Is Sachin Greedy?

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Raghavan Subramaniyan

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 7:09:35 PM1/6/03
to
Is it true that Sachin Tendulkar wrote to the Indian Government to get a
duty waiver on his Ferrari (and then later obtained it)?
If so, it is the most disappointing occasion in my life. Until now, my
image of Sachin has been of a person of great personal character
(remember bonzer?) and a devotee of cricket to whom money was
incidental, but not the goal.
If he indeed got the import duty on his Ferrari waived, he has in effect
stolen the money from his very fans (the tax payers). For a country
where tax collection is less than 10%, this is hardly the right example
for others to follow.

I think it would have been a great symbolic gesture for Sachin if he
voluntarily paid the duty (even if an exemption was offered). Following
the rules is the least he could do for a country that has adored and
deified him.

Please, someone tell me that this is not what happened. It hurts me a
hell of a lot more than the pathetic display of the Indians in NZ

- A truly disheartened Indian cricket fan

Shripathi Kamath

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 7:42:13 PM1/6/03
to

"Raghavan Subramaniyan" <rag...@SPAMlabs.mot.com> wrote in message
news:3E1A1ABF...@SPAMlabs.mot.com...

> Is it true that Sachin Tendulkar wrote to the Indian Government to get a
> duty waiver on his Ferrari (and then later obtained it)?

Reports indicate that he got a duty waiver.

> If so, it is the most disappointing occasion in my life.

Every one should be so lucky..

> Until now, my
> image of Sachin has been of a person of great personal character
> (remember bonzer?) and a devotee of cricket to whom money was
> incidental, but not the goal.

Has anything changed?

> If he indeed got the import duty on his Ferrari waived, he has in effect
> stolen the money from his very fans (the tax payers).

How so? Going by what you wrote, he applied for a waiver (legal isn't it?),
and the Govt. of India in its infinite wisdom saw it fit to grant the
request. Where's the stealing part?

> For a country
> where tax collection is less than 10%, this is hardly the right example
> for others to follow.
>

What? Follow the law?


> I think it would have been a great symbolic gesture for Sachin if he
> voluntarily paid the duty (even if an exemption was offered).

Symbolic gesture of what?

> Following
> the rules is the least he could do for a country that has adored and
> deified him.
>

He did, according to you. The "rules" (or laws) allow him to correspond
with the Govt. of India and request a waiver.

> Please, someone tell me that this is not what happened.

"This is not what happened."

There you go, happy now?

> It hurts me a
> hell of a lot more than the pathetic display of the Indians in NZ
>

Get a prescription pain-killer.

India Fan

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 8:37:25 PM1/6/03
to
"Raghavan Subramaniyan" <rag...@SPAMlabs.mot.com> wrote in message
news:3E1A1ABF...@SPAMlabs.mot.com...
> Is it true that Sachin Tendulkar wrote to the Indian Government to get a
> duty waiver on his Ferrari (and then later obtained it)?
> If so, it is the most disappointing occasion in my life. Until now, my
> image of Sachin has been of a person of great personal character
> (remember bonzer?) and a devotee of cricket to whom money was
> incidental, but not the goal.

Sachin thinks money is important and he said that before. He's a
professional cricketer, not
a sanyas.

Here is an excert from one of his interviews -
http://sachintendulkar.hypermart.net/said/insecure.htm

What does money mean to you?

Money is important in life - anyone who says it is not is not speaking the
truth. I think money is important but it shouldn't reach the extent where it
dictates to you. Take care of the runs and the money will follow you,
because whatever is happening is because of cricket. For the last 11 years I
have only worried about how to score runs, not about how to make money. And
my family has played a big role in that -- they have supported me and shown
me the right path; especially my elder brother Ajit and another brother
Nitin, who is the eldest amongst us.

Augustus-Fink-Nottle

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 9:15:22 PM1/6/03
to
Raghavan Subramaniyan <rag...@SPAMlabs.mot.com> wrote:
>I think it would have been a great symbolic gesture for Sachin if he
>voluntarily paid the duty (even if an exemption was offered). Following
>the rules is the least he could do for a country that has adored and
>deified him.
>
>Please, someone tell me that this is not what happened. It hurts me a
>hell of a lot more than the pathetic display of the Indians in NZ
>
>- A truly disheartened Indian cricket fan


It's not that simple. Check up the customs tariff someday. The import duties
on luxury cars in India are astronomical. I'm relying on a faulty memory but
the duty on the CIF value of a car is about 120%. Now consider how much a
Ferrari costs, add insurance and freight to it. The duty paid is way higher
than the cost of the car. Then multiply that with the poor exchange rate of
the Indian rupee with the UK pound.

This was a free gift given to him in England and the only options you'd have
in a similar position would be to - 1) Pay more than the worth of the white
elephant in customs duty or 2) Dump the car in England. Both options are
less than ideal.

The Indian govt. correctly and reasonably gave him a waiver - particularly
because it was a gift, not a personal purchase. Besides, bringing the
car into India, he has to pay other taxes on it - I think he'll be paying a
big fat gift tax and possibly capital gains. I'm not an accountant, but it is
unfair to say that it has in some way damaged the Indian economy because
of the loss of revenue. If he'd left the car in England, he wouldn't be
paying any of the taxes on it that he pays on it now.

The matter must be viewed from the standpoint of principles. Why do they
levy import duties? To protect local manufacturers from direct foreign
competition. Is there a reasonable local competitor to Ferrari in India? No.
Then allowing the car to be brought in does not harm the Indian economy
as such. This hue and cry over the duty waiver is simply sensationalism.
I think the govt acted in a pragmatic manner and I don't find anything wrong
in what SRT or the Govt. did.

- Gussie

sanjay

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 9:47:40 PM1/6/03
to

Yeah suppose I took a gift to India, will the GOI give me a waiver ?
Just becos its SRT the GOI is doing it.

Shripathi Kamath

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 9:56:42 PM1/6/03
to

"sanjay" <nd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E1A3FCC...@hotmail.com...
>

<snip>

> >
> Yeah suppose I took a gift to India, will the GOI give me a waiver ?

You can certainly apply for one like SRT did. Why do you ask? Did they turn
you down for a gifted Ferrari?


> Just becos its SRT the GOI is doing it.
>

No, they would probably do it for just about everyone, under the same
scenario.

<snip>


sanjay

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 10:01:43 PM1/6/03
to

Shripathi Kamath wrote:
> "sanjay" <nd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3E1A3FCC...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>Yeah suppose I took a gift to India, will the GOI give me a waiver ?
>
>
> You can certainly apply for one like SRT did. Why do you ask? Did they turn
> you down for a gifted Ferrari?
>

Why should'nt I ask the Q ?
I can apply for anything is this world. The Q is will I get it or not ?

Shripathi Kamath

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 10:08:48 PM1/6/03
to

"sanjay" <nd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E1A430F...@hotmail.com...

>
>
> Shripathi Kamath wrote:
> > "sanjay" <nd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E1A3FCC...@hotmail.com...
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>Yeah suppose I took a gift to India, will the GOI give me a waiver ?
> >
> >
> > You can certainly apply for one like SRT did. Why do you ask? Did they
turn
> > you down for a gifted Ferrari?
> >
>
> Why should'nt I ask the Q ?

