After GMR, Indian carmakers in deep waters in Sri Lanka

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.

Mumbai, Feb 2: Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Sunday slammed the BJP-led central government on the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and said that the new law only serves the objectives of the Sangh Parivar of turning India into a Hindu Rashtra.

He said that in order to achieve their objectives, the "communal elements" are trying to divide India's people through the same strategy as employed by the British colonisers in the past.

Lauding people in Mumbai for their protests against CAA, the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the National Population Register (NPR), the Kerala chief minister also outlined three reasons for his government's decision to reject the Citizenship Amendment Act.

"Over the last several weeks, Mumbai citizens made clear their unyielding opposition to efforts made by Hindutva elements to tear apart the secular fabric of our society. I express solidarity with struggles being made across the city in defence of secularism and the Indian Constitution," Vijayan said at an event here.

The chief minister was addressing the 'Mumbai Collective' here on the topic of 'National struggle against communalism'.

"The government of Kerala is acting as per the Constitution. Like Kerala, other states are also looking at CAA as against the fundamentals of the Constitution. It (CAA) violates basic human rights and is divisive and deeply discriminatory," CM Vijayan said, adding that the new citizenship law only furthers the Sangh Parivar's objective of creating a Hindu Rashtra.

He said the CAA needs to be rejected for three basic reasons.

"First, it is against the letter and spirit of our Constitution. Secondly, it is highly discriminatory and violative of human rights. Thirdly, it seeks to impose philosophy of Sangh Parivar with its mission of Hindu Rashtra," the chief minister said.

Vijayan also participated in the human chain organised by Left Democratic Front (LDF) against CAA and NRC and said that "the law is a threat to the secularism of this country".

The newly enacted law is facing stiff opposition across the country with several non-NDA states including Kerala, West Bengal, Rajasthan and Punjab refusing to implement it.

Rajasthan, Kerala and Punjab have passed resolutions against the recently amended law in their respective state Assemblies.

The CAA grants citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Buddhists and Christians fleeing religious persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh and who came to India on or before December 31, 2014.

New Delhi, July 10: Hours before gangster Vikas Dubey was killed in an alleged police encounter on Friday, a plea was filed in the Supreme Court demanding urgent listing for action into his "possible killing" by Uttar Pradesh Police.

Advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay had apprehended in his plea that there is a high possibility that Dubey will also be killed in a 'fake' encounter after his arrest from Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh a day ago.

Upadhyay claimed that the UP Police was expected to "concoct the same story of encounter" for Dubey like it did when four of his associates were killed after the 2 July incident.

Dubey was the primary accused in the killing of eight policemen in Kanpur on July 2. He was arrested from Ujjain on Thursday. He was killed in a police encounter, when he allegedly tried to flee on Friday morning.

"During the hunt for Dubey and co-accused, five of his accused aides were arrested/caught and then killed by the police in the name of encounter...Thus, there is every possibility that even Dubey shall be killed by Uttar Pradesh Police like other co-accused once his custody is obtained," Upadhyay feared.

He submitted that the killing of the accused by the police in the name of encounter no matter how heinous the crime was "against the rule of law and serious violation of human rights and nothing sort of Talibanisation of the country". Upadhyay sought hearing in the matter on Friday itself, citing extreme urgency.