It’s the day many families in India spend their lives dreaming of and saving for: their daughter’s wedding. But behind the veil of the big Indian wedding lurks a hidden menace - dowry deaths.
In India, one woman dies every hour in a dowry-related case. Dowry is a social tradition where the families of Indian grooms can make endless financial demands of the bride’s family.
In extreme circumstances, the newlywed bride can be murdered by her in-laws, or driven to commit suicide.
And now, 101 East reveals that this deadly tradition has arrived on Australian shores.
Here is a video news on the latest development.
Monday, July 3, 2017
Former French judge to lead UN's Syria war crimes probe
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres appointed a French legal expert and former judge on Monday to head the UN investigative body that will help document and prosecute the most serious violations of international law in Syria, including possible war crimes and crimes against humanity.
UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric announced the appointment of Catherine Marchi-Uhel who has been serving as the ombudsperson for the Security Council committee monitoring sanctions against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) group and al-Qaida.
She was previously a judge in France and an international judge with the UN mission in Kosovo and at the Cambodia court prosecuting leaders of the Khmer Rouge. She also served as senior legal officer at the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and worked in legal positions at the French foreign ministry.
The 193-member General Assembly voted last December over strenuous objections from Syria and close ally Russia to establish a new body "to closely coordinate" with the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, which was established by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council. The commission said last year that war crimes are "rampant" in Syria.
The "International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism," established under UN auspices, is mandated "to collect, consolidate, preserve and analyse evidence of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights violations and abuses and prepare files in order to facilitate and expedite fair and independent criminal proceedings" in the future.
The General Assembly asked the secretary-general to arrange for the speedy establishment of the independent body, but it took Guterres, who took office on January 1, six months to announce an appointment.
The investigative body will initially be funded by voluntary contributions. The assembly has urged all UN member states, especially parties to the conflict, to cooperate with it.
More than 320,000 people have been killed in Syria where a UN Commission of Inquiry has documented cases of torture, summary killings and other atrocities by all sides in the conflict.
UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric announced the appointment of Catherine Marchi-Uhel who has been serving as the ombudsperson for the Security Council committee monitoring sanctions against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) group and al-Qaida.
She was previously a judge in France and an international judge with the UN mission in Kosovo and at the Cambodia court prosecuting leaders of the Khmer Rouge. She also served as senior legal officer at the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and worked in legal positions at the French foreign ministry.
The 193-member General Assembly voted last December over strenuous objections from Syria and close ally Russia to establish a new body "to closely coordinate" with the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, which was established by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council. The commission said last year that war crimes are "rampant" in Syria.
The "International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism," established under UN auspices, is mandated "to collect, consolidate, preserve and analyse evidence of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights violations and abuses and prepare files in order to facilitate and expedite fair and independent criminal proceedings" in the future.
The General Assembly asked the secretary-general to arrange for the speedy establishment of the independent body, but it took Guterres, who took office on January 1, six months to announce an appointment.
The investigative body will initially be funded by voluntary contributions. The assembly has urged all UN member states, especially parties to the conflict, to cooperate with it.
More than 320,000 people have been killed in Syria where a UN Commission of Inquiry has documented cases of torture, summary killings and other atrocities by all sides in the conflict.
BGP's latest crimes against the Rohingya villagers
Rohingyas of Myanmar are the worst persecuted people in our planet. There is hardly a tactic that has not be tried by the government, military and now civilian, to harass and make the lives of this vulnerable people miserable and unlivable. (See the report below from Rohingya Vision.) In Suu Kyi's Myanmar, the BGP are using dogs to bite cattle owned by the Rohingya. Where and when would such harassment cease?
===========
Maungdaw- While Burmese military are brutally hunting Rohingya’s livestock with their pet dogs, Border Guard Police (BGP) are forcibly extorting money from the locals on the pretext of checking the recommendation letter needed to be taken form the local administrators concerned in the south of Maungdaw, Arakan State, according to the locals.
A group of Military form battalion-535 of Kyauk Pan Du, sothern Maungdaw came to the ward-8, sub-town of Myin Hlut with their pet dogs at 10 am on June 25. And they let the dogs bite a she-goat owned by a religious teacher named Abdu Munaf, son of Abdu Gulam, 40. When the goat couldn’t run because of the bitten injuries, military caught it to take to their camp without giving any return to the owner.
