Entrepreneurship in India

Its been almost 2 months since I took my first step in my dream to become a successful entrepreneur. I knew it was coming, I knew I had to take the step at some time, but it just got catalyzed thanks to the same dream shared by two friends of mine from college. Everything is steady now, and I will keep everyone updated about our venture from time to time.

This is my theory for future of entrepreneurship in India. ( Yes, now I have changed my specialization from writing on ‘philisophy’ to ‘entrepreneurship’ . Or actually , now its both ! ) I think with increase in job opportunities in India, more and more people will be inclined to take the path of becoming an entrepreneur .Kind of paradox , isn’t it ?

Let me explain … First of All, the main ingredient for becoming an entrepreneur is your risk-taking ability. It all comes down to how ready are you to take a risk – calculated risk or not.Your every step and decision in your entrepreneurial life will be associated with risk, which will have an impact not only on yourself, but many other people that are associated with your venture.

So, my theory is , when people have more job opportunities, and when they see that situation is not going to be that bad in future , in terms of getting a job, people ( I mean students and population under 30 ) will be ready to take risk and opt for becoming an entrepreneur. I mean at least those who wanted to do this from a long time, or who wanted to take a bit of risk, might start doing it now. Because they know that even if the venture fails or if they don’t succeed, they still have the safer option of doing a job in future.

When people don’t have jobs , they start feeling insecure. There is tremendous pressure , specially on students from lower and upper middle-class families, to get a job and sustain the family.Hence people stop taking risks. They start looking for alternatives, like doing post-graduation , just so that they can get a job after doing post-grad. They feel more pressurized to take up a job.

The other day , I met one senior from our college, who is about to start his MBA this June 2007 .After talking to him for sometime, he expressed his ambition to start a venture, but as he got into a good college , he postponed his step , and might do it after doing MBA.

Recently , more and more IIM-A ad IIM-B students are opting for starting their own venture. Many of the students are not even sitting for campus placements. They know that this is the time to take the step. They are sure that even if it doesn’t work, the job situation in India is getting better, and will improve for some years down the lane.

Everyone have their own reasons to take the step. Some have a burning passion to do it, some want to just try it , and others do it for necessity. But I feel this is the right time to take the step. So why not take the risk, won’t it be worth trying ?

Anyways, this is my theory, and criticism is always welcome. More blogs on entrepreneurship coming soon !

5 thoughts on “0

  1. Hi Rishi. I am an ex student from the same college. From Fergi as well as from Mescoe Wadia, ENTC. I am a 2004 passout. I and a few friends of mine have started something similar to what you guys have begun. Although our business model currently is a bit different. It’s great to see other Mescoe ites launching themselves in the entrepreneurial space. You can visit our blog on http://anupamtyagi.wordpress.com/

  2. hello rishi
    i am manik prasher from Delhi, India and pursuing MBA from IIPM just need a small help i want to know your views on “Entrepreneurship in India is a death wish” (against the motion)
    plzzzzzzz do me dis small favour
    love n regards

  3. Financial Crises in the world

    Some dangerous myths have been generated in the wake of the sub-prime crisis. It is hard to think of a more charitable word for them than “nonsense”.
    The first is that the crisis is attributable to “free market capitalism” and this is justification for compromising or abandoning the system.
    This myth overlooks two basic facts: that markets have and should have fluctuations, panics and crises; and the failure of big corporations. These are natural and desirable manifestations of the dynamic nature of markets and essential parts of what makes markets superior to government alternatives, where countless follies are perpetuated at the expense of taxpayers and national prosperity.
    Even if the market is responsible for the crisis — which it is not — there would be no justification for tampering with the system that has made countries with it the wealthiest.
    Countries with the systems now being proposed as supposed solutions are the hellholes on earth where destitution is so normal that it is not regarded as a “crisis”. Brief setbacks in the world’s most successful system are no reason to switch to the world’s least successful systems.
    Second, as far as the SA economy is concerned, exchange control can, at best, now be credited with brief and slight benefits, which do not justify its continuance in the long term. The National Credit Act (NCA) has plunged SA into an opposite “supra-prime” crisis.
    The US government forced the market to provide credit to credit unworthy (sub-prime) people, whereas the SA government forces our market to deny credit to creditworthy people. This has caused or contributed to a collapse in our credit-intense sectors (vehicles, housing, furniture, clothing, and so on ) by as much or more than the collapse in America’s sub-prime housing sector.
    Thousands of creditworthy South Africans, especially blacks, have been denied credit, hundreds of marginal businesses have collapsed due to the NCA making credit costly and risky.
    The third and most fundamental myth is that the crisis is a manifestation of “the market”. The nonsense surrounding this idea goes so far as to attribute the problem to “Wall Street greed”, as if it is a new phenomenon, unique to the past few months and Wall Street financiers. It is an idea so obviously absurd as to justify no further comment.
    “The market” has indeed been responsible for dubious practices such as underrating the risk of securitised and highly geared and leveraged derivatives, but this, on its own, is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for the crisis. At most, it would have caused spontaneous market corrections and insolvencies for the guiltiest parties. South Africans can easily understand government provision of sub-prime credit and implicit backing by reference to our Land Bank, the sole purpose of which is sub-prime credit to farmers, and SA parastatals, which are implicitly government-backed and therefore able to purchase on credit.
    The fourth myth is the thought that the crisis was caused by “deregulation”. The truth is that there were various laws which obliged banks to provide sub-prime credit such as the Community Reinvestment Act and the prohibition of “red-lining”.
    What little deregulation there was, was firstly trivial and secondly of no direct relevance to sub-prime mortgages.

    BY Manik Prasher

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous post Yearn to Learn
Next post Bank of India