governance, political economy, institutional development and economic regulation

Posts tagged ‘President Xi’

Socializing the Dragon

dragon

(photo credit; http://www.mrwallpaper.com)

China has “bested” its way onto the big boys table through three critical initiatives which bore fruit since President Xi took over as China’s numero uno in 2013.

The first was the founding of the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB), headquartered at Shanghai. Symbols speak louder than words. The logo of the NDB is eerily reminiscent of Chinese communist logos of yester-years encased in two encircling stalks of wheat or maybe olive branches, as in the UN logo. At its center is a round blob with geometric shapes embedded- a suitably vague and nondescript statement of intent, possibly illustrating that the Bank can go any which way and has endless opportunities.

Whilst the first President of the Bank is an Indian corporate guru -K. V. Kamath, no one is under any doubt that it is China which will call the shots, exactly as the US does in the World Bank or Japan in the Asian Development Bank. This is fair since she who pays the bills gets to call the tune.

The second success was to get thirty eight regional and twenty non-regional countries, including members of the G8 except the US, Japan and Canada who kept away, to sign up as Prospective Founding Members of the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank which is to be based in Beijing. The candidature of North Korea and Taiwan was refused by China. The former because it is a renegade and the latter because China does not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country.

The third success completes the trilogy of China’s financial hegemony. China has offered to fund the European Infrastructure Fund at a time when Europe’s powerhouse- Germany and the European Union are engrossed in managing the financial bog of a potential “Greek exit” from the Euro and the likely ensuing turmoil. Massive investments in infrastructure are viewed as one way to kick starting growth in Europe, which has lagged recovery post the 2008 crisis. With Europe agonizing over how much more pain it can take, China’s generous offer of financial support is well timed.

China gets it fiscal muscle from its foreign exchange reserves of over US$ 3.7 trillion. These are down from their peak last year of nearly US$4 billion but remain the largest reserve ever. The annual trade surplus is a healthy US$300 billion plus. Its budget deficit, albeit increasing is still low, though off-balance sheet borrowing by state owned enterprises and the iffy quality of bank assets could cloak an incipient problem.

Its diplomatic and economic muscle is evident from its success in cowing down the meek protests by the Philippines and Japan against its assertive claims over small islands in the South and East China Sea. Far-off South Africa, the continents most developed economy, has repeatedly refused to give a visa to the Dalai Lama since 2009, reportedly out of deference to Chinese sentiments. The Dalai Lama, who is resident in the gorgeous Indian mountain paradise of DharamshaIa, is not recognized by China as the titular head of the Tibetans. China promotes an alternative in the Panchen Lama who is resident in Tibet.

Only the feisty Mrs. Merkel, Chancellor of Germany has had the gumption to ignore China’s ire and met formally with the Dalai Lama. Now with China bailing out Germany-till now the primary “money bag” for the reconstruction of Europe – the jury is out whether Mrs. Merkel would be inclined to repeat this diplomatic equivalent of thumbing her nose at China.

There are two jewels China still seeks. First is to implement President Xi’s vision of reviving the ancient silk route from Western China to Europe. The second is to develop a maritime silk route in the Indo-Pacific region from Myanmar via Bangladesh to India and Sri Lanka. Possibilities exist of extending this further West to Pakistan (where China is already developing the Gwadar port) and Iran where India is tentatively engaged in a similar venture at Charbahar.

These Chinese financed beltways will straddle Asia physically. If China pulls it off they are sure benefit the economies of the continent by reducing transit cost and linking local markets better. But the key issue spoiling the party is sovereign doubts about China’s true intentions in proposing these extravagant infrastructure plans.

Action speaks louder than words. Chinese overseas investment, particularly in Africa, is perceived to be driven too narrowly by self-interest. Its muscular approach to safeguarding what it considers its justified claims in the South and East China Sea give rise to fears of territorial expansionism.  Despite the fact that the India-China border has been peaceful for the last forty years the fear of conflict is ever present.

China needs to demonstrate that it has crossed the hump of middle-income prickly aggression into the beneficent altruism of a self-confident, high income country. It needs to take on an international commitment which demonstrates its resolve to make the world a better place.

It has already taken the first step by voluntarily capping carbon emission by 2030 including by increasing the share of clean energy to 20%. The voluntarism is praise worthy. But a bird in hand is always more credible than two in the bush by 2030.

Stabilizing Afghanistan presents an existential challenge which China can use to establish its credentials as an international force of substance. This single initiative can start a virtuous cycle of development in the “roundabout of Asia”- as president Ghani of Afghanistan, terms his country- with spill over benefits across the region.

China is well placed to substitute the US in leading this effort. It has a close relationship with the Pakistani army and civil leadership which are crucial to contain the Taliban. It has the resources. The US is reported to have spent around US$ 800 billion in Afghanistan, over the thirteen year from 2001 to 2014. This is not a scary number for China, especially since there are spin off benefits- bringing to the international market the huge copper and iron ore deposits in Afghanistan; honing the experience for the Chinese army and equipment in the field and creating a stable buffer in Afghanistan which can sever the existing arc of terror and violence that extends today through Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan to Pakistan.

The real question is will President Xi bite this bait to flex muscle productively or shall transactional engagements remain the order of the day for China.

1061 words

Prime Minister Modi says Ni Hou

Ni Hou

(photo credit: india.com)

Arun Shourie- minister in the earlier NDA government and senior BJP leader was being strategically alarmist when he went public on May 1 warning Prime Minister Modi against succumbing to the seductive spell, which the Chinese put on Pandit Nehru (India’s first Prime Minister) eagerly accepting his diplomatic largesse and support whilst remaining firm on giving nothing in return, which was not expressly bargained for and agreed.

Mr. Shourie has a flair for the dramatic and an uncanny ability to be evocative in his speech, sweetly hitting hardest, where it hurts the most. The Chinese “betrayal” of Pandit Nehru’s “brotherly” love by invading India in 1962 broke Nehru’s heart and spirit. He succumbed to the body blow two years later. China supporters maintain that unclear messaging from India forced China to retaliate since it perceived India as being bent on unilaterally disturbing the status quo along an un-demarcated Himalayan border between the two countries. Be that as it may, the China-India 1962 war, in which, despite heroic, determined but futile resistance from an ill-equipped and poorly led Indian army, China soundly trounced India, has left an open wound for India, which is still raw more than five decades later.

One doesn’t need to go back to 1962 to be sure that China is not a natural ally for India. We are just too similar with few complementarities and hugely competing priorities.

India-China, twins separated at birth?

Both countries are in a race for fuel, which neither have and both need to grow their economies and feed their people. One out of every three humans is either Chinese or Indian. China is racing to achieve high income economy status (per capita GNI> US$ 12,746) whilst India is striving to be an upper middle income economy-where China is today (per capita GNI> US$ 4,125). Both need to find export markets to fuel their growth. Both are relative “outsiders” to the high table of developed countries and both are jostling for space. Both peoples are hugely entrepreneurial and compulsively competitive. But there the similarity ends.

Even twins grow differently

India is barely at the threshold of being a lower middle income economy but its international, political engagement is larger than its economic heft. China is already an upper middle income economy but traditionally prefers to remain below the international diplomacy radar and boxes well below its weight, except when it perceives its national interest directly at stake.

India is a democracy of long standing, grounded on the compulsion of complex heterogeneity and plurality. China is a largely homogenous, beneficent, authoritarian meritocracy.

India is has been institutionally and ideologically networked into the developed world due to its colonial heritage and the facility with English. But it is a recent and somewhat unwilling, entrant to the international trade and investment value chains. China’s culture and values are unique and somewhat autarkic but its planned tapping of developed country knowledge, innovation, research and technology market has worked well. Its pragmatism, easy adaptation to change and determined implementation of a growth strategy by integrating into trade and investment value chains, sets it apart from even its East Asian neighbours, most certainly India and previously communist countries.

Given the lack of complementarities and the visibly rivalrous character of the relationship why has Prime Minister Modi steadfastly wooed the Chinese?

Why China eyes India

China knows well what it wants from India. It wants to service India’s booming market with cost competitive goods and services. This is why a bilateral trade target of even US$ 100 billion per year is rather limited for China. Given a choice it would rather shoot for US$ 200 billion so that it can buy into India’s growth prospects for adding at least 1% to its GDP growth over the next few years.

Growth is flagging in China. This is worrisome for the leadership which has built its credibility by “filling people’s pockets to shut their mouths”- a snide reference to the grand political bargain in which Chinese citizens agree to trade in individual freedom for material gains.

India has a trade deficit of 50% of US$ 37 billion with China. Bilateral trade is US$70 billion.  This is higher than the aggregate trade deficit which is 20%. Further expansion of trade will likely worsen this deficit, since China is a more efficient mass producer of goods. Trade with China is consequently only a lever for India with which to negotiate alternative benefits in investment; security cooperation and mutually supportive diplomatic stances in multilateral fora.

So what is it about China which should excite India?

China made Indian Gods

Rather than predictably moan about the trade deficit with China Prime Minister Modi should praise the Chinese people for their achievements.

First, thank them for sending affordable goods to India thereby directly benefiting Indian consumers and forcing Indian industry to become competitive through attrition of uncompetitive businesses.

Second, thank China for being a role model for developing countries on the following three counts. (A) Illustrating the virtues of savings and investment led growth, particularly in manufacturing (B) Establishing the necessity of increasing public investment in human development and social protection (C)  Providing to the developing world a model for enhancing employment, jobs and rapid reduction in poverty

Third, invite them to visit India as Tourists, Students, Scholars and Friends so that our great cultures can learn from each other directly.

The gloved fist

Much has been made of the Chinese excursions into India even as President Xi was eating Dhoklas with Prime Minister Modi in September 2014.  Was this part of an elaborate Chinese plan to remind India that sipping green tea together does not mean China will give up its claims on Indian territory? Or were they a Peoples Liberation Army game plan to stab the reformist Xi in the back and undermine his international credibility? We may never find out. But what it does illustrate is that diplomacy is like sleeping with snakes-one has to sleep light, remain vigilant, move slowly but definitively and remain calm and unperturbed by the ensuing rattles.

Chinese cash

Should we fear Chinese investment in India? Clearly they have the cash and we have the need for it. One reason why we need the cash is to generate jobs. This means that the standard Chinese model of project implementation which relies on Chinese expatriates does not suit our needs. Rather they should build Indian skills in project implementation in keeping with their celebrated record in project implementation.

Partnership with Indian companies is the best model for Chinese investment in India so that social benefits and tax revenue flows downwards to the people of India whilst corporate profits flow to China. Other than a very short negative list of investments in sensitive border areas, Chinese investment should be welcomed. In fact co-partnership in international value chain related production can be of mutual benefit in services, engineering and chemicals.

End game

Prime Minister Modi’s China strategy must needs be minimalist. India looms too large in China’s neighbourhood for comfort. China will pull no punches in consciously trying to establish its dominance in South Asia and thereby cramp Indian influence. This is very similar to the effort India spends on cultivating Vietnam now and Taiwan earlier to the chagrin if China.

The best that India can hope to do is to stop China from playing “spoiler” in India’s unfolding growth story. Chinese support for Pakistani Terror or Maoist rebels in east India is an illustration of such proxy efforts. The best way of neutralizing “spoilers” is to co-opt them into the game as active participants. We must encourage China to develop significant investment stakes and trade links with India so that they too benefit from India’s growth. Actively encouraging highway and rail links across borders is a good place to start. India must aim to become “too big” in the Chinese investment portfolio for it to stall Indian growth- this is what “protects” the US.

It is inconceivable that Mr. Shourie is oblivious of this imperative to reach out to China. Could it be then be that his highly publicized “missive” to the PM was just a charade, dreamt up by the BJP “dirty tricks” department, to build up PM Modi as a strong and forceful leader with the reach; the credibility and the strategic depth to ignore inner-party, high level resistance to warming up China-India relations? In other words was Mr. Shourie’s advice given with the full knowledge that it would be ignored?

Similarly, could it be that the recent government action against Greenpeace and the Ford Foundation for crossing red lines by supporting activities against the national interest, were also initiated to project Mr. Modi’s government, ahead of the China visit, as being strongly nationalistic, able and willing to cock a snook at the US, just to illustrate, that India is not wedded to any traditional power block.

Far-fetched or not, PM Modi leaves for Beijing on a stronger wicket, as a friend of China, than he started with in September 2014, in part, thanks to Mr. Shourie.

Can Modi Copy Deng?

China

(photo credit: http://www.deeshaa.org)

The thought of Modi, an original and innovative doer if ever there was one, copying anyone, is so implausible that the first instinct is to perish the thought at birth. But it is interesting to list how Modi could “do a Deng” for India.

Deng Xiaoping inherited a China wracked by the inefficiencies, but blessed by the upside of Communism. Principally, five decades of communism had deadened the innately entrepreneurial spirit of the Chinese and sank the economy under the weight of a burgeoning State. But communism had also proliferated a highly disciplined party cadre across the country-much like India’s bureaucracy-except that the Chinese Communist Party marches to a single drumbeat; that of the President/General Secretary/Chairman. In contrast, the Indian bureaucracy is a discordant orchestra with multiple political conductors.

Mao built his Party cadres to weed out all those who either were, or could become, dissenters to his thoughts. Deng used the very same party to unleash the Chinese “animal spirits”. Municipalities and provinces competed viciously with each other to achieve the highest growth numbers in a no-holds-barred, single minded commitment to the bottom line, which could put the partners of Lehman Brothers in the shade.

The extraordinarily successful U turn was not surprising. Party foot soldiers are rarely ideologically committed. On top of it, if there is something in the change for them, they take to it with gusto. The Party took to “capitalism” with a vengeance. It is only now- two decades later- that President Xi is trying to unravel the resultant bundling of public and private interests.

When Deng Xiaoping became the President of China, per capita Gross National Product (GNP) was double of India’s but only around two thirds of Indonesia and Philippines (1996 WB data). By 2012 China’s per capita Gross National Income (GNI) had become nearly four times that of India; more than 1.7 times of Indonesia and nearly double of Philippines. Poverty declined in China from “Indian levels” to just 3% by 2012. Rapid economic growth based on exports, manufacturing and jobs was Deng’s mantra. But we musn’t forget the sacrifices of the Chinese people, who suffered personal and economic deprivations at the altar of national economic growth.

Can Modi do a Deng for India?

Unlike China, India is a soft state. Our citizens live in an asymmetric economic and political environment. On average, our citizens are as economically deprived as the Chinese were. But they have become accustomed to significant levels of personal and political freedom, more typical of a developed democracy. The State “includes” everyone in its warm embrace through food, fuel and income subsidies, which successive governments have honed to a fine art. Significant interest groups all receive a special package of subsidies tailored just for them. The package may not be individually very substantial. It may be threatened by inflation and increasing public fiscal stress. But the important thing is that it exists as a symbol that the State “cares”.

The only way of getting citizens to vote beyond subsidies is to rapidly enhance their individual incomes to a level where stagnating subsidies no longer mean much. For this private sector jobs based growth is the key.

Unfortunately, the world economic environment is now even less supportive of inefficient economies than it was in the “go-go years” till 2008. India remains a hugely inefficient economy because of the high transaction cost of doing business, even by domestic entrepreneurs. Some of this is due to a very inefficient and decentralized but systemic corruption.

The magnitude of corruption grabs public attention. It is unseemly but it is not the main impediment to job creation, growth or poverty reduction. In an imperfectly regulated economy, with a large State sector, regulating corruption to reduce its incidence and impact is more important than eradicating it. East Asia in general and indeed China itself, illustrates this.

But bitterly contested democracy does not allow the ruling party the luxury of “plain policy speak” based on cost benefit. A well publicised war against corruption better satisfies the masses that tax money is not being wasted.

More substantively, a policy of adopting increasingly higher levels of transparency and the  depoliticisation of economic regulation by transferring powers to autonomous, technical regulators, can significantly reduce the space for “crony capitalism”.

PM Modi, whilst condemning the “hate speech” of his errant Minister Niranjan Jyoti urged the Rajya Sabha: “let’s get back to work”. His words could well be heeded by government itself. Five fundamental institutional changes can create a Team Modi for targeting poverty; enhancing growth and increasing private sector jobs.

First, Captain Modi has to radically change the manner in which appointments are done in the Union government and adopt a transparently merit based system. For starters PMO should have an HR anchor identifying and tracking potential officers for these positions, using a variety of indicators.

Second, for improving the sustained effectiveness of the Union government, the PM has to ruthlessly prune the political executive and the bureaucracy, of elements who are, or have been ineffective or complicit in corruption. This is not about launching a witch hunt for the corrupt. It is more about identifying effective politicians and bureaucrats (of which individually there is an oversupply) and putting them in the right positions.

Third, it is not enough to improve the Union government. PM Modi has to talk Turkey with those CMs, who are similarly inclined to grow their states. Some, but not all, will be BJP governments. But the real issue here is to form alliances, not for political survival, as was the practice in the past, but for national growth. Network economies spill over across state boundaries and business uses such opportunities to locate where land is cheap, labour is abundant and pre-existing infrastructure is nearby.

CM Naidu previously used this model of cross border spill-over from Karnataka and Tamil Nadu to Andhra Pradesh’s benefit. Western UP and Haryana have similarly benefited from the economic dynamism of Delhi, irrespective of what their State Governments were up to. It is not necessary to have every CM on Team Modi’s Bench. Just getting 50% onboard, sprinkled across the country, can generate strong growth impulses nationally.

Fourth, a institutional focal point for getting CMs on board is needed. The National Development Council exists, but needs support. At the heart of the change is the willingness to share with the states, the fiscal and administrative powers available in the erstwhile Planning Commissions. How it’s is structured will be critical. Yet another anemic Think Tank is hardly fit for purpose.

Fifth, the key administrative unit, at the cutting edge level are the 604 Districts in rural areas and around 3255 “towns”. It is at this level that all reform and change is implemented. Unfortunately, this level of administration remains completely divorced from the direct responsibility for achieving the three point agenda of growth, jobs and poverty reduction in their own areas. This has to change if we are to “Do a Deng”. China determines local targets for national objectives. We must do the same.

PM Modi must provide incentives to States to “push back” senior officers from clunky state secretariats to the field. State secretariats (as also the Union Secretariat) must be slimmed down and District and urban Local Bodies strengthened. This can restore technical competence and gravitas to district and local body administration. The minimum service in field postings for IAS/IPS officers, before they can go to the State Secretariat must be increased to 15 years from the 9 years necessary today.

Every District and Town will also need base line studies of jobs, poverty levels and the size of the local economy. Their annual growth and poverty reduction targets and achievements must be available publicly. The share of local resource allocation must increase and be aligned with the path to achieve these objectives at the local level.

Today District Plans are just local segments of state government projects with specified outputs but with less than adequate linkage to the three overarching objectives. Local “Planning” is more about appeasement of local politicians rather than about achieving national objectives. More rigorous project selection guidelines; filters for assessing poverty reduction, growth and job creation potential; better oversight of expenditure and public participation in decision making are the underpinnings of success.

PM Modi does not have a centralized Party based executive to rely upon, as Deng did. But he can forge a Team of politicians, bureaucrats and non-government professionals who have a passion for lifting India out of poverty via economic growth and private sector jobs. Many are waiting for his call.

“Class” in diplomacy

coffee

(photo credit: http://www.dreamstime.com)

“Diplomacy is not instant coffee” said the official spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs yesterday. He is right of course. If you are the “instant coffee” type,  you are unlikely to be invited to join the international high table.

This doesn’t mean though that, if our MEA mandarins switch from Coffee Board brew to private caches of Hacienda La Esmerelda (US$104 per lb.), the Chinese troops camping so brazenly at Chumar would vanish instantly. The diplomatic high table respects what you do at home not what you pretend to do when you are abroad or what you pretend to be, whilst mixing with the rich and mighty. “Class” is a social stamp affixed to your entire family, not just you, which sticks tighter than glue.

As in diplomacy, class at the individual level, is also increasingly about where you are going rather than where you have come from. The American dream best illustrates this change since the early part of the last century. “You can be what you want” so long as you have fire in the belly.

Ironically, the Soviets had the same ideology, but not the instruments. They ended up with a classless but skewed society where Party based patrimony and cronyism became more important than merit, tested by competition.

The Chinese corrected for this gap between ideology and practice and have prospered since 1979. The results are visible. One third of the people pulled out of poverty in the last decade by job creating growth, are Chinese. A classless “poor” society is becoming a classless “rich” society. To be sure this has resulted in growing inequality, but inequality is to growth, as wine is to cheese.

India has not been far behind in effecting a quiet social revolution with its unique brand of positive affirmation for the marginalized and merit based competitive entry for the excluded, into the heady domain of the powerful via public service jobs.  PM Modi is the best example that this policy has been reasonably satisfactory in giving entry points to make individuals upwardly mobile.

But as a nation, so long as 70% of our population is poorer than the admittedly blunt, international standard of US$2 per head per day (or more colorfully, poorer that the proverbial “Church Mouse”); so long as our external account is fragile and so long as our political parties don’t align, like magnetic strips, in a single direction with respect to foreign policy, we are doomed to remain mere “guests” at the high table. We may be thus honoured for our future potential, but we will continue to be subtly excluded from substantive current decisions, till we become paying members of the club of “classy” nations.

We are years from getting there. We are still grappling with the fundamentals of infrastructure development and growth. How to make PPPs work? How to integrate world class assets into a creaky frame? How to scale up manufacturing and join the international value chain? These are our current 101 concerns. We have targets for infrastructure: (1) A fast train to Arunachal Pradesh by November 2014- a riposte to President Xi’s rather heavy-handed assertion of brute power by making the Peoples Liberation Army troops pitch camp in a border area, which both China and Indian patrol, even whilst he himself was savouring the delights of an Indian welcome last week.  (2) Fuel supply issues to be sorted out to enhance capacity utilization in electricity generation. (3) Faster project clearances (4) Easier environmental clearances and so on.

But we have no targets as yet for poverty reduction. We spend more “intellectual” effort in arguing about the nominal base line for poverty than on getting people to cross the line and remain above it.

An alternative strategy, one advocated by Mahatma Gandhi, could have been to put poverty reduction foremost. Bullet trains, highways, better airports, more electricity may all be inputs in the log frame defining the sequential path to achieve this key strategic objective. But why is the log frame and the thinking not shared with the public? Do we have a “poverty filter” in place which can help government rigorously evaluate and rank alternative investments for their poverty reduction potential? If we do not, then how can we be sure that our scarce capital resources are being allocated and spent well aligned to the principle of “value for money”?

Diplomacy is really about getting better deals with international partners that would be available automatically given the international market. Our external business strategy should be similar to that followed by the Dalai Lama and earlier by the Mahatma. This would be the 3H strategy characterized by Humility, Humanity and Holding Harmless.

Humility is the ultimate signal of strength. The Mahatma, clad in his spare loin cloth, demonstrated this whilst winning over the world with his message and his thoughts.

Humanity is of the essence to Indian philosophy. Given the extent of poverty and the depth of inequality, the relatively low level of social disorder is striking. The origins of this social-cohesion lie in an essential Rousseauian mind space, which views human nature as essentially benign; which accepts the dirty underbelly of humanity-greed, ego and excess, as human frailties; which accepts that the world is an unfair place; that differences in resource endowments and the standard of living are natural but draws comfort from the belief that there are countervailing social forces, which bring about social justice in the long term. This philosophy was recently well applied to our external relations by Minister Sushma Swaraj in a suave but home-spun manner “There are no full stops in Diplomacy”

Holding Harmless is the classic strategy of a democratic, heterogeneous, soft state and segmented economy like ours. Progress and reform yes, but not at the cost of unbearable pain even for significant minorities and always aligned to the principle of “None Left Behind”.  In external affairs just as we seek differentiated responsibilities to allow us to “catch up” with the rest of the World so must we recognize the special needs of others who are worse off-particularly select countries in South Asia.

How does 4H translate into practice?

First, we must learn to observe, listen, absorb and adapt from the experience of others rather than spend our time, preening and preaching about our practices and policies overseas. Our ways of doing things are contextually good, primarily for ourselves. They do not become better just by marketing them aggressively overseas. Nor do we need overseas endorsement of our ideas and policies.

Second, our officers overseas must resemble tradespeople; annoyingly nosy; curious; people-persons; seeking out deals in national interest, rather than haughty, remote representatives of the Indian State. False pride can be our fall.

Third, PM Modi is right in declaring “make in India” as his leitmotif. Indian big business should heed this call. There is nothing edifying about earning money in India but investing it overseas. It is neither a coup for big Indian Business nor for the government. Rather, it is a cop-out for the country. It illustrates that Indian business has more faith in foreign business environments and opportunities that in those available in India. Such transactions may also be suspect due to the opportunities they provide for “havala” (extra-legal export of either illegal earnings in India, or to evade income tax through dodgy invoicing of imports and exports). The national duty of Indian business is to leverage overseas funds for investment in India.

Fourth, before we wade into securing the World against terror; or showcasing India’s “naval might” it would be prudent to spend a decade on building up our military assets; modernizing our equipment; re-stocking our armories and re-skilling our personnel. Indian peace keeping forces abroad do us proud but that is because of their personal valour and fortitude. They do so despite shoddy personal equipment and arms. We have too many security related issues to resolve at home, to have the mind space or the financial muscle to police the world.

“Class” as a social identity is increasingly an outdated concept everywhere except within the government where such Colonial traditions survive. We must work to restructure government to eliminate class based identities. Baby steps in that direction could be abolishing separate toilets for senior government officers in government buildings. Staff lunch gatherings in offices, at least twice a week is another way to socially integrate senior officers with their junior colleagues. Switching over to digital offices systems and denuding officers of personal secretaries and messengers, is another. We must work hard to replace the steaming Coffee Board brew, currently served by a waiter in colonial livery, with a plebian coffee dispenser at the end of each corridor, although stocked with- what else but Esmerelda?

The MO-XI connect: going beyond the rice bowl.

sabarmati

(photo credit: narendramodi.in)

Later today when the Chinese supremo savours Khakra (a snack) and toasts PM Modi over a glass of aam-ras (the juice of raw mangoes), on the carefully grassed banks of the Sabarmati river, the symbolism of the location will not be lost on him.

What was till recently a sludge filled, trickle, has been transformed into a full water body. What was only a repository of nostalgia is now a kingdom of dreams and hope illustrating that India has shaken-off its somnolence of the past decade and is ready to Samba. The Sabarmati saga shows that we too can execute Chinese style development- large dams like-Narmada, regulating the water supply; city development projects, like the Sabarmati redevelopment scheme and more recently the ambitious Ganga re-development project. All this, in the face of stiff opposition from the usual bug-bears of large development: environmental fundamentalists who, rather academically, advocate strongly against channeling a river, or indeed doing anything which changes its natural flow.

As the bonhomie gets lubricated by Chaas (buttermilk) PM Modi must drive home the point that India has arrived, by politely refusing the expected Chinese offer of US$ 100 billion in financial support (to trump the Japanese offer of US$ 35 billion) for sundry projects. India is not up for sale to the highest bidder. Such bilateral support comes tied with numerous strings including the compulsory use of Chinese contractors. Japanese credit is the same. Whilst the terms of credit are deceptively attractive, there is no open international competition in the award of contracts. This loads the cost of the contract in present value terms far more than the discount on the interest rate offered.

The losers are usually the tax payers of the country providing the credit and the citizens of the country receiving the credit. The first because such “cheap” credit is funded out of the government budget of the donor country. The second because it is the citizens of the recipient country and users of such projects, who will bear the higher lifecycle cost of “gold plated” projects or the supply of low quality and shoddy goods. The winners are industry and business on both sides of the border, who gain by executing such projects. So expect to see an unholy alliance of Chinese and Indian business, loudly applauding the availability of such bilateral credit.

It doesn’t end there. Babus on both sides of the border will also raise a rousing cheer. The sole job and raison d’etre of our Department of Economic Affairs, within the Ministry of Finance, is to “negotiate” such bilateral credit lines. The Chinese (and the Japanese) have counterpart departments negotiating the supply of such credit. So that is another unholy alliance which undermines the financial autonomy of the country.

For many years, our babus have been used to touring the World Capitals with a begging bowl. None of them ever consider how incongruous it looks to assert our rightful place in the UN Security Council on the one hand, whilst simultaneously looking for some “rice” to fill the bowl.

It is time we changed that. The sustainable budget deficit of the Union Government is around US$ 400 billion. A lot of the existing debt is long term and the fiscal space available for new borrowings is limited. We should not fill the narrow window currently available with “nominally cheap but actually expensive” bilateral credit sources. It is just not worth the erosion of our international perception as a resilient stand-alone economy which seeks and gets credit on commercial terms. The key to financial strength is to spend only on projects which have high rates of economic and social returns and to avoid cost overruns. Money well spent is always rewarded by the financial markets through cheaper costs of borrowing.

Getting money cheap and then wasting 25% of it, which is the standard economic loss of non-competitive bids, does not impress financial markets as a viable strategy because it does not enhance our ability to service the credit.

If we need a bullet train or a super highway or high speed tracks linking our Five Big Metros then let us fund them through a mix of foreign commercial credit and foreign direct investment. That is the cheapest finance available today. Both sources also come with strict oversight on expenses and project management.

As the two supremos dip Bhakri (wheat flat bread) into the Kadhi (tangy sauce) Modi should move to the second agenda item and probe the extent to which the Chinese want to collaborate with India in international commercial ventures, in third countries between their companies and our own Navratnas (premier Indian State Owned Enterprises) and Indian private entrepreneurs. Both sides could learn from such collaboration.

Indian business communities in Africa and East Asia are hamstring by the crushing impact of Chinese competition. If collaboration can replace competition, both China and India benefit. After all, the best business venture is a monopoly, like a single toll bridge across a river. We should emulate the developed world, which advocates competition in overseas markets for their goods and services but hang on to quasi monopolies in their own domestic market.

More creatively, can we form an Indo-Chinese multi-national to promote renewable energy internationally? As a tangible target, what about announcing that by 2019, (1) both supremos would switch from the cars they drive in today, to electric cars and (2) their respective official homes and offices in New Delhi and in Beijing would be powered solely by Renewable Energy solutions manufactured through Indo-China cooperation.

As they scoop up the Kansar (a dessert) PM Modi should broach the third pillar of India-China partnership; a gas pipe line running from Turkmenistan/Iran through Pakistan to India and onto Southern China. Gas is critical to India’s energy plans. It is key to improve air quality in urban areas; provide a clean cooking fuel; power our city generators and reduce the incentive to use fire-wood as a fuel in our villages. Of all the commercial fuels, gas and hydro based energy have the most characteristics of a public good. Both generate the least negative externalities in energy supply. On the supply side, Iran is a traditional friend of both India and China. China has an increasingly dominant position in Pakistan which can facilitate safe passage for the pipeline. Their traditional policy of setting up Pakistan as a counter to India is now questionable in the face of Islamic terror and China’s own problems with Islamic communities in their North West. There is a commonality of interest in accessing gas from Iran. It should be pursued boldly using the plurilateral (Iran-Pakistan-India-Bangladesh-China) approach.

Great leaders are those who go beyond the narrow limits drawn by their babuish advisors. PM Modi and President Xi both have the mandate and the time to establish their credentials. They should start by making this point in Delhi.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: