MAKE IN INDIA VS MAKE FOR INDIA

The contribution of the primary sector towards the GDP is only 14-16%, while three-fourth of our population depends on it. Due to this reason India faces grave unemployment. Subsequently the government had to rely upon programs like MGNREGA and DBT to tackle the unemployment menace. These programs do not add any skill sets to these people. The repercussions of such policies of the government are far reaching, since it brought the national exchequers to their knees. Also it led to huge fiscal deficit. Hence to address the twin issue of growth and unemployment, India had to rely upon the manufacturing sector. The advantage India has vis-a-vis China is its demographic profile. The young population cannot be satiated by providing them employment in the primary sector. So our Prime Minister, in his pursuit to augment industrial growth in this country coined the term ‘Make in India’ on September 25 of this year. Not only this, in his foreign visits to countries likes USA and Australia, he marketed this concept, giving a positive signal to the investors to invest in India. The business sentiments had received a big jolt in the previous UPA reign, the government being rigged by a number of corruption scandals and policy paralysis.

MAKE IN INDIA

The government has the aim of making more in India. This implies improving the infrastructure and efficiency of producing in India. When you are talking of producing, it can be agricultural commodities, mining, manufacturing or services. To achieve this goal, the government needs the support of the private sector and the foreign sector in the form of FDI, to build the requisite infrastructure.

Apart from infrastructure, it basically aims at making India a manufacturing hub by eliminating the unwanted laws and regulations, eliminating red tapism, eradicating bureaucratic hindrances and making the clearance process less cumbersome, since the petty bureaucrat empowered by these regulations can become a tyrant.

The other important aspect is the time bound clearances of projects trough a single window. The basic obstacle is to get the environmental clearances, which the government has taken into consideration and plans to act swiftly in this regard. The motive of the government is to help the business and not hinder it. For that, the government plans to have a single window clearance system in place to help the businesses and make them more competitive.

The campaign also aims at providing employment and invests in human capital. This requires enhancing the quality and spread of healthcare, nutrition and sanitation. Apart from these basic needs, appropriate education, vocational training and imparting skill sets in the labour market are the various objectives of this campaign.

And last, the ‘Make in India’ campaign wants to revive the business sentiments of foreign investors and make the ease of doing business in the country more competitive.

MAKE FOR INDIA

Showing yet again his proclivity to diverge from government’s views if required, RBI governor Raghuram Rajan recently redefined the definition of ‘Make in India’ and came up with the concept of ‘Make for India’. When ‘Make in India’ is looking to attract foreign investment, Rajan has suggested budgetary incentives for household savings to ensure that the country’s investment is highly financed by the domestic savings. These so called connotations largely reflect the government policies and the stance taken by the central bank. It is a positive sign since it reflects the independent functioning of the RBI in the FinMin-RBI nexus. The RBI governor has accentuated various aspects which forms the core of ‘Make for India’ campaign.

Firstly, while ‘Make in India’ focuses on export led growth, (since the IIP has been negative, WPI has reached zero) ‘Make for India’ addresses the objectives should be achieved through domestic sources. This can be achieved through a progressive taxation policy that would encourage domestic savings. The world cannot accommodate another China at this junction. Also there is a huge difference between the emerging countries and the industrial nations. Secondly, the manufacturing sector in industrial countries is capital intensive in nature as compared to the labour intensive in India.  Thirdly, when India is going to compete with China in terms of exports, it won’t be easy since China has already got a head start and have a significant advantage over India. Fourthly, the repercussions of such export led growth are multifold- subsidizing exporters with cheap inputs, undervalued exchange rate, negotiating with environmental norms, etc.

Another discrepancy regarding ‘Make in India’ is a strategy of import substitution through tariff barriers. This would be highly detrimental since it would curb domestic competition and make our producers inefficient. ‘Make for India’ envisages creation of an environment through SEZs, industrial corridors, etc where our producers can compete with the global ones. Hence by doing this, not only do we attract FDI, we also encourage the Indian entrepreneurs.

‘Make for India’ also aims at creating a sustainable, unified market that would ultimately lead to lower transaction cost across the country. This can be achieved if the GST bill is passed in the Parliament. Not only monetary policy, sound fiscal policy is the need of the hour since domestic demand is generally over stimulated.

CONCLUSION

The whole purpose of ‘Make in India’ campaign was to send a positive signal to the world that India has come of age with the arrival of the new dynamic leader and ready to assimilate the global world. It was a novel concept to attract foreign investors especially the FDI to usher a new era of manufacturing led growth. The image of the country had taken a big toll due to the umpteen corruption scandals associated with the previous government and lack of competitiveness. Hence the Prime Minister should be given credit for his vision and proactiveness. The announcement itself has raised the market sentiments to a new level, setting new records at SENSEX.  The FDI inflow has increased and there have been continuous trade engagements with other countries.

On the other hand, the brave call by our RBI governor, indicating the nuances as well as the loopholes of ‘Make in India’, has made all of us contemplate regarding the real scenario. Now it is imperative for both the FinMin and the central bank to work in tandem, evaluate the options available, complementing each other and come up with a prudent fiscal and monetary policy, to redefine the image of new India.

Hindutva vs Secularism

In his autobiography ‘My Experiment with Truth’ Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “My devotion to Truth has drawn me into the field of politics; those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics, do not know what religion means.” It is no secret that all the secular parties project themselves to be the messiah of the Muslims, fighting for their rights and liberties. But by doing so, they take the majority for granted. This aspect of Indian society was evident in the concluded general elections. Narendra Modi in his pursuit to enhance his secular credentials, didn’t lose the connect with the core ‘hindu’ votes. He perpetually reached out to the ‘majority’ by invoking the policy of ‘justice to all and appeasement of none’. Hence for the first time, ‘secularism’ has come under intense scrutiny or in fact being challenged by the common mob.

                    In today’s world, religion is a reality as well as a necessity. Even before the current phase of globalisation, capitalist institutions like the market integrated vast areas and people in different parts of the world. There were the capitalists and the wage-earners. The wage earners were devoid of ownership of the means of production due to their poverty. After being paid a subsistence wage, these workers were alienated from the fruits of their labour due to the prevailing social relations. Hence, they grasped the conception of God and institutions of religion to compensate in imagination what they had

lost in the real world. Religion was welcomed by them into their culture in order to make the conditions of the ‘heartless world’ slightly more bearable. On the other hand, capitalists needed religion to buffet the brutal uncertainties strewn in their lives, both as individuals and firms, busy with the task of accumulating capital. The capitalists may occasionally also need religion to be used as an instrument to pacify potential rebels among wage-earners. Hence the words of Marx that ‘religion is the opium of all masses’ is rightly justified as religion comes to the rescue of these wage earners and prevents them from fighting for their rights and liberties.

             In the context of secularism, there has been a considerable debate about the suitability of the concept and practice of secularism in India. Secularism and religion are mismatched in an Indian scenario since religion is irrational and makes a guarded attack on modernity, while secularism signifies modernization. If secularism wants to remove religion from the public life and culture of India, it’s not going to happen.

HINDUTVA AND SECULARISM

Hindutva or Cultural Nationalism is BJP’s conception of nationhood. According to the judgement of Supreme Court of India, Hindutva is ‘a way of life’. It signifies a culture of tolerance and universalism. The BJP owes its origin to the non political organization such as the RSS and hence cannot relinquish the ‘Hindu tag’. This explains the reason as to why Modi refused to wear the skull cap during his ‘sadbhavana fast’ and refuses to apologise for 2002 riots. He also chose a safe, Hindu dominated constituency of Varanasi to contest his first election outside Gujarat. But what’s wrong with it? Modi proudly proclaims himself to be a Hindu nationalist and wears its ideology in his sleeves.

Hindutva can be distinguished as a faith and as an ideology. Hindutva as a faith means ‘a

way of life’, a tradition that is non-monolithic and operationally plural. Religion as ideology, on the other hand, is a sub national, national or cross-national identifier of populations contesting for or protecting non-religious, usually political or socio-economic, interests. Modernity produces religion and then generates secularism to meet its challenge.

      It is important to accentuate the ‘other side’ of secularism too; the anti-religiosity

and the hyper-substantive secularism which excludes religion from public life. It’s time to privatize religion and rationalize politics. Secularism is criticised for being invalid in circumstances where religion is of immense importance to people. Modern culture is a mixed bag and its outright rejection may not be the best way to have secularism.  On the one hand, modern culture has some frightening flaws like a drive to control; a purely instrumental and destructive stance towards nature and human life, towards poor, marginalized sections and victims of the savage side of capitalism. The onus is on us to go for ‘my way’ or the ‘high way’.

PHILLIP HUGHES AND THE GAME OF LIFE

Being a sportsperson helps you to understand and face life better. “Sometimes it all comes together; sometimes you are going to lose it all”. This encapsulates the highs and lows of a sportsperson on the field and in life. But what happened to Phil Hughes was not unfortunate, it was cruel. The twinkle in his eyes, the cheeky smile will never be replenished. He had the entire life ahead of him. He was only 25.Just as in life, there are uncertainties in sports too. Despite the dollops of joy it dishes to fans across the world, it also throws up awful episodes that cast a thick blanket of gloom.

The most important aspect regarding this incident is the remorse and the genuine grief it has created, that has transgressed all boundaries and become all pervasive in nature. In my own life, I could feel the paucity creeping within me, an inexplicable uneasiness making me restless.

  People across the globe were affected by it and offered their condolences and respect in every possible manner. They held out their bats, offered flowers, etc. And what about the young Sean Abbott, who is merely 22 and just starting his cricketing career? Will life ever be the same for him? Yes it is heartening to see all the support and counselling that he is receiving, but the nightmarish images of that dreadful incident will keep haunting him. What will be going through his head when he is at the starting point of his run up? Will he ever be able to bowl a bouncer again?

But what was the reason of such high magnitude of grief? There have been several tragedies on the sporting field, under various circumstances-some have the victims of savage competition, some have succumbed to various inherent anomalies that spurted suddenly to silence them while others have died while celebrations. Memories of three time Formula one champion Ayrton Senna’s death on a race track is still fresh in our minds. Also there have been many recent mishaps too –a Mizoram football player died while doing a somersault after scoring a goal and the Cameroon footballer Foe falling onto the ground dead, have made headlines. These incidents are equally tragic and require equal scrutinization as the Hughes’s case. (The safety aspect in sports shouldn’t be condoned) But why these incidents didn’t elicit such magnitude of grief? Is it because it didn’t take place in a country like Australia or was it because of lack of media coverage?

When we are talking about deaths on a cricket field, the first name that crosses our mind is Raman Lamba. But it didn’t get that global attention which it should have got because fielding at silly point/ short leg without protective gear can bear grave repercussions. We did mourn for him but it was ephemeral and insipid pseudo pragmatism. India’s 2011 world cup star Yuvraj Singh suffered from cancer, but the Indian cricketers (basking under the glory of world cup success) were happily giving interviews at various functions and merely expressing their concern for Yuvi. Why is such a huge difference in the sporting culture of both the nations?

Australia has a rich sporting culture. From the beginning they have learnt to play the game hard but share a drink after the game. They care for their ‘mates’ and go out of their way to help their peers. (both on and off the field. Michael Clark referred him as “the brother that he never had”) While the Australian cricketers enjoy each others’ success, in India it’s always a ‘zero sum’ game. The huge population and the craze for the sport has made us adopt Darwin’s theory of’ survival of the fittest’. The selection criteria at every level has been individual performances. It’s a huge cultural difference. In India, individualism precedes over collectivism. While Hughes’s death has made a significant impact emotionally in the lives of the Aussies, Indian sportspersons confine themselves to their own bubble. The sporting culture in India needs to change right from the nebular stage in order to achieve success, especially in team sports.

But life moves on and definitely cricket must go on. It’s one of the saddest days in cricket since the sport lost one of its most lovable members. As they say, it’s not how hard you get hit but how much you can get hit and still move forward.

Moral Policing and Custodians of Society

Recently the so called agitation staged by a group of youngsters in Kerala, ‘the kiss of love’ has caught the imagination of the youth in India.  Such acts of protests pervaded to other parts of the country too, including some in front of offices of RSS and other Hindu organizations. On the backdrop of ‘love jihad’, an amorous act that was turned and twisted to benefit some, ‘kiss of love’ has certain underlying politics too.

When we talk about moral policing, the political and religious outfits anoint themselves to be the custodians of society. Morality and normative behaviour have different connotations in different societies and its credibility to be ambivalent and ubiquitous is in nobody’s hands. The pictures of Sri Ram Sena activists bashing and vandalizing couples at parks and cafeterias on Valentines Day, or the persistent taunts poked at Sania Mirza, (on her attire)  accused of degrading the status of Muslim women, have been encrypted in our minds. There are many things that play here too.

Firstly, ‘moral policing’, inevitably relates to the issue of ‘appropriateness’ of behaviour of women. The Public Display of Affection (PDA) involves both men and women but the societal norm that the sexuality of a woman is in the hands of men demands women to be tutored. It is always the ‘girl’ who is at fault. Moral policing reflects the archaic mentality that is based on man’s traditional control over women and ‘commodifying’ them.

Secondly, it’s the ‘modernity’ issue. The propagators of a progressive society, who fathom on orthodoxy and the regressive attitude, fail to see the real picture. Yes, there are several ‘evils’ prevailing in our society, but it is our responsibility to cure it. Yes, democracy, urbanization, globalization have made women demand for equality on all fronts (deservingly), but this modernity has to be expansive and inclusive.  One should realise that the vast amount of ‘likes’ and ‘shares’ on Facebook do not translate into passionate multitudes on ground. Social networking sites are distant from the hard reality of life. If we are kissing on public today, we won’t be able to face the repercussions later. Even for a married couple, which has the sanctions of the society, is it okay to do stuff in public that is supposed to be a private affair? Our society is rapidly transforming into a progressive society, but we haven’t reached ‘there’ yet. Modernity and ‘norms’ co exist here. Such act grates on the sensibilities of our people, particularly, in the non urban areas.

Finally, it is accepted that certain political outfits carry out certain unethical actions to gain political mileage (and should be opposed), but the ‘kiss of love’ organizers’ fight against the ‘moral police’ cops, though has well meaning, has gone awry because of the wrong tactic that they have employed. One can support and stand by them if they adopt socially relevant and culturally accepted modes of agitation. Modernization is not Westernization and it is upon us to choose the right lessons and not allow the boundary between the public and private shift or become blur. Also there is a lot of difference between what people write and what people practise. Nobody likes PDA in public places!!!