If you feel like it, you should. Is anyone stopping you from asking the
"Q"?

> I can apply for anything is this world. The Q is will I get it or not ?
>

That is precisely why you have to apply for it. If the answer was known
before hand, there would be no need to apply for it.

If they turned you down in an identical case, we all can commiserate with
you against the GOI. (But still not target SRT because he did everythinmg
legal)

So, did you apply for a waiver on a Ferrari?

sanjay

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 10:27:55 PM1/6/03
to

Your missing my point
The botton line is that "GOI is doing this only becos he is Tendulkar"
You can keep arguing over this for ever.

Shripathi Kamath

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 10:45:08 PM1/6/03
to

"sanjay" <nd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E1A4938...@hotmail.com...

>
> Your missing my point
> The botton line is that "GOI is doing this only becos he is Tendulkar"

Well, that certainly explains the top post.

> You can keep arguing over this for ever.

Argue what? You have made no point.

sanjay

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 10:51:11 PM1/6/03
to
I can't help it of your dumb.

Shripathi Kamath

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 10:56:09 PM1/6/03
to

"sanjay" <nd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E1A4EAF...@hotmail.com...

> I can't help it of your dumb.
>

That much is true. Look how much of a problem you are having helping
yourself. Still failing miserably, I might add.

You still have made no point.

sanjay

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 11:29:12 PM1/6/03
to

Shripathi Kamath wrote:
> "sanjay" <nd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3E1A4EAF...@hotmail.com...
>
>>I can't help it of your dumb.
>>
>
>
> That much is true. Look how much of a problem you are having helping
> yourself. Still failing miserably, I might add.
>
> You still have made no point.

Read the post again, if you can't get my point.

V

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 11:32:27 PM1/6/03
to

"sanjay" <nd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E1A5797...@hotmail.com...

>
>> >
> > You still have made no point.
>
> Read the post again, if you can't get my point.
>

Sachin wanted to know if he would get the waiver. He applied, and found it
out. You wanna find out, go ahead and apply. You will get the first hand
info.

- v


Shripathi Kamath

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 11:36:48 PM1/6/03
to

"sanjay" <nd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E1A5797...@hotmail.com...

>
>
> Shripathi Kamath wrote:
> > "sanjay" <nd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E1A4EAF...@hotmail.com...
> >
> >>I can't help it of your dumb.
> >>
> >
> >
> > That much is true. Look how much of a problem you are having helping
> > yourself. Still failing miserably, I might add.
> >
> > You still have made no point.
>
> Read the post again, if you can't get my point.
>

Read this: You made no point for anyone to 'get', reading the post again
will only confirm that you have made no point.

SRT applied for a waiver, and the GOI granted him one. Perfectly legal.

If you had presented any examples of someone in a similar position (a gifted
Ferrari or some such thing) who applied and was denied such a waiver, then
you might have had a point.

You don't.

Vijay

unread,
Jan 6, 2003, 11:35:56 PM1/6/03
to

"Raghavan Subramaniyan" <rag...@SPAMlabs.mot.com> wrote in message
news:3E1A1ABF...@SPAMlabs.mot.com...
> Is it true that Sachin Tendulkar wrote to the Indian Government to get a
> duty waiver on his Ferrari (and then later obtained it)?

Yes. He is as cheap and classless as they come.


Shekhar Kale

unread,
Jan 7, 2003, 1:15:33 AM1/7/03
to
Guys .. come on.
If anyone is playing or doing duty for the country (there should be no
denial on this
one I suppose), GOI (a democratic govt) has every right to consider such a
request.

Why doesn't anyone try to sneak in his toyota corolla or honda civic and see
if
GOI agrees ? (Admittedly you are doing a duty for the country (which one?)
by paying duty !)

"sanjay" <nd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:3E1A5797...@hotmail.com...

The Wog

unread,
Jan 7, 2003, 4:11:17 AM1/7/03
to
Question, probably not one that has much to do with cricket:

- What is the intention of a formal "duty waiver" process? Seems odd that
there is a duty and then a relatively easy way to waive it.
- How often is this invoked? Is the process there only for the once in a
million when SRT uses it or does this happen all the time?
- What reasons are normally successful? Are successful applications
typically "I'm a test cricketer" or do they normally need to demonstrate
some better argument than that?

"Shripathi Kamath" <firstnam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v1k8j17...@corp.supernews.com...

rkusenet

unread,
Jan 7, 2003, 5:24:28 AM1/7/03
to
"Raghavan Subramaniyan" <rag...@SPAMlabs.mot.com> wrote

Just to let you know. In 1975 when our hockey team won the WC
beating Pak 2-1 in Kulalumpur, the team shopped a lot in KL
and had a problem at customs when they returned. It took a call
from the team's coach to the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to get
the customs exempted.

If u want to be disappointed for tax evasion start with Kamal Hassan
or Amitabh Bachchan or Lata Mangeshkar.

rk-


Dipesh Dattani

unread,
Jan 7, 2003, 8:32:00 AM1/7/03
to
Who gave him the Ferarri as a gift?

Nikhil Deo

unread,
Jan 7, 2003, 10:39:34 AM1/7/03
to

"sanjay" <nd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E1A3FCC...@hotmail.com...

> > The Indian govt. correctly and reasonably gave him a waiver -


particularly
> > because it was a gift, not a personal purchase. Besides, bringing the
> > car into India, he has to pay other taxes on it - I think he'll be
paying a
> > big fat gift tax and possibly capital gains. I'm not an accountant, but
it is
> > unfair to say that it has in some way damaged the Indian economy because
> > of the loss of revenue. If he'd left the car in England, he wouldn't be
> > paying any of the taxes on it that he pays on it now.
> >
> Yeah suppose I took a gift to India, will the GOI give me a waiver ?
> Just becos its SRT the GOI is doing it.

Do something such that the whole Nation (minus perhaps you) is proud of you
and let someone give you a Ferrari/Lamborghini as a gift and ask for waiving
the duty. If GOI refuses, contact me and I will personally go on a hunger
strike for you.

Till then, you can waste your time by making senseless arguments.

PS: Before comparing yourself with SRT, let us know about yourself. Start
with full name.

Nikhil Deo

unread,
Jan 7, 2003, 10:49:18 AM1/7/03
to

"Dipesh Dattani" <Dip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3e31e7f.0301...@posting.google.com...

> Who gave him the Ferarri as a gift?

0. Are you serious?
1. Do you have access to internet?
2. Do you know about 'google'?
3. While you are at it, can you please go through common usenet faqs? You
will find them somewhere.
Please look for "top posting" also in advance, it might come handy.

Hint: Someone who drives a Ferrari quite well

Nikhil Deo

unread,
Jan 7, 2003, 10:55:01 AM1/7/03
to

"Raghavan Subramaniyan" <rag...@SPAMlabs.mot.com> wrote in message
news:3E1A1ABF...@SPAMlabs.mot.com...

