Home

Featured Articles

May 30, 2023
Biman Das

The Civilisational Importance of Auspicious Moorings

The morning of Jyestha 8th, 1945 Saka (May 28th, 2023 A.D. Gregorian) opened to a day that appeared pompous to many but may hold the key to undoing the spiritual mistakes done by our forefathers. While supporters and critics argue about the infrastructure and economic causes for the construction of the new building, very few may be able to grasp the spiritual importance this simple decision may hold for our civilisation. The need for the creation of a new parliament building had been simmering for quite a long period of time. It became all the more important considering the last delimitation was done so on the basis of the 2001 census but the number of constituencies was not increased despite an increase in population. The number of seats in the parliament has been frozen since 1973, leading to ever-increasing pressure on states such as Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh at the cost of others such as Kerala and Mizoram which have a much lower per capita electorate than their peers. The next delimitation is almost certain to benefit the status quo as the regions the ruling party performs best will gain the most seats. There has been a hue of opposition from states such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu that stand to see their presence diminish in the electoral landscape, pushing their voices into irrelevancy. The dread among the people of these regions has opened the grounds for opposition to capitalise on in hopes of increasing their electoral prospects in the upcoming general elections. Arguments on the waste of taxpayer money, extravagance and demagoguery are merely pretences to avoid the burning question of electoral competence. While all these topics do appear amusing to debate upon, there are much more important historical threads that one can unravel if one perceives the same things from a spiritual perspective. Many learned men consider the existence of the outgoing parliament building to be highly inauspicious in nature because of the manner in which it was constructed. Merely a decade after the inauguration of the parliament building, India had to bid bye to Myanmar which had been part of India until then, despite the natives voting decisively to be retained. If the loss wasn’t enough for Indian nationalists, a bigger storm was brewing following the Khilafat movement that sought to reinstate the Ottoman empire. The eventual outcome of Gandhi’s short-sighted vision resulted in the greatest forced exodus in human history. The midnight of 14-15th August 1947 was considered highly unfavourable by many wise astrologers who predicted great bloodshed and troubles for the nation ahead. Mountbatten, however, considered the date important to the British crown as this same date marked the surrender of the kingdom of Japan, one of their biggest enemies just two years prior. This day continues to be celebrated in the West as “Victory Over Japan Day” (or V-J Day in short). What followed is well known to all, being a horrific tale of rampant destruction and chaos that uprooted many families and left many individuals orphaned. Much like the ominous background regarding the inception of the present republic, the foundation of the old parliament building is also mired in dark shrouds of history. Not many may know that the original site where the foundation of the old parliament was changed in the dark abyss of midnight. The foundation stone had been already laid down by the British monarch, but the site did not live up to the expectations of the architects, namely Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker, who ordered the stone be moved to the village of Malcha in the now-famous Raisina hill. The task to supplant the original location was handed out to Sir Sobha Singh, who is known infamously for his sketchy testimony against the martyred Bhagat Singh. Singh notably carried the stone 11 kms away from its previous residence in the cover of the darkness and had it replanted into the present ground1. The same site had previously been the ground for the brutal massacre of 1,12,000 innocent inhabitants of the region on March 21st, 17392. The genocide was considered so brutal that it did not spare even the women and the children, leaving behind a trail of the fallen people. It comes as no surprise because the same land would be considered unholy to be made the political core of the nation. The eventual loss of Myanmar and then Pakistan (including Bangladesh) may be argued to be the ill effects of the cursed ground where the inaudible screams of the deceased still continue to cry out for salvation. The elaborate homam (havan) to consecrate the upcoming institute of power may just be one of the several steps to negate the negative outcomes of the previous decisions that undid the nation’s territorial sanctity. The sengol (the sacred spectre), which has now been placed beside the Speaker’s chair in the Lok Sabha, is considered to have holy powers on account of the presence of Nandi, the mount of Mahadeva. The Home Minister of the nation, Amit Shah noted that the sceptre was previously sent to former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru with the expectation of having it put in a place of power, but he decided to keep it locked up in a museum instead. The present administration now has brought the sengol back into the limelight so that it continues to ward off the consciousness that had been troubling the nation until now. Back from the brim of irrelevancy, only time can tell if this remembrance of the legacy of the mighty Cholas can indeed turn the fortunes of the once glorious nation that is attempting to regain her lost glory. The importance of accordance with the Vaastu shastra and promising periods of divinity will continue to seem minuscule in the short term but have effects that only play out in the long run. References Singh, Harbans. The Encyclopaedia of Sikhism: S-Z. Edited by Harbans Singh, Punjabi University, 1992. Saggu, Devinder Singh. Battle Tactics and War Manoeuvres of the Sikhs. Notion Press, 2018. Image provided by the author

May 29, 2023
Venkataraman Ganesan

Made In India: 75 Years of Business and Enterprise

It was 2014. Amitabh Kant was nearing the end of his tenure as Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP). He was also one of the candidates shortlisted to don the mantle of Chairman, Competition Commission of India (CCI) following his retirement from the Government. However, the newly elected Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, had other plans in mind for Kant. Goading the latter to continue working in the Government, the Prime Minister appointed him as the CEO of NITI Aayog, a newly created body that had replaced the Planning Commission. The mandate provided to NITI Aayog, in reductionist terms, was this: to develop into “a state-of-the-art resource centre with the necessary knowledge and skills that will enable it to act with speed, promote research and innovation, provide strategic policy vision for the government, and deal with contingent issues.” “Made In India” chronicles the strides taken – and continue to be made - by India since 2014 in developing an economy that is resilient to shocks, responsive to unforeseen exigencies (rather than being reactive), and relentless in its ability and intent to reimagine and reinvent itself. Amitabh Kant in his capacity as the helmsman of NITI Aayog had a ringside view of the reforms that were promulgated at the levels of both the Central and State Governments. However, as he reiterates emphatically in his book, the one primordial feature of these reforms was the unshackling of the private sector. The yeoman contribution made by the private sector in many ways, resulted in the nation surging ahead of the United Kingdom to be the fifth largest economy in the world – a fact that warmed the cockles of the heart of every Indian! The recognition provided to the private sector also marked a departure from the pernicious Licence-Permit-Quota Raj that had thwarted the ambitions and aspirations of the private sector for over sixty decades! Kant in the initial chapters of his compelling book, lays down the terrain of the land as prevalent during the post-Independence period vis-à-vis India’s economic planning and structural reforms. In 1944, a group of leading industrialists of the likes of J.R.D Tata, Ghanshyam Das Birla, Sir Purshotamdas Thakurdas, Sir Shri Ram and John Mathai, among others, published a blueprint for the Economic Development of Independent India. Popularly known as the Bombay Plan, it envisaged a key role for the private sector and an enabling and ennobling role for the Government. Envisioning a doubling of India’s per capita income within 15 years, the Bombay Plan divided the industry into two segments: basic goods and consumer goods. Basic industries (including power, mining and metallurgy, engineering, chemicals, transport, armaments, and cement) were designated the foundation of India’s industrial transformation. Consumer goods manufacturing would be the prerogative of small-scale industries. However, as Kant informs his readers, not only were these recommendations ignored and the private sector relegated to the periphery of the economy, but capitalism was also equated with the perniciousness of colonialism. The Industrial Policies and the Five-Year Plans proved to be the firm bastions and bulwarks of a central command and planning regime. Arms and ammunition, atomic energy and railways were monopolized, and six basic industries belonging to the sectors of coal, iron and steel, aircraft manufacture, shipbuilding, and communications equipment (telephones, telegraphs, etc.) were brought under State control. Protectionism and trade barriers ruled the roost as India found itself in the grip of a License-Permit-Quota Raj. Establishing an industry became a rigmarole of obtaining approvals and accords. An ‘in-principle’ approval from the Ministry of Industry was the first step. This would be succeeded by a ‘letter of intent’ (LoI), containing a phased plan towards indigenization of manufacturing. The approval of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports became necessary if imported capital goods were required. Separate import licenses were required, renewable on an annual basis, for other raw materials and intermediate goods. By the time the concerned industrialist succeeded in successfully obtaining a myriad of approval – without giving up being bogged down by physical fatigue and mental stress - it would easily be more than a year before the business could be incorporated. The degree to which these stifling regulations strangulated the development of the nation is apparent from an analysis of the comparative progress made by an Asian counterpart of India, South Korea. “In 1960, India’s and South Korea’s per capita incomes were not different. In current dollars, India’s per capita GDP stood at $90, while South Korea’s incomes were $156. In the three decades since, by 1990, South Korea’s income widened to $6,600, while Indian incomes stood at $367. Investments in South Korea increased from 10 percent of GDP in 1960 to 39 percent of GDP by 1990. Exports increased from 2.5 percent of GDP to 25 percent during the same time. South Korea averaged a real GDP growth rate of 9.6 percent between 1960 and 1990. Per capita GDP, in turn, grew by 7.7 percent in the same period.” India also suffered from the burden of an unimaginably high percentage of tariffs and levies. The highest tariff rate in 1990–91 was at a jaw-dropping 355 percent while the average tariff rate was 113 percent. However, under the astute stewardship of P.V. Narasimha Rao and the ingenuity of Manmohan Singh, many measures were undertaken since 1991 by way of liberalization. The draconian Industrial Regulation and Development Act was dismantled and by 1993–94, the top tariff rate had fallen to 85 percent. Even though many encouraging initiatives were undertaken by the Narasimha Rao Government that birthed the Public Private Partnership system (the National Highways Act, 1956, was amended in 1995 to encourage private sector participation) the power and presence of the private sector was not fully harnessed. But the role of the private sector underwent a paradigmatic shift following the 2014 elections. The Government started playing an enabling role by facilitating a ‘light touch’ regulation approach. PRAGATI, an information and communication technology-based, multimodal platform for proactive governance and timely implementation was established. The Prime Minister himself intervened to remove bottlenecks that were delaying projects in general and infrastructure projects in particular. This initiative had a desirable ‘knock-on’ effect. As the ease of doing business in India increased, Foreign Direct Investments started gushing forth. Even at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, FDI inflows touched record levels of $81 billion. In the seven months since April 2022, GST revenues soared above the 1.4 lakh crore mark. A horde of alluring initiatives such as Make in India, Startup India, PLIs, Aspirational Districts, eMobility, and Green Hydrogen, etc not only opened up the spigot of capital expenditure for the private sector to exploit (following the most recent budget the capital expenditure outlay stood at a remarkable INR 10 lakh crore) but also attracted foreign investors. This has provided an opportunity for India to make its mark in the Global Value Chains. Kant does not write for just the benefit of hindsight to egg him on. Being at the forefront of NITI Aayog vested in him a responsibility to bring in the desired shift in initiatives and incentives. Being directly monitored by the Prime Minister also meant that NITI Aayog could not afford to blunder. But the resource centre has more than stood up to its challenge. Ø NITI Aayog has formed a tech stack known as 'IndiaChain.' IndiaChain is the name given to an ambitious project to create a nationwide blockchain network. Ø With the assistance of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MoHFW) and technical support from the World Bank, NITI Aayog has been leading the Health Index initiative since 2017. Ø As a result of NITI Aayog’s initiatives, 2,530 cities have implemented Online Building Permit System (OBPS) in thirty states and Union Territories Ø Ten states have put in place Transit Oriented Development (TOD) policy and have identified corridors. Ø NITI Aayog formulated a Model Agricultural Land Leasing Act, 2016 to both recognize the rights of the tenant and safeguard the interest of landowners. A dedicated cell for land reforms has also been established. Ø NITI Aayog recommended the scrapping of the Medical Council of India and suggested a new body for regulating medical education. Ø NITI Aayog devised an action plan on advocacy, awareness, and coordination of handholding efforts among the public, micro-enterprises and other stakeholders. Ø Launched two incentive schemes to promote digital payments across all sections of society - the Lucky Grahak Yojana and the Digi Dhan Vyapar Yojana. A direct outcome was over sixteen lakh consumers and merchants winning Rs. 256 crores under these two schemes Ø To foster creativity and scientific temper in students, NITI Aayog assisted in establishing five hundred ‘Atal Tinkering Laboratories’ under the aegis of the Atal Innovation Mission. This initiative means that students in schools across India can design and make small prototypes to solve challenges they see around them, using rapid prototyping technologies that have emerged in recent years. India has also witnessed a veritable churn in her start-up ecosystem. ‘Startup India’ was birthed with the primary objective of catalyzing the start-up eco system and making it more inclusive and inviting. Many antediluvian rules that were hindering the growth of start-ups were removed and an encouraging platform was laid to foster innovations in this sector. As the adage goes, the proof of the pudding lies in the eating. Since the launch of Startup India, a mind-blowing 65,000 start-ups have been officially established. According to published research issued by NASSCOM and Zinnov, close to 25,000–26,000 tech start-ups were founded in India between 2011 and 2021. The year 2021 added three to four new ‘unicorns’ every month. India’s start-up ecosystem is now the third largest in the world. A new internet user is being added every three seconds. Seventy-five crore or 750 million people are accessing the internet every day. But the most refreshing and promising aspect of the thriving start-up ecosystem, as Kant illustrates, has been its democratization. As opportunities and openings became increasingly accessible, geography ceased to be a hindrance or even a differentiating factor. According to NASSCOM, 29 percent of all tech start-ups in India are now coming up in the emerging start-up hubs of Ahmedabad, Kolkata, Indore, Lucknow, Coimbatore, Chandigarh, and Jaipur, among others. The Government, while facilitating the growth of the economy, has preferred to take a back seat as far as intervention and involvement are concerned. Restricting its role to primarily that of a policy maker, the government has also been supporting start-ups by providing crucial market access. The Government e-Marketplace (GeM), set up Under the Digital India mission focuses on improving market access to startups. GeM recently launched an initiative called the ‘Startup Runway,’ a dedicated marketplace that covers a range of sectors such as advanced manufacturing/robotics, agritech, AI and big data, AR-VR, blockchain, clean tech/renewables, consumer/home electronics, cybersecurity, edtech, health, and life sciences, among others. However, a glaring deficiency that has unfortunately not occupied much space in this otherwise insightful book, is the stagnating contribution of manufacturing to India’s GDP. The divergence between the contributions of services and that of manufacturing to GDP is not just increasing but it is also alarming. According to a McKinsey report, between 2006 and 2012, India’s manufacturing sector GDP grew by an average of 9.5 percent per year. “Then, over the next six years, growth declined to 7.4 percent. In fiscal year 2020, manufacturing generated 17.4 percent of India’s GDP, little more than the 15.3 percent it had contributed in 2000. (By comparison, Vietnam’s manufacturing sector more than doubled its share of GDP during the same interval).” According to the report, for India’s manufacturing GDP to pick up momentum, a few urgent things need to happen: Ø India’s manufacturing value chains must lift their productivity—in GVA output per full-time-equivalent worker—closer to global standards. Compared with India, manufacturing productivity in Indonesia is twice as high; in China and South Korea, productivity is four times higher. Ø India’s manufacturers, if they have to compete with overseas peers, must source technology themselves through acquisitions and alliances. The government can assist in creating a stable framework of time-bound and conditional localization incentives to attract FDIs and Joint Venture collaborations in India. Ø There would need to be sustained access to capital. The manufacturing sector would require investments totaling $1.0 trillion to $1.5 trillion over the next seven years to double its GDP in the same timeframe, provided that India also raises its GVA capture in these value chains by 25 percent. “Made In India” makes for an absorbing read. Nostalgic in parts and optimistic in others, it is an especially useful handbook for obtaining an informed perspective on the opportunities, challenges and capabilities that would be the preserve of the fifth fastest-growing economy in the world. Publisher: Rupa & Co; PP- 240 pages Image source: Phoenix Academy for Excellence