Rationale
The ideology my article opposes is that of Mukesh Ambani, India's richest man and owner of the Fortune 500 corporation Reliance, opening up the Indian market to foreign investors and how he has helped India develop. My article focuses on how his political influence through privitization has actually had a negative influence in India's market. Additionally, Ambani's insensitivity towards the poverty displays a contrast between the cultural values he claims to have embraced and the reality. (Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/business/worldbusiness/15ambani.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
India’s richest
man, Mukesh Ambani, the owner of the Fortune 500 (Reliance), rules over an
empire established by his father, Dhirubai Ambani, in a country of 1.3 billion
people. Ambani completed his higher education in the United States and went on to be the director of
a Wall Street bank.
He has made
profound statements regarding the poverty and social structure in India and how
he believes an ‘open’ market can help in improving those two ongoing issues
yet, according to Forbes, he went on to make the world’s most expensive house/skyscraper
in the midst of the Mumbai slum; his wealth parade amongst the poorest of them
all really brings about the issue of his moral values. He is know as the father
of Indian capitalism and rightfully so as the company Reliance consists of 15%
of the country’s exports. This is all very glossy when looked at from an
outsider’s perspective. The reality requires looking at the rotten model of the
corporate culture Ambani has formed for the world’s largest youth population,
the Indian youth, to follow.
Analyzing the governance of this corporation really displays a stark
contrast between Ambani’s words and his actions. He is widely regarded as
playing the role of Mohandas K. Gandhi (Mahatma Gandhi) as he draws
similarities between their Gujurati roots, holding the place of a famous and
powerful private citizen, belonging to the merchant caste know as the modh
banias and both being vegetarian. On the other hand, the differences they
share, or rather not, essentially display how Gandhi worked for the country and
helped in forming the government whereas Ambani makes the people work for him
and has the government, if not the government then many of the political
influential leader, under his control. For a man who believes in an open market
and foreign competitors entering the country, his political reigns have tied
down the government and according to sources; his lack of transparency is the
reason why so many foreign investors hesitate to step foot in India
Recently, in 2009, when Wal-Mart tried introducing its brand in
India, the government implemented mainly ‘red tape’ barriers, which slowed down
the process of Wal-Mart establishing itself and at one point, it became
questionable as to whether or not they’d actually be able to come into India.
They finally made it in but it really makes one wonder why the government would
be so hesitant of FDI, which is anything but harmful to a rapidly developing
economy.
Source I used to gather my statistics for my bias: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21610267-why-mukesh-ambani-indias-richest-man-needs-reform-his-empire-unloved-billionaire
I really enjoyed this article. I noticed a definite shift from the ideology of the original article and your rewrite. I especially liked your effective use of stylistic devices to support your ideology. For example, you state that "The reality requires looking at the rotten model of the corporate culture Ambani has formed for the world’s largest youth population, the Indian youth, to follow." I feel as if the adjective "rotten" captures the issue and shuts down the glamour associated with Ambani. As a suggestion for imrpovement, you could make the transitions between paragraphs more polished. Right now some of your rewrite seems choppy between idea changes. Overall, I really enjoyed reading this rewrite!
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Deeksha! I liked the clear shift in pathos, especially from the heavy pathos of the original article to your more factually based one. For example, instead of focusing on his weaknesses and making Ambani seem more human (like the NYTimes article), you focused on his insensitivity and made him more detached from the nation. The later mention of FDI is also interesting, hinting at the author's wider ideology beyond his issue with Ambani.
ReplyDelete