Sunday, December 31, 2006

Hang till Death!

"Rapist's should be publicly executed. Their bodies should be chared, mutilated. Their bodies should be grinded and each part should be destoryed and people at large must be made aware of the consequences of Rape. "

A usual reaction to a crime like Rape. To me the crime sends shivers down my spine. But would love to know what on earth could blind one's judgement and his/her response to the crime as an adequate measure to reform society and influence crime and its existence.

Yeah right!!! For a person who is heavily intoxicated, the image of a person's heart hanging from the branches of tree and his chared body is something that would strike whilst forceful sexual intercourse. It baffles me why individuals like you and me react and find that justice would be served through such barbaric means.

Am I undermining the crime and its impact. No. Period. But for christ's sake dont equate rape as a crime, no matter what the events, commensurate to capital punishment.

Oh yes! Rape is brutal, far more brutal than murder where an Individual is forced to live with the scars till eternity. It's a crime where mind you the death of the victim would do no justice in assuaging the pain that an unfortunate person has gone through.

Oh c'mon, u tellin me that the victim would feel much better if the perpetrators will be hung. Are you sure that the scars are not so deep and the pain and anguish that a victim undergoes would be assuaged by the hanging of a person?? What Crap!

Irrespective of rape, capital punishment needs to be awarded to crimes in terms of how heinous,odious, attrocious, abhorrent,flagrant a crime is. That means look into the nature of crime and please do not classify every act of rape as a crime commensurate to Capital punishment and comments like " His body should be grinded into pieces and be displayed to he public" is compeletly unwarranted.

Take this instance. A couple, who through mutual concent have a period of sexual intercourse. One fine day, a woman objects, but unfortunately she is forced into sexual intercourse. Should the person, the man be executed? Shouldn't one look into the gravity of the offense. Oh yes the person needs to be punished. But wouldn't we distingusih it from a person who would otherwise beat, intoxicate a woman and force her into sexual intercourse. Should be blindly award capital punishment to a forced sexual intercourse, irrespective of the nature of crime and therefore classify every act of rape as henious as intoxicating a woman and beating her up?

The main and only reason why capital punishment doesnt work is cause one's ability or his belief that he would get away from the law. Period. The quantity of punishment has nothing to do with restricting crime. It's the effectiveness and efficiency through convictions are what which eventually act as a deterent and not the punishment.

Politician's son being involved, Children of powerful businessmen, if are at any point involved in such heinous crime's like rape, its not capital punishment that would act as a deterent. Their arrogance is bred on the fact that they would escape conviction. Period. U may have capital punishment, public mutilation, its not gonna impact the rich and powerful when it comes to restricting crime cause eventually its doesnt matter when one subverts the system. Which is the main issue at stake.

So in a nutshell reserve Capital punishment to the rarest of rare crime and the nature of crime. And not just cause it's rape. If conviction remains poor no capital punishment would serve its purpose.

Cause in the end the objective of any Judiciary is not only to deliver justice to the victims but for it to deter crime. That's why we govern states. That's why we employ our faith in the Judiciary. There's no point punishing an individual if it doesn't serve the purpose of detering a crime.

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Kabul Express***

Kabul Express ***

I am tempted to give 4 stars.
If ur one of those for whom beauty and cinematic brillance is confined to chiffon clad sarees at the snow capped mountain ranges and dance/romnance sequences along serene lakes which is usual to A Yash Chopra Production chances are u might not like this one.

On the other hand if u love rocky deserts and find barren landscapes with war torn buildings, dilapidated structures and eerie locations something to relish, then this movie offers plenty of it.

Probably the best Yash Raj film after Dhoom. And thanks to a discerning audience and the multiplexes brillant directors like Kabir Khan get some space to tell a story and spectaculary shot. Oh!! just brillant!! in the way the movie is shot. Photography,cinematography,sound, amazing background score et al are amazing.

Why not 4 stars? Cause at points I thought the story was forced on you and it needed more of the political element in it, instead, the movie at most points is trying to tell the story thru the people's expriences. Things such as Opium trade and the Soviets I thought should have been highlighted.....

Neverthless a brillant film! Kudos to Yash raj and yeah if ur among those u dont enjoy international politics and war torn stories and need the masala element then let this one pass. It's not ur usual blockbuster but a brillantly shot and narrated film.

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

FDI or FII??

Last year, foreign institutional investors pumped to India a record $8.5 billion, a figure that made India the third largest recipient of FII money in the world in 2004.In contrast, FDI flows have remained stuck in the $3-4 billion groove for the past many years. India attracts about one-fourth of the world’s portfolio flows and barely 3 per cent of the world’s FDI. It’s just the reverse in China. FDI is in the range of $50 billion, while portfolio flows are much lower, in the range of $4-5 billion. The question arises: why the foreigner looking at India’s stock markets is far more excited than the company looking at building factories in the country? There are, of course, differences, between FDI and the other flows. FDI is problematic for foreign investors because it means bringing into a country managerial capacity and organisation. In contrast, FII is easy. Only money needs to be invested for earning returns. No effort is required to build organisational capacity for operating in that market. But if a country does not have a well-developed stock market, foreign investment has limited choices. In the well-developed markets of Europe, for instance, the share of FII in total capital flows is high. In contrast, in the countries of Africa, FDI is the dominant form of foreign investment flows. However, too many investors do not want to venture into poor countries so the total foreign private inflows are small.
Today, it is relatively effortless for a foreign institutional investor (FII) to enter the capital market. A Sebi registration, preceded by a fairly perfunctory due diligence, is all it takes before an FII can enter the Indian stock market and commence trading. Exit is equally simple. For FDI, however, both entry and exit are far more difficult. Even in sectors opened to FDI on paper, problems remain at the grassroots. There are innumerable clearances that need to be obtained at the state and district levels. There are also a number of practical hurdles, such as infrastructure bottlenecks, all of which make entry difficult. Exit is more complicated. Archaic labour laws, such as the Industrial Disputes Act, prohibit the closure of any company employing more than 100 workers without obtaining prior state government permission. Bankruptcy laws are convoluted and legal processes costly and long-winded. The Common Minimum Programme of the central government stresses Foreign Direct Investment over Foreign Institutional Investment. Its position is that "FDI will continue to be encouraged and actively sought, particularly in areas of infrastructure, high technology and exports and where local assets are created on a significant scale. The country needs and can easily absorb at least two to three times the present level of FDI inflows," after which the document hurries to add that "Indian industry will be given every support to become productive and competitive" and that all efforts will be made to provide a level playing field. The position of the Common Minimum Programme on FII inflows is spelt out. The FIIs, too, the CMP says, "will continue to be encouraged," but immediately thereafter goes on to state, in the very same sentence that "the vulnerability of the financial system to the flow of speculative capital will be reduced."
Very often arguments are made that this is not good. Instead of having so much portfolio investment, India should have been attracting more FDI. It’s argued that FDI boosts the investment rate directly whereas remittances and FII inflows would be transfers, only a portion of which translates into savings and investment. However, in terms of the impact on balance of payments or the interest rate, it is the totality of inflows a country is able to attract that matters, not its composition. Research suggests that attracting FII may be a sign of good health and attracting FDI, a sign of bad health for the economy. In contrast to the commonly held unfavourable view of FII flows, evidence suggests that countries with good institutions and markets attract more FII, while countries with poor laws and institutions attract more FDI. In the poor countries of Africa, often the share that goes into the primary and extraction sector — such as mining and oil — is high. In rich OECD countries the share of FDI in total capital flows is low at barely 12 per cent. As countries develop, the total capital flowing to them goes up with the increase in per capita income. However, the share of FDI in it goes down. Foreigners learn to trust their markets and institutions and do not feel the need to go there physically to earn returns. That is why economists in Latin America have been getting concerned about the rise in the share of FDI in total flows. The share of portfolio investment has collapsed and this is seen to be a loss of confidence in their markets and institutions.
India should not be embarrassed about attracting portfolio flows. This in fact reflects its success in building sound companies and a well-designed equity market. It is a sign of good health. There two basic reasons why FDI is preferred to portfolio investment. First, it is believed that FDI will stay in India in the event of a currency crisis and, second, it is believed that FDI has a greater impact on growth. FDI is considered “bolted down” as it involves investment in physical plants and equipment and these are very hard to get rid of. Studies of currency crisis usually compare the stability of FDI with that of debt, particularly short-term debt, and in comparison, FDI has been found to be more stable. But that does not mean that FDI cannot move. Latin American economist, Ricardo Hausmann, has argued that there are important mistakes that flow from problems of measurement. In a country’s balance of payments, FDI flows are defined as the increase in the equity position of a non-resident owner who holds more than 10 per cent of the shares of a firm. It also includes the loans received by a local company from the parent owner. About 20 per cent of FDI takes the form of loans from the parent company. Moreover, since the firm is merely a set of assets that are “owned” — in other words, financed — by creditors and shareholders, we must not think of FDI as the firm and its assets. Instead, it is just one of the sources of financing for the firm. FDI is not bolted down, machines are. At the time of a crisis, the foreign company can either sell its equity or take a loan against physical assets and take money out of the country.
Economists Graham Bird and Ramkishen Rajen have shown that despite the fact Malaysia attracts huge FDI, there was a currency crisis. The argument that FDI raises the growth rate of a country is also not watertight. FDI is not found to raise growth when it goes into the primary sector. The impact is ambiguous in the case of services. When it comes to manufacturing, FDI raises growth. But, here again, growth can remain limited to the specific industry in which the FDI went. Worse, it may even remain limited to the firms with FDI. The spill-over effects of technology, management and corporate governance that is often expected to accompany FDI is not automatic. The growth impact of FDI is thus not automatic. It is only countries that have good institutions, skilled labour, openness to trade and well-developed financial markets that gain from FDI. In the absence of these, even if a country attracts FDI, its usefulness is limited. So, instead of trying to be bullish on FDI flows, and restrict FII flows artificially, India must focus on improving markets, institutions and the regulatory framework to encourage foreign investment. Policies should focus on creating a clutter-free market and world-class infrastructure.
This is Article sourced

Monday, December 25, 2006

To hang or not to Hang..........

Afzal... The name arouses extreme reactions. One of hatred for facilitating a crime against the Indian State. One that draws compassion for he is'nt the crux of the issue. One that draws all of us into a new debate where we question whether his death penalty should be commuted to a life sentence.

My take: It's a simple issue made complex by those who disagree with the punishment meted out. There's is no denying that Afzal has been convicted/guilty of a crime he commited. Indulging in arguments in order to prove his innocence amounts to blasphemy. The supreme Court has found him guilty. And questioning the credibility of the judgement by those seeking clemency on the grounds that he is innocence is foolish. As it's the same court that let off SAR Geelani.

So please dont stick to a position that the Supreme court got it wrong in the case of Afzal as aquiting him should draw the same arguments. Dont stick to positions where u reason's his innocence on the grounds that the Court's could have got it wrong, just cause it's convenient to your argument that Capital punishment is'nt appropriate.

So lets keep the two issues seperate. One is whether his guilt/crime Commensurates with capital punishment and the second one of clemency i.e. whether he should be executed.......

Those seeking his clemency argue that he should not be hanged on the grounds that he was only a facilitator. What Crap!!! Osama didn't fly the plane to 9/11 so he is'nt guilty. Just cause I sell a product that illegal(drugs et al) and dont consume it, I should be pardoned as the choice is with the person who consumes it. Afzal is guilty and a crime that grave and in no small measure, of a crime against India's biggest symbol of Democracy, Its parliament.

So dont find reasons just cause you do not agree if death/capital punishment isn't appropriate.

Now the question of clemency. Arguments are that Kashmir will go up in flames. Wouldn't Gujrat go in flames??? Wouldn't the North East go up in Flames??? Oh C'mon! Let's be honest. The issue would have wider implications than Kashmir.

If the Court has sentenced Afzal, its cause its the law of the Land. And please stick with it! Dont Complicate issues and mix it with the pros and cons of Capital Punishment.

Clemency should be granted on grounds of age, family..... compassionate grounds and please kep the gravity of the crime always whilst arriving at any decision. Soli Sorabjee has consistently remarked that granting him Clemency would set a bad precedent. A bias towards a certain section. I am sure that if Kasmir wouldn't go up in flames other states would. And what's the assurance that ist wouldn't happen otherwise. Should we hold the courts to ransom cause a certain state would go up in flames. It's not about Kasmir but other states as well that would go up in flames or very well would use it as a excuse.

I do not support Capital Punishment. But that's a different argument. And has Afzal been punished or sentenced appropriately for a crime he has committed?? Yes, so please go by what the law of the land say's and please do not set a bad precedent. Period.

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Spare the GODS!

M.F. Hussain, a revered artist, adored by auctioneers, worshipped by peers, exalted by the rich and now condemned courtesy intolerance and now forced into exile.

A debate that brings forth the thin line between artistic freedom and religious/nationalistic tolerance.

