common; they both have long and great histories. Today, there is no doubt that China and India are becoming major players in the world. As an overseas Chinese student, I hear lots of interesting things about how Americans perceive these two countries. Today let me share my view points about China and India.

Considering the 5,000 year journey of Chinese civilization, what is the core concept of the traditional Chinese culture? To answer this question, we need to consider the extensive and profound contributions of three pillars of traditional Chinese culture - the Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism. The thought process is called the “he wei gui” (和为贵) thought. “贵(gui)” translates to ‘more precious’. This Chinese character includes the quintessence of traditional Chinese culture. When trying to translate into English, I found that it is difficult to translate because，the words have so much meaning. “和(he)” when translated into English means harmony, peace, amalgamation, friendship, kindness, and harmonization… It is about finding the common ground. That’s seeking the harmony between people and people, the harmony of people and the society, harmonization of people and nature. The culture of India has been shaped by its long history, unique geography, diverse demographics and the absorption of customs, traditions and ideas from some of its neighbors as well as by preserving its ancient heritages, which were formed during the Indus Valley Civilization and evolved further during the Vedic age, followed by the rise and decline of Buddhism, Golden age, Muslim conquests and European colonization. India’s great diversity of religious practices, languages, customs, and traditions are examples of this unique co-mingling over the past five millennia. The various religions and traditions of India that were created by these amalgamations have influenced other parts of the world too.

Due to better educational programs and many more overseas graduates, more Indians speak English than do Chinese, giving them a distinct advantage in the international marketplace, particularly in the rapidly emerging informational sciences and service industries. It also augurs well in the business meetings, where the ability to communicate with planners and delegates in what has emerged as the international language of business confers a big advantage.

There are also major differences in the respective business environments of these two countries. Selling to the Chinese, particularly in our own market, remains a real challenge for most foreigners. The rules are unique, and in many respects the norms or ethics expected by those more familiar with other western economies go out of the window. In addition, to be successful in China a local Chinese partner is necessary, and this adds another layer of complexity. Once you get past this initial obstacle however, the paybacks are exceptional – but it takes a lot of experience and expertise to get it right.

When I did some research for this paper, I found an interesting new word—Chindia. Chindia is a portmanteau word that refers to China and India together in general and their economies in particular. The credit of coining the now popular term goes to Jairam Ramesh, the Environment minister of India. China and India are geographically proximate; are both regarded as growing countries; and are both among the fastest growing major economies in the world. Together, they have about one-third of the world’s population, and have been named as countries with the highest potential for growth in the next 50 years according to a BRIC report.

The economic strengths of these two countries are widely considered complementary - China is perceived to be strong in manufacturing and infrastructure, while India is perceived to be strong in services and information technology. China is stronger in hardware while India is stronger in software. China is stronger in physical markets while India is stronger in financial markets. In fact, the strengths of India are very often the weaknesses of China and the strengths of China are the weaknesses of India.

The countries also share certain historical interactions - the spread of Buddhism from India to China, and trade through the Silk route are the prime examples of such interactions. As I described above, there are too many connections between these two countries; and I am looking forward to see what exactly India looks like next summer.

-Yuxiang Gao

As we recently passed the one year anniversary of the Mumbai attacks, it is interesting to look at how things have evolved both on the international scene and on the ground locally.

On November 26, 2008, 15-20 individuals, carrying automatic machine guns and arriving by boat killed 173 people and injured over 300 as they attacked two hotels, a restaurant, a train station, a Jewish cultural center and a hospital.

Early investigation has shown that the attack was planned and executed out of Pakistan, complicating an already tense relationship between the two neighboring countries. Since then, Islamabad has pledged to hold their own investigation and help catch anyone who had their hand in the attack. However, on November 23^rd, during a visit in Washington, Indian Prime minister Manmohan Singh accused Pakistan of dragging its feet regarding the investigation. Meanwhile, Italy recently arrested two suspects and the United States arrested David Headley, an American of Pakistani decent who is also suspected to have been involved in the attacks.

