What's new

Indian Economy - News & Updates - Archive

Status
Not open for further replies.
Indian Economy Enters Sustained Boom Periods as Investors Rally
Net4now, UK
Tuesday 14 August 2007, 05:22:48

When it comes to giant markets that are expanding with almost reckless abandon, India has lately entered the same league as eastern neighbor China. With growth at almost 10% in 2006, India continues to surge forward with little sign of a slowdown, as expansion has averaged almost 9% the last half decade. The world has rarely seen such growth, with so much more potential to expand from such a large economy, as investors are still trying to understand China's colossal feats of economics.

Unsurprisingly, the currency markets have also following suit as the rupee gained 7% so far in 2007, establishing a decade-long high against the American dollar. Such staggering, large-scale growth has drawn hordes of businessmen who placed an impressive $15 billion in foreign direct investments (FDI) and yet another $12 billion sent into portfolio investments during early 2007, swelling India's foreign exchange reserve to around $200 billion. Now it appears India is well on the way to following their exploits.

Expansion in India is being helped by remarkable industrial production, which gained 14% in 2007, versus 10% over the previous year. This impressive sustained industrial growth has been bolstered by manufacturing, which is helping create the second best expansion rate in ten years. Many industries are also adding their part; such as biotech and technology, and it are well-known the English speaking Indians do well in the outsourcing of customer service, and the like.
 
India's rise in medical tourism
India is cashing in on its reputation for quality care with surgery available for rock-bottom prices

Simon Crompton
From The Times
August 14, 2007

There was a time when doing a search for “India” and “surgery” on the internet simply came up with reports about knee operations on cricketers from the sub-continent. No longer. Now dozens of agencies and hospitals offering top-quality surgery at rock-bottom prices top the listings.

In just five years health tourism to India has exploded, with hospitals currently estimated to treat 150,000 foreigners a year. A Confederation of Indian Industry report predicts that medical tourism will be worth $1 billion to the economy by 2012.

Agencies that specialise in putting prospective patients in touch with Indian hospitals claim that the industry is growing at the rate of 30 per cent a year. That projection may not be as optimistic as it sounds, given that the Government is unashamedly encouraging foreigners to come to India for treatment ranging from heart surgery to breast enlargements, dental checkups and Ayurvedic medicine.

Official figures indicate that visitors from 55 countries come to India for treatment but the biggest growth in business is from the UK and America.

Four years ago the first trickle of British patients, frustrated by long NHS waiting lists and the high cost of private surgery, began to organise operations abroad. James Campbell, from Aberdeenshire, flew to Ahmedabad in 2003 for a double knee replacement at less than half the cost of private treatment in the UK, after organising the trip and treatment himself.

Now an agency such as the Taj Medical Group receives 200 inquiries a day from around the world and arranges packages for 20-40 Britons a month to have operations in India. Taj also offers follow-up appointments with a consultant in the UK.

“Generally people don’t see any difference in the care they receive in India from private care in the UK,” says Dipa Jethwa, of the Taj group.

Why is India so popular? Cost is the driving factor. Patients wanting prompt private treatment usually pay 20-50 per cent of the UK cost for surgery. A single knee replacement in the UK costs about £9,000 but a Madras clinic quotes the operation at £2,150. The agency Surgery Abroad International offers breast enlargement operations in India for £1,000, compared with about £3,500.

The quality of medical facilities and staff in India is increasingly rated internationally. About £50 million has been invested by private healthcare companies in India in the past decade.

In addition, about 75 per cent of healthcare services in India are now in the private sector and new private hospitals with state of the art equipment have been built in many of the big cities. The Indian Tourist Board lists dozens of recommended hospitals for cardiology, orthopaedics, keyhole surgery, oncology, cosmetic surgery and holistic healthcare on its website (www.incredibleindia.org). There is also a good supply of well-qualified doctors and experienced surgeons.

With more Indian hospitals admitting foreign patients, it is easier for tourists to arrange their own surgery there but packages offered by agencies make organisation simpler.

The Department of Health advises anybody considering surgery abroad to consider every angle first. “Think about the standard of the facility, the qualifications and experience of the doctor and what you can do if something goes wrong,” a spokesman says.

David Hancock, author of The Complete Medical Tourist (John Blake Publishing, £9.99) advises prospective patients to consider the cost of taking a companion and to check post-operative support offered by the hospital.

“Ask for testimonials of patients who have undergone procedures at the medical facility,” he says. “Contact the people personally to make sure there were no later complications.”
 
India has changed the world
Dmitry Kosyrev
RIA Novosti, Russia
20:19 | 14/ 08/ 2007

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Dmitry Kosyrev) - On August 15, India will celebrate 60 years of independence. Today, we are looking at this event with different eyes. In retrospect, we can see that it has first changed Britain and then the rest of the world. This process is still going on.

On August 15, 1947 when Lord Mountbatten was hauling down the British flag in Delhi, many understood the significance of what was happening with a country, which some still considered the only superpower, even if it wasn't quite up to the mark in World War II. It is unclear when exactly America became the world's number one power. Was it after the Hiroshima bombing or after the white-green-saffron flag was raised over Delhi's Red Fort? At any rate, hardly anyone realized at that time that the British Empire was not simply undergoing change but was quickly melting into a regular European country.

In was clear in the early 1930s that the empire's rule over India was coming to an end. The year 1947 did not come as a complete surprise. But nobody expected India to help British society to start a change from within and largely cure it of the syndrome of complacent racist supremacy over many nations that are far more ancient and civilized than the Brits themselves. Credit for this goes to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi, who was probably the greatest figure of the 20th century.

Gandhi was admired; all intellectuals (among them many British colonial administrators) were seeking an opportunity to meet this pivotal figure. He proved that subjugated nations were not second-rate, that they might be above the Europeans morally and culturally, primarily because they could reach their goals without resorting to violence. His lessons have not been learnt up to now because the return of ancient civilizations to the world's key positions is not yet over. But the British were the first to realize that this course of event was inevitable, or at least possible.

The fact that India's independence engineered a change in Soviet foreign policy, among other things, may be a peripheral issue but the world's arrangement largely depended on it for half a century.

In 1947, Stalin and his entourage could not fully grasp what was going on. India was one of the first countries to restore its independence. Many followed suit in the 1950s-1960s. China still had two years to go before the triumph of the revolution, and the Soviet bloc was not yet set up in Europe. The Soviet Union established diplomatic relations with the new India four months before it became free. But Moscow, on which it was starting to dawn that "foreign" was not necessarily a synonym for "hostile", primarily perceived India's freedom as an irritant for Britain. The big nation's potential road to socialism came second. Gandhi viewed the Stalinist regime as yet another revolutionary but a very bizarre one and totally alien.

Changes took place almost a decade later and were associated with Nikita Khrushchev and Dmitry Shepilov (his second foreign minister after Vyacheslav Molotov). Being related to the late Shepilov, your correspondent learnt many details of how Moscow's mentality was changing in the post-Stalinist era. Conflicting reports and memos by Soviet diplomats were the main instrument of a change.

It was under Shepilov that the Soviet leaders adopted the idea that the newly independent countries were natural allies, even if they were not going to enter the Soviet block and build socialism. This concept first emerged in the other fragments of the British Empire - Egypt and Syria - where Shepilov was using trial-and-error approach in a bid to find the right tone in talking with the new partners. Later on, India, Indonesia and many other countries became Soviet friends by the same token. Shepilov recalled that India had proved to Moscow that the newly-independent countries could be very big and potentially extremely powerful, that they could absolutely reject a client's dependency while being overtly friendly. Last but not the least, India made it obvious that in the future they would be of major importance for Soviet vital interests.

Under Andrei Gromyko, who replaced Shepilov as foreign minister, Moscow's relations with the "developing nations" became an ideologically streamlined system but their gist was the same as in the middle 1950s. Soviet policy towards them remained intact for almost 40 years and contributed to Moscow's geopolitical might no less than its strategic arsenal. This applies, in particular, to the economic gains yielded by what was commonly called "assistance" to foreign countries. This "assistance" made Soviet export-oriented industries competitive.

Will the Russian political class be able to exploit the success of its predecessors now that almost every sixth person in the world is an Indian, and that India is bound to be the world's second economy after China? This question is being decided these days.
 
The making of a miracle
In 1947 it was a provincial outpost. Today it's the most globalised city in India. Ian Jack reports from the boom town of Bangalore

Ian Jack
The Guardian, UK
Tuesday August 14, 2007

One early morning in Bangalore - at about six, before the traffic thickened and made the timing of any cross-town journey the subject of doubting speculation - an enterprising young man called Arun Pai took me in his car to the edge of the Karnataka Golf Association course, where he asked his driver to stop. On one side, greens and bunkers. On the other, big new buildings coated in glass and occupied by IBM, Microsoft, Goldman Sachs. "I always take my foreign clients here," Pai said, "and ask them to tell me which famous author stood almost in the same position."

Many people have no difficulty. The answer is Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist and author of The World is Flat, and this is the setting of his book's first sentence, when Friedman is about to swing from the first tee and his partner tells him: "Aim at either Microsoft or IBM." As a first sentence it hardly ranks with "The past is a foreign country ...", but Friedman's book, the world's most popular gospel of globalisation, has sold 3m copies. It takes its several heroes from the IT business; one of them is Nandan Nilekani, co-chairman of the Indian software company Infosys, who gets the credit for inspiring the title by insisting to Friedman in 2004: "Tom, the playing field is being levelled." But you might say that its real hero is Bangalore, or Bangalore as Friedman sees it: the leading example of how a city populated by clever, ambitious, English-speaking technicians in what is still known as the developing world can use the tools of the new information age to abolish geography - to undercut European and American costs so much, with no (or better) effect on quality, that it destroys the historic advantages of adjacency, when the counting house was best placed next to the warehouse and the warehouse next to the factory.
The 600 pages of Friedman's book radiate a gung-ho optimism, and perhaps for that reason it is more widely read in India, a country that for most of the 20th century suffered the pessimistic prognoses of the outside world, than in Britain. To look for a British equivalent you might have to go back to Samuel Smiles and his Victorian testaments to hard work and self-help and his glorification of the great engineers. As I went around Bangalore this month I often thought of Smiles and the first industrial revolution - of its ruthlessness and chaos, its model factories and choked sewers, its slums and philanthropists, yet running through its new kind of people, freshly urbanised and adapting to the factory clock, the thread of a belief that they were at the centre of a new kind of world.

Arun Pai, my guide that morning, is an example of this new kind of person, or new at least in India. Inspired by the walking tours of London, he created a small company, bangalorewalks.com, and every Sunday he leads groups of people through the history of the city as manifested in its monuments, churches, parks and barracks. At this, he is quite brilliant; from plain and obscure objects he can draw stories that take you to Napoleon and the conquest of Everest. To listen to him, Bangalore has been affecting the course of global history ever since Lord Cornwallis took it from Tipu Sultan in 1791.

But walking tours aren't how Pai makes his real money. That comes when a software company, usually American, asks him to introduce one of its newly arrived executives to India: the bewildering totality of it. Pai has a one-day course. He takes them in his car to the famous Friedman site, to the ancient Hindu temple behind the new Marks & Spencer's, to the new suburbs and shopping malls. He may recall a few recent cultural references, such as the American passive verb, to be "Bangalored", meaning to lose one's job to cheaper competition overseas. He can do Hinduism in five minutes. Most of the questions are about cows, but beggars and caste are also popular topics. He has persuasive answers for the innocent from Kansas, and to demonstrate and sharpen his skills he asked me to ask him any question at all about noticeable aspects of India. I asked why it was that Indian advertising never depicted any human being with a skin shade darker than olive, when so many of the population, especially in the south, were by no means so light. Pai said that it was just a local edition of a universal fact: the enduring appeal of whiteness. But he agreed that this answer might not satisfy an American executive who happened to be black, or indeed anyone from a society that has adjusted to multiculturalism in way that India, for all its divisions of religion, language and caste, has not.

Later that Sunday morning, Pai took a group of us along the city's main thoroughfare, MG (Mahatma Gandhi) Road, in search of bungalows. The Victorian bungalow and its shady garden were once the trademarks of Bangalore - "India's garden city". Only a few survive. Land is too valuable and its price increases every week. "Take pictures, take pictures," Pai said when we stood in front of one. "It may not be here when you next come." In 10 years, people say (and perhaps hope), the city will look like Dubai or Singapore. Some of it already does.

Go back 60 years. Does the story of Bangalore's rise symbolise the larger history of independent India? Yes and no. In 1947, Bangalore contained about 500,000 people and has about six million now; the fifth largest city in India. In the same period, India's population, now 1.12 billion, has multiplied by a factor of three rather than Bangalore's 12, but urban growth rates that are much higher than the national average aren't unusual. When I first came to Bangalore in 1976, I didn't feel I'd left India behind. The same restrictions on consumption, the same brakes to aspiration, applied as much here as anywhere else in the country. Under the regime of Indira Gandhi (and of her father, Jawaharlal Nehru, before her), the Indian middle class grew to a kind of noble austerity in the cause of national self-reliance. On the other hand, even then, Bangalore was clearly exceptional. It was tidier, neater, greener, English was more readily spoken, a striking number of church towers poked above the trees in a country where, outside the far south, Christianity had made very little impact. Above all, there was (and is) the climate. Bangalore is 3,000ft above sea level, protected by its height from the enervating heat; the British called it a "no-fan station". When I asked Nandan Nilekani of Infosys how he explained the IT industry's attraction to Bangalore he made all these points - "It's the most middle-class, Anglicised, cosmopolitan city in India, with a better quality of life" - and added another: that a scientific and technical tradition already existed in the city, thanks to the aircraft and electrical instruments businesses that the government of India located there in the 1950s and 60s, militarily strategic factories that were as far away as possible from the borders of Pakistan and China, India's potential enemies. During the 1980s, even before economic liberalisation, it became known as the fastest-growing city in Asia.

It is also, as the historian Ramachandra Guha says, a mongrel kind of town: the only place in India where you can watch films in six Indian languages. Partly, this is British doing. After Cornwallis dethroned Tipu Sultan and restored the kingdom of Mysore to its former Hindu rulers, the British built an army cantonment on the high ground outside the gates of Bengaluru, which in the local language, Kannada, was the name of the town they had captured. The cantonment grew in size to become a "civil and military station" which drew thousands of Tamil craftsmen, tradesmen and servants, as well as Persian horse traders and British civil servants and brewers. A large Anglo-Indian population became established. Missionaries opened schools, a great park was laid out, exotic trees imported, courts and administrative offices built. The lingua franca of this new town, Bangalore, was English; just down the road in the narrow lanes of Bengaluru they continued to speak in Kannada.

The two towns became one municipality in 1949, but the differences between them persist. In Bangalore, I met men in their early middle-age, raised in the old city, who said that until their late teens they had never travelled the mile to the cantonment; and who had been warned by their parents that, when they did, they had better avoid the temptations of bars and hotels.

Bangalore became the capital of the new state of Mysore (since 1973, Karnataka) when the Indian state boundaries were redrawn in 1956. The official language of Karnataka is Kannada. But thanks to the successive flows of migrants from other Indian states, only about 30% of Bangalore's inhabitants claim it as their first language. That means the city has no dominant majority, a welcoming absence as far as new migrants and businesses are concerned but a fretful one for the native Kannada speaker, who, if he lacks English, may feel excluded from the new consumer culture of his own capital city.

Consequently, in what some Bangaloreans consider a political sop to the natives, Bangalore will be renamed Bengaluru within the next year or two. When it appears in airline timetables and on departure boards, a stranger might imagine that the new, more Indian name reflects a new, more Indian reality on the ground. But the opposite will be the case.

A good way to understand what has happened to Bangalore is to look at a street map. In the old city, the Kannada names, many centuries old, come from castes and occupations and bazaars. In the cantonment, the source of the names is obvious enough: Brigade Road, Infantry Road, Church Street. Then, to judge from the parentheses, a burst of patriotic renaming took place - Sir Mirza Ismail Nagar (Richmond Town), Field Marshall Cariappa Road (Residency Road) - though to no effect on how people think and speak of these places. In the suburban spread of the 1960s and 70s, the streets renounce any claim to history or romance, as though Stalin was in charge of the naming department. In Indiranagar, named after Indira Gandhi, the main street is One Hundred Feet Road: that is its width. Many streets are simply numbered, as are localities: a visitor can spend many hours in an auto-rickshaw looking for 597, 15th Cross Road, JPNagar Phase Two. But now that anonymity, these plain square houses in their numbered streets, no longer satisfies new money. The names and architecture of the most recent settlements, high-rises and gated communities could be described as postmodern or pre-post-colonial: Buckingham Court, Windsor Residency, Palm Meadows, 10 Downing Street. Some quite small houses have castellated battlements. The word "Residency", the title the British gave to the homes of senior imperial administrators, is very popular.

"People here speak of 'get-up'," an architect told me as we had dinner in a hotel. "They say to each other, 'What kind of get-up is your new house going to have? Mediterranean? English Castle?' They think they can do anything - anything! - and they want to shove it in your face." In the hotel bar, young Bangalorean men were braying and drinking - the sound carried across the hotel gardens. They weren't poor; this was an expensive hotel. A phrase that the former Sunday Telegraph editor Peregrine Worsthorne coined in the red-braces 1980s came to me: bourgeois triumphalism.

I came to Bangalore a few times in the 1980s and stayed in the homes of my then father-in-law, first in Indiranagar and then in the old Anglo-Indian colony of Whitefield. The sights and sounds I associate with these places were, and in most places still are, common to all India. You would go to sleep to the sound of the chowkidar, the night watchman, tapping his stick and blowing his pea whistle. In the morning there would be the cawing of crows and the cries of an early street pedlar, selling vegetables from a stall on wheels. Sometimes an occasional car would honk. The Whitefield house is now a restaurant, the Eurochine, and in Indiranagar they are tearing down 30-year-old houses all the way down the Hundred Feet Road to make way for the stores of the global brands: Benetton, Nike, Levis. Cars queue impatiently down every street and turning.

It does no good to be wistful. A bright young science graduate can expect a starting salary of at least 270,000 rupees (about £3,400) a year as a software engineer, and within a year or two will be earning far more than the professor who taught him. Between 200,000 and 300,000 people work in Bangalore's IT industry and not all of them will be so prosperous; call-centres, now referred to dismissively as IT's "low-hanging fruit", pay far less. The great majority, however, will earn far more than their parents. Rent and property are expensive - at the top end, a Bangalore flat can cost £1m - but credit is cheap. This new middle class has cars and takes holidays abroad (eight days in Singapore for £150). The very rich have servants and a manager to manage them. A servant - a driver, a cook - can double his salary by learning English. If the new recruit joins Infosys, which has become India's most applauded company, he or she will travel each day to a "campus" at Electronic City, which has a putting green, an orchard, a swimming pool, free bikes to get around, and a canteen that serves 14 different cuisines (one of them Jain, which omits garlic and onions). In recent years, more foreign chief executives and heads of state have visited this campus than the Taj Mahal, or so it is said, and "the Infosys tour" has become a cliche of books and TV documentaries. And of course, after getting out of your golf buggy and ascending one of the taller buildings, you can look out through the plate glass and see the slums beyond the fence, where a small boy is defecating next to a stray dog and the ditch runs black. India: land of contrasts. But supposing this replica of Silicon Valley were to disappear? The slum, the stray dog, the black ditch, the defecating child - all these would still be there.

Philanthropy is popular. Infosys has a foundation devoted to good works. Quite separately, Nandan Nilekani's wife, Rohini, estimates she has spent about $40m (£20m) of their money on children's educational and water projects, mainly in village India, over the past few years. This is a lot. Then again, her husband is one of Infosys's seven founders. When the company went public in 1993, 100 shares cost 9,500 rupees. The same shares today would be worth 24,440,000 rupees, 3,000 times their flotation value. (Many more people have benefited than the founders; stock options were once given to all employees, who now number about 80,000.) "It's just no use being an island of prosperity in this country, it isn't going to work," Rohini Nilekani said when I went to see her in her charity's office, and in that statement hover two large black clouds.

The first is inadequate, sometimes collapsing, infrastructure: roads, railways, sewers, drinking water, schools, electricity. The second is the growing divide between urban and rural India. Despite increasing urbanisation, about 70% of the population still live in agricultural villages. The reverse side of the economic liberalisation that made India's software industry possible is the crisis of Indian agriculture. Poor crop prices, exhausted soil, expensive fertiliser, falling water tables, and land that needs to sustain too many livelihoods: so far this year 1,000 Karnataka farmers are said to have killed themselves. And yet the odd thing, the thing that a more curious American executive might ask their guide, Arun Pai, is: given that the price (80 rupees, about £1) of a six-minute local call from my grand hotel surpasses the daily wage of the sugar-cane cutter in a field a few miles away, how come there is so little anger and unrest in Bangalore? The best answer to this question came from another software entrepreneur, Subroto Bagchi, who runs MindTree Consulting (its clients include Avis and Royal Mail). I went to see him at his house. He offered tea and when I said yes, went away to make it and brought it on a tray himself - striking behaviour; never before, in 30 years' experience of India, have I ever seen any Indian man of above average wealth do anything so humbly domestic.

Bagchi, like many other Indian IT success stories, likes to stress his middle-class origins, a term that has a more egalitarian implication in India than in Britain. Indian businesses in the past tended to be run by caste-based dynasties, with money and trading (as well as political) know-how inherited by succeeding generations. Bagchi's father, on the other hand, worked as a government officer in a remote, un-electrified district of Orissa State; Nilekani's father managed a textile mill; village postmen, teachers and railway ticket-collectors appear proudly in the biographies of others. According to Bagchi, it demonstrates the truth of the saying that the Indian IT business succeeded "not because who we knew but because what we knew" and having to compete in a global market without political protection.

I asked about the prospects of discontent, given the disparities of wealth in Bangalore. Bagchi said: "Tell me, where is the angst, where is the senseless killing? They're not even restless. They're not just content, they're quite grateful. Most people, labourers, maidservants, are making a better living. It doesn't occur to my driver that he has every right to be as well-dressed as I am. Just doesn't occur to him. You have to understand, we don't have a sense of urgency, our civilisation is 3,600 years old. For most Indians, it's been an upgrade from coach to business class. They're grateful to be where they are".

· Ian Jack began writing about India as a foreign correspondent in 1977 and lived for a time in Delhi and Calcutta. He edited the Independent on Sunday and then Granta magazine and now writes a Saturday column for the Guardian.
 
How did India do it?
The rise of a new global force

Aditya Chakrabortty
The Guardian, UK
Tuesday August 14, 2007

Outsiders see India as a new power on the rise; Indians, on the other hand, talk about a revival, a restoration of fortunes. They point out that in the 18th century, India had the biggest economy in the world, larger than all of western Europe and the Americas put together. Even after independent India came to be stereotyped as a land of urban slums and rural poverty, there was a feeling that inside this poor country, there was a rich one struggling to get out. In the past two decades, it has finally emerged, thanks to growing industries (most notably IT) and government policies to cut regulation.

