Rape and murder of girl in temple is a small issue: New J&K Deputy CM

New Delhi, May 17: Following the COVID-19-induced economic disruptions, up to 135 million jobs could be lost and 120 million people might be pushed back into poverty in India, all of which will have a hit on consumer income, spending and savings, says a report.

According to a new report by international management consulting firm Arthur D Little, the worst of COVID-19's impact will be felt by India's most vulnerable in terms of job loss, poverty increase and reduced per-capita income, which in turn will result in a steep decline in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

"Given the continued rise of COVID-19 cases, we believe that a W-shaped recovery is the most likely scenario for India. This implies a GDP contraction of 10.8 per cent in FY 2020-21 and GDP growth of 0.8 per cent in FY 2021-22," the report said.

India's COVID-19 tally has crossed 90,000 and the nationwide death toll has touched nearly 2,800 so far.

The report titled "India: Surmounting the economic challenges posed by COVID-19: A 10-point programme to revive and power India's post-COVID economy" said the 'collateral damage' of the forecasted GDP slowdown, will be felt most acutely in employment, poverty alleviation, per-capita income and overall nominal GDP.

"Unemployment may rise to 35 per cent from 7.6 per cent resulting in 136 million jobs lost and a total of 174 million unemployed. Poverty alleviation will receive a set-back, significantly changing the fortunes of many, putting 120 million people into poverty and 40 million into abject poverty," the report said.

"India is headed towards a W-shaped economic recovery with a potential GDP contraction of 10.8 per cent in FY21. An opportunity loss of USD 1 trillion is staring India in its face," said Barnik Chitran Maitra, lead author of the report and Managing Partner & CEO of Arthur D Little, India and South Asia.

Maitra further said "for its USD 5 trillion vision, a radical economic approach is needed, centred on an immediate stimulus and structural reforms. The Prime Minister's visionary 'Atma Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyan' is a good start to this new approach."

The report lauded the steps taken by the government and the Reserve Bank of India, but said a far more assertive approach may be required given the magnitude of the adverse economic output.

The report suggested a 10-point programme to accelerate the recovery which include strengthening the 'safety net' significantly for the most vulnerable, enable survival of small and medium businesses, restarting the rural economy and providing targeted assistance to at-risk sectors.

It further said the government should launch "Make in India 2.0" to capture global opportunities, build 'Modern India', accelerate Digital India and Innovation, strengthen global investment corridors with the US, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Japan and the UK, debottleneck land and labour and transform banking and financial markets in a bid to secure a sustainable economic future for 1.3 billion Indians. 

New Delhi, Apr 21: The historic rout in oil markets that sent US crude prices plummeting to as much as minus USD 40 a barrel is unlikely to translate into any big reduction in petrol and diesel prices in India as domestic pricing is based on different benchmark, and refineries are already filled up to brim and cannot buy US crude just yet.

With storage capacity already overflowing amid coronavirus-induced demand collapse, traders rushed to to get rid of unwanted stocks triggering the collapse of US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude for May delivery.

Indian Oil Corp (IOC) Chairman Sanjiv Singh said the collapse was triggered by traders unable to take deliveries of crude they had previously booked because of a demand collapse. And so they paid the seller to keep oil in their storage.

"If you look at June futures, it is trading in positive territory... around USD 20 per barrel," he said.

Low oil prices may seem good in short-term but in the long run it will hurt the oil economy as producers will have no surplus to invest in exploration and production which will lead to a drop in production, he said.

He did not comment on retail fuel prices that have been static since March 16.

Oil companies have not changed rates despite a fall in international prices as they first adjusted them against the increase that was warranted from a Rs 3 per litre hike in excise duty and close to Re 1 per litre additional cost of switching over to cleaner BS-VI grade fuel from April 1.

Petrol in Delhi is priced at Rs 69.59 a litre and diesel comes for Rs 62.29 per litre.

"The negative price has no direct impact on India or Indian oil prices, as this has taken place due to crude oil produced and traded within the US. India's prices are driven partly by another benchmark, the Brent, which is still trading at USD 25/barrel. Therefore, the retail price of fuels in India are unlikely to fall," said Amit Bhandari, Fellow, Energy and Environment Studies, Gateway House.

Also, Indian refineries are already overflowing as fuel demand has evaporated due to the unprecedented nationwide lockdown imposed to curb spread of COVID-19. So, they can't rush to buy US crude.

The refineries have already cut operating rate to half because the fuel they produce has not been sold yet.

India imports 4 million barrels/day (1.4 billion barrels/year) of oil. The country has been benefitting from the falling prices of oil for the last five years, when oil dropped from a peak of USD 110/barrel to USD 50-60/barrel last year, enabling India to invest in public service programmes.

"However, the additional USD 30 fall of this week is good for India - but there is also a downside. If oil prices are too low, the economies of oil-rich gulf countries will be hurt, threatening the job prospects of the 8 million Indians working in the Gulf countries. India is the largest recipient of foreign remittances due to these workers – very low oil prices will hurt this cash stream," Bhandari said.

He said the negative price of oil shows how much oil oversupply exists in international markets today. "Global oil consumption has fallen due to the COVID-19 pandemic that traders are willing to pay customers to get rid of the barrels they can't store. The world does not have enough storage capacity, and dumping the oil is an environmental crime."

The first half of April saw Brent crude oil prices plummet 63.6 per cent to USD 26.9 per barrel. Prices of Western Texas Intermediate (WTI), the American oil, had also fallen similarly by 63.1 per cent.