His paintings have captured hindu goddesses in the nude. The one on the left invited more trouble from the Home ministry. A ministry that claims to be part of the govt. or rather brands itself as secular and tolerant govt. and wears its shades of religious tolerance with fervour.

I wondered whats all the fuss about his paintings and the one above which depicts the map of India in the form a nude woman is something, if u ask me hardly offensive by any figment of my imgination. Now heres a certain section of the media and other right wing activists that have labelled him to have committed a crime that amounts to rs 11 lakhs for his hands being chopped off and rs 51 cr. for beheading the Danish Cartoonist.

The painting on this link is guess what??? Sita nude on the tail of Hanuman. Oh c'com, If I hadn't told u this, one would never interpret what's the painting all about(assuming its the first time u've seen it. There is nothing offensive, erotic in the paintings and find no reason for one to cry foul. Is ur religion/faith belief so fragile so as to be so intolerant by some crap painting!!!

Oh yes I dont understand art. Neither Do I Intend to. I cant understand what does a stupid solitary black dot on a huge what canvas signify.... To me it's just sheer waste of paper and time, Given the fact the some freaks spend time interpreting the crap and forcing some sense out of it.

Having said all of this and having always been alergic to be associate to any religion or faith as my guiding light I support the arguments against the painting. Not being specific to the one uploaded but mere intention of one to present what otherwise would be considered sacred.

I, in noways support the response by a section of intolerant goons, but oh c'mon what artistic freedom has one denied u if ur paintings are in danger of objecting popular sensibilities. I have no problems with the painting neither the intentions but for christ's sake please respect one sensibilities. Even though I dont approve of one's belief that the deities should be spared, if its against popular belief and the very nature of how contenious a debate of religion is, please respect it.

Some may retort that u could boycott his painting by stating his objection. Oh yes convenient reason for why I cant dont buy M.F. Hussain. I dont buy it cause I object to his paintings..... not of the fact that his painiting cost rs 1 crore. Small change for me and what a wise way to object....

U paint me nude, and yeah I object by not buying it. I am sure that's not gonna happen cause then no one would but it, spare the connoisseors of fine art. So everybody objects...

My parents have a problem. They do not appreciate and object to people whom they consider sacred to be painted nude. People/deities/gods who they have revered over time to be painted nude under the garb of artistic freedom. They are not gonna change through educating one on how curbing freedom would affect us as a Democracy. They have a problem and felt offended. I do not endorse their(my parents) view. But I respect the reasons for which the are offended. And please respect it. Period.!!! They aren't resorting to violence and neither do they buy your paintings, so will somebody please stand up and tell me, how do they register a protest???

I do not endorse the reaction towards the painting but why try and ignite and thread territories that for many is sacred. The absence of a protest or those who do not voice their opinion does not amount to one not being offended. But for christ's sake spare the Gods!

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Should we allow FDI in retail

Our retail sector is worth $180bn and only 3% of it is organized.

Benefits of retail
1. Better Procurement
2. Efficiency in the Supply of goods--better prices
3. Competition - Domestic players have to compete- again better prices4. Exports- The most Impt. one.

Walmart is half our country's GDP (if u takes GDP as $770 billion) and that's just one co. The point about our retail sector (worth $180 bn) and Wal-Mart’s Sales is invalid. Why?

1. The price of an avg. item in the U.S. cause of PPP would generally be higher than what it is here.
2. Even if the volume of trade is higher or avg spending per household as a %age of spending is higher the anomaly of the high sales figure would still rise cause again of the PPP argument.

Economies have to move/change and a transition is inevitable. The argument of the Kirana shop closing down and local players bearing the brunt the most at least to me, today, would be misplaced.

In India FDI is almost synonymous with Wal-Mart. And again we are told that it would create and unfair environment. In the following write up let’s contest those arguments.

The argument of a co. by its sheer size would/should hamper our economy--retail model in specific, is a misplaced argument. Unless policy issues are not in place. I'll further elucidate.

"Our total retail sector is worth $180bn where as the sales of WAL MART this year is $315.654bn. No no.... we can’t compete with them"

Yes, the Wal-Mart’s with their might would exercise a better bargaining power like you mentioned. But here again what I am contesting is that taking the annual sales of Wal-Mart which procures in large amounts from China, the cost of which again on a PPP basis would be much lower and the sales of which would be much higher on a PPP basis in the U.S. and not necessarily in terms of the actual value of goods, which means that the revenues would be inflated. With all their might Wal-Mart would have to sell at prices prevailing here and adjust costs/revenue structures to what's best suited here.

From another source"It is interesting to note that the Left approach to the issue broadly follows the Chinese model. China first allowed FDI in retail in 1992. The initial FDI cap was 26 per cent. It took China 10 years to raise the limit to 49 per cent. The 100 per cent foreign-owned retail stores were allowed only from 2004"

Instead of arguing for the domestic industry, and to give them a chance to compete, the more appropriate argument is give retailers a fair chance to compete. Period. Irrespective of foren on desi.

Remember the swadeshi arguments about don’t let the Phoren Players to enter our markets as Domestic Industry would perish.
Cause the Japanese would bring their machines (capital intensive processes) and the Americans would bring their computers(Technology) and since our economy till then was labour driven, so we would lose jobs and people would lose a source of income.

Remember arguments of -don’t bring the Pvt sector in agriculture as millions of farmers would be displaced because they would be rendered ineffective. But ironically Dairy and food processing and cold storage and areas that are left untouched this is where a lot of Pvt players see an opportunity.

To put it in terms of the lay person weren’t we told that the GM’s, the IBM's and Honda's of the world would capture our market and it would be the beginning of Imperialism.
Has it happened? Do you think we would have had a Pulsar, Ranbaxy , indica if it weren’t for compt.? Have the Infosys,Wipro, TCS perished under the onslaught of the IBM's and the Microsoft's?
Infosys Chairman, NRN has gone on record saying that the IBM's of the world only made them stronger. So we have a Pulsar which is sold in other BRIC economies, a scorpio which is sold in Mexico, a Indica which is sold in the UK, albeit under the Rover brand.

We end up mentioning the same arguments against FDI in retail.

Look at the Wal-Mart’s as a huge source of Exports like the Chinese have. Retailers source 60$ bln in terms of goods from China. Get them to invest in areas that have been left untouched. They would bring their proccess/practices and use it to you advantage. It would keep the domestic players in check.

There is no denying the FDI in retail is good. But the retails sector and how it benefits the mass at large is a function of good policy. The retail sector would go for a toss even if FDI wasn’t allowed. Then how beneficial it ends up being is a Function of a good policy irrespective of FDI or not.

Saturday, June 10, 2006

Sensex: Does it reflect anything?

Probably the one thing thats got every one curious in 2005. The word NFO or "Mutual Fund" may be something to which most of have subscribed to....

Since May 11 a new routine, reassuring friends and relatives about the markets and that their money is safe. The phone turns into an alert like the bell in the stock market, a sound which now is a sign of much more I would lose, begining of the carnage and relief @ 3 pm that the carnage has ended.

In all this carnage, porfolios being shaved, NAV's eroded one thing that emerged and was long overdue was the INEVITABLE CORRECTION. And honestly thing that the best thing that could have happened to the markets. Yes!!!!!!!!! its is best thing. Reason
1. The obvious valuation gap.
2. Unwinding of over leveraged postions.
3. The most imptr. , the fact that the Market has presented its full face and what it can offer.

Ever since the sensex which is nothing but a 30 stock index of the best and large cos in India(maybe a moot point), has got the retail investor to consider a shift to equities. Equities/Capital markets have got a face lift and their perception among amny has changed. People are ready to part with their savings and actually consider shares or Equities as an investment which years back would have been veiwed as nothing but an alternate avenue for people who gamble with their savings in stocks that are manipulated by a bunch greedy brokers residing at dalal street.

For a period between which the markets rallied from 6000 to 8000 and then back to 7500 retail investors(RI) have passive and engrosed in thoughts whether the market was a good place to invest also whether it was the right level to enter. And when 10,000 wasnt expensive there was a rush of investors some o my knowledge who even broke thjeir FD's to invest when ? not in an expensive market but when it peaked for the first time. Investors then took assurance of the markets when it then rallied to 12,000 when stocks like HLL were quoting @ 40 p/e!!!!!!!!!... The biggest stamp of assurance came from the Reliance Equity fund and collected a record rs 5700 cr. And then the Tsunami, similar in nature to the havoc it played, A word never heard before and never seen and everyone's caught off guard.. And all this led to the most unwarrented aspect about investing and I repeat investing (not trading)..

Coming back to my earlier point about why this is the best thing, Cause the retail investor is now convinced about the disclaimer which follows each MF ad. In this bloodbath there wasnt any scam, no Ketan,no Harshad or UBS. Just a playout of our markets being integrated globally and unwinding of positions which is part of every market.

Maybe Investors would now look at this as check whether they had invested cause they watched the sensex or whether the India Story was something they wanted to invest in. If it were the India story then its pretty clear that an Index @ 9000 levels and worst @ 12000 levels. No doubt the India stor is intact but expectations out equities need now be more on valuations rather than prices being misguided cause of liquidity be it domestically or the FII's.

Somehow Sensex like the Dow suffers from legacy. Reflective to many as a sign of the Indian Economy and every rise as a stamp of faith in the concept that health of the economy is reflected in a mere 30 stock index.

Monday, June 05, 2006

Celebrity Activism: Legitimate Cause or Convenient Mumblings

Should Celebrities endorse social causes? In the light of Amir Khan opining on the Narmada issue, another question or issue that has been brought to the forefront is the right of celebrities to align themselves with social causes.

Should Celebrity activisim be seen as a flash in the pan or as an instrument to move towards something more concrete in light of the larger social cause that they stand for. Is it a reflection of Social conscious or gaining a piece of media attn.

Celebrities endorsing causes that they wish to be identified with or conrtibute to, enjoy attention of the people . Breaking through the clutter celebrities exploit attention and bring issues and facts in normal discourse and in to the public domain. Issues which we conveniently forget. Celebrities enjoy attention. Period. Their voice reaches larger section, unfortunately more than those who have been championing respective causes for years. Theses issues have been brought to the forefront in the sense of the average person questioning whether enough is being done instead of being conveniently forgotten and kept in the backburner.

But given the priveldges that a celebrity enjoys one would expect his/her conduct to be responsible and consistent. Consistency would extend to not only their views but supporting the causes over a period of time ensuring that they are a part of public discourse by leveraging their status in society.

Critics often question the intent or the motive behind a stance, whether it is the media glare through which they wish to benefit from or whether the credibility of the person is appropriate towards the cause. Effectiveness of a endorsement towards a cause can be gauged only with time.

However the one criticism that is Valid is that when celebrities support causes the larger motive of bringing facts or sending across a message meant to invoke a response, is lost with a subtle view that the celebrity is a "good guy" and in this appreciation of the intentions of the celebrity that larger picture or motive of invoking response is lost. At times conversations about the issue surround the credibility of a certain activist or celeb being a part of the cause rather than being about the cause itself.

Questions celebs about why similar causes are not being supported and why hasnt their support extended elsewhere in a ludicrous as in s self-centered society having issues being raised and constantly being monitored is worth its dose!!!

The Last Day at ABN-AMRO

Its been a good one year at ABN-AMRO. A memorable stint, not in terms of the vast knowledge or managerial experience I gained but it being my first proper Job. Call center was just another excuse to earn a quick buck. But ABN-AMRO has and will be special for various reasons.

Made close friends and hopefully that will last forvever. Apna yaar DD(Daxesh Dasani), apna item boy ---Suryakant Shah a.k.a. Surya, Vishal D'Costa----- Marketing Manager's Dream, Customer's Nightmare!!!!. Costa could sell anything, Ice in the Glaciers to Heaters in the Summer, Sea water to the thirsty to whatever your imagination permits.......

Daxesh Dasani aka DD the stud whose curls women die for, apna yaar guy who takes life as it comes and knows how to enjoy every moment of it. Jalsa as he says!!!! Rock on Dude!

Sudha Laksmi Suryanarayan aka Sudhlaks, a person who epitomises Sincerity, hard work, Discipline, passion commitment and Honesty @ work like no other. Life or the corporate world may have not been very kind to her but like she says gotta be patient with what you pick up in life and believe in the values you stood for. Hats off to you!!!!!

Eldon Vaz- The lord of Excel and man did he excel at it. Nishith Bhatt my TL, who got the shock of his like with a series of resignation letters that he received from his team and also gave us one when he gave his own. Miss his Accent(nothing personal) the Cash letter prounouced as Gay-sh-letter and Check as 6 in hindi Chey-K.

Miss the fact the work was peaceful, noy many to create problems and no pressure enjoyed working and miss working with them but yes do not miss work, do not wanna hit any other case (Kay-se) and report another time.

Call it a day, hang up my boots and embark on a journey together with 1.5 Lakh people. Yes the Baap of Entrance Exams CAT........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and hopefully will make it this time into the big league of B-schools..........................!!!!!!!!!

Monday, May 15, 2006