Lux ties



We all know that Indian fashion designers make their money during the wedding season. And now is the wedding season.

Indian designers get their business in the best form during this season as most Indian families spend with no hesitation during their children’s wedding. Sure they want the best for the occasion for all close family members, other than the bride or the groom and what better than a designer label for them. They approach different designers depending on their purse and budget. While the senior designers charge them with hefty price tags, the mid level and junior counterparts too make their killings in their own ways.

But they are for the Indian wear. Also getting benefitted often because of Indian weddings are the Italian and French luxury labels. The other day I met a Indian gentleman settled in Germany who had come to attend a wedding and after having tried all Indian labels and some of the western luxury brands he finally settled for a Cavalli tunic for the wedding. Then once I saw one of Delhi’s millionaire family visiting the Tom Ford store for their son’s wedding. Then of course the Dior, Gucci and Armani and Canali which are the favourites of such occasions.

With their immaculately cut suits and tunics, India’s elite flocks to these luxury brands’ stores during the wedding season. So it’s not just the Indian designer labels getting benefitted with the weddings here… also getting the spin offs are the foreign luxury brands.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...
  • ruchir

    Higher GDP does translet into higher tax revenues which allows government to spend on social programs. Government on its own has no income and depends upon the constituents for taxes. Poor constituents can not lift the heavy burden of taxes and social development. So richer constituents pay and share the burden by paying taxes. This is a classic rationale behind taxation. So in this sense Bhagwati is absolutely correct in saying that higher GDP is the only solution that works as catalyst for social development. Gujarat does not really fare that badly on social front as it is made out to be. Gujarat’s spending on social programs is better probably than many states its size and population. Comparing spending as a percentage of GDP could me very misleading due to a very high GDP of Gujarat. Cost of social programs does no T go up merely because of higher GDP. Market growth should and does take precedence over social growth which is a byproduct of market growth.

    [Reply]

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Farah-Taneja/1469212644 Farah Taneja

    Lots of misunderstandings! Let me try and clarify a few points. It is beyond ridiculous to suggest that Bhagwati believes all human development can be collapsed to a number called Gross Domestic Product. Why Bhagwati – almost no economist believes that. His co-author Panagariya has written extensively on social development and education and health and how India can improve on those areas. We can criticize other’s positions, but hopefully we don’t do that through distorting what they are saying. (I am not saying the distortion is intentional).

    What then are the differences between Sen and Bhagwati/Panagariya? Sen believes (as he explained in an article in The Hindu) that economic growth doesn’t directly help poor people – it primarily helps only the rich and the middle class. Let me point out this is contrary to what most economists believe. Sen’s views on this issue are therefore outside the mainstream of the economics profession. Of course, Sen is not against economic growth because he argues that economic growth will lead to much faster increases in tax revenues and these higher revenues can then be used by the government to directly fund social programs for the poor. Therefore economic growth is a good thing. This argument is correct. But (as I said) economic growth is important not JUST because it leads to higher tax revenues which can be spent on anti-poverty programs BUT also because it directs leads to lower poverty through better employment opportunities for the poor. In India’s case, the social programs are often very poorly implemented leading to massive corruption and wastage of resources. But we find India still reduced poverty impressively in the last decade – that seems to be primarily because of the poverty reducing effects of economic growth (which Amartya Sen unfortunately discounts). I can cite dozens of papers and studies on this, but please look at just this one http://cacp.dacnet.nic.in/Farm_Wages_in_Rural_India.pdf.

    [Reply]

    Bystander Reply:

    Farah,
    Let us distil this a bit. I don’t mind sounding reductionist here but let me pose you a question.
    Do you see State intervention and “free market growth” in conflict ? At what levels ?
    You have a choice – a choice of nit-picking on my point and saying it never was your argument.
    Your other choice is to try and parse what I am saying here. Dig deeper in its semantics and continue this discussion.

    [Reply]

  • Praveen

    The concept of secularism should best be taught in states like ” Pakistan” and ” Bangladesh” by Prof Sen.
    The idea of Hinduism coming before Nationalism is a new concept and has wrongly been used by Mr Modi ( I am not defending him neither the concept)
    But the idea of religion before nation has been the core ideology of religions other than Hinduism for sure. ( No points for guessing )
    The so called pseudo secular credentials have already been tested long in the name of Mulayam and Manmohan without getting any dividends the nation deserved.
    If u can just give the fish to poor and not teach him how to catch it , the scenario is never going to change. The 60 long years of Congress rule has not been successful in thwarting the concept of religion in politics and still has kept us divided. They have failed miserably and we need a change for sure .
    Am least interested with what Prof Sen preaches or what his detractors has to say . I am a common Indian and i want to see a common man getting the opportunity (Certainly not on the basis of religion) to fulfil his dreams . We need good infra , jobs , education and opportunity for ALL.

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    Amarty Sen is a detroyer of India in the same lineage aas several other Bengali psuedo intellectuas – Kesab Chandra Sen who openly declared that India/Hinduism were inferior to Britain/Christianity; Jyoti Basu who openly supported China during the 1962 Chinese attack of India (I vividly remeber his and EMS Namboodiripad statements)….

    [Reply]

  • Rohan

    In 1947 when my grandfather was killed on the way, rest of his family (four sons and four daughters)reached by their first international travel by the train, totally pauperized to celebrate India’s independence in India. All of them lived below Prof Tendulakar’s Poverty Line for about five years. By the sixties, 29 children were born to all eight siblings.They just got above the poverty line by the seventies. But in the meantime all of them received their basic entitlements of:

    1. Food and Nutrition (PDS ration + market supply including occasional fruits); 2. Government school education; 3. Government sponsored medical care; 4. Books from the libraries- free issue.

    But: they were always poorly clad till they started earning income;
    They did not go for well-priced entertainment;
    Their English has not been at par with the wards of the their middle class peers who went to English-medium schools; and,
    None of them is highly religious; none of them ever visits any godman; though they do normal Hindu rituals. None is fanatic about religion.

    16 of the thirty kids received higher education (Engineering, Law; Higher Sciences, Humanities, Accounts,but none in economics). They paid only between Rs. 5 to 20 per month for their higher education in institutions like IIT,DCE,DU-North campus, and some other universities.

    Now in 2013; all those thirty kids are between 52 and 65. Their families have moved on to still better positions but some of them (WHO DIDNOT RECEIVE GOOD EDUCATION BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN CHOICE) have remained relatively poorer.

    Now as per statistics: families of

    2 of thirty grand sons of my slain grandfather have reached Upper Middle class;
    1, potential Upper middle class (he didn’t take bribes even when he worked for the government on a `lucrative’ post). So he remains MM class.
    5, Middle Middle income class;
    8, middle class ( Group A -middle management or lower management officer type income);

    11, Lower middle class; and
    3 remain poor ( a foot or two above Prof. Tendulkar’s P line).
    The last 11+3 kids didn’t go for much education; for that alone was the emancipating factor for the rest of them.
    This is a miracle. A family living in a totally pauperized state makes in 60 years, a segment of population that in its totality of about 60 wards of these thirty people is poised for further– economic, cultural, governmental, corporate and self-employment sectors of income earning.

    This has happened much largely because,
    1. the phenomenon of their growth has been urban;
    2. They took full advantage of the government funded facilities/ entitlements;
    3. They were given a global outlook and socialisation right in the fifties, sixties and the seventies when they were studying or preparing for jobs, in cultural, educational and modern terms;
    4. They all believed in small, patient savings. Got Public sector interest on them and made the small savings big;
    5. They were all, without exception, ready to forgo the taboos, cultural drags, traditional bondages, and caste restrictions.
    Now what economics is this one? This economics has created the great middle class of India. This phenomenon is the Unique Indian Rebuilding Phenomenon that touched fringes and contents of various economic theories including the one that Karl Marx founded. It’s hightime we put our heads together and got ourselves rid of the shackles of freedoms that the markets and their economics promised. let those be part of the discussions but let us discover and not fritter our talent away with the taboos, stigmas and religiousity attached to various economics theories.

    [Reply]