But on April 20, WTI prices turned rapidly negative because traders on the Nymex exchange rushed to offload their May futures positions a day before expiry of contracts (on April 21).

Such WTI futures are traded on the Nymex exchange with contracts settled in physical crude oil. Problem is, those who had gone long are unable to find storage facilities for the oil and had to liquidate their contracts before expiry. This caused the plunge in WTI prices.

Contrast to this, June WTI Nymex futures prices is hovering around USD 21, while Brent for June delivery is at USD 25.

Miren Lodha, Director, CRISIL Research said the demand for crude oil was declining already because of economic slowdown when the COVID-19 pandemic-driven lockdowns crushed it further.

Consequently, oil demand is expected to contract by 8-10 million barrels per day (mbpd) in 2020 assuming demand recovery begins from the third quarter of the year, he said, adding if recovery doesn't happen by then, further demand destruction could occur.

On the supply side, producers reining in output following a strategic deal between OPEC members, Russia and the US.

Under this agreement, OPEC+ would reduce oil production by 9.7 mbpd for May and June, but gradually ease the curb to 7.7 mbpd between July and December 2020, and to 5.8 mbpd till April 2022 to stabilise prices.

"This is expected to reduce some surplus in the market by the end of 2020," Lodha said.

Crude oil demand is expected to decline by over 20 mbpd in April alone. Typically, monthly global demand is about 100 mbpd. Given this scenario, supply curbs would have limited influence.

Consequently, Brent oil prices is expected to be in the USD 25-30 range for the second quarter while increasing marginally in the last 2 quarters of 2020.

"The gigantic inventory build-ups and lack of storage facilities would also put pressure on prices," he said, adding overall Brent could average USD 30-35 in 2020, with a strong downward bias.

Mar 3: Just hours after the ending of a week-long “reduction” in violence that was crucial for Donald Trump’s peace deal in Afghanistan, the Taliban struck again: On Monday, they killed three people and injured about a dozen at a football match in Khost province. This resumption of violence will not surprise anyone actually invested in peace for that troubled country. The point of the U.S.-Taliban deal was never peace. It was to try and cover up an ignominious exit for the U.S., driven by an election-bound president who feels no responsibility toward that country or to the broader region.

Seen from South Asia, every point we know about in the agreement is a concession by Trump to the Taliban. Most importantly, it completes a long-term effort by the U.S. to delegitimize the elected government in Kabul — and, by extension, Afghanistan’s constitution. Afghanistan’s president is already balking at releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners before intra-Afghan talks can begin — a provision that his government did not approve.

One particularly cringe-worthy aspect: The agreement refers to the Taliban throughout  as “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban.” This unwieldy nomenclature validates the Taliban’s claim to be a government equivalent to the one in Kabul, just not the one recognised at the moment by the U.S. When read together with the second part of the agreement, which binds the U.S. to not “intervene in [Afghanistan’s] domestic affairs,” the point is obvious: The Taliban is not interested in peace, but in ensuring that support for its rivals is forbidden, and its path to Kabul is cleared.

All that the U.S. has effectively gotten in return is the Taliban’s assurance that it will not allow the soil of Afghanistan to be used against the “U.S. and its allies.” True, the U.S. under Trump has shown a disturbing willingness to trust solemn assurances from autocrats; but its apparent belief in promises made by a murderous theocratic movement is even more ridiculous. Especially as the Taliban made much the same promise to an Assistant Secretary of State about Osama bin Laden while he was in the country plotting 9/11.

Nobody in the region is pleased with this agreement except for the Taliban and their backers in the Pakistani military. India has consistently held that the legitimate government in Kabul must be the basic anchor of any peace plan. Ordinary Afghans, unsurprisingly, long for peace — but they are, by all accounts, deeply skeptical about how this deal will get them there. The brave activists of the Afghan Women’s Network are worried that intra-Afghan talks will take place without adequate representation of the country’s women — who have, after all, the most to lose from a return to Taliban rule.

But the Pakistani military establishment is not hiding its glee. One retired general tweeted: “Big victory for Afghan Taliban as historic accord signed… Forced Americans to negotiate an accord from the position of parity. Setback for India.” Pakistan’s army, the Taliban’s biggest backer, longs to re-install a friendly Islamist regime in Kabul — and it has correctly estimated that, after being abandoned by Trump, the Afghan government will have sharply reduced bargaining power in any intra-Afghan peace talks. A deal with the Taliban that fails also to include its backers in the Pakistani military is meaningless.

India, meanwhile, will not see this deal as a positive for regional peace or its relationship with the U.S. It comes barely a week after Trump’s India visit, which made it painfully clear that shared strategic concerns are the only thing keeping the countries together. New Delhi remembers that India is not, on paper, a U.S. “ally.” In that respect, an intensification of terrorism targeting India, as happened the last time the U.S. withdrew from the region, would not even be a violation of Trump’s agreement. One possible outcome: Over time the government in New Delhi, which has resolutely sought to keep its ties with Kabul primarily political, may have to step up security cooperation. Nobody knows where that would lead.

The irresponsible concessions made by the U.S. in this agreement will likely disrupt South Asia for years to come, and endanger its own relationship with India going forward. But worst of all, this deal abandons those in Afghanistan who, under the shadow of war, tried to develop, for the first time, institutions that work for all Afghans. No amount of sanctimony about “ending America’s longest war” should obscure the danger and immorality of this sort of exit.