> - A truly disheartened Indian cricket fan


I also feel sorry for you. Please pay the duty on Sachin's behalf and get
rid of the guilt. GoI might consider installments in case you prefer them.
Good luck and take care!


Augustus-Fink-Nottle

unread,
Jan 7, 2003, 12:02:15 PM1/7/03
to
"The Wog" <@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>Question, probably not one that has much to do with cricket:
>
>- What is the intention of a formal "duty waiver" process? Seems odd that
>there is a duty and then a relatively easy way to waive it.

Most countries have a Customs and Excise department to deal with this.
Nobody said it is "relatively easy" to get duty waived on any import but
there are businesses which act as representatives (like lawyers and
accountants) to manage these things. My dad is in this business, by the
way, and I've seen him apply for duty waivers on personal property many
times. Often succesfully as long as the claim is genuine.


>- How often is this invoked? Is the process there only for the once in a
>million when SRT uses it or does this happen all the time?

It is invoked pretty regularly though not to the same extent because not
many people get Ferraris into the country. But duty waivers and reductions
are applied for routinely by all sorts of personal and business importers.
People who say a waiver is something unheard of are simply uninformed.


>- What reasons are normally successful? Are successful applications
>typically "I'm a test cricketer" or do they normally need to demonstrate
>some better argument than that?

You need a good case. It's like going in front of the district judge to
protest a parking ticket. There isn't any set of 'reasons' which will get you
off. Each case is unique and must be argued on its merits and specific
circumstances. I could get you a detailed answer about any specific case
from my dad about what works and what doesn't but you'll probably end
up getting billed for it.

- Gussie

Augustus-Fink-Nottle

unread,
Jan 7, 2003, 12:02:42 PM1/7/03
to
In article <3E1A3FCC...@hotmail.com>, sanjay <nd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Yeah suppose I took a gift to India, will the GOI give me a waiver ?
>Just becos its SRT the GOI is doing it.

Yes. You can get certain items into the country duty free if they are gifts.
But the circumstances and validity of any such claim have to be proven. If
you obtained an expensive gift abroad with a value such that paying the
duty on it is unfeasable, you too can apply to the Indian customs for a
one-time waiver provided your claim is genuine and you have the necessary
documentation and justification for making such a claim. They will consider
your application and make the appropriate decision. Whether they grant
you the waiver or not depends on the validity of your claim.

But I get the feeling your question was a rhetorical one and that you are not
really interested in the answer to the question you asked as long as you can
bash the GOI and SRT. Am I judging you wrongly?

- Gussie

Nax

unread,
Jan 7, 2003, 12:32:53 PM1/7/03
to
Has anybody ever interacted with the Central Board of Excise and Customs in
India. You can't get anything without bribing them. If your a comman man
without any connections , your screwed. I agree with Mr. Raghavan Subramaniyan .
Anyway this is a cricket newsgroup so let us talk about cricket.

"rkusenet" <rkus...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<ave9v1$ekunl$1...@ID-75254.news.dfncis.de>...

Raghavan Subramaniyan

unread,
Jan 7, 2003, 12:46:28 PM1/7/03
to
Thanks for the information.
Would you by any chance be in a position to comment whether SRT had
genuine reasons for getting the waiver?
So far my impression has been that the waiver had more to do with his
personal influence than with a documented set of guidelines/criteria for
obtaining such a waiver.
I guess I'll have less qualms if I think of SRT as a normal human being
rather than Caesar's wife.
-Raghavan

Augustus-Fink-Nottle

unread,
Jan 7, 2003, 2:37:53 PM1/7/03
to
Raghavan Subramaniyan <rag...@SPAMlabs.mot.com> wrote:
>Thanks for the information.
>Would you by any chance be in a position to comment whether SRT had
>genuine reasons for getting the waiver?


Yes. Posted earlier in this thread.
- Gussie

Captain Haddock

unread,
Jan 7, 2003, 5:10:37 PM1/7/03
to
"Vijay" <v...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MOsS9.4706$Oj7.1...@twister.nyc.rr.com>...

Cheap enough for India to afford and enough Class for Bradman to acknowledge.

Capn.

Dipesh Dattani

unread,
Jan 7, 2003, 6:36:14 PM1/7/03
to
"Nikhil Deo" <Del_Me_n...@h.otmaildotcom> wrote in message news:<avestu$i...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>...

Take it easy mate, I just started using newsgroups. No need to bite my head off.

Amol Cricketwallah

unread,
Jan 7, 2003, 6:50:27 PM1/7/03
to
"rkusenet" <rkus...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<ave9v1$ekunl$1...@ID-75254.news.dfncis.de>...
>
> Just to let you know. In 1975 when our hockey team won the WC
> beating Pak 2-1 in Kulalumpur, the team shopped a lot in KL
> and had a problem at customs when they returned. It took a call
> from the team's coach to the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to get
> the customs exempted.
>

This isnt the only time, surely? For example, when Shastri won his
Audi in Australia, I seem to recall quite clearly that import duty
was waived for him as well, and he was allowed to bring it for free
to use on the streets of Bombay (where it made him very distinctive
indeed). IIRC in those days customs duty used to be 320% or something
approaching that, so that was a much bigger hit to the revenue, if
anything.

This has often been the case for anyone who represents the country
in any field, IMHO. Especially as far as gifts/awards are concerned.
Iam surprised there is so much reaction to it :-)


> If u want to be disappointed for tax evasion start with Kamal Hassan
> or Amitabh Bachchan or Lata Mangeshkar.
>

Or any businessman. Which is fine IMHO anyway - when a government
has clearly usurious tax policies, they are only encouraging tax
evasion, and this will always be the case :-) Not so much the case
today of course, but certainly the case back in the 70s and 80s.
Just as a permit raj will almost always result in a thriving
blackmarket (as it did in India in the 70s and 80s as well).

Oh, and if you really want to look for people who evade taxes, start
with people like Sukh Ram first, not even Amitabh :-)


Sadiq [ didnt Azhar get a car in Sharjah a few yrs ago? ] Yusuf


> rk-

Dipesh Dattani

unread,
Jan 7, 2003, 7:38:43 PM1/7/03
to
"Nikhil Deo" <Del_Me_n...@h.otmaildotcom> wrote in message news:<avestu$i...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>...

If your 'hint' is referring to Michael Schumacher then you'd be wrong.
The Ferarri was given to him as a gift by Fiat, it was merely
presented to him by Schumacher as they'd met up at the British GP
which was taking place when India were touring England.

So you might wanna use Google a bit more yourself before handing out
advice :-p

deep point

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 4:36:59 AM1/8/03
to
cricke...@hotmail.com (Amol Cricketwallah) wrote in message news:<a374a779.03010...@posting.google.com>...

