When policy-makers focus more on economic needs of other countries
- Published Date: Sep 15, 2013 12:00 AM
- Last Updated: Sep 13, 2013 12:29 PM
Not many in the country knew that in the first week of September 2013, the Prime Minister was attending a G-20 meeting abroad. Parliament was on at that time, but he was as usual not missed either inside the House or outside. Few in the country took note of the G-20 declaration, and only a miniscule proportion thereof became aware that India has agreed to bring the issue of ‘phasing down’ HFCs (hydroflourocarbons), into the purview of the Montreal Protocol. Not too many in India realise that the G-20 (extension of developed countries G-7, inviting another 10 or so developing countries to their annual conclave) is essentially akin to a meeting between five tigers and five deer to decide what they would have for dinner that day.
The HFC issue is highly technical and very few in India and abroad would be familiar with the details. In simplest terms, after the phase out of Chloroflourocarbons (CFCs), agreed to a couple of decades ago, the new move is to ‘phase down’ HFCs, which is the replacement. This matter is currently in the purview of the UN (specifically UNFCC). Our national interest as perceived by the concerned ministries is that we need not encourage speedy ‘phase down’—that we should resist the matter going to the jurisdiction of the Montreal Protocol (for those interested, see ‘A heated row over coolants’ in The Economist, August 31, 2013). In short, our chief negotiator at the G-20, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, has agreed to incorporation of this departure from our national position, without a ‘caveat’. It is obvious that India is quite willing to be arm-twisted—indeed ready to give free gifts with nothing in return, even without a national mandate; we must be the most generous negotiators in the world.
It would be recalled that in the past couple of years, there has been enormous pressure on the concerned ministries in India to conclude a ‘Free Trade Agreement’ with European Union. This, despite the Parliamentary Committee on Commerce injecting a strong note of caution, as the demands from EU were asymmetrically unreasonable compared to what they were willing to concede. In fact, while minor opening in textile/leather would be available in European markets, EU demanded far-reaching structural changes from India relating to intellectual property, geographical indicators, government procurement and agriculture—a highly unequal bargain. It is a tribute to our system that the concerned ministries have dragged their feet and been unwilling to agree to an absurd so-called ‘mutually beneficial arrangement’. The fact to be noted is that there are strong interests in India and abroad prodding our system to concede our interests with minor recompense.
We now see this repeated pattern. Our senior-most policy-makers seem to have great concern for the economic and commercial needs of other countries. To cite a couple of examples, our new nuclear power policy will take us from 2 per cent to 4 per cent of national power needs over the next 20 years; is the main reason the commercial interest of the Bechtels and GEs of the world? However, no stress is given to thermal, solar, wind power, accounting for over 90 per cent of our power supply—indeed the only policy thrust has been the Coalgate scam. Is the stress and high pressure now applied from senior-most policy-makers on fast-tracking GM trials relatable to Monsanto interest? The HFC issue mentioned earlier is clearly of great benefit only to Honeywell and Dupont. The FDI in retail policy, rammed through Parliament recently, is of interest to Walmart, Tesco and friends. Note that most chief ministers opposed the move, 14 out of 18 parties in Parliament attacked the proposal as inimical to Indian agricultural interest, and yet the measure went through—thanks to heavy governmental arm-twisting.
Recently, our finance minister was in the US, pleading—indeed begging—for FDI inflow from US to India. He had ‘assured’ the US investors that FDI will now become open in ‘every’ sector. One wonders where he got this mandate from; has any new major secret policy decision been taken to make FDI on Open General Licence, so to speak? How was this ‘policy announcement’ made in New York before Indians got to know about it? In the case of HFCs in G-20, it appears that no line-ministry in India is aware of what our chief negotiator has conceded. Apparently, there was a recent bilateral agreement between China and the US on this subject which formed the template for this part of the G-20 declaration—we wanted to be ‘good’, ‘friendly’, ‘generous’ spectators.
India is among the poorest and most wretched (in terms of living conditions of the majority) in the world. How can we afford to be so generous in the rich-man’s club—G-20? Have we consulted the BRICS group, of which we are a member? Did we consult G-77, our brother developing countries? Have we overnight become a developed country, while concurrently providing highly subsidised food to 75 per cent of the population?
The feeling is inescapable that there is something seriously wrong in our policy-making processes. Is it just ineptness of the highest order or, heavens forbid, is there another explanation? Who is going to save us from our policy-makers?
Subramanian is a former Cabinet Secretary
tsrsubramanian@gmail.com
The HFC issue is highly technical and very few in India and abroad would be familiar with the details. In simplest terms, after the phase out of Chloroflourocarbons (CFCs), agreed to a couple of decades ago, the new move is to ‘phase down’ HFCs, which is the replacement. This matter is currently in the purview of the UN (specifically UNFCC). Our national interest as perceived by the concerned ministries is that we need not encourage speedy ‘phase down’—that we should resist the matter going to the jurisdiction of the Montreal Protocol (for those interested, see ‘A heated row over coolants’ in The Economist, August 31, 2013). In short, our chief negotiator at the G-20, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, has agreed to incorporation of this departure from our national position, without a ‘caveat’. It is obvious that India is quite willing to be arm-twisted—indeed ready to give free gifts with nothing in return, even without a national mandate; we must be the most generous negotiators in the world.
It would be recalled that in the past couple of years, there has been enormous pressure on the concerned ministries in India to conclude a ‘Free Trade Agreement’ with European Union. This, despite the Parliamentary Committee on Commerce injecting a strong note of caution, as the demands from EU were asymmetrically unreasonable compared to what they were willing to concede. In fact, while minor opening in textile/leather would be available in European markets, EU demanded far-reaching structural changes from India relating to intellectual property, geographical indicators, government procurement and agriculture—a highly unequal bargain. It is a tribute to our system that the concerned ministries have dragged their feet and been unwilling to agree to an absurd so-called ‘mutually beneficial arrangement’. The fact to be noted is that there are strong interests in India and abroad prodding our system to concede our interests with minor recompense.
We now see this repeated pattern. Our senior-most policy-makers seem to have great concern for the economic and commercial needs of other countries. To cite a couple of examples, our new nuclear power policy will take us from 2 per cent to 4 per cent of national power needs over the next 20 years; is the main reason the commercial interest of the Bechtels and GEs of the world? However, no stress is given to thermal, solar, wind power, accounting for over 90 per cent of our power supply—indeed the only policy thrust has been the Coalgate scam. Is the stress and high pressure now applied from senior-most policy-makers on fast-tracking GM trials relatable to Monsanto interest? The HFC issue mentioned earlier is clearly of great benefit only to Honeywell and Dupont. The FDI in retail policy, rammed through Parliament recently, is of interest to Walmart, Tesco and friends. Note that most chief ministers opposed the move, 14 out of 18 parties in Parliament attacked the proposal as inimical to Indian agricultural interest, and yet the measure went through—thanks to heavy governmental arm-twisting.
Recently, our finance minister was in the US, pleading—indeed begging—for FDI inflow from US to India. He had ‘assured’ the US investors that FDI will now become open in ‘every’ sector. One wonders where he got this mandate from; has any new major secret policy decision been taken to make FDI on Open General Licence, so to speak? How was this ‘policy announcement’ made in New York before Indians got to know about it? In the case of HFCs in G-20, it appears that no line-ministry in India is aware of what our chief negotiator has conceded. Apparently, there was a recent bilateral agreement between China and the US on this subject which formed the template for this part of the G-20 declaration—we wanted to be ‘good’, ‘friendly’, ‘generous’ spectators.
India is among the poorest and most wretched (in terms of living conditions of the majority) in the world. How can we afford to be so generous in the rich-man’s club—G-20? Have we consulted the BRICS group, of which we are a member? Did we consult G-77, our brother developing countries? Have we overnight become a developed country, while concurrently providing highly subsidised food to 75 per cent of the population?
The feeling is inescapable that there is something seriously wrong in our policy-making processes. Is it just ineptness of the highest order or, heavens forbid, is there another explanation? Who is going to save us from our policy-makers?
Subramanian is a former Cabinet Secretary
tsrsubramanian@gmail.com
Copyright © 2012 The New Indian Express. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment