‘Hands are tied... Can't sleep at night’: Despair over jobs as Jet Airways grounded

President Donald Trump gave a new justification for killing Qassim Suleimani, telling a gathering of Republican donors that the top Iranian general was "saying bad things about our country" before the strike, which led to his decision to authorise his killing. "How much are we going to listen to?" Trump said on Friday, according to remarks from a fundraiser obtained by CNN.

With his typical dramatic flourish, Trump recounted the scene as he monitored the strikes from the White House Situation Room when Suleimani was killed. The president spoke in a ballroom at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, at a Republican event that raised $10 million for Trump's 2020 campaign.

The January 3 killing of Suleimani prompted Iran to retaliate with missile strikes against US forces in Iraq days later and almost triggered a broad war between the two countries. "They're together sir," Trump said military officials told him. "Sir, they have two minutes and 11 seconds. No emotion. Two minutes and 11 seconds to live, sir. They're in the car, they're in an armoured vehicle. Sir, they have approximately one minute to live, sir. Thirty seconds. Ten, 9, 8 ...'"

"Then all of a sudden, boom," he said. "They're gone, sir. Cutting off, I said, where is this guy?" Trump continued. "That was the last I heard from him". It was the most detailed account that Trump has given of the drone strike, which has drawn criticism from some US lawmakers because neither the president nor his advisers have provided public information to back up their statements that Suleimani presented an "imminent" threat to US.

Trump's comments came a day after he warned Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to be "very careful with his words". According to Trump, Khamenei's speech on Friday, in which he attacked the "vicious" US and described UK, France and Germany as "America's lackeys", was a mistake.

Washington, Feb 1: The Indian economy experienced some abrupt slowdown in 2019 due to turbulence in non-banking financial institutions and major reform measures such as GST and demonetisation, but it is not in a recession, IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva has said.

"The Indian economy indeed has experienced an abrupt slowdown in 2019. We had to revise our growth projections, downwards to four percent for last year. We are expecting 5.8 per cent (growth rate) in 2020 and then an upward trajectory to 6.5 percent in 2021," Georgieva told a group of foreign journalists here on Friday.

"It appears that the main reason for this slowdown was the non-banking financial institutions experiencing a turbulence," she said on the eve of Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman presenting the annual budget in Parliament on Saturday.

She said India had undertaken some important reforms that over the longer term would be beneficial for the country, but they do have some short-term impact.

"For example, coming with the unified tax system, and the demonetisation that took place. These are steps that over time are beneficial, but of course they might, might be somewhat disruptive over short term," Georgieva said in response to a question.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director said that there is not a lot of fiscal space in India. “But we also recognise that the policies of the government on that side, on the fiscal side have been prudent. We will see how the reading of the budget, the submission of the budget goes, tomorrow,” she said.

In the medium-term, she said, the IMF remains optimistic about India. “This is why we see that upswing potential for the growth in the country,” she said.

Georgieva said that the current economic slowdown cannot be described as a recession. "No.... You're far from that. But it is a significant slowdown, not the recession," she said.

The IMF managing Director noted that the consumption in India also slowed down and that contributed to the overall slowdown in the economy. The IMF would be keen to see what India does to get relatively sound macroeconomic fundamentals to pay off in terms of better growth trajectory, she said ahead of the budget.

One thing that is important for India is that budgetary revenue have been below target. "The country knows that. The finance minister knows it. They need to increase budgetary revenue collection so they can improve their fiscal position. I said it's tight on the spending side, but I also want to stress that there is room to improve collection on the revenue side," she said.

From March through May, around 1 crore migrant workers fled India’s megacities, afraid to be unemployed, hungry and far from family during the world’s biggest anti-Covid-19 lockdown.

Now, as Asia’s third-largest economy slowly reopens, the effects of that massive relocation are rippling across the country. Urban industries don’t have enough workers to get back to capacity, and rural states worry that without the flow of remittances from the city, already poor families will be even worse off -- and a bigger strain on state coffers.

Meanwhile, migrant workers aren’t expected to return to the cities as long as the virus is spreading and work is uncertain. States are rolling out stimulus programs, but India’s economy is hurtling for its first contraction in more than 40 years, and without enough jobs, a volatile political climate gets more so.

“This will be a huge economic shock, especially for households of short-term, cyclical migrants, who tend to come from vulnerable, poor and low-caste and tribal backgrounds,” said Varun Aggarwal, a founder of India Migration Now, a research and advocacy group based in Mumbai.

In the first 15 days of India’s lockdown, domestic remittances dropped by 90%, according to Rishi Gupta, chief executive officer of Mumbai-based Fino Paytech Ltd., which operates the country’s biggest payments bank.

By the end of May, remittances were back to around 1750 rupees ($23), about half the pre-Covid average. Gupta’s not sure how soon it’ll fully recover. “Migrants are in no hurry to come back,” Gupta said. “They’re saying that they’re not thinking of going back at all.”

If workers stay in their home states long term, policymakers will have more than remittances to worry about. If consumption falls and the new surplus of labor drives wages down, Agarwal said, “there will also be a second-order shock to the local economy. Overall, not looking good.”

India announced a $277 billion stimulus package in May and followed it up with a $7 billion program aimed at creating jobs for 125 days for migrants in villages across 116 districts. Separately, local authorities are also looking for solutions.

Officials in Bihar have identified 2,500 acres of land that could be made available to investors, said Sushil Modi, deputy chief minister of Bihar, a state in east India. “We can use this crisis as an opportunity to speed up reforms,” he said.

The investors haven’t materialised yet, and in the meanwhile, state governments are relying on the national cash-for-work program that guarantees 100 days worth of wages per household.

Skilled workers don’t want to do manual labor offered through the program, and even if they did, says Amitabh Kundu of RIS, many think of it as beneath their station. “There will be an increase in social tensions,” he predicts. “Caste may again start playing a role. It’s absolute chaos.”

For skilled workers, initiatives vary:

* Uttar Pradesh, which received 3.2 million people, is compiling lists of skilled workers who need employment and trying to place them with local manufacturing and real estate industry associations. So far, the government says, it’s placed 300,000 people with construction and real estate firms.

* Bihar has placed returners in state-run infrastructure projects and hired others to stitch uniforms and make furniture for government-run schools, even as they waited in quarantine centres, said Pratyay Amrit, head of the state’s disaster management department.

* The eastern state of Odisha announced an urban wage employment program aimed at putting as many as 450,000 day labourers to work through September. Some 25,000 people have been employed, so far, under the scheme, G. Mathivathanan, principal secretary for housing and urban development said.

Attracting Investments

It’s not clear any of this will be enough to make a dent, says Ravi Srivastava, professor at New Delhi-based Institute of Human Development, adding that the states don’t have much of a track record on economic development.

“It was the failure of these states to improve governance and put development plans in place that led to the out-migration in the first place,” he said.

But officials and workers’ rights advocates see opportunity. Uttar Pradesh has established liaisons to encourage companies from the US, Japan and South Korea to establish manufacturing in the state. There and in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, the government has made labour laws more friendly to employers, making it easier to hire and fire workers.

Modi, the minister from Bihar, said the migration may also give workers--historically a disenfranchised group--new power, particularly as urban centres struggle. “The way industries treated workers during the lockdown -- didn’t pay them, the living conditions were poor -- now these industries will realize the value of this force,” Modi said.

“In the days to come, labour will emerge as a force that can’t be ignored anymore,” he added. “That’s the new normal. We will work out how to ensure dignity, rights to our people who are going to work in other states.”

Bihar is due for elections by November, a vote that could be an early test of the mass migration’s political consequences. The state is currently governed by a coalition that includes Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party. Amitabh Kundu, a fellow at the Research and Information System for Developing Countries, a New Delhi-based government think-tank, said migrant workers are likely to be angry voters.

“Chief ministers are telling these migrants that they will not have to go back for work,” he said. “But their capacity to do something miraculous in the next four to five months is doubtful. If they can retain even one-fourth of the migrants, I would call it a success.”