> This has often been the case for anyone who represents the country
> in any field, IMHO. Especially as far as gifts/awards are concerned.
> Iam surprised there is so much reaction to it :-)

I have no problems with Tendulkar asking for a duty waiver and getting
it. But if you are going to bring this "representing the country" as
the justification for doing it, then it only strengthens the argument
of those who are criticising the cricketers for putting money before
country's honour in this current contract row. I agree with neither.
First of all, they are not representing the country, they are just 11
members chosen by an autonomous body called BCCI which has sent them
overseas as part of its *business*. Secondly, country's honour is not
dependent on what those 11 guys do on the field. If a country's honour
depends on the result of a sporting activity, then it doesn't have any
honour left to defend, imo.

btw, if my company changes its name to Board of Software Development
of India, can I bring in anything duty-free? hmm... should suggest
that in next meeting
:-)

> Or any businessman. Which is fine IMHO anyway - when a government
> has clearly usurious tax policies, they are only encouraging tax
> evasion, and this will always be the case :-) Not so much the case

How can it be fine? If you don't like the policy, go somewhere else
where the policies are to your liking. But not liking the law is no
justification for breaking it.

dp

Nikhil Deo

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 11:08:22 AM1/8/03
to

"Dipesh Dattani" <Dip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3e31e7f.03010...@posting.google.com...

FYKI, That was a hint for making the google search string..not the answer. I
am happy that now you know about google. Hopefully you read ESR's
guidelines about asking questions on the usenet also? Hmm... who is ESR?
First google, then make a wisecrack to rectify the mistake of asking an
unnecessary question on usenet.


deep point

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 11:13:46 AM1/8/03
to
dark...@moon.com (Augustus-Fink-Nottle) wrote in message news:<avdd8e$2ea6$8...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
> It's not that simple. Check up the customs tariff someday. The import duties
> on luxury cars in India are astronomical. I'm relying on a faulty memory but
> the duty on the CIF value of a car is about 120%. Now consider how much a
> Ferrari costs, add insurance and freight to it. The duty paid is way higher
> than the cost of the car. Then multiply that with the poor exchange rate of
> the Indian rupee with the UK pound.
>
> This was a free gift given to him in England and the only options you'd have
> in a similar position would be to - 1) Pay more than the worth of the white
> elephant in customs duty or 2) Dump the car in England. Both options are
> less than ideal.

This is ofcourse assuming that he had no plans of buying a Ferrari and
Fiat just gifted it to him and he was forced to bring it to India.

Consider the alternate scenario. It is fairly well known that he is
crazy about Formula 1, plans to make his son a F1 champion etc (he
said this in an interview with Harsha). Now, how much would it have
cost him if he wanted to import a Ferrari? Let's say cost of the car
is Rs.1 crore. Add 120% duty, works out to 2.2 crores. Which means he
would have had to earn Rs. 3.1 crore pre-tax income (30% income tax).
So, when he signs the endorsement deal with Fiat India (as an aside,
Fiat had a bad image in India because of the association with their
old cars, but once they signed Tendulkar, their Palio sales zoomed
like crazy), so he tells them, in lieu of 3 crore endorsement fee, get
me a Ferrari at my doorstep, you take care of customs, tax, whatever.
So Ferrari works out this plan with his auditor. Gift him a Ferrari
abroad, apply for import duty waiver, if we don't get it, fine we will
pay the duty, but in case we get the waiver, we will share the amount
saved equally. They get the waiver, Fiat ended up paying just 1.4
crores overall (1 crore cost + 40% gift tax). Of the remaining 1.6
crores, Fiat keeps 80 lakhs, Tendulkar's auditor gets 80 lakhs and he
buys a Benz and an apartment. Who ended up losing? GoI and the
taxpayers, that's who.

Again, I have nothing against Tendulkar getting the waiver. He
probably wouldn't even be aware that he is causing a revenue loss for
the government. But don't tell me that the import duty waiver was
justified by comparing it with a prize won by Shastri or the Hockey
team or whatever. This was not a prize which could have been won by
anyone. This was a gift given by a car manufacturer to a specific
person with whom they had an endorsement deal, and hence if the
government had any sense it wouldn't even qualify as a gift.

dp

Lenin Maran

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 11:29:29 AM1/8/03
to
"deep point" <deep...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:6ed0548a.03010...@posting.google.com...

> cricke...@hotmail.com (Amol Cricketwallah) wrote in message
news:<a374a779.03010...@posting.google.com>...
hey dp, is there any thing which Sadiq's says you agree with?

Peace,
Lenin


deep point

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 12:38:59 PM1/8/03
to
In article <avhjpv$frgeo$1...@ID-154951.news.dfncis.de>, "Lenin says...

>
>"deep point" <deep...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
>news:6ed0548a.03010...@posting.google.com...
>> cricke...@hotmail.com (Amol Cricketwallah) wrote in message
>news:<a374a779.03010...@posting.google.com>...
>hey dp, is there any thing which Sadiq's says you agree with?

Oh plenty :-) I am sure he agrees with me that Tendulkar is a great
batsman. Or that Prasad was an ordinary bowler. Or that Rushdie is a
terrific writer :-) But the problem with Usenet is, it can get very
boring if everyone starts posting an "agreed" or "me too" post for
every article they agree with. So instead, we tend to respond to only
those we *disagree* with (mostly), hence disagreements get seen,
agreements remain hidden.

dp

Augustus-Fink-Nottle

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 1:38:59 PM1/8/03
to
In article <6ed0548a.03010...@posting.google.com>, deep...@mailandnews.com (deep point) wrote:
>dark...@moon.com (Augustus-Fink-Nottle) wrote in message
> news:<avdd8e$2ea6$8...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
>> It's not that simple. Check up the customs tariff someday. The import duties
>> on luxury cars in India are astronomical. I'm relying on a faulty memory but
>> the duty on the CIF value of a car is about 120%. Now consider how much a
>> Ferrari costs, add insurance and freight to it. The duty paid is way higher
>> than the cost of the car. Then multiply that with the poor exchange rate of
>> the Indian rupee with the UK pound.
>>
>> This was a free gift given to him in England and the only options you'd have
>> in a similar position would be to - 1) Pay more than the worth of the white
>> elephant in customs duty or 2) Dump the car in England. Both options are
>> less than ideal.
>
>This is ofcourse assuming that he had no plans of buying a Ferrari and
>Fiat just gifted it to him and he was forced to bring it to India.


Your conspiracy theory falls flat on it's face because if there was indeed
such a conspiracy, Fiat would have gifted him the car in India, not overseas.
Since Fiat runs a business in India, it would have been a cinch for them to
get a Ferrari into the country without paying an exhorbitant duty. In fact if
they played their cards right, they could even have gotten it into India at a
highly reduced rate, or if they had an exceptionally clever consultant, even
duty-free.

If there was some silly conspiracy like that, they wouldn't have given a
highly publicised gift abroad and jumped through these many hoops.

- Gussie

Shripathi Kamath

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 2:33:58 PM1/8/03
to

Agreed.

> dp


Lenin Maran

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 3:08:51 PM1/8/03
to
"Shripathi Kamath" <firstnam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v1ov8vc...@corp.supernews.com...

I disagree.
If you check the latest India Today it will show you that
the number of "agreed" or "me too" posts on Usenet does not
outweigh the ones which "disagree"
This is supported by the Economic Times which clearly have proven
that the posts with "agreed" are fixed in favour of India which has the
largest usent rsc posters.
Also the probability of "agreed" post is actually calculated ............