Much of this success can be traced back to Jawaharlal Nehru. As prime minister of India from its birth in 1947 until his death in 1964, he wanted it to be not only free of foreign rule, but self-sufficient economically. His answer? Heavy industry, state-directed investment, and five-year economic plans.
Historians have not been kind to Nehru. He cuts an unfashionable figure with quaint enthusiasms (Steel smelting! Hydro-electric dams!). Yet the inconvenient truth for today's free-market-loving India is that the foundations for its success were laid by Nehru's socialist economics.

Those booming subcontinental IT firms, and even the US's Silicon Valley (which recruits so many of the subcontinent's software engineers), prosper thanks to Nehru's creation of elite technological and business schools. Neither Pakistan nor Bangladesh made such far-sighted investment and that, along with political instability, largely accounts for their failure to take off.

All this state intervention had a downside: red tape that grew like bindweed. A carmaker wanting to make more vehicles in its own factory needed permission from a bureaucrat, which meant forms, permits and pleading. The Licence Raj, as it was known, nearly stifled the life out of India's private sector.

But in 1991 a cash-strapped Indian government was forced to ask other countries for a loan. Donors insisted that it open up its economy - both to its own private sector and to foreign competition. The Licence Raj was out: from now on the government would intervene less, regulate less - generally do less.

And India started to change. Take that staple of commercial life: the phone call. "In the old days," says Deepak Lalwani, an Indian-born stockbroker now based in London, "if a Bombay businessman wanted to phone Delhi he had to book a line and wait a few hours." The call would then be upgraded to urgent. A couple more hours would pass. Then, says Lalwani, "The booking would at last be given 'lightning' status." Another hour and at last the conversation could begin, having by now accrued all the ceremony of a state summit. Today, an exec making a call would not only not need to book; he or she would probably use a mobile instead. In 2000, Indians bought 3m mobiles; this June alone they bought 7.3m. That does still leave alomst 80% of Indians with no phone at all, however. In villages, where the vast majority of the population lives, there are barely any cellular networks.

This sums up what is right and wrong with India's embrace of freer markets. It has been a boon for the educated, middle class, largely city-dwelling minority able to take advantage of it - and of little help to anyone else. The economy is growing at nearly double its historic rate, but this has been a jobless boom, creating better jobs, but not new jobs, and concentrated in services (all those software firms, back offices and call centres). By contrast, China, often put in the same bracket, has focused on employment-creating manufacturing and developing infrastructure. And while Delhi politicians see their job as merely getting out of the private sector's way, Beijing remains heavily involved in economic decisions.

How big is the boom in India's economy? About as big as the US. That's the size of India's new middle class, the main beneficiaries of the new regime. By 2010, there will be 300m of them: equal to the US in population size - and perhaps in taste. If you want evidence, drive an hour out of Delhi to Gurgaon, a town sometimes called the centre of the new India. The main drag is called Mall Road. A bit further along is a housing estate called Malibu Town. It has its own security guards, a golf club and roads with names such as Pine Drive. It is pleasant enough, but it bears little resemblance to the rest of the country. How to narrow that difference is India's new problem.
 
How Pakistanis see India
Kamila Shamsie
The Guardian, UK
Tuesday August 14, 2007

Earlier this year, while in Delhi for a writers' conference, I met one of my compatriots from across the border. "It's such a relief, isn't it?" he said. "Coming to India and discovering that, despite the hype of the past couple of years, it's still just another inefficient, dirty, third-world country like ours." The subtext was clear: a truly shining India would make Pakistan feel very dim by comparison.

But whatever the consolations of India's inefficiency, it's impossible to ignore the fact that Pakistan's position in the world centres around its murky role in the "War on Terror" while India's centres around economics.

'Twas not always thus. Pakistan has long been in the habit of feeling superior to India in economic terms. At the start of the 90s when I was, bafflingly, taking A-level economics in Karachi, our teacher taught us all we needed to know about India's protectionist economy with the sentence: "The only part of Indian cars which doesn't make a noise is the horn."

What, then, is the impact of the reversal of fortunes of the past decade? For the more thoughtful segments of Pakistani society it is reason to take a critical look at the failures of Pakistan's policies. Nayyara Rahman, a business student, told me she envies the Indians "because their growth is not frothy like ours; it's more sustainable, because it includes the wider spheres of the population, and not just the fringed elite". And Ameena Saiyid, the MD of Oxford University Press, Pakistan, also admits to envy - particularly over India's refusal to allow "its cows and elephants and other religious symbols and beliefs to impede their march to economic growth while we have got totally entangled in our burqas and beards".

But for a number of Pakistanis there remains doubt about whether the reversal of India's fortunes is real or just a giant bubble of hype. The Nation columnist Amina Jilani says: "Pakistan is loath to admit India even might be a growing power. In local idiom, we think we are both 'same to same'."

When I pushed another Pakistani for evidence that, deep down, Pakistan hasn't accepted its economically weaker position he responded: "The arms race. They test a missile, we test a missile." And it's true that Pakistan seems to have learned little from the collapse of the Soviet Union as it tried to keep up with America's defence spending. Perhaps it's apt, in a tragic-satirical way, that the arms race is one of the few areas in which Pakistan and India's economic muscles grapple with each other. In most other areas the approach is strictly hands-off: trade with India has always been severely restricted. Change is under way, but Pakistan continues to link economic progress to "forward movement on all fronts", which everyone recognises as a reference to Kashmir.

There are dissenters to this "keep India out" view. They include film-maker Hasan Zaidi. Given the might of Bollywood, one might assume that he would be the last person to call for an opening up of markets (at present, Pakistani cinemas are banned from showing Bollywood films, although they are readily available on pirated DVDs). But Zaidi points out that the Pakistan film industry is already in "a death spiral", that there's much to be gained by bringing across technically accomplished Indian films, and that India is a huge market that Pakistani film-makers can take advantage of.

Of course it's not just goods that have a hard time crossing borders. Visa restrictions mean that people, too, have a difficult time witnessing first hand life on the other side. That might change when - and if - India's economic growth allows it to make the one claim that remains elusive: that its poverty rates are lower than Pakistan's. That eventuality may well mark the point when Pakistan's labour force turns its eyes away from the Gulf and Europe to dream of earning a livelihood in a country where language and custom are not barriers. For the moment, though, India and Pakistan exist primarily in each other's imaginations, and our reactions to each other continue to be based on old psychological wounds.

· Kamila Shamsie grew up in Karachi, which is the setting of her most recent novel, Broken Verses (Bloomsbury).
 
How Bangladeshis see India
Tahmima Anam
The Guardian, UK
Tuesday August 14, 2007

In December 1971, Indira Gandhi sent Indian troops to fight the Pakistan army in support of the Bangladesh war of independence. The intervention brought a conclusion to the war in nine short days, ending a nine-month campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing that had left countless dead and many millions displaced. Thus, on the eve of independence, it seemed the road was gilded for a great love-affair between Bangladesh and India. This romance was even adumbrated by our geography: India surrounds Bangladesh on three sides, a great bear-hug of a border. But in the decades since Bangladesh's independence, the affair has gone sour.

The troubles began almost from the start. After intervening in the war, the Indian army did what armies do - they behaved like victorious soldiers. Pakistan did not surrender to Bangladesh - the treaty signed on December 16 1971 was between an Indian general and a Pakistani general. Suddenly the war that Bangladeshi freedom fighters had been waging became yet another skirmish between the two elder children of partition. And those same freedom fighters were forced to surrender their arms to the Indian troops. It was a symbolic wound that would fester. The bear-hug began to feel like a stranglehold.
Relations between India and Bangladesh were soon further strained: in 1975, the Indian government built the Farakka Barrage 10 miles from the Bangladesh border; it diverted Ganges water to the Hoogli river basin, raising salinity levels, contaminating fisheries, hindering navigation, and posing a threat to public health. Many Bangladeshi villages were plunged into drought, which kickstarted a sentiment of anti-Indianism that has gripped the popular imagination in Bangladesh ever since. None of these issues stop Bangladeshis from embracing our neighbour's prolific cultural exports. We buy Indian cars, Indian saris, and most importantly, we adore Bollywood.

But what happens to Bangladesh when India shines? Do we get a little bit of the sheen, too? Some of us certainly hope so. Our businessmen are eager to shake hands with the billionaires who are at the helm of India's burgeoning economy; our vocational schools are full of expectant students, their ears plugged into English-language tapes so that, someday, we may get one or two of those call-centres ourselves.

In the meantime, India has developed the peculiar paranoia of the strong towards the weak. Despite the low per-capita income of the average citizen, Bangladesh provides India with $1.5bn in trade every year. Yet India refuses to open its economic borders to Bangladesh. There is yet to be an implemented economic treaty that would allow our products to cross the border into India without heavy tariffs. This trade imbalance only serves to reinforce the feeling that we live in the shadow of a bully. India also sees Bangladesh as a nation of looming Muslim refugees - possibly an echo of the refugee crisis of 1971, but in this case poised to upset India's economic growth and religious equilibrium. This time, if we flee our flooded delta, India will not harbour us with the same enthusiasm as before.

We cannot love India. The relationship is too unequal for romance, and our neighbour is too aggressively self-interested to be embraced as a generous parent. We must either live with what we have, or take the initiative. For instance, we can wield our geographic advantage by negotiating between the two nuclear powers in the subcontinent, India and Pakistan. If we cannot have our own romance, at least we can become matchmakers. And instead of decrying the way India treats its minority Muslim population, we can be an example of a pluralistic society ourselves. But the uncomfortable truth is that our anxieties are displayed and articulated through the lens of religious prejudice. Since 1971, the Hindu population in Bangladesh has been steadily dwindling, as Hindus are systematically and institutionally discriminated against. Bullied, we bully in return.

Finally, instead of bemoaning our fate, we can strengthen our democracy, rid the political landscape of corruption, and capitalise on our economic growth - which, despite disasters both natural and self-inflicted, stands at a healthy 5%. By doing a better job of levelling the playing field, we may still never have a chance at romance with India, but we can at least work towards a relationship of mutual respect.

· Tahmima Anam's debut novel, A Golden Age, is set against the backdrop of the 1971 Bangladesh war of independence.
 
'I've witnessed the arrival of a golden age'
Randeep Ramesh, the Guardian's Delhi correspondent, spent his childhood apologising for having any connection with India. But how times change ...

The Guardian, UK
Tuesday August 14, 2007

A few years ago, I visited an Indian software millionaire at his headquarters in Bangalore for a story about the country's effervescent computer industry. Software is modern India's spice, a precious commodity craved by the rest of the world. The businessman took great pleasure in showing me around.

I marvelled at rows of programmers working in Japanese; I gawped at the basketball courts and pizza eateries imported to give the company an authentic Silicon Valley feel. After an hour or two, the conversation got personal. In the unselfconscious, no-nonsense manner of many educated Indians, the entrepreneur quizzed me on which university I had gone to (Cambridge) and the subject I had studied (physics), before triumphantly declaring that I had been "born in the wrong country". When I protested, he raised his palm.

"The British system has come to this - taking scientists and making them journalists," he said with a smile. "What a waste. Just imagine the opportunities you missed by not being born here."

In my youth I would have laughed that comment away as misplaced optimism in a country that could not even get its trains to run on time. I had grown up shuttling between my birthplace, London, and India, my parents' homeland.

My earliest memories revolved around the open sewers and the endless slumlands of my father's Mumbai, or Bombay as it was then known, and the tropical sloth of my mother's home in Kerala. It is fair to say that nothing worked in the India of yesterday. There were phones, but the lines were mostly dead. Frequent blackouts meant the inside of the fridge was invariably hotter than the air outside it. India appeared to be a place that, like my grandfather's battered Fiat, went faster backwards than forwards.

I spent my childhood apologising for having any connections with India, a country that in my lofty opinion needed major surgery. But a decade ago, while the rest of the world was looking the other way, India reached some kind of tipping point, and change began to happen - fast.

The signs were easy to spot. By the mid-90s, the Marks & Spencer underwear and ovenproof CorningWare dishes my parents had always brought as gifts for relatives were politely returned, or left unopened. "We can buy this here," sniffed my auntie in Bangalore.

My Indian cousins, who had diligently studied science subjects, began to leave India for jobs with management consultants and computer companies in places such as Singapore and California. Friends in Britain started to climb the social ladder by having arranged marriages with Indian women who were often smarter, more sophisticated and better-looking than they perhaps deserved.

Since I pitched up in 2003 to live and work in Delhi, I have witnessed firsthand the arrival of a golden age. The making and spending of money has become respected in a country where poverty was once revered. Middle-income westerners now feel poor in the upmarket postcodes of India's big cities.

Yet it would be wrong to think that India has become just like everywhere else. Yes, an economic miracle is under way. Yes, there is now an elite as capable as any in the west. The paradox is that this is a modernising nation, but one still steeped in myth and legend. Indians tend to ascribe the country's rise to its unique, ancient civilisation and in the process tend to be rather dismissive of anywhere else.

This does tend to blind Indians to the real problems faced by the country. Venality abounds, and the widespread acceptance of corruption tarnishes the pride that Indians take in their most tangible achievement - democracy - and saps the energy with which they express it.

The abuse of public office for private profit reaches comical proportions in India. Family connections, privileges of caste and a pathological willingness to break the law characterise many social relations. In the dirt-poor state of Bihar, I once visited a local politician, in jail awaiting trial for numerous murders; he was campaigning from behind bars for re-election. Mobile phones and lime juice were brought by the guards as we spoke; they bowed in deference to my thuggish interviewee.

Hanging in the air, too, is desperate poverty. To the naked eye, India appears not just an underdeveloped society, but an extremely unjust one. There are 260 million poor people in the country, and more than 1,000 children die of diarrhoea every day. The capital's streets are lined with ragged children and beggars waving handless stumps. Every day 22 farmers in India commit suicide.

Official poverty numbers are going down, but not fast enough for anyone to notice. Yet the flow of good news keeps on coming. A top news story here last week was about a Punjabi businessman spending 1.55m rupees (£20,000) on a bespoke mobile phone number.

Living in India sometimes feels like living in the midst of a cult, with hundreds of millions of souls convinced of the country's inevitable rise to global, nuclear-armed power. The nation's privileged classes and castes have been gripped by a psychology of ascendancy, anticipating the greatness that imperialism and the cold war denied them.

In fact, development for most Indians is a state of mind. Many simply sweep aside doubts by asserting the supremacy of the country's customs and traditions. I have heard my own family here in India discuss people with contempt just because of their background - be it class, caste, race or religion. When I protest, they simply tell me that I am not an Indian, so how could I understand?

During my time here, I have come to realise that Indians have little interest in the British now, or in a British Asian like me who has returned to his parents' land. My affinities with the country, too, have their limits. I have come to realise that despite a common heritage there is little I share in experience or beliefs with the millions here.

America, the first British colony to break free, is the model now. Long gone is the view that Britain is a country to be admired or emulated. Like the American people, Indians have become more confident and assertive, citing stories of those who triumph against the odds to balance their nation's shortcomings.

They see glasses half-full, not half-empty, here. India wakes up with a smile on its face each morning, because its people know that the past may have been yours, but the future belongs to them.
 
Indian identity is forged in diversity. Every one of us is in a minority
The nation born 60 years ago today is built on a bold idea of difference - and an agreement that it's healthy to disagree

Shashi Tharoor
The Guardian, UK
Wednesday August 15, 2007

When India celebrated the 49th anniversary of its independence from British rule in 1996, its then prime minister, HD Deve Gowda, stood at the ramparts of Delhi's Red Fort and delivered the traditional independence day address to the nation. Eight other prime ministers had done exactly the same thing 48 times before him, but what was unusual this time was that Deve Gowda, a southerner from the state of Karnataka, spoke to the country in a language of which he did not know a word. Tradition and politics required a speech in Hindi, so he gave one - the words having been written out for him in his native Kannada script, in which they made no sense.

Such an episode is almost inconceivable elsewhere, but it was a startling affirmation of Indian pluralism. For the simple fact is that we are all minorities in India. There has never been an archetypal Indian to stand alongside the archetypal German or Frenchman. A Hindi-speaking Hindu male from Uttar Pradesh may cherish the illusion he represents the "majority community". But he does not. As a Hindu, he belongs to the faith adhered to by four-fifths of the population. But a majority of the country does not speak Hindi. And, if he were visiting, say, my home state of Kerala, he may be surprised to realise that a majority there is not even male.

Worse, this stock Hindu male has only to mingle with the polyglot, multicoloured crowds - and I am referring not to the colours of their clothes but to the colours of their skins - thronging any of India's major railway stations to realise how much of a minority he really is. Even his Hinduism is no guarantee of his majorityhood, because caste divisions automatically put him in a minority. (If he is a Brahmin, for instance, 90% of his fellow Indians are not.)

If caste and language complicate the notion of Indian identity, ethnicity makes it worse. Most of the time, an Indian's name immediately reveals where he is from or what her mother-tongue is: when we introduce ourselves, we are advertising our origins. Despite some intermarriage at the elite levels in our cities, Indians are still largely endogamous, and a Bengali is easily distinguished from a Punjabi. The difference this reflects is often more apparent than the elements of commonality. A Karnataka Brahmin shares his Hindu faith with a Bihari Kurmi, but they share little identity with each other in respect of their dress, customs, appearance, taste, language or even, these days, their political objectives. At the same time, a Tamil Hindu would feel he has much more in common with a Tamil Christian or a Tamil Muslim than with, say, a Jat from the state of Haryana with whom he formally shares the Hindu religion.

What makes India, then, a nation? As the country celebrates the 60th anniversary of its independence today, we may well ask: What is an Indian's identity?

When an Italian nation was created in the second half of the 19th century out of a mosaic of principalities and statelets, one Italian nationalist wrote: "We have created Italy. Now all we need to do is to create Italians." It is striking that, a few decades later, no Indian nationalist succumbed to the temptation to express a similar thought. The prime exponent of modern Indian nationalism, Jawaharlal Nehru, would never have spoken of "creating Indians", because he believed that India and Indians had existed for millennia before he articulated their political aspirations in the 20th century.

None the less, the India that was born in 1947 was in a very real sense a new creation: a state that made fellow citizens of the Ladakhi and the Laccadivian, divided Punjabi from Punjabi and asked a Keralite peasant to feel allegiance to a Kashmiri Pandit ruling in Delhi, all for the first time.

So under Mahatma Gandhi and Prime Minister Nehru, Indian nationalism was not based on any of the conventional indices of national identity. Not language, since India's constitution now recognises 22 official languages, and as many as 35 languages spoken by more than a million people each. Not ethnicity, since the "Indian" accommodates a diversity of racial types in which many Indians (Punjabis and Bengalis, in particular) have more ethnically in common with foreigners than with their other compatriots. Not religion, since India is a secular pluralist state that is home to every religion known to mankind, with the possible exception of Shintoism. Not geography, since the natural geography of the subcontinent - framed by the mountains and the sea - was hacked by the partition of 1947. And not even territory, since, by law, anyone with one grandparent born in pre-partition India - outside the territorial boundaries of today's state - is eligible for citizenship. Indian nationalism has therefore always been the nationalism of an idea.

It is the idea of an ever-ever land - emerging from an ancient civilisation, united by a shared history, sustained by pluralist democracy. India's democracy imposes no narrow conformities on its citizens. The whole point of Indian pluralism is you can be many things and one thing: you can be a good Muslim, a good Keralite and a good Indian all at once. The Indian idea is the opposite of what Freudians call "the narcissism of minor differences"; in India we celebrate the commonality of major differences. If America is a melting-pot, then to me India is a thali, a selection of sumptuous dishes in different bowls. Each tastes different, and does not necessarily mix with the next, but they belong together on the same plate, and they complement each other in making the meal a satisfying repast.

So the idea of India is of one land embracing many. It is the idea that a nation may endure differences of caste, creed, colour, conviction, culture, cuisine, costume and custom, and still rally around a consensus. And that consensus is around the simple idea that in a democracy you don't really need to agree - except on the ground rules of how you will disagree.

Geography helps, because it accustoms Indians to the idea of difference. India's national identity has long been built on the slogan "unity in diversity". The "Indian" comes in such varieties that a woman who is fair-skinned, sari-wearing and Italian-speaking, as Sonia Gandhi is, is not more foreign to my grandmother in Kerala than one who is "wheatish-complexioned", wears a salwar kameez and speaks Urdu. Our nation absorbs both these types of people; both are equally "foreign" to some of us, equally Indian to us all.

For now, the sectarian Hindu chauvinists have lost the battle over India's identity. The sight in May 2004 of a Roman Catholic political leader (Sonia Gandhi) making way for a Sikh (Manmohan Singh) to be sworn in as prime minister by a Muslim (President Abdul Kalam) - in a country 81% Hindu - caught the world's imagination. India's founding fathers wrote a constitution for their dreams; we have given passports to their ideals. That one simple moment of political change put to rest many of the arguments over Indian identity. India was never truer to itself than when celebrating its own diversity.

· Shashi Tharoor is the author of Nehru: The Invention of India, and former under secretary general of the United Nations
 
India: New voyage of enterprise and creativity
Ceylon Daily News, Sri Lanka

India marks her 60th anniversary of Independence today. Here we reproduce excerpts from a speech by Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh at the India Economic Summit in November 2005.

India has come a long way since 1985, when Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi inaugurated the First India Economic Summit. These past two decades have been a period of great change in India, in my opinion, a change for the better.

When Rajiv spoke here two decades ago he put forth a bold vision of a new India, a modern India, ready to burst into the world stage, full of energy, enterprise and dynamism. In many ways, Rajiv Gandhi was ahead of his times.

His vision of a new wave of modernization captured the imagination of a new generation of entrepreneurs and professionals in all parts of our vast country. To be sure, it was not smooth sailing.

He had to reckon with vested interests; he had to contend with old mindsets; he had to convince many sceptics. He did so valiantly, with his combination of gentleness and impatience.

He in many ways, symbolized the hopes and aspirations of a new generation, a generation which is now leading India’s march into an exciting future, full of immense possibilities for our billion people.

In 1991, when we were given the opportunity to carry forward the programme of change, there were many sceptics in our midst, and in the audience here. What was regarded as path breaking then, is now regarded as the norm.

The Indian economy has become more open, more globally integrated and more competitive. The seekers of protection then line up now seeking greater openness. Truly, times have changed; mindsets have changed; attitudes have changed; aspirations have changed; and our hopes for the future have also changed.

Our industry and enterprise are far more confident, competitive and ambitious about their future and they feel that they are second to none. This is very satisfying for all of us. Yet, we still have the sceptics, the worriers and the critics. Some have genuine concerns about change, others continue to be prisoners of the past. Today, when I look back,

I am even more convinced that I was correct to observe in my first budget speech in 1991 that the idea of the emergence of India as a front ranking economic powerhouse of the world economy was an idea whose time had indeed come.

I believe that there are no external constraints now to India’s growth and whatever constraints are there, are internal; constraints imposed by our polity, our social structures, our regional imbalances, our ability to handle inequity, and our ability to take hard, but essential decisions. The last two decades have seen many ups and downs.

In our pursuit of economic growth, we have made mistakes, learnt from them, refined our approaches and corrected ourselves. We have realised that growth must translate into prosperity for all. It must provide hope and opportunity for all sections of society - hope for a better future; and an opportunity to participate and benefit from processes of growth. The durability of the policies introduced in the early ‘90s is no longer in doubt.

There have been many changes in government, but policies have remained stable, moving inexorably in a particular direction, only making marginal course corrections. We have today, a broad-based national consensus that the process of economic development and growth must enhance both - equity and efficiency.

Our government too, believes that processes of wealth creation are essential for us to meet our commitment to eradicating poverty. We are committed to creating an environment conducive to creativity and enterprise, an environment, which rewards risk-taking and innovation.

It is only through this can we eradicate poverty and create jobs for millions of our youth. We need growth with equity and social justice. This is a political as well as a social imperative. Policies relating to investment, taxation, external trade, banking & finance, Foreign Direct Investment, capital markets and small scale industries have all evolved towards making our industry and enterprises more efficient, more globally competitive and as free from restrictions as possible.

We have been fiscally prudent and macroeconomic stability has been maintained without sacrificing essential expenditures on social and physical infrastructure. We have a vision of an India, which we are determined to fashion - a vision of an inclusive, prosperous, democratic, equitable India - and we are making steady progress in that direction.

The direction is clearly visible and I assure you that we will not falter in this regard. We are on the right track.

In fact, we should be targeting a 10% growth rate in 2-3 years’ time. In my view, this is eminently feasible, if we have the expected increase in our savings rate and arising out of a young population, if we manage to make a quantum leap in the growth rate of our agriculture, if investment in infrastructure provides a fresh impetus to industry and if services continue with their impressive performance.

The problem areas are known and we are determined to make concrete efforts to move forward on all these fronts. On the external front, we have become actively engaged with the world economy.

I am certain that in the next few years, we may see the rise of a major free trade area in Asia covering all major Asian economies, including China, Japan and South Korea and possibly extending to Australia and New Zealand.

This Pan-Asian Free Trade Area could be the third pole of the world economy after the European Union and North Atlantic Free Trade Area and will, I am certain, open up new growth avenues for our own economy.

Internally, we are trying to systematically address the problem areas where we still need to eliminate bottlenecks and unlock their true potential. Take agriculture - this is a sector, which has been under-performing, in the recent past. Agriculture is the lifeblood of our country.

The livelihood and economic well-being of the majority of our people depend on this sector. The key to their prosperity - and the prosperity of the entire nation depends critically on transforming and rejuvenating our agriculture.

To my mind, given this centrality of agriculture to our economy and society, the key breakthroughs that we have to make in our country to spread the benefits of economic reform, lie in the area of agriculture.

Closely linked to the fortunes of agriculture is the condition of our rural areas. It is essential that our rural areas have not only basic amenities, but also infrastructure, which can support more intensive economic activity.

Rural infrastructure must become a facilitator for integrating our rural hinterland into our fast growing economy. We have announced a comprehensive programme for rural infrastructure development under the umbrella of “Bharat Nirman”.

Through this time-bound programme, we will achieve a quantum jump in housing, road connectivity, water supply, electrification and telecom connectivity in our rural areas.

We will bring in an additional 1 crore, 10 million hectares under irrigation. We also recognise that urban areas are focal centres for economic activity and their needs must be attended to on a priority basis. Urban areas are the nodes from which enterprise, creativity and prosperity radiate in all directions.

They are the engines of sustained growth that can absorb the millions of people who need to be gainfully employed outside agriculture. They need infrastructure, which is world class, infrastructure, which can cater to the needs of a rising population, infrastructure that can propel industrial and economic growth.

I am certain that we are now at the take-off point in infrastructure. All the elements of an essential institutional framework are now falling in place. If the private sector seizes the initiative, the sky is the limit to what we can achieve in this vital area of national endeavour.

The telecom sector has anyway done us all proud and has revealed our intrinsic entrepreneurial strengths. The power sector continues to be plagued with complex problems, but we are determined that we will set many things right in the coming months.

I have often heard complaints from many corners that we have not made progress in our FDI policy. In fact, my own assessment is that today, we have one of the most liberal FDI regimes in the world. We have unshackled FDI policies in telecom, publishing, real estate and in asset reconstruction firms in the last couple of months.

We have to create close to ten million jobs every year for the next few years to meet the demand for jobs that new generations of the workforce will seek. Most of these jobs will be sought by unskilled labour. We have to therefore, create employment opportunities for them in infrastructure, in manufacturing, in trade and transport.

When I read the debate in the media on our policies, I notice an incomplete appreciation of the steps being taken by our government to ensure that economic growth is firmly rooted in an equitable, just society. This is essential if growth is to be sustained and if society has to grow and prosper and exist in harmony.

We have ambitions of being an economic superpower. This cannot be on a base where half our people are literate; where people do not have access to basic health facilities; where people do not have incomes in times of distress. In the long run, we must carry everyone along on this road to national prosperity.

This is our vision for India. This must be your vision for India too. The new India that was stirred in the 1980s showed that it was ready to be different, once again. Indian enterprise has proved to the world that it is capable of taking on competition when it sets out to do so.

In 1985, when your first Summit met, no one had even heard of Infosys or Wipro, no one had imagined that an Indian would become the Steel Czar of the world, no one had imagined that a Telco car would compete with Japanese cars.

We now have a track record of success in some vital areas to feel confident that we can replicate these success stories in other sectors. Why should we then be gripped by diffidence? Why should we still live in fear of globalisation? The experience of the past two decades should give us ample confidence, it should give us courage, it should make us bolder, it should make us think big.

That sense of confidence must reflect itself in bolder initiatives. It must encourage us to be more open and less controlled. It must give us confidence to pursue change in areas where we have shied away from change. Be it in urban governance, be it in rural marketing, be it about labour laws.

We need growth, we need jobs, we need incomes, we need security. The India we dream of will provide for this. Our government is determined to fashion such an India. I am sure all of you will join in this new voyage of enterprise and creativity. If not, history will judge us harshly for not making bold to make it.”
 
Philippines can grow like India, says ABN Amro
By Doris Dumlao
INQ7.net, Philippines
Last updated 07:06am (Mla time) 08/14/2007

MANILA, Philippines -- Can the Philippines replicate India’s phenomenal growth? It’s possible, says Dutch banking giant ABN Amro.

Irene Cheung, head for Asia local markets of ABN Amro, said in a recent research presentation that the Philippines was benefiting from a current account surplus and a positive balance of payments surplus due mainly to strong remittances from overseas Filipinos.

The Philippines hit a record surplus of $5 billion in the balance of payments as of July, as more foreign exchange came in than went out in the first seven months.

She said the favorable BoP position was reminiscent of India’s surplus primarily due to software service exports.

The current account, a major component of the BOP, includes the inflow from the export of goods and services.

Cheung also noted the Philippines’ improving capital account, fueled by foreign direct investments and portfolio inflow -- which were seen as analogous to India’s capital inflow.

Deputy Governor Diwa Guinigundo of the central bank, who had meetings with ABN Amro, said the Dutch bank had pledged to bring in more foreign investments.

“India is a big, promising, emerging market. They see the Philippines in the same light,” Guinigundo said.

Even on the business process outsourcing market, Guinigundo said the country was not far behind India.

“In terms of volume, they are bigger, but on a person-to-person basis, we’re comparable,” he said.

But ABN Amro said the strong BoP inflows to the region were a big challenge to Asian central banks.

The bank noted that foreign exchange intervention was not being “fully sterilized” in some countries, including China, India, the Philippines and Malaysia.

Sterilization refers to a central bank’s mopping up of excess funds pumped into the economy.
 
Great news Bhangra!! so we are now the third largest economy.
 
Indian economy to grow 9.4 percent: Merrill Lynch
"Projecting a robust 9.4 percent growth for the Indian economy in 2007, Merrill Lynch Tuesday said along with China the two countries had ensured that the US today cannot change the global outlook significantly."

Projecting a robust 9.4 percent growth for the Indian economy in 2007, Merrill Lynch Tuesday said along with China the two countries had ensured that the US today cannot change the global outlook significantly.

'The impact of our lower US growth forecast is smaller than many investors realise. The 80 basis point cut in our US growth forecast brings 2008 global growth to 4.8 percent from 5 percent previously,' the consultancy's 'Global Economies' report said.

'This highlights the changes that have occurred to the global economy over the past five years - 75 percent of global growth comes from emerging markets, with China and India contributing the lion's share,' the report said.

'Barring a major recession, the US economy alone cannot significantly change the global growth outlook. This is a critical fact for an open, export-dependent region like Asia,' said the New York-based institution.

The report's economic growth forecast for 2007 is 10.9 percent for China, 1.8 percent for the US, 4.6 percent for South Korea, 7.9 percent for Singapore, 3.7 percent for Thailand, 2.7 percent for Germany and 2.8 percent for Britain.

The report said domestic demand has been strong in India for several years and that, unlike the US, the consumer in India was not credit driven to reflect that it is a high-savings economy with rising foreign exchange reserves.

'Several economies are boosting export in non-traditional areas such as services and labour. India's service sector has captured the most press,' it stated.

'Exports of software and business services, such as call centres, accounted for nine percent of gross domestic product growth over past three years - a striking figure for such a large and domestically-oriented economy.'

Merrill Lynch said its view on Asian fundamentals was admittedly bullish even as it expected a lasting slowdown in the US economy, led by the housing sector and consumer behaviours.

'But the spill-over to the real economy in Asia is much less. And the positive cyclical and structural forces we see in Asia and the rest of the world provide some offset,' the report said.

'Although there may be downside risks to regional growth in 2008, we expect it to remain above 7-7.25 percent. As a comparison, Asia grew only 5.1 percent in the downturn of 2001.'

Terming it as its 'strongest views', the report said the growth risks in Asia were limited since its economies were less vulnerable to a financial sector shock, adding the focus would remain on infrastructure and urbanization.
 
Sky Bus: A solution to transport problems

http://imageshack.us

http://imageshack.us

http://imageshack.us

New indigenously-developed technology awaits law maker's nod
By Armstrong Vaz, Qatar

Doha August 20: On one hand the progress chart of India has been hailed but the benefits have not percolated to the lower strata of society. The Sky bus project which is path breaking indigenously-developed technology is one example of the slow pace things move in the Indian democracy.

Indian infrastructure is facing the problems which any surging economy faces in its transitional phase. With rapid growth on the economic front, Indian transport system is trying to have grip over the situation, what with crammed roads, overcrowded trains and buses, being a usual scene in the metros and the major cities of the country.

The Sky Bus transport was taunted as one of the solution to ease the load on the congested traffic lines of the Indian metros. That was almost three years back when the railway minister dedicated the modern rail transport system technology to the world when federal Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav dedicated the Sky bus project to the nation on October 15 2004 in the western Indian state of Goa.

But in the intervening period, since October 2004 the project has been caught in a dilemma with the indigenously-developed Sky Bus technology awaiting a nod from federal law makers on whether it should be introduced in India.

"My biggest problem is that the railway ministry has not been able to decide whether the skybus is a train or a bus. In fact, the skybus is ready for commercial use but for policy constraints," B Rajaram, the former managing director of Konkan Railway Corporation (KRC), had said before his retirement in Jan. 2005.

Sky Bus transport- what is that - is that is the immediate question which shoots up.

The Sky bus is essentially a fusion of a bus and a train. Its carriage looks like a bus, but it runs like a train, and instead of the compartments running on rails, they hang below the rails and slide 10 metres above the regular road traffic.

The new technology innovation is Rajaram's baby and he holds patent rights for it in the US.

A second, KRC Managing Director Dr K K Gokhale retired recently and he had these to say about the pending sky bus project which is awaiting the light of the day.

"The Union Cabinet has informally cleared a proposal to bring in legislation. But, the Bill is yet to be placed before Parliament to make it a law," he has said last month.

Contrary to the views of its managing directors, the Konkan railway website mentions that - Sky Bus metro falls under tramway category, under Art 366(20) of Constitution of India, since it operates along existing roadways and within municipal limits, hence excluded from Indian railway act.

The former MD of KRC Rajaram has been vocal in propagating sky bus as the one of the solution to decongesting the cities. "At Rs.50 crore per kilometre, it will provide the same services at one-fourth the cost of the Delhi metro. Unlike the metro, the skybus follows existing roads, thus reaching into the very heart of the city while decongesting the roads. Moreover, it can be implemented and commissioned within two years," he says.

The two-coach Skybus has a capacity for 300 passengers on a single trip and depending on the number of coaches, it is expected to handle 18,000 to one lakh passengers per hour.

But concerns over safety issue have been the major fears of the railway ministry on this untested technology and not so keen attitude to push things and they fear a black lash from the public if something goes wrong.

And the testing of the technology has come at the cost of human life and that's where the concerns of safety have been raised. On September 25, 2004 during a test run, the sky bus over sped and hit a pole- one died and two others were injured.

"The accident most likely occurred because the bogey was heading at a higher speed than it should have. Also it oscillated to a higher degree than we had expected," KRC MD B Rajaram reported at that time.

The Skybus does not really need a driver or an operator. When the Skybus approaches a station, it is supposed to slow down by itself and stop. The brake is only for emergency usage. In this case, the Skybus did not slow down, and the Control room threw the emergency brake which resulted in the accident. The accident happened on the 1.5 km test track in Goa.

Each part of the Skybus was made in India by contractors and corporate's like the Tatas and Essar provided construction material free or at nominal rates to Konkan Railway for building the test track in Goa.

The KRC has spend Rs 50 crore on this project at the 1.5 km testing laboratory at the Margao railway station, in Goa, as the new technology awaits a nod for its commercial use.

"Skybus is the story of Indian industry and entrepreneurs coming together to produce a unique thing," Rajaram had said.
Till then, the unique Indian innovation awaits the nod from the Indian law makers, on whether it will be best suited for commercial use or it will just rust out on the Goa tracks.

Why Sky Bus is an ideal solution according to KRC:

  • Follows the existing roads- but does not take road space- and be as flexible as a bus
  • Have rail based mass transit capacity, same as existing rail metro
  • Does not divide city while providing integration along its alignment
  • Be derailment and collision proof- with NO CAPSIZING of coaches- so that there can never be loss of life
  • Be free from vandalism
  • Noise free and pollution-free
  • Non-invasive -requiring the least amount of scarce land space- and not come in the way of development.

Salient features of the Sky Bus

  • Heavy 52/60 kilograms /metres rails placed at standard gauge floating in elastic medium and damped by inertia of measured mass held in a 8 metres X 2metres box enclosure, supported over a 1m diameter. columns spaced at 15 metres and located at 15 metres distance from each other, in the divider space in between lanes on a road- way, at a height of 8metre above road surface- provides the support and guidance for powered bogies which can run at 100 kmph, with the coach shells suspended below, carry passengers in air conditioned comfort, can follow existing road routes, while existing traffic on roads continue.
  • Aesthetic and eco-friendly, the Sky Bus can never derail, capsize nor collide- by design as well as by construction, hence is safer than existing rail-based system.
  • With no signaling and having no points and crossings, it is a unique mass-transit system, which can be put up within two years in any crowded & congested city.
  • Sky Bus metro falls under tramway category, under Art 366(20) of Constitution of India, since it operates along existing roadways and within municipal limits, hence excluded from Indian railway act.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom