In view of recent large cross-border acquisitions by Indian companies such as Tata Steel–Corus and Tata Motors–Jaguar/Rover, Kumar (2008) is very timely and useful. Outward foreign direct investment (FDI) by Indian enterprises dramatically increased from 2005 and its share in gross fixed capital formation was already 5% in year 2006 as compared to 1.9% in China. Kumar's comparison of India and China, in this area, illustrates a key difference in the development of the two economies, namely, the degree of involvement of the public sector. Out of 41 globalizing companies compiled by the Boston Consulting Group (2008), 29 are state-owned in China while all of 20 globalized companies in India are private and publicly traded. Kumar argues that all the Indian enterprises undertaking outward investments had their origins in the period of import substitution-based industrialization strategy and selective FDI policy regime, and Indian experience from onward follows in the Japanese and Korean tradition of enterprise development policies. Indeed, appropriate industrial policy by the state is very important for emerging and developing countries until enterprises become big and strong enough to compete in global markets. However, at the same time, excessive state intervention could be harmful and may result in never-ending protection for these enterprises. Some appropriate balance in formulating and implementing industrial policy is necessary, and a historical review and analysis of this point would have improved Kumar's paper significantly. The recent surge in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) of foreign reputable enterprises has been spearheaded by the Tata Group and has spread to a wider group of Indian companies. This is, indeed, an effective strategy in obtaining technology and well-known brand names in a short period of time. Kumar's point that Indian enterprises hope to face the challenge with their skills in cross-cultured management honed in India is an interesting and valid point. Compared to, for example, Japanese companies who definitely lack cross-cultural experiences, this is clearly a major advantage that Indian enterprises possess. A natural follow-up to this cross-cultural aspect of Indian companies is the existence of nonresident Indians (NRI) in the rest of the world. Would it be likely that the large number of NRIs will be great help in the M&A activities of Indian companies? Kumar does not touch on this point in his paper. I would be very much interested if he extended his analysis to cover this aspect. For foreign observers like myself whose country does not have significant numbers of nonresident Japanese, the network of NRI seems to have a great impact on various aspects of Indian corporate activities. Matters like M&A would probably be the area where such impacts are very strong. In conclusion, I would say Kumar (2008) is an extremely interesting paper on a timely topic. Hopefully, in his future research he will extend his analysis in various directions, some of which I suggested in this comment.