Peace,
Lenin


Shripathi Kamath

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 3:21:31 PM1/8/03
to

"Lenin Maran" <lenm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:avi0l9$fpom9$1...@ID-154951.news.dfncis.de...

YoU BLOOdy......................................FerAL! For the MillioNTH
TiME.........................i DIsAGREE wth that.

> Peace,
> Lenin
>
>


Spaceman Spiff

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 10:46:48 PM1/8/03
to
"deep point" <deep...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:6ed0548a.03010...@posting.google.com...
> cricke...@hotmail.com (Amol Cricketwallah) wrote in message
news:<a374a779.03010...@posting.google.com>...
>
> I have no problems with Tendulkar asking for a duty waiver and getting
> it. But if you are going to bring this "representing the country" as
> the justification for doing it, then it only strengthens the argument
> of those who are criticising the cricketers for putting money before
> country's honour in this current contract row. I agree with neither.
> First of all, they are not representing the country, they are just 11
> members chosen by an autonomous body called BCCI which has sent them
> overseas as part of its *business*.
>
are you serious?
then how come the recent test matches and odis were not played between bcci
and new zealand?

--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

To be with you, once more, to be with you.
With our bodies close together
let the world go by, like the clouds a'streamin'
to lay me down, on e last time, to lay me down


Spaceman Spiff

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 10:52:45 PM1/8/03
to
"Nikhil Deo" <Del_Me_n...@h.otmaildotcom> wrote in message
news:avet8l$i...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
actually, for your convenience, you may send the duty payments to me, and i
will make sure to forward them to the goi.
you may send it to me in 12 installments of $12000 over the next 12 months.
please don't thank me, i am glad to be of help.

--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

Help on the way, well, I know only this, I've got you today.
Don't fly away, cause I love what I love and I want it that way.
I will stay one more day, like I say, honey it's you.
Making it too, without love in a dream it will never come true.


deep point

unread,
Jan 8, 2003, 11:26:44 PM1/8/03
to
dark...@moon.com (Augustus-Fink-Nottle) wrote in message news:<avhr8e$nds$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...

> >This is ofcourse assuming that he had no plans of buying a Ferrari and
> >Fiat just gifted it to him and he was forced to bring it to India.
>
>
> Your conspiracy theory falls flat on it's face because if there was indeed
> such a conspiracy, Fiat would have gifted him the car in India, not overseas.
> Since Fiat runs a business in India, it would have been a cinch for them to
> get a Ferrari into the country without paying an exhorbitant duty.

Import duty is the same whether Fiat imports it or I import it.

> In fact if
> they played their cards right, they could even have gotten it into India at a
> highly reduced rate, or if they had an exceptionally clever consultant, even

That would be under-invoicing, but it is not that easy, especially for
a finished product like Ferrari which is easily available world-wide,
so GoI can easily find out how much a new car costs.

> If there was some silly conspiracy like that, they wouldn't have given a
> highly publicised gift abroad and jumped through these many hoops.

If they hadn't gifted it, they couldn't have asked for duty waiver. If
they hadn't publicised it, they couldn't have justified it as a gift.
Actually, that's what I was thinking. If they had to gift it to him
anyway, why not import it themselves and arrange a grand gala ceremony
in Bombay, rope in a celebrity like Bachchan or someone to gift the
car and get full mileage. Why have it gifted by some unknown car
driver at some remote place in England?

dp

deep point

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 3:54:59 AM1/9/03
to
"Spaceman Spiff" <spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com> wrote in message news:<Ig6T9.32641$1c.2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...

> > First of all, they are not representing the country, they are just 11
> > members chosen by an autonomous body called BCCI which has sent them
> > overseas as part of its *business*.
> >
> are you serious?
> then how come the recent test matches and odis were not played between bcci
> and new zealand?

Series before this was played between India and West Indies. Don't
tell me there is a country called West Indies. Or is it that some
players represent their country and some don't? These are just the
team names each association has given itself. Since ICC mandates that
all members of team X must be citizens of country X (or a group of
countries in case of WI), it makes sense to name the teams after the
country's name. That's all. If ICC removes that restriction and allows
trading of players, then we could have McGrath and Akram playing for
Indian team. That doesn't mean they are representing India, the
country.

btw, do coaches and physios represent their country too or is this
privilege restricted only to the players?

dp

deep point

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 4:08:25 AM1/9/03
to
"Lenin Maran" <lenm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<avi0l9$fpom9$1...@ID-154951.news.dfncis.de>...
> I disagree.
> If you check the latest India Today it will show you that
> the number of "agreed" or "me too" posts on Usenet does not
> outweigh the ones which "disagree"
> This is supported by the Economic Times which clearly have proven
> that the posts with "agreed" are fixed in favour of India which has the
> largest usent rsc posters.
> Also the probability of "agreed" post is actually calculated ............

Do you have a point? It seems to have got lost in this attempted sarcasm.

dp

deep point

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 6:05:46 AM1/9/03
to
dark...@moon.com (Augustus-Fink-Nottle) wrote in message news:<avhr8e$nds$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...

> >This is ofcourse assuming that he had no plans of buying a Ferrari and
> >Fiat just gifted it to him and he was forced to bring it to India.
>
>
> Your conspiracy theory falls flat on it's face because if there was indeed

I don't understand people's obsession with this word conspiracy. Have
they changed the meaning of the word to include any and every
day-to-day activity or something? I mean, companies trying to maximize
their profit legally is a conspiracy. Auditors getting paid for
comping up with legal ways of saving tax is a conspiracy. What next?
If someone breathes, is he also indulging in a dastardly conspiracy of
stealing oxygen from nature? After all, maximizing profit and saving
tax is as natural for companies and accountants as breathing is to
human beings.

dp

Spaceman Spiff

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 1:40:22 PM1/9/03
to
Raising himself from all fours,
deep point <deep...@mailandnews.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:

> "Spaceman Spiff" <spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com> wrote in message
> news:<Ig6T9.32641$1c.2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
>>> First of all, they are not representing the country, they are just
>>> 11 members chosen by an autonomous body called BCCI which has sent
>>> them overseas as part of its *business*.
>>>
>> are you serious?
>> then how come the recent test matches and odis were not played
>> between bcci and new zealand?
>
> Series before this was played between India and West Indies. Don't
> tell me there is a country called West Indies.

please!
you take the one special case (the west indies) and try to use it to support
your point.

> Or is it that some
> players represent their country and some don't? These are just the
> team names each association has given itself. Since ICC mandates that
> all members of team X must be citizens of country X (or a group of
> countries in case of WI), it makes sense to name the teams after the
> country's name. That's all. If ICC removes that restriction and allows
> trading of players, then we could have McGrath and Akram playing for
> Indian team. That doesn't mean they are representing India, the
> country.
>

nonsense. look at the icc membership requirements/guidelines.
*countries* apply for icc membership, not individual organizations.

see this url:
http://www.cricket.org/link_to_database/NATIONAL/ICC/RULES/FULL.pdf

note specifically where it talks about "A country applying for admission".
also see section 1 (playing), where it refers to the "national team".

---
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

Maybe you think that love would tie you down
You ain't got the time to hang around
Maybe you think that love would make you a fool
So it makes you wise to break the rule


deep point

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 11:44:19 PM1/9/03
to
"Spaceman Spiff" <spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com> wrote in message news:<qmjT9.37862$1c.1...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...

> > Series before this was played between India and West Indies. Don't
> > tell me there is a country called West Indies.
>
> please!
> you take the one special case (the west indies) and try to use it to support
> your point.

What about England? I don't see a country by that name either. Does
the English team represent the entire UKoGB&NI or does it represent
only a specific region of that country?

I am not trying to generalise based on a couple of specific instances.
Basic point is, this is just a sport, a form of entertainment
business. This has got nothing to do with the affairs of nations. All
those bodies which control the game (icc, bcci, etc) have no
governmental sanction (as far as I know) nor do governments have any
control over their functioning apart from the normal control any
government has over any comnpany operating in its territory (ex: ECB
can go ahead and play in Zimbabwe even if the UK Government doesn't
approve of it. Only way the government can prevent it from happening
is by impounding the players' passports, I guess). The government
which represents the country can't dictate who plays and who doesn't
for the national team, so obviously they can't be representing the
government or the country. For example, tomorrow ICC can bar a few
Indian players from playing a game for some misbehaviour. If the
players were truly representing the country, then shouldn't it be the
government's prerogative to choose who represents it? What right does
ICC have to interfere in the matter? Does the GoI have a
representative in ICC and vice versa? Do they even have a channel of
communication with ICC? Do they even recognise it, for that matter?

> > Or is it that some
> > players represent their country and some don't? These are just the
> > team names each association has given itself. Since ICC mandates that
> > all members of team X must be citizens of country X (or a group of
> > countries in case of WI), it makes sense to name the teams after the
> > country's name. That's all. If ICC removes that restriction and allows
> > trading of players, then we could have McGrath and Akram playing for
> > Indian team. That doesn't mean they are representing India, the
> > country.
> >
> nonsense. look at the icc membership requirements/guidelines.
> *countries* apply for icc membership, not individual organizations.

Yeah right. Government sends a letter requesting ICC to please include
us as a member. If you had just read a few lines down, it would have
been clear that it is not the government (and hence *country*) which
applies for membership. Here it is: "It should have a structure of
communication/liaison with the Government sports body". That is the
only requirement. You start a club tomorrow, have a structure of
communication with the sports ministry (which is no big deal, every
industry has its channel of communication with the government) and
apply to ICC for membership. ICC could recognise your club instead of
bcci as the representative of India. But that doesn't mean your club
has suddenly started representing the country. Atleast, there is no
reason for GoI to take note of that significant event.

dp

Lenin Maran

unread,
Jan 10, 2003, 11:45:18 AM1/10/03
to
"deep point" <deep...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:6ed0548a.03010...@posting.google.com...
>
> Do you have a point? It seems to have got lost in this attempted sarcasm.
No point, only a deep point.

Take it easy,
Lenin


Spaceman Spiff

unread,
Jan 10, 2003, 1:09:00 PM1/10/03
to
Raising himself from all fours,
deep point <deep...@mailandnews.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
> "Spaceman Spiff" <spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com> wrote in message
> news:<qmjT9.37862$1c.1...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
>>> Series before this was played between India and West Indies. Don't
>>> tell me there is a country called West Indies.
>>
>> please!
>> you take the one special case (the west indies) and try to use it to
>> support your point.
>
> What about England? I don't see a country by that name either. Does
> the English team represent the entire UKoGB&NI or does it represent
> only a specific region of that country?
>
for historical reasons, scotland remains an independent icc member.
however, "england" includes northern ireland and wales (see glamorgan).
again, the team is named "england" for historical reasons. there was no "u.k."
in the 1880's.

> I am not trying to generalise based on a couple of specific instances.
> Basic point is, this is just a sport, a form of entertainment
> business.

why does india have a sports minister then? the government is indeed interested
in sports.
the bcci is an autonomous body, however the goi can, if it wishes, change its
status to make it accountable to the goi.
but it will not - for reasons outlined later in this post.

> This has got nothing to do with the affairs of nations. All
> those bodies which control the game (icc, bcci, etc) have no
> governmental sanction (as far as I know) nor do governments have any
> control over their functioning apart from the normal control any
> government has over any comnpany operating in its territory (ex: ECB
> can go ahead and play in Zimbabwe even if the UK Government doesn't
> approve of it. Only way the government can prevent it from happening
> is by impounding the players' passports, I guess). The government
> which represents the country can't dictate who plays and who doesn't
> for the national team, so obviously they can't be representing the
> government or the country.

tell me, when our sportsmen and women go to the olympics, are they representing
india?
the government cannot be involved in team selections in the interests of
fairness.

otherwise the sons and daughter and nephews and nieces of ministers would be in
every team.
you cannot have a fair process in place if the government is interfering with
things.
the separation of government from sports entities (bcci, ioc, etc.) is for the
same reasons as the judiciary and legislature are separated.
do you consider the supreme court judges to be representing india?

> For example, tomorrow ICC can bar a few
> Indian players from playing a game for some misbehaviour. If the
> players were truly representing the country, then shouldn't it be the
> government's prerogative to choose who represents it?

again see my point above of separating the government from the sports bodies and
their selection processes.

> What right does
> ICC have to interfere in the matter? Does the GoI have a
> representative in ICC and vice versa? Do they even have a channel of
> communication with ICC? Do they even recognise it, for that matter?
>

if bcci is indeed independent, how come the government of india can forbid it
from playing vs pakistan?

> Yeah right. Government sends a letter requesting ICC to please include
> us as a member. If you had just read a few lines down, it would have
> been clear that it is not the government (and hence *country*) which
> applies for membership.

is the government the only entity that has the right to represent the people of
india?

> Here it is: "It should have a structure of
> communication/liaison with the Government sports body". That is the
> only requirement. You start a club tomorrow, have a structure of
> communication with the sports ministry (which is no big deal, every
> industry has its channel of communication with the government) and
> apply to ICC for membership. ICC could recognise your club instead of
> bcci as the representative of India.

why don't you try this and see if it works?

> But that doesn't mean your club
> has suddenly started representing the country. Atleast, there is no
> reason for GoI to take note of that significant event.
>

no, because it has nothing to do with the legislature.
does not mean they are not representing their country.

are college football teams in the usa representing their colleges?
or are they representing their coach?

--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

Drink it up, drink it up, crack another dozen tubes and prawns with me,
If you want to throw your voice, mate you won't have any choice,
But to chunder in the Old Pacific Sea.


rkusenet

unread,
Jan 10, 2003, 1:23:22 PM1/10/03
to

"Spaceman Spiff" <spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com> wrote

> if bcci is indeed independent, how come the government of India can forbid it
> from playing vs. Pakistan?

this is true only in India. In Eng govt has no control over MCC.

Yesterday while going back home I was hearing CBC radio. A 15 min
program on British Govt's request to boycott WC matches to be
played in Zim was broadcast. They had a telephonic interview with
some lady MP of England, who I believe is the cheerleader for
banning Zima.

Among other things she mentioned that British Govt can not
enforce their decision on MCC because it is an independent
body. To quote her "in India Govt can stop their team from
playing vs. Pakistan, but we can't do it here".

Mike Holmans: Didn't British athletes participate
in the Moscow 1980 Olympics even though Eng, alongwith US
and many other countries boycotted that Olympics.


rk-


Uday Rajan

unread,
Jan 10, 2003, 2:03:53 PM1/10/03
to
Spaceman Spiff wrote:
>
> Raising himself from all fours,
> deep point <deep...@mailandnews.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
> > What about England? I don't see a country by that name either. Does
> > the English team represent the entire UKoGB&NI or does it represent
> > only a specific region of that country?
> >
> for historical reasons, scotland remains an independent icc member.
> however, "england" includes northern ireland and wales (see glamorgan).
> again, the team is named "england" for historical reasons. there was no "u.k."
> in the 1880's.

Of late, there seems to be some distinction between Tests and
odos. Scotsmen have played for England, both earlier and
recently. Mike Denness captained Eng, IIRC, in both forms of the
game. I have a vague memory of Gavin Hamilton playing a Test for
England and scoring a duck, sometime after WC '99, though
Scotland has its own odo team. Are Scottish players no longer
eligible to play odos for England?

Spaceman Spiff

unread,
Jan 10, 2003, 3:19:40 PM1/10/03
to
Raising himself from all fours,
rkusenet <rkus...@sympatico.ca> drummed on his chest and bellowed:

> "Spaceman Spiff" <spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com> wrote
>
>> if bcci is indeed independent, how come the government of India can
>> forbid it from playing vs. Pakistan?
>
> this is true only in India. In Eng govt has no control over MCC.
>
this is correct.
though i made the comment above, it is not very relevant to my argument.
i just threw it in to show that the bcci is not as independent as it should be.
however, that does not mean that the indian cricket team is not representing
india.

--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

Oh, fare you well, I never see you no more
Why can't you hear me cryin'? Ooooo


Mike Holmans

unread,
Jan 10, 2003, 6:27:41 PM1/10/03
to
Uday Rajan <ura...@andrew.cmu.edu> decided to say:

They changed the rules a few years ago. Playing for a non-Test-playing
country does not count against you in terms of qualification for a
Test-playing country. Once you have played for the Test-playing
country, though, you can only go back and play for the
non-Test-playing country after serving the normal qualification period
after your last game for the Test-playing country.

I've phrased it like that because I believe that there may be the odd
Australian who is qualified for Italy or something like that, so they
could play for Italy in the ICC tropy, and even in a World Cup, and if
they impressed the Aus selectors enough, then they might pick him
(which would disqualify him for Italy in the future).

Cheers,

Mike

deep point

unread,
Jan 12, 2003, 9:31:27 AM1/12/03
to
"Spaceman Spiff" <spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com> wrote in message news:<0%DT9.60$DQ5...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...

> > I am not trying to generalise based on a couple of specific instances.
> > Basic point is, this is just a sport, a form of entertainment
> > business.
>
> why does india have a sports minister then? the government is indeed interested
> in sports.

India also has ministers for IT, Telecom, Fisheries, Textiles, Mines,
you name it, they have it. Doesn't mean everyone working in each of
those industries represents the country.

> the bcci is an autonomous body, however the goi can, if it wishes, change its
> status to make it accountable to the goi.

It can, but as long as that doesn't happen the players will continue
to represent a private organization, not the country. If bcci becomes
part of the government and players start representing the
government/country, then there will be other restrictions on the
players. For one, they will no longer be able to take the field
sporting logos of Sahara or whoever their paymasters for the month
are, because government employees cannot endorse any private company
while in service.

> > is by impounding the players' passports, I guess). The government
> > which represents the country can't dictate who plays and who doesn't
> > for the national team, so obviously they can't be representing the
> > government or the country.
>
> tell me, when our sportsmen and women go to the olympics, are they representing
> india?

That is a sport too. They are representing IOC, not the country.

> the government cannot be involved in team selections in the interests of
> fairness.
>
> otherwise the sons and daughter and nephews and nieces of ministers would be in
> every team.
> you cannot have a fair process in place if the government is interfering with
> things.

But there *are* people who do represent the government/country, like
our diplomats, armed forces, the president, prime minister, cabinet
ministers, bearaucrats, fbi and so on. They are all appointed by the
government. Doesn't mean all diplomats and chiefs of armed forces are
nephews and nieces of ministers.

> the separation of government from sports entities (bcci, ioc, etc.) is for the
> same reasons as the judiciary and legislature are separated.

Not quite the same. Judiciary is separated from legislature, but it is
very much a part of the government. They are just two separate wings
of the government.

> do you consider the supreme court judges to be representing india?

Ofcourse. They are part of the government, if I am not mistaken. They
are appointed by the president, aren't they?

> if bcci is indeed independent, how come the government of india can forbid it
> from playing vs pakistan?

If bcci really wants to play, I don't think there is anything goi can
do apart from forbidding the players from leaving the country and
refusing visas to pak players. But for obvious reasons, bcci sees no
point in taking on the government.

> > us as a member. If you had just read a few lines down, it would have
> > been clear that it is not the government (and hence *country*) which
> > applies for membership.
>
> is the government the only entity that has the right to represent the people of
> india?

Who else has? I mean, officially. Unofficially, ofcourse, anything
from India can be said to represent India. That's what the term
"cultural ambassadors" is for. So our movies, musicians, sportsmen,
chefs, writers, everyone represents India. Even the software guys, for
that matter.

> are college football teams in the usa representing their colleges?
> or are they representing their coach?

No idea. I know nothing about college football in us.

dp

V

unread,
Jan 12, 2003, 10:21:05 PM1/12/03
to
<snip>

you sure have a lot of free time to figure out a theory for everything.

-v


Spaceman Spiff

unread,
Jan 13, 2003, 2:47:03 PM1/13/03
to
Raising himself from all fours,
deep point <deep...@mailandnews.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
> "Spaceman Spiff" <spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com> wrote in message
> news:<0%DT9.60$DQ5...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>...
>>
>> tell me, when our sportsmen and women go to the olympics, are they
>> representing india?
>
> That is a sport too. They are representing IOC, not the country.
>
wow. this is the first time i've heard this view.

>
> But there *are* people who do represent the government/country, like
> our diplomats, armed forces, the president, prime minister, cabinet
> ministers, bearaucrats, fbi and so on. They are all appointed by the
> government. Doesn't mean all diplomats and chiefs of armed forces are
> nephews and nieces of ministers.
>

not necessarily, they may uncles and cousins instead.

>> is the government the only entity that has the right to represent
>> the people of india?
>
> Who else has? I mean, officially.

where is this official declaration?

> Unofficially, ofcourse, anything
> from India can be said to represent India. That's what the term
> "cultural ambassadors" is for. So our movies, musicians, sportsmen,
> chefs, writers, everyone represents India. Even the software guys, for
> that matter.
>

as do the sportsmen/women as well.


>> are college football teams in the usa representing their colleges?
>> or are they representing their coach?
>
> No idea. I know nothing about college football in us.
>

ok, in an inter-college sports meet in india, who are the athletes representing?

--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

I was born in the desert Raised in a lion's den
I was born in the desert Raised in a lion's den
Oh, my number one occupation is stealing women from their men


deep point

unread,
Jan 14, 2003, 12:02:40 AM1/14/03
to
"Spaceman Spiff" <spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com> wrote in message news:<XIEU9.3200$ob....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...

> > That is a sport too. They are representing IOC, not the country.
> >
> wow. this is the first time i've heard this view.

ok. doesn't make it wrong though :-)

> > ministers, bearaucrats, fbi and so on. They are all appointed by the
> > government. Doesn't mean all diplomats and chiefs of armed forces are
> > nephews and nieces of ministers.
> >
> not necessarily, they may uncles and cousins instead.

My turn to ask now, are you serious? Do you think our government is so
nepotistic that every single position is filled by ministers'
relatives? Anyway, even if they are all uncles and cousins or
whatever, they seem to be doing a damn good job of defending the
country's interests. Maybe government should take over cricket
administration too. We might start doing better :-)

> >> is the government the only entity that has the right to represent
> >> the people of india?
> >
> > Who else has? I mean, officially.
> where is this official declaration?

For what? That the government represents the country? I don't know,
must be there somewhere in the constitution.

> > Unofficially, ofcourse, anything
> > from India can be said to represent India. That's what the term
> > "cultural ambassadors" is for. So our movies, musicians, sportsmen,
> > chefs, writers, everyone represents India. Even the software guys, for
> > that matter.
> >
> as do the sportsmen/women as well.

Ofcourse, I included them in that list above. But the point is,
cricketers represent the country only in the sense that a programmer
who goes on an overseas assignment is representing the country. I
believe neither of them do. They are just out there representing their
employers, doing their job and earning a living.



> >> are college football teams in the usa representing their colleges?
> >> or are they representing their coach?
> >
> > No idea. I know nothing about college football in us.
> >
> ok, in an inter-college sports meet in india, who are the athletes representing?

Their college ofcourse, assuming it is the college (or someone
appointed by the college) which has picked the team and sent them to
the tournament.

dp

Spaceman Spiff

unread,
Jan 14, 2003, 1:24:36 PM1/14/03
to
Raising himself from all fours,
deep point <deep...@mailandnews.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
> "Spaceman Spiff" <spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com> wrote in message
> news:<XIEU9.3200$ob....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
>>> That is a sport too. They are representing IOC, not the country.
>>>
>> wow. this is the first time i've heard this view.
>
> ok. doesn't make it wrong though :-)
>
i don't know. if you take a random sampling of 100 people, you may find 5 or 10
supporting this view.


>>> ministers, bearaucrats, fbi and so on. They are all appointed by the
>>> government. Doesn't mean all diplomats and chiefs of armed forces
>>> are nephews and nieces of ministers.
>>>
>> not necessarily, they may uncles and cousins instead.
>
> My turn to ask now, are you serious?
>

no.
but, given the level of corruption in government, it may not be too far from
reality.

>>>> is the government the only entity that has the right to represent
>>>> the people of india?
>>>
>>> Who else has? I mean, officially.
>> where is this official declaration?
>
> For what? That the government represents the country? I don't know,
> must be there somewhere in the constitution.
>

i don't think so. i had a look through it and could not find anything like this.

--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

November and more, as I wait for the score,
They're telling me forgiveness is the key to every door.
A slow winder day a night like forever,
Sink like a stone, float like a feather.


deep point

unread,
Jan 16, 2003, 10:08:47 AM1/16/03
to
"Spaceman Spiff" <spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com> wrote in message news:<EBYU9.49330$uL2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...

> >>> That is a sport too. They are representing IOC, not the country.
> >>>
> >> wow. this is the first time i've heard this view.
> >
> > ok. doesn't make it wrong though :-)
> >
> i don't know. if you take a random sampling of 100 people, you may find 5 or 10
> supporting this view.

Perhaps. But still doesn't make it wrong :-) Did a quick google search
and found this as the second link:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20011118/spectrum/main2.htm
Coubertin tried to depict the spirit of the Olympic Games through the
motto Altius, Citius, Fortius &#8212; Higher, Faster, Stronger.
Olympics represent healthy competition amongst individuals, not
amongst countries.

So there is atleast someone else supporting my view :-) Also, see how
IOC mandates that National Olympic committees be independent of the
government so that they are not influenced by the governments.

In any case, my point is that sportsmen represent the country only if
every citizen going abroad also represents the country. If the
government starts waiving duty based on that definition of
representing the country, then they might as well get rid of import
duty altogether.

> >>>> is the government the only entity that has the right to represent
> >>>> the people of india?
> >>>
> >>> Who else has? I mean, officially.
> >> where is this official declaration?
> >
> > For what? That the government represents the country? I don't know,
> > must be there somewhere in the constitution.
> >
> i don't think so. i had a look through it and could not find anything like this.

ok. try entering or leaving a country without the permission of that
country's government, then it will be obvious who represents the
country :-)

dp

Spaceman Spiff

unread,
Jan 16, 2003, 2:45:09 PM1/16/03
to
Raising himself from all fours,
deep point <deep...@mailandnews.com> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
> "Spaceman Spiff" <spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com> wrote in message
> news:<EBYU9.49330$uL2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
>>>>> That is a sport too. They are representing IOC, not the country.
>>>>>
>>>> wow. this is the first time i've heard this view.
>>>
>>> ok. doesn't make it wrong though :-)
>>>
>> i don't know. if you take a random sampling of 100 people, you may
>> find 5 or 10 supporting this view.
>
> Perhaps. But still doesn't make it wrong :-) Did a quick google search
> and found this as the second link:
> http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20011118/spectrum/main2.htm
> Coubertin tried to depict the spirit of the Olympic Games through the
> motto Altius, Citius, Fortius &#8212; Higher, Faster, Stronger.
> Olympics represent healthy competition amongst individuals, not
> amongst countries.
>
d.k. tandon said so, so it must be true?

> So there is atleast someone else supporting my view :-) Also, see how
> IOC mandates that National Olympic committees be independent of the
> government so that they are not influenced by the governments.
>

but they are still "national" olympic committees, right?
suppose the santa clara athletic club in usa tried to participate in the
olympics, would they be allowed to?
they are independent of the government.
they produce superior athletes (e.g., carl lewis).

>>>> where is this official declaration?
>>>
>>> For what? That the government represents the country? I don't know,
>>> must be there somewhere in the constitution.
>>>
>> i don't think so. i had a look through it and could not find
>> anything like this.
>
> ok. try entering or leaving a country without the permission of that
> country's government, then it will be obvious who represents the
> country :-)
>

government manages the internal and external affairs of the country.
it definitely represents the country. i am not denying that.
but that does not mean that no one else has the right to represent the country.

--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

Come on boys and wager if you have got the mind,
If you've got a dollar boys, lay it on the line,
Hand me my old guitar, pass the whiskey round,
Won't you tell everybody you meet that the Candyman's in town.


deep point

unread,
Jan 17, 2003, 9:07:49 AM1/17/03