On that day, they, in the same way, caught an ox owned by Aman Ullah, son of Abdu Rohim, 45, hailing from the same village and took it to the camp too.
A local human rights observer said, “It seems that Myanmar military are kept unpaid in Arakan and directed them to plunder the Rohingyas, and hunt their domestic animals. They are now worse than dacoits and gangsters.”
Another atrocious incident took place in the same village on June 28.
Iman Huson, son of Moggul, 25 and Kobir, son of Zawlal, 30 were going to the nearby village named Kyauk Pendu in order to purchase goods. In the halfway, BGP from Horithilla camp arbitrarily stopped them and asked them to show their identity cards. They showed them the receipts got from the government when the Rohingyas were compelled to surrender their temporary identity cards at the hands of authorities.
Seeing these, BGP twisted the game and extorted 250,000 Kyats from each of them alleging that they didn’t take the recommendation letters of the village track administrator which are made essential for the Rohingyas to take at the time of travelling out of the area.
Both Burmese military and BGP have reached at the pick point of atrocities and so, snatching the foods from the mouths of the helpless Rohingyas has already become part and parcel of the daily life.
MRG report on current religious intolerance of Hindu Fascists in India
What is happening inside India today is nothing but terrorism against minority communities, esp. the Muslims, which are often time packaged as incidents of communal violence. In my opinion, in communal violence both the parties - those attacked and those who attack - are often almost equal participants, but when a religious community like Hindus routinely attack other religious communities like Muslims, it would be wrong to suggest that it was communal violence. I call it religicide or genocide with the aim of terrorizing the vulnerable Muslim community to force them out of the country or get killed by lynching or similar murderous tactics.
With the rise of BJP and Modi's silence not only to condemn such heinous crimes of his fellow Hindu fascists against Muslims but more importantly of not doing anything to stop such fascist attacks what we are witnessing in India is pure Hindu fascism. There is absolutely no other way to categorize such crimes.
The report below from MRG, Minority Rights Group International, is, seemingly, an attempt to water down Hindu fascism. That is sad and wrong.
===========================
Constant communal violence over the past five years has had a heavy toll on minorities in certain areas of India. Muslims make up the large majority of victims of hate crimes, threats, attacks on places of worship, and forced conversion, but Christians and Sikhs are also affected, says a new report.
According to the report, A Narrowing Space: Violence and Discrimination Against India’s Religious Minorities, by the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS) and Minority Rights Group International (MRG), unless efforts are advanced to address impunity and rising intolerance the situation will further deteriorate.
The report is accompanied by an online interactive map Mapping Communal Violence in India 2013-2016, which depicts levels of communal violence across India based on official statistics.
‘While communal violence has long been a concern for India’s religious minorities, the current situation is particularly severe,’ says Claire Thomas, MRG’s Deputy Director.
In recent years there has been rising hostility towards India’s religious minorities, particularly since the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, led by Narendra Modi, took power in May 2014 and began to actively promote Hindu nationalism. The report says that Modi’s reluctance to condemn these attacks is also reflected in more stringent laws that discriminate against religious minorities.
‘The passage of legislation which contributes to the targeting of minorities, such as more stringent anti-cow slaughter laws, combined with long-standing social, economic, and cultural discrimination, has left India’s religious minorities feeling increasingly insecure, and is particularly the case for those suffering multiple discrimination, such as women and low-caste communities,’ adds Thomas.
In this environment, extremist right-wing groups have been emboldened to escalate attacks against religious minorities, including vigilante ‘cow protection’ groups and those involved with ‘anti-love jihad’ campaigns, both of which have become increasingly prominent since 2015. Perpetrators have been further aided by the problem of official indifference and even complicity in these attacks, say MRG and CSSS.
Unless the generalised climate of impunity is urgently addressed, attacks against religious minorities are likely to continue. MRG and CSSS urge the Indian government to enforce existing legislation protecting the rights of all religious communities, with the full commitment of police, judiciary and other actors.
The BJP’s promotion of Hindu nationalism is not only exclusionary towards India’s minorities, but has contributed to an overall atmosphere of intolerance in India, say the rights organisations.
‘High-level government officials have made statements that are spiteful to minorities, which has in turn motivated Hindu nationalists to indulge in violence on the streets,’ says Irfan Engineer, Director of CSSS. ‘For instance, the Minister of Women and Child Welfare stated that profits from slaughter houses are being used to fund terrorism. Not only was this an out of turn remark; it also encouraged vigilantes to attack members of minority communities engaged in the cattle trade,’ he added.
The report, and the interactive map launched alongside it, says that communal violence remains primarily concentrated in certain states, with the highest levels in Uttar Pradesh. Since recent elections in the state in early 2017 won by the BJP, there has been a spate of anti-Muslim violence, including reports of Muslims families fleeing their homes to other areas of Uttar Pradesh on account of rising threats and violence.
It also warns that levels of communal and anti-minority violence are likely to be considerably higher than reflected in official figures, as many incidents go unreported by both the Indian authorities and the media.
Notes to editors
· The report, Narrowing Space: Violence and Discrimination Against India’s Religious Minorities, is available for free download on MRG’s publications website on 29 June 2017. It focuses on the period between 2011 and 2016 and analyses key trends in communal violence and their implications for the country’s religious minorities. Developed by the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism and Minority Rights Group International, it references the latest available data provided by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the National Crime Research Bureau, as well as media and fact-finding reports.
· The online interactive map Mapping Communal Violence in India 2013-2016 (embargo applies to reporting) includes disaggregated statistics by state – number of incidents, and related deaths and casualties per year – as well as information regarding demography and relevant legislation, the map provides a visual representation of recent trends and developments, with figures spanning two different national governments.
· For more information, to receive an embargoed copy of the report or to arrange interviews with Claire Thomas, contact:
Emma Eastwood, MRG Senior Media Officer (London)
T: +44 (0)207 4224205 / M: +44 (0)7989 699984 / E: emma.eastwood@mrgmail.org / Twitter: @MinorityRights
· Further interview opportunities:
Sunday, July 2, 2017
CNN says video Trump tweeted 'encourages violence against reporters'
CNN issued a fiery response on Sunday to President Trump sharing a doctored video of him beating up the cable news giant, saying the clip "encourages violence against reporters."
"It is a sad day when the President of the United States encourages violence against reporters. Clearly, Sarah Huckabee Sanders lied when she said the President had never done so," CNN said in a statement, referring to the White House spokesperson's claim this week that Trump has never "promoted or encouraged violence."
The president tweeted a 22-second clip on Sunday morning that shows Trump pouncing on and punching WWE CEO Vince McMahon with CNN's logo edited over McMahon's face.
CNN criticized the president for continuing to battle with the media "instead of preparing for his overseas trip, his first meeting with Vladimir Putin, dealing with North Korea and working on his health care bill."
"We will keep doing our jobs. He should start doing his."
The president has been extremely active on Twitter over the Fourth of July holiday weekend, slamming "Morning Joe" hosts as "crazy" and "dumb as a rock." While also defending his controversial social media presence, saying it's partly why he's president.
"The FAKE & FRAUDULENT NEWS MEDIA is working hard to convince Republicans and others I should not use social media - but remember, I won the 2016 election with interviews, speeches and social media. I had to beat #FakeNews, and did. We will continue to WIN!" Trump said in a series of tweets.
Trump also refuted critics who say his tweets are not presidential. "My use of social media is not Presidential - it's MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL. Make America Great Again!"
"It is a sad day when the President of the United States encourages violence against reporters. Clearly, Sarah Huckabee Sanders lied when she said the President had never done so," CNN said in a statement, referring to the White House spokesperson's claim this week that Trump has never "promoted or encouraged violence."
The president tweeted a 22-second clip on Sunday morning that shows Trump pouncing on and punching WWE CEO Vince McMahon with CNN's logo edited over McMahon's face.
CNN criticized the president for continuing to battle with the media "instead of preparing for his overseas trip, his first meeting with Vladimir Putin, dealing with North Korea and working on his health care bill."
"We will keep doing our jobs. He should start doing his."
The president has been extremely active on Twitter over the Fourth of July holiday weekend, slamming "Morning Joe" hosts as "crazy" and "dumb as a rock." While also defending his controversial social media presence, saying it's partly why he's president.
"The FAKE & FRAUDULENT NEWS MEDIA is working hard to convince Republicans and others I should not use social media - but remember, I won the 2016 election with interviews, speeches and social media. I had to beat #FakeNews, and did. We will continue to WIN!" Trump said in a series of tweets.
