In the middle of the ongoing economic chaos, many in India find solace in the hope that many manufacturing companies would now leave China and shift their factories to India. They enthusiastically share many stories about companies deciding to move out. While the COVID19 pandemic, still in its early stages in India, is stress-testing the Indian economy, India as the next global manufacturing hub is indeed the dream worth dreaming about.
This is an old dream, however. This - 'Make in India' - was a campaign slogan in 2014 General Election. In fact, this has been the key economic strategy of the government of India, to elevate India into its next stage of economic development and reach the benefits of economic growth more widely than the service-led economy has achieved so far. It was presumed - then - that China had become too expensive for manufacturers and they would now move to cheaper locations, such as India. And, it was not wishful thinking: Manufacturers were indeed gradually moving out of China, though they did not necessarily come to India. The government of Narendra Modi, elected to office in 2014, pinned its hope on improving India's infrastructure and wooing some of these manufacturers to 'make' in India. However, India has very little to show for all the rhetoric and all the efforts, so far. China's battered global image in the aftermath of COVID19, the Indian government hopes, will resurrect this strategy.
However, previous experience shows that companies did not set up shop in India even if they left China, for a number of reasons:
First, many manufacturers moving their factories away from China might have done so for reasons other than cost. In many cases, the primary reason was the automation of shopfloor and the decline of labour costs in absolute terms as well as a proportion of total costs. When labour costs are less significant, cheaper labour makes less of a difference. Rather, being close to the consumers become more profitable. Hence, companies were moving their production back into their key markets, rather than to a cheaper location. The few companies that came to India to make came on account of its vast domestic demand. But the shock of 2016 demonetisation, the haphazard implementation of the General Sales Tax (GST) and now COVID19 induced job losses have done much to batter that demand - and made India less attractive for the manufacturers.
Second, as manufacturing becomes more automated, the skills requirement and productivity expectations rise exponentially. India is at a significant disadvantage here. Its education and healthcare systems are dominated by special interests and the health of its workers are abysmally poor. Hence, a manufacturer facing skilled labour shortage and health crisis in China is very unlikely to look at India. When not trying to be close to the customers, productivity and skills of workers are the key reasons that attract companies to 'make' in a particular location. But Indian policy-makers have so far missed this central feature of modern manufacturing and limited their thinking to industrial era ideas of cheap and expendible labour.
Third, therefore what India really has to offer to the manufacturers is the 'cheapness' of Indian lives. There are some industries which are environmentally troublesome and hazardous to the workers' lives and health. The Indian thinking is that the manufacturers will come to India if they are offered a relaxed environmental and health and safety regime (China did offer a free-for-all regime to attract companies away from more stringently controlled Europe and North America). As increasingly rich Chinese consumers demand cleaner air and safer products, India aims to beat China in its own game. But this slippery-slope strategy, apart from stunting India's own production capacity as it discourages innovation in safety and environmental standards, is less suitable for a democratic country with an activist press. In fact, American companies are less likely to face class action lawsuits at home for industrial accidents in China than for ones in India.
All told, China's loss may not be India's gain. While India's policy-makers would love to think that the negative public sentiment would force companies to shift away from China, the reality is much more complex. There is indeed a backlash against China today: But that backlash may manifest itself against all overseas manufacturing. 'Made in America', 'Made in Britain' are about to enjoy a resurgence - and that does not help 'Make in India'.
Indeed, 'Make in India' has always a lame-duck strategy, a throwback of the 90s wholly unsuited to the realities of the post-recession world. Indian policy-makers were prisoners to the country's 'outsourcing' success and their lack of ambition was always evident. The slogan: 'Make in India' was never equivalent to 'Made in India'. One may argue that the long-term ambition of 'Make in India' could have been one to build expertise and to eventually make 'Made in India' viable; but the lack of seriousness about education and public health betrays the lack of any such strategic thinking. The outdated thinking behind 'Make in India' was already obsolete when the slogan was conceived; as globalisation goes backwards in the post-COVID world, it has no possibility of succeeding.
But, equally, it is no longer the question of false hope that should bother us. If the current trends are any guide, the shutdown is exposing deep-seated problems of the Indian economy. Three crisises, that of banking, labour and supply chain, are in the process of combining into a perfect storm, and poor planning and lack of coordination between various levels of government and the agencies may end up causing irreversible long-term damage to its industrial capacity. This is hardly the moment of unfurling the 'Make in India' banner; rather, this is a sombre opportunity to re-examine some of its key assumptions. Fundamental questions, of domestic demand and capacity building, can now be asked. The limitations of neo-liberal globalisation fully exposed, an escape from the 'back-office' mindset may be finally possible. New sensibilities about public health may present the opportunity to think beyond the strategy of cheapening human life. We now know: 'Making in India' would require 'thinking in India' first.
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
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
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
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.
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. Reli
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,
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
There is no other city like Kolkata for me: It is Home. The only city where I don't have to find a reason to go to, or to love. It is one city hardwired into my identity, and despite being away for a decade, that refuses to go away. People stay away from their homeland for a variety of reasons. But, as I have come to feel, no one can be completely happy to be away. One may find fame or fortune, love and learning, in another land, but they always live an incomplete life. They bring home broken bits of their homeland into their awkward daily existence, a cushion somewhere, a broken conversation in mother tongue some other time, always rediscovering the land they left behind for that brief moment of wanting to be themselves. The cruelest punishment, therefore, for a man who lives abroad is when his love for his land is denied. It is indeed often denied, because the pursuit of work, knowledge or love seemed to have gotten priority over the attraction of the land. This is particularly
India's employment data is sobering ( see here ). The pandemic has wrecked havoc and the structural problems of the economy - service sector dependence, uneven regional development and health and education challenges - are more evident than ever. Something needs to happen, and fast. To its credit, the government acknowledges the education challenge. Belatedly - it took more than 30 years - India has come up with a new National Education Policy. It is a comprehensive policy, which covers the whole spectrum of education and perhaps overcompensates the previous neglect by advocating radical change. As I commented elsewhere on this blog, it shows a curious mixture of aspirations, cultural revival and global competitiveness put under the same hood. However, despite its radical aspirations, the policy document often betrays same-old thinking. One of these is India's approach to foreign universities. The NEP makes the case for allowing foreign universities to set up operations in Ind
The story of British influence on Indian Education, to which Macaulay's Minutes of 1835 belong, has been told in six distinct phases. Syed Nurullah and J P Naik's very popular and influential History of Indian Education calls these 'six acts' of the drama: From the beginning of Eighteenth Century to 1813 The British East India Company received its charter in 1600 but its activities did not include any Educational engagement till the Charter Act of 1698, which required the Company to maintain priests and schools, for its own staff and their children. And, so it was until the renewal of its charter in 1813, when the evangelical influence led to insistence of expansion of educational activities and allowing priests back into company territory. From 1813 to Wood's Education Despatch of 1854 The renewal of Charter in 1813 re-opened the debate, which seemed to have been settled in the early years of the company administration, between the Orientalis
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.