Locally, the Indian police have also been revamping their operations to better address terrorist threats. The Quick Response Team (QRT), a unit that was created to deal with such situations, proved completely ineffective during the attacks. They were ill-equipped, out-gunned, and had poor leadership. A more complex issue for the Indian police to resolve is its internal divisions. These were once religion based but recently there has been rivalry between different ethnic groups. This has significantly hampered the progress of the investigation as competition has replaced cooperation between the different factions that make up the Indian police.

On the bright side, there have been some concrete steps in the right direction. The Indian police have been modernizing and reorganizing themselves to better address these threats. Teams of six very well trained and equipped men are now posted in every other police station in Mumbai, on call, 24 hours a day. An order of nineteen amphibian vehicles was also placed with Canada. In August 2009, new weapons arrived including Smith and Wesson handguns, Heckler & Koch machine guns, and Colt grenade launchers.

India is yet another country that, faced with this new kind of threat, has had to adapt the way it looks at, and deals with internal security. Welcome to the 21^st century!

-Michael Harroch

In an article in the New York Times on Dec. 3, 2009 titled, “India Announces Plan to Slow Emissions”, it was reported that India plans to do just that. Specifically, India’s goal is to reduce the growth rate of its emissions by 2020, leaving the door open to “bolder steps” if an “equitable” deal can be reached during negotiations scheduled for next week in Copenhagen. India joined the U.S., China, Brazil, Indonesia, and South Africa in making a general pledge in advance of the Copenhagen talks.

India’s per-capita emissions output is low, due to their large population, but their overall output ranks fifth in the world and is projected to grow with their economy. India’s approach is similar to that of China, focusing more on energy efficiency rather than accepting mandatory limits on total emissions. They have refused any imposition of such limits, citing fears that it would inhibit the country’s economic growth, which is something it rightfully holds dear. It should be noted that India is especially vulnerable to problems associated with climate change such as alteration in the monsoon season and rising sea levels. Once thought to be obstructionist in the climate change talks, it is for these reasons that they have decided to step up to the plate on the issue.

India’s plan includes slowing the growth rate of the “carbon intensity”, defined roughly as the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of economic output, by 20-25 percent by the year 2020 compared with 2005 levels. This pledge is independent of any decisions that might be reached in Copenhagen, “This is our baseline. We will do this on our own.” said India’s Environmental Minister.

This sounds like an aggressive goal, 20-25 percent in ten years. But is it? India’s rate of growth of carbon intensity has already dropped by 17.6 percent from 1990 to 2005, according to the article. Is this because her population has grown, along with her economy? Further, many (Note: “many”, not “all”) conservatives and leftists in India believe that they should not be responsible for emissions controls because the bulk of emissions in the atmosphere are from more developed countries. Is that the way we as a global population should think of the responsibility of countering climate change: ‘You’re responsible for this, you deal with it.’? Or should the issue of climate change be thought of as a universal, global one?

Lastly, the article states that India’s official and nonnegotiable position is not to agree to any legally binding reduction in emissions or any agreement that would include a peak year for total emissions. This is understandable, I suppose, as it would be a risky proposition to sign any legally binding agreement on something so uncertain as the emissions output of an entire country, and a very large one at that. However, the last lines of the article were of concern to me. It was reported that India is seeking financial and technical assistance from the U.S., and if that assistance was delivered, India would be willing to submit to international oversight on the matter. I may be taking those words out of context, but it sounds as if the position is one of ‘If you’re willing to pay for it, we’ll bend a little.’ I am not aware of the specifics on the proposals of other countries, but are the other countries like the U.S. or China requesting such assistance?

I should mention that this post does not in any way constitute a negative attitude on my part towards the Republic of India, only my reaction to an article and the assertions therein. I am neither a politician nor a scientific expert on climate change, as I lack both the education and the desire to be either. Just my two cents.

-Chris Phippen

While I am often lambasted by my peers for being a harsh critic of the Obama administration over many issues, it appears that they have gotten something right. In October, the Wall Street Journal reported on the administration’s delay of a tax spike on American firms doing business abroad (Click Here). This is particularly interesting as it runs contrary to a campaign promise that Obama made early last year. The issue stems from a provision in the tax code which is run very differently from all of the other developed countries:

Nearly all industrialized countries tax domestic companies only for revenues earned at home. The U.S. taxes companies on world-wide profits. But current U.S. law allows American multinationals to defer paying taxes on revenues earned abroad until companies repatriate them, usually in the form of cash dividends to the parent company (WSJ).

The Obama administration sought to end the deferral on those taxes. Obama made the argument as many have before that this sort of behavior encourages businesses to “ship jobs overseas”. The reality is quite different. As we are seeing a newly globalized economy, it is important for firms to be able to utilize worldwide resources and revenue streams. Ultimately, the more profitable an American company is, the better off its employees will be. There will always be jobs available for Americans at these firms, especially at higher levels, so long as they remain American firms. If taxes are increased (or in this case they are purported to be expedited), it becomes less profitable for a company to be based in America. The same way we have seen a mass exodus of companies out of California in the past decade to the states with fewer regulations and lower taxes, we run the risk of companies deciding to base themselves solely outside the U.S. therefore moving all the firm’s jobs from the States.

The buzzword “outsourcing” often gets thrown around, and usually quite improperly. Outsourcing involves allowing any other firm (in the U.S. or abroad) to complete a portion of your supply chain, whether it is the manufacture of a certain item, the transmission of information, or transportation of goods. When Amazon employs UPS to ship a book to you, they are outsourcing the transportation of goods to an American company. Offshoring on the other hand is when a business moves part of its own management, or manufacturing process to another country. An example of this is when you call a customer support phone number and get transferred to someone in another country. However, that could be offshoring or outsourcing, depending on whether or not the company is retaining control over their customer support, or allowing another firm to manage it for them.

What does this all mean for the United States and India?

As the President seems to have (temporarily) realized, the lowering of costs for business and increased revenue allows companies to grow. If this means that software development occurs simultaneously throughout the day in the States, and in India then not only does this benefit America, but we must understand that in the new age of global economies, everything is interwoven. What is good for India’s economic and job stimulus isn’t necessarily bad for America. Indeed if such a process benefits an American company, it will allow them to grow, and do more business in America. Even if they don’t pay taxes on the money which they make doing business in other places, it will still increase tax revenue in America as these business are allowed to grow. The leaders of the big businesses mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article realize this, and that is why they went in mass to plead with the president to stop his attempt at retribution on companies (especially in the financial sector) for their past failings. Raising taxes during a recession is not the right way to stimulate America’s economy. Unless we start to turn things around, by cutting outrageous spending and stimulating growth, we will have even more to worry about in terms of the competition in the global economy.

What do the readers think? Are there any positive aspects as I have suggested for the American economy if we don’t punish American companies for doing business abroad?

-Michael Minasian

Well, it looks like India’s automotive industry is defying the world economic crisis. While auto sales in the US dropped by almost 23% in October 2009 (compared to the same month of the previous year), and some say we didn’t even hit rock bottom yet, the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM) reported an increase in light vehicle retail sales of staggering 34% the very same month! Sales of commercial vehicles are up by 52%, and Motorcycle sales increased by almost 15%. These numbers mark the peak of a continuous growth over the last four months, and are testimony to the increasing economic power of India.

If you haven’t been living under a rock for the last couple of months, you most likely know what is going on in the automotive sector in the rest of the world, especially in the United States. Since I work for a German auto maker (OEM) that is currently struggling with the economic downturn in Europe and the US, I asked myself how news of a strong Indian automotive industry is affecting other automakers.

I called one of my colleagues in Munich, and asked him to share his thoughts on the Indian automotive industry, in particular about its largest OEM Tata Motors. In his opinion Tata has still a very long way to go until it will be at eye level with European or even US auto makers in terms of technology and production processes. The fact that the market for high end vehicles in India is still dominated by European OEMs backs up this claim. As an example, BMW’s sales figures increased by 56% this October (compared to the previous year). The company holds a strong 39% market share in the luxury segment competing mostly with Mercedes and other European OEMs. Indian cars do not play a role in this segment yet. However it’s important to understand that the luxury segment is only a small piece of the pie, and naturally all OEMs are trying to push into that million unit mainstream market by launching low cost versions of their cars. I think it’s going to be interesting if we see a cannibalization between the established and these low cost models on the domestic markets.

Having said that, I don’t think Tata would be able to compete in the high-end segment presently. I want to point out that it is operating under very favourable conditions, and I expect a vigorous race to catch up. Besides, Tata is operating on an extremely competitive cost structure and, (most importantly) is able to tap into a large pool of highly educated workers. There are clear signs that Indian OEMs are trying to get ready for prime-time in the near future – One is India’s recent accession to the ‘World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations (WP-29)’ and, the other is the statement of the Indian Minister for ‘Heavy Industry & Public Enterprises’ that he sees the Indian automotive industry as one of the most important driving forces for economic prosperity. Besides a strong public commitment to the automotive industry and support through regulatory initiatives, the Indian governments pledged to invest over $500 Million in the construction of six new automotive R&D facilities and the world’s largest test track in the very near future. Tata and a handful of other Indian car makers are in my opinion definitely the competitors that Europeans need to watch out for.

-Vitus Holzner

According to an article in the New York Times article (Click Here), India announced a plan on December 4^th to slow emissions. Global warming has been a hotly debated topic in the international community with many actors cautious about reaching an agreement. Many countries, including China and India, are waiting for the United States to take action on this issue before making any kind of pledge of their own.

Due to India’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change, they have become a major player in climate change talks. India is said to rank fifth globally in overall emissions with total emissions likely to continue growing as the country continues to develop.

On Thursday, India announced that it would attempt to reduce the nations greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 by improving energy efficiency rather than accepting mandatory limits on emissions. The idea is to slow the growth by reducing the levels of carbon intensity. However, India refused to sign any pact that would stunt the country’s growth.

Additionally India announced that it was prepared to do even more if an equitable agreement can be reached in Copenhagen. The big question is, should they have to? Since the majority of emissions currently in the atmosphere are a result of developed nations it could be considered unfair to compel India and other developing nations to take action, especially if it has the possibility of slowing the growth. Shouldn’t India and China get their own opportunities for development similar to the way West did? Is it right for India to clean up a mess it didn’t make, especially when the United States won’t even commit to a position?

On the other hand, I think that making the efforts to reduce the problem of global warming now, might be more beneficial than if it waits till it is a fully developed country. There is much more information available today then there was when the West was developing. As a result, India and other developing countries are aware of the possible negative consequences global warming might have. It could thus be considered irresponsible to develop in a manner in which these problems can be exacerbated. Furthermore, finding a way to develop while avoiding these problems might save the country from having to fix the problem after it has already developed. The West is a good example of the challenges associated with dealing with the problem after the fact, it might be smart to learn from this lesson.

Regardless of what the international community chooses to do about climate change issues, development in a socially responsible fashion might be more beneficial in the long run. It could reduce the likelihood of problems that accompany global warming, such as rising sea levels, and allow India to become leader in the international community.

In my opinion the West should provide leadership and assistance to developing countries; however it is uncertain if this will ever fully come about. Even if the responsibility does not fall on developing nations, should they make it their responsibility? Is the politics of climate change more important than the possibility of a brighter and cleaner future for the country?

-Jordan Wente

As US politicians on the right stumble over each other to massage themselves with the Bush-era glee in response to the ‘Climategate scandal’ erupting from the Climatic Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia, the ‘great water tower of Asia’ continues its relatively speedy recession. The glaciers of the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau span across the borders of India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan and China. Each spring, the glacial thaw births the mightiest river system in the world: the Ganges, the Indus, the Brahmaputra, the Mekong, the Yellow, and the Yangtze. Together, these rivers give material and spiritual sustenance to 3 billion people, nearly half of the world’s population (Walsh). Since 1960, the great water tower of Asia has lost nearly 20% of its glacial volume. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the glaciers in the Himalayas are “receding faster than at any other place in the world.” Keep in mind that the IPCC assertion that, “the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence”, has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all major industrialized countries (Krosnick).

Recently, China and India have pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in acknowledgment of the long-term risk both countries face with respect to global warming. Days before the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit, India promised to cut the ratio of greenhouse gases pollution to production by 20 to 25 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. China pledged weeks ago to commit to a 40 to 45 percent reduction in carbon intensity from 2005 levels over the next decade (Cappiello). It is important to note that no pledge-enforcement mechanism has been agreed upon at this time.

As expected, pundits from Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal (WSJ) mocked India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s efforts to curb global warming. Shikha Dalmia, in his December 2^nd 2009 WSJ article titled, “Emissions Cuts Would Cost India Dearly,” laments the notion of new energy efficiency standards in building codes, new fuel economy standards for vehicles, and the establishment of a national renewable portfolio standard of 20%. Dalmia goes on to write, “The increased expense will put homes, air conditioning and cars out of reach for more Indians—all of which will make them, especially the poor, less able to withstand floods, heat waves and other dire effects of global warming should they ever materialize.”

This year Chinese researchers projected a 43% decrease in glaciated area in the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau by 2070 (Walsh). The loss of Himalayan meltwater places three of the world’s nuclear powers on a collision course for severe resource competition. Following Shika Dalmia’s logic, India would be better served by a substantial increase in its nuclear stockpile and military capability than by taking preemptive steps to slow the loss of Asia’s great water tower. Please click here for the reference articles (Article 1, Article 2 and Article 3).

-Kirk Story

Twelve months ago, I had no particular interest in traveling to the Republic of India.  India has been gaining increased recognition as a potent professional force over the past decade, particularly in the field of information-technology, but it wasn’t until the story of Jamal Malik hit the silver-screen late last year that a curiosity grew within me about India’s everpresent cultural legacy.

Having spent much of my adolescence in the cultural melting-pot that is Los Angeles I have to admit that I’ve been exposed to Indian culture a fair amount.  Whenever my mother would work late I would just go to “Hurry Curry”, an Indian restaurant, two blocks away from my house in Venice, and get some potato bread and Chicken Curry.  When at the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, “Mumbai Taste” was and still is, my default lunch location.  I suspect that I could probably have the Chicken Masala every day of the week and still yearn for it on weekends.  Even in San Luis Obispo, when getting a late night snack downtown, the only sauce that I take with my Bel Frites is the “Curry Mango Chutney.”

Despite my obvious adoration of Indian cuisine, I would be lying if I said that I ever had an overwhelming desire to visit the second most populous nation on earth.  Richard Linklater’s “Before Sunset”, left me with no choice but to visit Paris.  Danny Boyle’s “The Beach”, has me thinking about Thailand every summer.  Bollywood style films, however, are simply not my cup of tea.  As a general rule I don’t go to the movies to watch musicals, though every once in a blue moon I could be persuaded.  Bollywood originals, however, are verbally, musically, and culturally incomprehensible to me.  The song and dance numbers are a tad over the top, and to make matters worse from my western point of view, there is no sex appeal to speak of.  From what I’ve been told, there isn’t even any kissing in Bollywood films.

Sure enough though, about a year ago, Danny Boyle, director of not only “The Beach,” but also “Trainspotting” and “28 days later” of all films; made history by directing the most significant and successful film of his career, “Slumdog Millionaire”. Slumdog won eight out of the ten Academy Awards that it was nominated for; including, Best Picture, and Best Director. Not only did it receive broad critical acclaim in America and other parts of the western world, but it was also a box-office smash hit.  The film’s setting of a swiftly globalizing India is timely, entertaining, somewhat informative, but most important of all:  it has magnified India’s visibility and profile to the rest of the world.  Furthermore, it has accelerated the mingling of American and Indian cultures, as the film’s title track “Jai Ho”, not only won the Academy Award for Best Original Song, but for months after the movie’s release, I was listening to it on many of the “Hit” radio stations in Los Angeles.  Now, thanks in large part to this terrific piece of fiction, my curiosity about this part of the world has peaked, and I am tremendously excited about my upcoming trip to India this upcoming Summer!

-John Barry