The mantra of the new Prime Minister of India is 'Make in India'. His economic policy hinges on getting Indian manufacturing going, to get to the double-digit growth figures that he would need to deliver his promise of 'development'. And, indeed, this is what it should be: India will need to create 10 million non-farm jobs every year at least through the next decade, to absorb the new people entering the workforce productively. Service industries, for all their glamour, do not employ as many people as manufacturing does (at least in theory) and therefore, Mr Modi must steal some of China's thunder and try to make India world's next manufacturing base.
In many ways, this new economic policy is modelled on China. The focus is on investment in infrastructure, reform of labour laws (which means deregulation and reduction of power of the organised labour), making land acquisitions easier for industrial development etc., all the things that China has done with great efficacy over the last thirty years. Even the political model that the Indian middle classes want, as expressed in the complete mandate given to Mr Modi in last May's general elections and subsequent state elections this month, is based on the Chinese - not the quarrelsome democratic model that India built, but an unified strong state backed by an elite business class. Mr Modi could have said, India is the new China, but instead contented himself with the pithy but suggestive 'Make in India'.
Given the disappointments international investment community has had with India in the last decade, this message may sound like empty rhetoric. India seems to be forever in this catch-up game with China. I once had an English colleague who was greatly optimistic about India, mentioning quite frequently how India's democracy and openness would eventually propel the country ahead of China. As it would happen, last year, I travelled with this colleague first to India, covering seven cities in about two weeks, and then to Shanghai, for a similar tour covering multiple cities: It was poignant when he eventually turned to me, while we were rushing to catch a train in Shanghai Hongqiao Railway station, and said that he was wrong and India might not catch up with China in the next hundred years. The scale and efficiency of China indeed would give that feel to any observer: Just compare the views one sees while approaching to land at Shanghai and Mumbai airports, respectively.
However, there is more than just hope in Mr Modi's strategy. There is a calculation, articulated in the Indian policy circles in the last year or so, that China will eventually become unattractive because of its increasing costs of operation and various acts of intrusive legislation and regulatory assertiveness shown towards international companies. China is also increasingly pursuing leadership in intellectual property, and tinkering with patents in various ways, whereas the Indians have been more benign in that regard. Mr Modi's team hopes that this would make India a very attractive alternative, once and if the infrastructure issues are sorted out.
While one must remember that China was world's pre-eminent economy before Industrial Revolution, and indeed, well into it too, but also that in recent times, it came from behind to establish a lead over India, and eventually on all other economies except United States. The arguments in India is that if with a strong, purposeful state, China could achieve such an astonishing turnaround in the last three decades, India should be able to do it too. And, indeed, India's diversity, which is cited as a problem, is well matched by the diversity of China: It is just that we talk about the latter less.
However, India has other things to watch out for.
First, China has a much longer history of strong central government than India: The Indian state in its current form, is a relatively modern entity, while China maintained a more homogenous administration for a longer time in history. So, imposition of a strong central rule may not be easy in India, despite the obvious promise of development. The painful adjustments that one has to make to improve infrastructure or create business friendly environment are harder to do when the basic necessities of daily lives are not available
Second, China's many revolutions and civil wars, while painful to its people, may have shaken the society enough and allowed a kind of social mobility not experienced in India. In fact, India's relatively peaceful continuity in history has created stable structures of power and privilege, which sometimes works against the country. If the theory, advanced by many social scientists, that development happens when the common people can hold the elite to account is correct (historical evidence bears it out), then India is behind China on this count. [One must admit that there may be some noticeable change in the recent years: Narendra Modi is the first outsider to reach the pinnacle of power in India, while one sees the rise of 'princelings' and an entrenched privileged class, in China.]
Third, manufacturing jobs may be leaving China not for the reasons of cost and regulatory intervention, but for the trend that technology-intensive manufacturing moving back near to the consumers. China itself has been losing manufacturing jobs steadily for many years because of factories automating themselves: So, the game is no longer about being cheaper and easier to do business with (notwithstanding the comparison with China, India is a very difficult to do business in - just try forming a company with a foreign director!).
Fourth, India lacks expertise, more so in manufacturing. It is not just about building factories, but also finding skilled people. The technology-rich manufacturing that one does today requires educated workers, where China certainly trumps India. Even for higher level expertise, China's meritocratic culture is helpful, whereas India's caste-role dictated ideas of work and career often come in the way of professional expertise and practice (Indian coders don't want to code because doing things by hand is considered a lower occupation: They would rather be managers). A revolution in education and training is needed in India before a manufacturing revolution can happen.
In short, India trying to play China's game may not work out, partly because of the bottlenecks in Indian society and economy, and partly because the game is changing. One may want to think India, given its innovativeness, energy and diversity, may be better off taking a different path: Instead of trying to induce foreign manufacturers set up shop in India, one may think in terms of an 'enterprise revolution'. In fact, this is one thing happening in India in abundance already, with the traditional ideas about careers and life breaking down and small businesses are becoming successful (despite all the barriers government throws at them). This may encompass manufacturing, services, research and development, everything: It may generate jobs, and change the views about life and state that India urgently needs. This is where India may truly trump China (though lately China has indeed stolen a march on this front too) and may come to lead the world. One should start thinking about an Ministry to help foster enterprise, and converting the talk of loving small enterprises into action.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Nations are ideas. We try to fashion them as territories. But how can a river, a mountain ridge or sometimes an imaginary line in the middle of a field can explain the wide division in the lives, thoughts and futures of the people who live on different sides? Nations are not the people too. Indeed, people build nations and become its body. But the soul of the nation is an idea: People come together on an idea to build a nation. While that's what a modern nation is - an idea - and that way exceptionalism is not an American exception, very few nations are as completely defined by an idea as Pakistan. There was hardly any political, geographic or military rationale of Pakistan other than the idea of an Islamic homeland in South Asia. [In that way, the ideological brother of Pakistan in the family of nations is Israel] This, abated by the short term political calculations of some backroom colonialists, created a modern state which must be solely sustained on that singular idea. Religi
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen was gui
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
This post is a reaction to Aatish Taseer's evocative obituary of secular India in the Atlantic ( read here ). While I agree with it mostly - and share the reservations about the direction and the future of India - I differ with the author on one key aspect: I do not agree with his portrayal of a resurgent Bharat eating up a secular India. In fact, I believe while Mr Taseer regrets the Indian elite's loss of connection with the realities of day to day life of the country, his very presentation of Bharat and India as oppositional entities stems from that incomprehension. While I understand that he is only using these categories as RSS uses them - to effectively other the English-speaking elites and non-Hindus - I believe it is a mistake to describe the profound changes in contemporary India as the ascendance of Bharat. I grew up in Bharat. I never learnt English until late in life, when I started working. My growing-up world was one of small-town India, vernacu
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was, as
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
As India's democracy reaches a critical juncture, with a very real danger of a authoritarian take-over, Rabindranath Tagore's birth anniversary is a perfect occasion to revisit the founding idea of India once again. There are many things in his politics that we may need to dust up and reconsider: Tagore's political ideas, because of his inherent aversion of popular nationalism and enthusiasm about Pan-Asianism and universalism, were outside the mainstream of the Indian National Movement, seen as impractical and effectively shunned. He was seen mostly as the Poet and the mystic, someone whose politics remains in the domain of the ideas rather than action. Tagore himself, after a brief passionate involvement in politics during the division of Bengal by Lord Curzon in 1905, withdrew from political action: He never belonged to the political class, despite his iconic status and itinerant interventions, such as returning the Knighthood after the massacre of Amritsar in 1919.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.