Trump also refuted critics who say his tweets are not presidential. "My use of social media is not Presidential - it's MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL. Make America Great Again!"
Rohingya murder and the lies of Mynamar's State Counsellor Office's Information Committee
The news below is from the Rohingya Blogger:
==========
The lies of the State Counsellor Office's Information Committee
(The news released by State Counsellor Office;
==========
The lies of the State Counsellor Office's Information Committee
(The news released by State Counsellor Office;
(The denying letter to the State Counsellor Office by digging out the truth of Hafiz Mohamed Sadek's death--
These are the questions the State Counsellor Office should answer;
(1) The State Counsellor Office released "Hafiz Mohamed Sadek told he was suffering chest-indrawing and fell down from sitting. He was taken to Maungdaw hospital and died at night 11:15 pm during receiving the treatment. The deceased had been suffering heart-failure since the last ten years and died suddenly by heart-attack according to Doctor's testifying." So, the question is, why are there so many injuries throughout Mohamed Sadek's body if he dies by heart-attack? (The proof--- this is the dead body of Hafiz Mohamed Sadek)
(2) According to our investigation, Hafiz Mohamed Sadek was not a heart-patient. He was a strong healthy man. (See--- This is the picture of Hafiz Mohamed Sadek before he was arrested;
(3) How can you regard as a heart-patient to such a strong healthy man? Why was his family forced to sign up to certify that he is a heart-patient? Is not that well enough for you with Doctor's testifying? Is not that just to lie? Now, it is the time of the State Counsellor Office to answer;
(4) In fact, the two pieces of Hafiz Mohamed Sadek's bollocks were cut off, tortured brutally throughout his legs with rods, the two sides of his thighs were sliced down and so on the inhumane brutalities he had faced and was killed.
(5) It is the shame of the State Counsellor Office lying the truth of the event and protecting the criminal BGP who tortured to death an innocent civilian accusing illegally. Is the Ministry of State Counsellor Office only for lying to people?
(6) Regarding the issue, U Zaw Htay, the spokesman of the President Office also stands on the side of the State Counsellor Office's lying during the interview with VOA. It seems like a big drama of lying they all have been participating. Is not the country ruling just with lies?
In short, by the event the lies of the State Counsellor Office revealed so significant. Thus, we will keep our eagle-eyes looking to how the State Counsellor Office is going to take action to BGP who killed Hafiz Mohamed Sadek brutally.
This is to inform to the State Counsellor Office's responsible that all the photos, proofs and documents of the real event of killing an innocent person by BGP that the State Counsellor Office lying shamelessly, already sent to the relevant international Human Rights organizations.
(Human Rights Monitoring Group of Northern Rakhine State)
Don't underestimate India's Modi
Here below is a Forbes article by Harry Broadman.
===========
With Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s state visit to Washington this week, many Americans were made aware for the first time of the gregariousness of the Indian leader who took the reins in Delhi in May 2014. But not in terms of the energy he has poured into, and the successes generated from, his initial programmatic reforms of the economy of the world’s second most populous country, indeed an economy whose growth rate has been exceeding that of China. Rather, the conventional press headlines and photos of the visit centered on what seemed to be a frivolous big bear hug Modi gave to U.S. President Donald Trump.
In fact, the bear hug shocked the U.S. President, ironically in the same way are people whose hands Trump initially shakes in conventional fashion but are then pulled into Trump’s clutches up close and personal. Modi gave Trump a taste of his own medicine.
And, then Modi caught Trump even more off guard in their substantive discussions by deliberately not tabling at all the issue of moves by the U.S. to clamp down on H1 visas, which control the flow of Indian (and other foreign) workers for jobs with firms on U.S. soil. Nor did Modi raise his displeasure with the U.S. administration’s backing out of the Paris global warming accord. Trump and his team—ready to pounce on Modi at his very mention of these issues—were left scratching their heads.
In my book, it was smart for Modi to keep this White House on its toes. The starkly different positions on the H1 visa and climate change issues were well-known on both sides and nothing would have been gained by Modi to mention them in this setting. There were only downside risks. Instead, it allowed Modi to create an environment for his non-governmental meetings with U.S. businesses and investors—usually the most important part of state visits anyhow—where the stellar performance of the Indian economy could speak for itself.
But don’t let Modi’s conduct at the White House fool you. They were not frivolous; nor is he. He knows full well that his work is cut out for him in trying to overhaul a supremely complex, multi-layered, and largely still ossified economy that has not been subjected to any serious systemic reform by an Indian leader during our lifetimes.
Like the bear hug in Washington, at home Modi has made some clever premeditated and sometimes deliberately unanticipated economic policy moves during his short time in office. He has also been developing a blueprint that if well-executed could arguably begin to fundamentally modernize the Indian economy. But realistically this is a big “if”, especially in light of a slothy, shadowy and highly protectionist parliament that is decades out of date with today’s global economy, yet which with Modi will have to deal to get reform legislation passed.
There is little question that India has experienced a high annual growth rate in real GDP during the time Modi has been in office: the country’s growth rate rose from 6.5% in 2013 to 7.9% in 2015, although growth slowed to 6.8% in 2016. However, the IMF projects India’s GDP growth to rebound to 7.2% in 2017 and increase further to 7.7% in 2018. In contrast, China’s GDP growth in real terms fell from 7.8% in 2013 to 6.9% in 2015, further decreased to 6.7% in 2016, and is projected by the IMF to register an additional decline to 6.6% in 2017, and fall even further to 6.2% in 2018. These data show why India is regularly referred to as a faster grower than China.
To be sure, part of India’s economic performance reflects the country benefitting from low world oil prices. After all, India imports about 80% of its crude oil needs. (China, which imports about 65% of its crude oil needs, also has had its growth buoyed by cheap oil.)
But there is a higher likelihood that Modi’s reform program, and even more importantly the confidence he inspires, have been the fundamental drivers of India’s growth. And unlike growth generated by changes in commodity prices, the types of reforms being undertaken by the Modi team are destined to make lasting, rather than transitory, changes in the structure of the Indian economy.
For years, this is exactly what the doctor has been ordering for India. Yet few Prime Ministers before Modi were ever as cunning and effective in achieving some modicum of success at reform.
In this context, it’s curious that The Economist has been critical of Modi, calling him more of an ‘administrator’ than a ‘reformer’. For those of us who have slogged on the ground investing in and driving improvements in business governance, growth and innovation in emerging markets for decades, the British newspaper comes off as naïve, at best deliberately posing a strawman argument for effect. Like Modi seems to be, one needs both a reformer and an administrator at the very top.
From first-hand experience, several examples make the case. Xi Jinping is one heck of an administrator, but I do not know of anyone of authority in China who would call him a reformer, except perhaps for his role as ‘the enforcer’ on corruption (but even there, ulterior motives are at play). If there is one country today that has the toughest reform nut to crack with the greatest downside to the world economy if it does not succeed it is China. An administrator alone will not cut it.
Boris Yeltsin was the opposite. It would be foolhardy to not label him in his heyday as a true reformer. His truly public display of courage and then taking on the task of charting a transition of Russia towards reliance on market forces and away from central planning form an enviable example of a reformer by any historic standard. But it was equally the case that Yeltsin certainly was no administrator, and copious amounts of alcohol assured that to be so; they also did him in. Regrettably, his successor, Mr. Putin is cut out of the same cloth as Xi Jinping. Over the decade and a half that he has ruled Russia not only have no palpable reforms moved forward, but in several cases, there has actually been regression towards central planning-like rules.
Not only has the ascendency of Modi’s governing prowess (what The Economist would call his ‘administrator role’) and his reforms boosted India’s GDP growth, but they’ve also produced sizeable increases of inflows of foreign direct investment (FDI) to India—often seen as the ‘put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is” vote of confidence in both an economy and its policy leadership. Here the change for India has been startling, even when compared to China.
While in absolute terms, India’s FDI inflows in 2015 were US$44 billion and China received US$250 billion, these data are not economically meaningful unless the relative size of each economy is taken into account. To this end, India’s FDI inflows as a share of GDP were 2.1% in 2015 and China’s were 2.3%. As a practical matter, this is not a significant difference. (For reference, the comparable statistic for the U.S. is 2.1%).
It is even more instructive to examine the trend in FDI inflows over time. Over the course of the still-short Modi regime, India’s FDI inflows as a share of GDP rose 24% over 2014 and 2015, whereas for China, FDI inflows as a share of GDP actually declined by 12%. Taking a longer view, between 2005 and 2015 (obviously a period that in part predates Modi), the differences are starker: India’s FDI inflows as a percentage of GDP more than doubled, whereas in China, they declined by 50%. Indeed, ASEAN is becoming a more attractive foreign investment destination than China.
The list of reforms implemented by Modi in the first three years of his five-year term is sizeable, though not huge, and of course not all of them are of equal importance. But within the context of India’s complex political culture, marked by a true—and yes, messy—system of democracy (in stark contrast to China’s and Russia’s authoritarian regimes); the challenges imposed by governing a diverse, geographically large country of 1.3 billion people; and against the backdrop of decades of reform inertia and inaction by successive administrations in Delhi, it would be unreasonable to not be impressed with what has been accomplished to date.
Some of the more notable reforms include:
Modi’s team did do a poor job explaining the rationale for the measure in a way that the working and middle class might understand. But to be frank, if experience in other countries is any guide that is an elusive goal. The reform did exact costs, but these costs had to be faced sooner or later. Any way you cut it, there would be a backlash. In fact, most economists would agree that the longer a needed reform is put off into the future, the costs of reform will get only larger and larger. And no matter when the reform takes place, the benefits would not come immediately, and moreover, they would be diffused economy-wide.
So, what was Modi’s rationale for the move? The announced reasoning was that he wanted to reduce both the rampant incentives and opportunities for engaging in corruption that came about through informal cash exchanges. But the fact is that the core driver behind Modi’s re-monetization policy was broader: he wants to move to an India that is characterized both by greater economic integration and uniformity, and ideally increasingly cashless.
To many readers these may sound far-fetched for India; yet Modi did not have to look to only advanced economies to see why and how this should be done.
With respect to a move towards a cashless economy, he only had to cast his gaze on Africa of all places. Yes, it was in Kenya that mobile money was first hatched; only later did the invention make its way to the US, EU and Japan. To the surprise of many, it was not the other way around. At this juncture, the trend towards electronic rather than cash-based transactions is becoming more widespread, not only among advanced countries, but also many emerging markets—though by no means the majority of them.
Modi’s lure towards a cashless economy is not simply for the sake of being cashless. Rather it is to bring into India’s formal economy informal transactions; create consistent modes under which transactions take place economy-wide; and to expand India’s tax base and thus get its fiscal revenues to the point where funding can be provided for truly essential ‘public goods’ that are the engines of economic growth.
What might these ‘public goods’ be? They include a modern, robust multi-modal infrastructure network linking the North of India with the South, the East with the West, and everything in between, including bridging rural and urban areas; modern school facilities at both the primary and secondary levels equipped with the latest teaching materials (increasingly in digital form) and well-trained teachers necessary to ensure the school buildings do not just sit as empty white elephants; and state-of-the-art medical installations staffed by medical professionals capable of providing where necessary world-class health care services, not just in the wealthy urban centers, but in the large swaths of India that is rural.
These are exactly what are needed to build a more inclusive, economically integrated and sustainably growing Indian economy, a goal that frankly has been elusive since independence. Indeed, these form the critical planks under which a geographically huge country such as India can not only begin to build economic clusters that have the scale to reduce production costs, but also to foster vibrant internal trade among India’s 29 states and 7 union territories and ultimately enhance the country’s competitiveness in the world marketplace.
In many respects, these features are not a whole lot different from what defines the barebones structure of the U.S. Of course, it has taken us more than a century to integrate our own large internal market—perhaps best epitomized by our interstate highway system—an objective that in no small way has contributed to not only our domestic economic resilience but also our prowess in international commerce, although now the current state of disrepair of our infrastructure is appalling.
Perhaps this is the secret sauce that the clever Mr. Modi is latching on to. No earlier leader of India dared to think quite this way.
Harry G. Broadman is CEO of Proa Global Partners LLC; faculty member at Johns Hopkins University; non-executive board director; and speaker. Contact: www.harrygbroadman.com
===========
With Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s state visit to Washington this week, many Americans were made aware for the first time of the gregariousness of the Indian leader who took the reins in Delhi in May 2014. But not in terms of the energy he has poured into, and the successes generated from, his initial programmatic reforms of the economy of the world’s second most populous country, indeed an economy whose growth rate has been exceeding that of China. Rather, the conventional press headlines and photos of the visit centered on what seemed to be a frivolous big bear hug Modi gave to U.S. President Donald Trump.
In fact, the bear hug shocked the U.S. President, ironically in the same way are people whose hands Trump initially shakes in conventional fashion but are then pulled into Trump’s clutches up close and personal. Modi gave Trump a taste of his own medicine.
And, then Modi caught Trump even more off guard in their substantive discussions by deliberately not tabling at all the issue of moves by the U.S. to clamp down on H1 visas, which control the flow of Indian (and other foreign) workers for jobs with firms on U.S. soil. Nor did Modi raise his displeasure with the U.S. administration’s backing out of the Paris global warming accord. Trump and his team—ready to pounce on Modi at his very mention of these issues—were left scratching their heads.
But don’t let Modi’s conduct at the White House fool you. They were not frivolous; nor is he. He knows full well that his work is cut out for him in trying to overhaul a supremely complex, multi-layered, and largely still ossified economy that has not been subjected to any serious systemic reform by an Indian leader during our lifetimes.
There is little question that India has experienced a high annual growth rate in real GDP during the time Modi has been in office: the country’s growth rate rose from 6.5% in 2013 to 7.9% in 2015, although growth slowed to 6.8% in 2016. However, the IMF projects India’s GDP growth to rebound to 7.2% in 2017 and increase further to 7.7% in 2018. In contrast, China’s GDP growth in real terms fell from 7.8% in 2013 to 6.9% in 2015, further decreased to 6.7% in 2016, and is projected by the IMF to register an additional decline to 6.6% in 2017, and fall even further to 6.2% in 2018. These data show why India is regularly referred to as a faster grower than China.
To be sure, part of India’s economic performance reflects the country benefitting from low world oil prices. After all, India imports about 80% of its crude oil needs. (China, which imports about 65% of its crude oil needs, also has had its growth buoyed by cheap oil.)
But there is a higher likelihood that Modi’s reform program, and even more importantly the confidence he inspires, have been the fundamental drivers of India’s growth. And unlike growth generated by changes in commodity prices, the types of reforms being undertaken by the Modi team are destined to make lasting, rather than transitory, changes in the structure of the Indian economy.
For years, this is exactly what the doctor has been ordering for India. Yet few Prime Ministers before Modi were ever as cunning and effective in achieving some modicum of success at reform.
In this context, it’s curious that The Economist has been critical of Modi, calling him more of an ‘administrator’ than a ‘reformer’. For those of us who have slogged on the ground investing in and driving improvements in business governance, growth and innovation in emerging markets for decades, the British newspaper comes off as naïve, at best deliberately posing a strawman argument for effect. Like Modi seems to be, one needs both a reformer and an administrator at the very top.
From first-hand experience, several examples make the case. Xi Jinping is one heck of an administrator, but I do not know of anyone of authority in China who would call him a reformer, except perhaps for his role as ‘the enforcer’ on corruption (but even there, ulterior motives are at play). If there is one country today that has the toughest reform nut to crack with the greatest downside to the world economy if it does not succeed it is China. An administrator alone will not cut it.
Boris Yeltsin was the opposite. It would be foolhardy to not label him in his heyday as a true reformer. His truly public display of courage and then taking on the task of charting a transition of Russia towards reliance on market forces and away from central planning form an enviable example of a reformer by any historic standard. But it was equally the case that Yeltsin certainly was no administrator, and copious amounts of alcohol assured that to be so; they also did him in. Regrettably, his successor, Mr. Putin is cut out of the same cloth as Xi Jinping. Over the decade and a half that he has ruled Russia not only have no palpable reforms moved forward, but in several cases, there has actually been regression towards central planning-like rules.
While in absolute terms, India’s FDI inflows in 2015 were US$44 billion and China received US$250 billion, these data are not economically meaningful unless the relative size of each economy is taken into account. To this end, India’s FDI inflows as a share of GDP were 2.1% in 2015 and China’s were 2.3%. As a practical matter, this is not a significant difference. (For reference, the comparable statistic for the U.S. is 2.1%).
The list of reforms implemented by Modi in the first three years of his five-year term is sizeable, though not huge, and of course not all of them are of equal importance. But within the context of India’s complex political culture, marked by a true—and yes, messy—system of democracy (in stark contrast to China’s and Russia’s authoritarian regimes); the challenges imposed by governing a diverse, geographically large country of 1.3 billion people; and against the backdrop of decades of reform inertia and inaction by successive administrations in Delhi, it would be unreasonable to not be impressed with what has been accomplished to date.
Some of the more notable reforms include:
- a revised law on bankruptcy, which will generate freer flows of capital and the flexibility for them to be invested in their highest value in use, thus promoting a more robust, competitive Indian market both for new business start-ups as well as for forcing stale companies who cannot make ‘a go of it’ to close shop and sell their assets;
- the introduction of a nationwide sales tax, which will integrate an otherwise excessively complicated disparate system of different state and federal taxes, a reform that will not only increase tax collections but also help reduce interstate barriers to trade and distortions arising from gaming where within the country purchases should be consummated;
- elimination of subsidies for diesel fuel, which will help plug a fiscal hole in government revenues, and even more important create disincentives for using an energy source that adds to, rather than diminishes, pollution and greenhouse gases;
- removing regulations that forced companies to repetitively renew their business licenses at an artificially high frequency simply to generate revenues to be collected by local bureaucrats;
- relaxing rules that reserved specific sectors to be the province of only small and medium sized enterprises even if large firms could produce the goods or deliver the services at lower cost and create economies of scale;
- using transparent and competitive auctions for allocating access to the telecom spectrum;
- opening investment in the railway network to majority foreign ownership, thus allowing India to tap into new sources of capital to build out its infrastructure and help the country integrate into a unified economic space to create economies of scale in both manufacturing and agriculture and thus enhance its international competitiveness; and
- permitting foreign investors to participate in construction projects that otherwise were reserved for only domestic service providers, thus generating opportunities for joint ventures and other businesses to incorporate world-class construction techniques and materials.
Modi’s team did do a poor job explaining the rationale for the measure in a way that the working and middle class might understand. But to be frank, if experience in other countries is any guide that is an elusive goal. The reform did exact costs, but these costs had to be faced sooner or later. Any way you cut it, there would be a backlash. In fact, most economists would agree that the longer a needed reform is put off into the future, the costs of reform will get only larger and larger. And no matter when the reform takes place, the benefits would not come immediately, and moreover, they would be diffused economy-wide.
To many readers these may sound far-fetched for India; yet Modi did not have to look to only advanced economies to see why and how this should be done.
With respect to a move towards a cashless economy, he only had to cast his gaze on Africa of all places. Yes, it was in Kenya that mobile money was first hatched; only later did the invention make its way to the US, EU and Japan. To the surprise of many, it was not the other way around. At this juncture, the trend towards electronic rather than cash-based transactions is becoming more widespread, not only among advanced countries, but also many emerging markets—though by no means the majority of them.
Modi’s lure towards a cashless economy is not simply for the sake of being cashless. Rather it is to bring into India’s formal economy informal transactions; create consistent modes under which transactions take place economy-wide; and to expand India’s tax base and thus get its fiscal revenues to the point where funding can be provided for truly essential ‘public goods’ that are the engines of economic growth.
What might these ‘public goods’ be? They include a modern, robust multi-modal infrastructure network linking the North of India with the South, the East with the West, and everything in between, including bridging rural and urban areas; modern school facilities at both the primary and secondary levels equipped with the latest teaching materials (increasingly in digital form) and well-trained teachers necessary to ensure the school buildings do not just sit as empty white elephants; and state-of-the-art medical installations staffed by medical professionals capable of providing where necessary world-class health care services, not just in the wealthy urban centers, but in the large swaths of India that is rural.
These are exactly what are needed to build a more inclusive, economically integrated and sustainably growing Indian economy, a goal that frankly has been elusive since independence. Indeed, these form the critical planks under which a geographically huge country such as India can not only begin to build economic clusters that have the scale to reduce production costs, but also to foster vibrant internal trade among India’s 29 states and 7 union territories and ultimately enhance the country’s competitiveness in the world marketplace.
In many respects, these features are not a whole lot different from what defines the barebones structure of the U.S. Of course, it has taken us more than a century to integrate our own large internal market—perhaps best epitomized by our interstate highway system—an objective that in no small way has contributed to not only our domestic economic resilience but also our prowess in international commerce, although now the current state of disrepair of our infrastructure is appalling.
Perhaps this is the secret sauce that the clever Mr. Modi is latching on to. No earlier leader of India dared to think quite this way.
Harry G. Broadman is CEO of Proa Global Partners LLC; faculty member at Johns Hopkins University; non-executive board director; and speaker. Contact: www.harrygbroadman.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)