Or, is this a sign that India is finally being dragged to its long-promised e-commerce dawn? Why long-promised? Because the percentage of all sales served up by ‘organised’ retail, i.e. ‘non-mom-and-pop’ stores—considered by some a measure of a country’s modernity—is pretty low here. India distinctly lags behind with a tiny 3 per cent compared to its sibling rival China at 13 per cent and Western nations at 50 per cent. And why dragged? Because the infrastructure that would have naturally fostered e-commerce was slower in coming than was possible: companies providing reasonably priced broadband access and widespread credit and debit card availability were just looking the other way. And all this when the rest of the world was transitioning to a new online economy that reshaped how we shopped.
I should know; it was on Independence Day 1998 that I grandly declared at a press conference to an audience of puzzled journalists that Indian consumers could now simply sit at their PC and “choose from over 40,000 music titles, 100,000 books online with discounts up to 40% or make bookings of high-quality affordable hotels”. In the following years, only a few of us were plucky enough to battle through the narrow broadband user-base, the poor credit card penetration and the steeply depreciating rupee that made computers increasingly out of reach for the population. The Indian market seemed impossible to conquer. Even a cash-on-delivery payment system we launched in 1999 appeared to be of no avail.
What woke up a somnolent Indian e-commerce industry that the rest of us had just about given up on was an opportunistic clutch of US private equity funds led by Tiger Global. They had the vision to note that a consumer e-commerce market could be created in India because the country had a per capita consumer expenditure roughly equal to the levels of Brazil and China, where e-commerce was healthily flourishing. Since then, this group has invested large dollops of capital—about $2.5 billion or Rs 15,000 crore in 2012 and 2013—into dozens of Indian e-commerce startups. In their attempt to create at least one or two e-commerce companies that could make it to an IPO in the New York stockmarkets, these investors have encouraged the ones who were idly lagging behind in India to run along with the ones that did manage to forge ahead. And they wanted to do so before the current euphoria about Asian e-commerce triggered by the impending IPO in New York of China’s e-commerce company Alibaba fades away.
Alibaba! Its annual revenues are estimated at $248 billion, about three times that of eBay and two-and-a-half times Amazon’s. Alibaba is also hugely profitable; its profit in a recent quarter was in excess of a billion dollars, unlike Amazon which reported a loss. The investors who have been financing, merging and shaping India’s new e-commerce startups are betting on the premise that, if China can produce an Alibaba with an expected market value of $170 billion when it does its IPO, India definitely should be able to produce at least one or two with a market value of $5 billion. There are many reasons why India may go China’s way in its adoption of e-commerce. Organised retail companies that have the scale, management expertise and the information technology to deliver consistently high quality and low-cost goods have never found a foothold in China or in India. In China, for instance, such large retailers’ reach is a mere 10% and it is even less in India. On the other hand, the internet reaches more than half of China’s population, so selling things online in China makes perfect sense. While the internet in India only reaches 11% of its population today, the fact that experts expect it to get to 25% in the next few years makes a scenario where more than a handful of multi-billion dollar e-commerce players emerge from India in the near future easily imaginable.
(Ajit Balakrishnan, founder and CEO, Rediff, is the author of The Wave Rider, A Chronicle of the Information Age; his email ID is firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
"We do need CEOs like AJIT BALAKRISHNAN who genuinely honor the LOYALTY of inititial users and go out-of-the-way to help them out,"
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT