26/11 handler's arrest: Pak offers India counter-terror cooperation

Mumbai, Jan 10: India’s oil demand growth is set to overtake China by mid-2020s, priming the country for more refinery investment but making it more vulnerable to supply disruption in the Middle East, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Friday.

India’s oil demand is expected to reach 6 million barrels per day (bpd) by 2024 from 4.4 million bpd in 2017, but its domestic production is expected to rise only marginally, making the country more reliant on crude imports and more vulnerable to supply disruption in the Middle East, the agency said.

China’s demand growth is likely to be slightly lower than that of India by the mid-2020s, as per IEA’s China estimates given in November, but the gap would slowly become bigger thereafter.

“Indian economy is and will become even more exposed to risks of supply disruptions, geopolitical uncertainties and the volatility of oil prices,” the IEA said in a report on India’s energy policies.

Brent crude prices topped USD 70 a barrel on rising geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, putting pressure on emerging markets such as India. Like the rest of Asia, India is highly dependent on Middle East oil supplies with Iraq being its largest crude supplier.

India, which ranks No 3 in terms of global oil consumption after China and the United States, ships in over 80 per cent of its oil needs, of which 65 per cent is from the Middle East through the Strait of Hormuz, the IEA said.

The IEA, which coordinates release of strategic petroleum reserves (SPR) among developed countries in times of emergency, said it is important for India to expand its reserves.

REFINERY INVESTMENTS

India is the world’s fourth largest oil refiner and a net exporter of refined fuel, mainly gasoline and diesel.

India has drawn plans to lift its refining capacity to about 8 million bpd by 2025 from the current about 5 million bpd.

The IEA, however, forecasts India’s refining capacity to rise to 5.7 million bpd by 2024.

This would make “India a very attractive market for refinery investment,” IEA said.

Drawn to India’s higher fuel demand potential, global oil majors like Saudi Aramco, BP, Abu Dhabi National Oil Co and Total are looking at investing in India’s oil sector.

Saudi Aramco and ADNOC aim to own a 50 per cent stake in a planned 1.2-million bpd refinery in western Maharashtra state, for which land is yet to be acquired.

Jun 9: Prime Minister Narendra Modi wants all 1.3 billion Indians to be “vocal for local” — meaning, to not just use domestically made products but also to promote them. As an overseas citizen living in Hong Kong, I’m doing my bit by very vocally demanding Indian mangoes on every trip to the grocery. But half the summer is gone, and not a single slice so far.

My loss is due to India’s COVID-19 lockdown, which has severely pinched logistics, a perennial challenge in the huge, infrastructure-starved country. But more worrying than the disruption is the fruity political response to it. Rather than being a wake-up call for fixing supply chains, the pandemic seems to be putting India on an isolationist course. Why?

Granted that the liberal view that trade is good and autarky bad isn’t exactly fashionable anywhere right now. What makes India’s lurch troublesome is that the pace and direction of economic nationalism may be set by domestic business interests. The Indian liberals, many of whom are Western-trained academics, authors and — at least until a few years ago — policy makers, want a more competitive economy. They will be powerless to prevent the slide.

Modi’s call for a self-reliant India has been echoed by Home Minister Amit Shah, the cabinet’s unofficial No. 2, in a television interview. If Indians don’t buy foreign-made goods, the economy will see a jump, he said. The strategy — although it’s too nebulous yet to call it that — has a geopolitical element. A military standoff with China is under way, apparently triggered by India’s completion of a road and bridge near the common border in the tense Himalayan region of Ladakh. It’s very expensive to fight even a limited war there. With India’s economy flattened by COVID, New Delhi may be looking for ways to restore the status quo and send Beijing a signal.

Economic boycotts, such as Chinese consumers’ rejection of Japanese goods over territorial disputes in the East China Sea, are well understood as statecraft. In these times, it’s not even necessary to name an enemy. An undercurrent of popular anger against China, the source of both the virus and India’s biggest bilateral trade deficit, is supposed to do the job. But is it ever that easy?

A hastily introduced policy to stock only local goods in police and paramilitary canteens became a farcical exercise after the list of banned items ended up including products by the local units of Colgate-Palmolive Co., Nestle SA, and Unilever NV, which have had significant Indian operations for between 60 and 90 years, as well as Dabur India Ltd., a New Delhi-based maker of Ayurveda brands. The since-withdrawn list demonstrates the practical difficulty of bureaucrats trying to find things in a globalized world that are 100% indigenous.

Free-trade champions fret that the prime minister, whom they saw as being on their side six years ago, is acting against their advice to dismantle statist controls on land, labor and capital to help make the country more competitive. Engage with the world more, not less, they caution. But Modi also has to satisfy the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the umbrella Hindu organisation that gets him votes. Its backbone of small traders, builders and businessmen — the RSS admits only men — was losing patience with the anemic economy even before the pandemic. Now, they’re in deep trouble, because India’s broken financial system won’t deliver even state-guaranteed loans to them.

The U.S.-China tensions — over trade, intellectual property, COVID responsibility and Hong Kong’s autonomy — offer a perfect backdrop. A dire domestic economy and trouble at the border provide the foreground. Big business will dial economic nationalism up and down to hit a trifecta of goals: Block competition from the People's Republic; make Western rivals fall in line and do joint ventures; and tap deep overseas capital markets. The first goal is being achieved with newly placed restrictions on investment from any country that shares a land border with India. The second aim is to be realized by corporate lobbying to influence India's whimsical economic policies. As for the third objective, with the regulatory environment becoming tougher for U.S.-listed Chinese companies like Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., an opportunity may open up for Indian firms.

All this may bring India Shenzhen-style enclaves of manufacturing and trade, but it will concentrate economic power in fewer hands, something that worries liberals. They’re moved by the suffering of India’s low-wage workers, who have borne the brunt of the COVID shutdown. But when their vision of a more just society and fairer income distribution prompts them to make common cause with the ideological Left, they’re quickly repelled by the Marxist voodoo that all cash, property, bonds and real estate held by citizens or within the nation “must be treated as national resources available during this crisis.” Who will invest in a country that does that instead of just printing money?

At the same time, when liberals look to the business class, they see a sudden swelling of support for ideas like a universal basic income. They wonder if this isn’t a ploy by industry to outsource part of the cost of labor to the taxpayer. Slogans like Modi’s vocal-for-local stir the pot and thicken the confusion. The value-conscious Indian consumer couldn’t give two hoots for calls to buy Indian, but large firms will know how to exploit economic nationalism. One day soon, I’ll get my mangoes — from them.

Sitamarhi, Jun 15: Eyewitness accounts from locals in Bihar's Sitamarhi district recount the brutality and intimidation by Nepal's security personnel who on June 12 had resorted to unprovoked firing on a group of people at the international border, which left one Indian dead and two others injured.

"18-20 shots were fired for over one hour and everyone is in shock even now," said Nitish Kumar, a resident of Jankinagar recalling the incident that took place early on Friday morning.

Nepal's Armed Police Force (APF) opened fire at the Lalbandi-Jankinagar border in which three men - Vikesh Yadav, Umesh Ram and Uday Thakur - suffered gunshot injuries. Vikash Yadav succumbed to his injuries on Friday itself.

Another person Lagan Kishore, who was at the border with his family to meet his daughter-in-law, a Nepali national and her family, said he was detained by the APF personnel who dragged him to the other side of the border.

Lagan Kishore said that the Nepali personnel abused and hit him with rifle butts and even abused his son and later resorted to firing.

Several residents of Jankinagar, who spoke to media, termed the incident as "unfortunate and shocking".

Nitish Kumar recalled: "A family was here to meet their in-laws (Nepali nationals). The daughter-in-law was talking to her family while her husband and her father-in-law sat a little distance away. Suddenly I saw Nepali personnel abusing her husband who complained about it to his father. All of a sudden the Nepali forces started thrashing them and then opened fire. They also took the father into custody."

"We were all shocked. I could hear about 18-20 gunshots fired over a period of one hour," Kumar said.

Another local, Ajit Kumar, said he was perplexed with the behaviour of the Nepali Police.

"There used to be no problems earlier. We don't understand what happened to the Nepal Police that day. The firing is unfortunate. If this continues, how will people in the border area live?" he questioned.

Ajit Kumar stated that such an incident has taken place for the first time. "People from here go to work in fields in Nepal and their people come to work in our fields. Such a thing has happened for the first time. About 80 per cent of our people are married to Nepalis," he said.

Many people who live in the adjoining districts of Bihar, which shares over 600 kilometres of border with Nepal, have relatives on either side of the border.

Meanwhile, Nepali police have claimed that Lagan Kishore, who was taken into custody following the firing by APF and handed over to Indian Security Forces at no man's land on June 13, was detained for trying to snatch a weapon from one of their personnel during an altercation.

However, both Kishore and his family have denied the claims and said he was "dragged" across the border and was beaten.

Kishore said that during the firing he had rushed towards the Indian side but Nepalese personnel hit him with rifle butt and took him to Nepal's Sangrampur. He was also asked to confess that he was taken into custody from the Nepali side.

"We ran to return to India when they started firing, but they dragged me from the Indian side, hit me with a rifle butt and took me to Nepal's Sangrampur. They told me to confess that I was brought there from Nepal. I told them you can kill me but I was brought there from India," said Kishore.

Kishore's son also said that Nepali personnel started abusing them and hit him and his father.

Speaking to ANI, Kishore's son said, "We went to meet my brother-in-law. Security personnel started abusing me but I could not understand their language. However, my brother's wife asked them to not abuse. After that, they came to the Indian side and hit me. I told my father about the incident and he confronted them."

"They started beating him and called fellow personnel who started firing and dragged my father from the Indian side, hit him with a rifle butt and took him to Nepal''s Sangrampur," he said.

Relations have become strained between India and Nepal after the latter released a map showing parts of Indian Territory-Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura as its own.