America is the main debater on the topic of outsourcing.   Many other countries, the ones that companies are being outsourced to, rarely have a large input in the debate.   They’re benefiting from increased employment, more money in their economy and are becoming more developed.   However, Apurva Bose shares an Indian perspective on the topic.   Bose candidly, using metanoias and antanagoges, sheds light on the dangers for the eager workers that find only great opportunity in offshoring.

Throughout her article, Bose uses a candid tone to address her audience. She keeps a neutral tone to balance the pros and cons of outsourcing for both India and the US and Europe. After addressing her turn down of an outsourced position because of the loss of talent in the position, she then explains the enjoyment of many other job seekers who would gladly take the position.  Next she addresses the benefit of the US’s and Middle East contracts then point out the US’s weakening dependency on the Middle East as outscoring continues. She continues this tone to fulfil her article’s title. She is giving an Indian perspective, not an extreme nationalist Indian, not an uninformed Indian, not an Indian American perspective, but an Indian perspective. Her writing isn’t filled with jargon, overwhelming facts or a complexity. Her writing is straightforward. Her candid tone allows her to deliver her claim more effectively, relaxing her audience and increasing her chances of delivering a compelling argument.

Bose uses metanoias to primarily qualify her statement.  Adding positives such as “I must say”, “but if you look closely at it”, “one might say”, “I don’t whether to term it as”, address her way of thinking and thus strengthen her statement. Without adding these, many readers may have questioned her expertise and if she had enough evidence to truly say that the disparity of countries is the reason for outscoring. And since this was an “Indian perspective”, many assumptions where made and the metanoias boosted her boost her credibility. Readers are more able to read and respect a writer that acknowledges their different way of thinking and of lack of assurance before making a claim.

Bose fills her writing with reverse antanagoges. Instead of balancing negative claims with positive benefits of outscoring, Bose address the negative effects of outscoring and then adds advantages for potential workers to balance her argument.   For example, when first introducing her claim she states outscoring “is a loss of talent loss of India and countries like China and Philippines”. Rather than ranting on about this, she adds in the benefits talents outsourced job workers can attain . With little training, one can “take on the outscoring job”, help in the “incentive to those graduates whose long term planning involves working abroad”.  Rather than leaving the reader with an idea that outscoring is all benefits for India, she adds the negatives to remind readers that outscoring will hurt workers real talents. Her Antanagoges lesson the reality and impact of outscoring effects because after all, “outscoring is here to stay, to grow and to flourish”.

All her of rhetorical devices, her candid tone, metanoias and reverse antanagoges, surprisingly, relate back to her title; a Indian perspective. She gives a balanced argument as any citizen would and acknowledges her way of thinking and lack of assurance to contain her “normal Indian image”. Her creative, reverse antanagoges also add to the balancing of argument. Together, Bose delivers her argument subtlety and effectively.