Posted by: John Elliott | September 11, 2008

America’s payback for India nuclear deal begins

It hasn’t taken long for India to publicise its intentions to reward the US for help in getting the nuclear deal between the two countries through the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in the past few weeks.

As the deal enters its final stage of gaining approval from the US Congress, India’s External Affairs Ministry has this afternoon issued a statement saying:

“Government is taking steps to realize commercial cooperation with foreign partners in this (civil nuclear) field.
We have informed the USA about our intent to source state of the art nuclear technologies and facilities based on the provisions of the 123 (India-US) Agreement from the US.
Government is also moving towards finalizing bilateral agreements with other friendly partner countries such as France and Russia.
While actual cooperation will commence after bilateral agreements like the 123 Agreement come into force, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India has already commenced a preliminary dialogue with US companies in this regard.”

The significance of that statement is not that India has started commercial nuclear talks with different countries but that it is already talking to US companies.

This is how it is going to be from now on with nuclear and defence deals. It is inconceivable that the US will not win any orders that it wants.

India’s defence minister A.J.Antony has been in Washington this week discussing orders and said US companies would have a “level playing field”, but the US’s Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has made remarks indicating that she expects American companies to reap rewards.

Russia is currently India’s biggest defence supplier followed by Israel (which is reported to be about to receive India’s biggest ever defence joint venture order – worth $2.3bn – for Israel Aerospace Industries and Rafael to work with India’s DRDO research and development organisation on surface-to-air missile).

The US is determined that this will change. If an order that it wants is going elsewhere, it will surely step in to stop it with political pressure backed up by negative information and disinformation.

That has already happened on a $600m order for 196 Army helicopters that India cancelled last December, just as it was about to be placed with Eurocopter, part of EADS, the European defence company. The US was very miffed that the order was not going to Bell, part of Textron, and put intense pressure on India till the cancellation came through. The US spotted a flaw in the helicopter tests – Eurocopter had (stupidly it seems, with hindsight) sent a civilian and not a military craft for testing, but no-one worried at the time and it was a non-issue till the US made it one at the last minute. The US also made corruption allegations involving Indian agents – something that could be done on virtually every defence deal, but usually isn’t.

In the past, India refused to place defence orders with the US because of a fear that deliveries would be stopped if the US disagreed with Indian policies or military action.

That has gradually changed in the last couple of years and the US has secured some smaller orders for $960m Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) Hercules military transport planes and a $50m amphibious warship. A $2bn order for eight Boeing (NYSE: BA) P-8i reconnaissance aircraft is being considered by India, and the US this week said it hopes to sell $170m Boeing Harpoon missiles.

But its biggest target is an order now pending for 126 multi-role fighter aircraft (MRCA) that Boeing and Lockheed are chasing with F-18s and F-16s. The competitors come from Russia, France, Europe (EADS), and Sweden, but it is inconceivable that the order will not go to the US. My guess is that the alternative is not for India to buy from someone else, but not to place the order at all.

The US cannot be quite so exclusive on nuclear orders – and it doesn’t need to be because there is a lot of nuclear work to spread around, with India expected to invest about $27bn in 18 to 20 new nuclear power plants over the next 15 years.

Russia is currently building two 1,000 megawatt reactors at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu as part of a deal signed in 1988. Reuters reported this afternoon that Indian officials say the two countries would begin discussions on a multi-billion dollar deal to build four more nuclear reactors in Kudankulam – a deal that has been delayed till now because of the international nuclear restrictions on India.

But the US will make sure that its companies – especially GE (NYSE: GE) and Westinghouse Electric (even though it is owned by Toshiba of Japan) win orders.

That is the reality after the nuclear deal goes through. Does the US ever do anything internationally that (apart from securing oil) does not yield jobs and profits for US companies?

Posted by: John Elliott | September 6, 2008

Dynastic excesses make Zardari Pakistan’s new president

This surely is a case of dynastic politics gone mad. Asif Ali Zardari, who has today been elected president of Pakistan, has no political experience and no record of public service. Instead, he is widely regarded as one of Pakistan’s most self-serving and corrupt public figures – a reputation he earned as “Mr 10%” when Benazir Bhutto, his late wife, was prime minister in the 1990s.

The BBC this morning describes him as  “the most mistrusted politician in the country”. The Financial Times has recently reported that he was suffering last year from dementia and severe depression. When he looked like a possible prime minister after his wife’s assassination last December, a Pakistani businessman visiting Delhi told me it would “make Pakistan a more expensive place to do business”.

Dynasties are rarely good for a country’s political development. While individual family members sometimes provide stable political leadership, the automatic succession by relatives blunts the operation of democracies and can, as in Pakistan today, promote the wrong candidate.

While Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi have both proved to be constructive leaders of India’s Congress Party, there are other more able politicians in the party whose rise to the top has been blocked – currently by the assumption that Rahul Gandhi, Rajiv’s and Sonia’s son, will soon be prime minister. This is not to say that Rahul Gandhi should not become a political leader, but that he should work his way to the top instead of being anointed.

Elsewhere in India, dynasties are booming as politicians at all levels bring their sons, daughters and other relatives into political life. Often this is done to protect the family’s illicit riches, and to sustain powers of patronage.

But I can think of no example in India to match the damage that Zardari’s dynastic assumption of power can do to Pakistan. His rise to the top began in the 1980s when he was a Karachi playboy, well known and popular on the polo party circuit. He came from a little known family based in the Bhutto family’s home area of  Larkana, and was selected by Bhutto’s aunt as a safe arranged-marriage husband.

People who knew him before his marriage say little against him. But his reputation has been in continual decline since then. In addition to widely believed allegations of corruption, he was also accused of authorising the murder of Benazir’s brother, Murtaza,  in 1996 – which, of course, he denied. He spent eleven years in jail on corruption and murder charges, but was released in 2004 as a result of US-encouraged talks between General Pervez Musharraf, the then-president, and Bhutto. The charges have now been waived. 

I under-estimated his rise to power after Bhutto’s assassination. In a blog titled Dynasty Brand Bhutto lives on in Pakistan, I suggested that Zardari’s chance of weakening the dynastic blood line had been offset by the installation of Bilawal, his and Bhutto’s 19-year old university student son, as chairman of the family-controlled Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP).

But Zardari cleverly had himself elected co-chairman, and has played a skilful political game. He has sidelined Bhutto loyalists in the PPP, while cashing in on his status in the Bhutto dynasty. That has led to his election today as Pakistan’s president – an event that was unthinkable just a few weeks ago.

Pessimists now fear that Zardari will play politics and promote his relatives to form a new dynasty, rather than leaving the elected government to govern. That would lead to chaotic and corrupt government at a time when urgent moves are needed to stem a rising tide of Taliban violence and turn round the ailing economy – inflation stands at 25% and the rupee is declining.

Optimists hope that he will work with the US (where he has built up some close links), and with Pakistan’s army, to tackle the Islamic militancy and improve relations with Afghanistan – and that he will back policies to tackle the economic crisis and harness foreign aid to develop the country’s poorest regions.

Nothing Zardari has done in his life so far justifies such optimism. The US and the army however have no option but to work with him. The alternative is another military coup.

Posted by: John Elliott | August 18, 2008

Don’t celebrate Musharraf’s resignation

The end of Pervez Musharraf’s reign as president of Pakistan is not something to celebrate. It has been inevitable for some months that he would have to go, unwillingly, but it is not necessarily going to lead to an improvement in the running of Pakistan’s government, nor in the security of the country and region.

The only justification for a military dictator to take over a country is if he provides better government than the leaders he replaced, and if he later hands the country back to democratic rulers who are better.

Musharraf has done neither. He began by governing the country better with liberalised economic policies, the empowerment of women, and attempts to improve education. But he leaves Pakistan a weaker democracy, with an economy that is failing to weather current international economic problems, and with a dire internal security situation.

The lawless tribal areas on the Afghanistan border have become a hiding place for al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists, the strength of militant fundamentalists has increased disastrously in many areas of Pakistan, and the army is losing its authority. Musharraf failed to cope with these problems, partly because he spent too much time pretending to do what America wanted in its “war on terror”, while also pandering to local pressure groups.

Now he is being replaced by the same old feudal and industrial elites who mis-governed the country for most of the 1990s before he took over – Nawaz Sharif, who he ousted 1999, and Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of the late Benazir Bhutto who was prime minister before Sharif. Together these two politicians form a shaky coalition that has no common philosophy or policies beyond benefiting the politicians involved.

It would have been better if the politicians had linked up with Musharraf in a united government, but that was politically impossible. Consequently, Musharraf has been trying to hold onto office, no doubt fearing what would happen to him if he left. That has given Pakistan months of rudderless government during which the security and economic situations have worsened disastrously.

I believe Musharraf genuinely wanted to do better than the politicians who preceded him but that the problems became too big and, like all dictators, he didn’t know when to bow out.

But don’t follow the euphoria of the Pakistan stock market, where shares rose sharply this morning, and celebrate his going. The only good news is that the uncertainty about what he would do and how he would go has ended.

Mourn instead that another phase of Pakistan’s appalling post-independence politics has ended in a hideous mess, and that those who now lead the country are no better than those who went before and seem ill-equipped to grapple with current crises.

Posted by: John Elliott | August 14, 2008

Welcome to Riding the Elephant’s new home

 
Hi folks – welcome to Riding the Elephant in its new home and design (which I’ll probably change every now and again). It’s great that those of you who read the blog during the 15 months it was on Fortune.com have followed Elephant here – and good that others of you have found us for the first time.

As a journalist, India is a country that fascinates me. But it also sometimes horrifies, and that leads to a mix of what I hope are constructive posts.

In the early months last year, I infuriated some Indian readers (almost always those living abroad, and frequently in the US) because I dared to make negative comments on some aspect of the country and its icons. I think some of these readers deserted the blog – they certainly threatened to, and even told the editor to sack me – but I hope they’ll come back now, and that we can have a more open debate than was possible before.

My posts will not always be as long as the 700-800 word columns that I used to write – those columns are still available here – see below and in the side column. I’ll also probably answer comments – especially critical ones – which was not the system on Fortune.com

I’m currently on holiday in London (and Colombia later this month) so am not totally focussed on what is happening in India. Otherwise I would be commenting on three events – the long awaited Government help for the Bhopal gas victims (which might or might not help), the also-long awaited (partial) approvals for Posco and Vedanta’s mining projects in Orissa, and the crazy decision of the Mumbai authorities to make Marathi their official language.

More on all that later………………

Posted by: John Elliott | August 12, 2008

This Elephant has moved from Fortune.com

Elephants, an expert friend tells me, migrate seasonally looking for greener pastures. For this elephant it was a long season in one place – 15 months since I started my blog on Fortune.com in April last year.

But it came time to move on, and the Elephant has now migrated (elephants can move quite fast!) to its new WordPress home here on https://ridingtheelephant.wordpress.com  I’m not sure about greener though – it was good and rewarding in the old location, tended by editing mahouts in Fortune.com’s New York office who sharpened my intros, tidied up my English (yes, English), and caught errors. From now on, it looks like being me, unedited.

Mostly the blog has been fun. I can claim a few correct forecasts. One, just over a year ago, was that Vijay Mallya, the liquor “king” turned Kingfisher airline owner, would not let G.R.Gopinath’s dream of providing air flights for the masses survive long after he had bought a stake in Air Deccan, Gopinath’s budget airline.

Gopinath is now starting a separate air freight airline and deserves India’s congratulations and thanks for what Deccan did, even though Mallya’s hubris, and economic realities, have not allowed the dream to survive.

The warring Ambani brothers, who are using their companies – Mukesh’s RIL and Anil’s ADAG groups – to settle their irresponsible feud, have frequently appeared here. Recently Mukesh Ambani publicly displayed how ruthless he can be when he stopped his brother merging Reliance Communications with MTN of South Africa to form an international telecom player that would have been bigger than Mukesh’s businesses.

Whatever the legal rights or wrongs, that was a vicious and mean thing to do and should be taken as a warning by any international company thinking of doing deals with the brothers, especially Mukesh. On July 20, The Financial Times’ Lex column said “The family will now pay a high price for this behavior, since it pushes up the cost of doing business for all Reliance entities. The danger is that companies keen to do business with one brother start to fear vindictive behavior from the other.”

I’ve also written about many big multi-nationals such as General Electric, Boeing and Lockheed Martin. In India, the Tata group and its boss Ratan Tata have frequently appeared. One of the Tata posts sparked the most fury among Elephant’s readers, who snapped and snarled because I dared to say that Tata’s Taj hotels are not as good as they are cracked up to be (they often aren’t).

I also said I understood how Jaguar dealers in the US were doubtful that Tata Motors was the right home for that once iconic brand (the dealers have changed their mind – for me, the jury is still out). That post generated 196 comments – far more than any other. Many writers may have not read the post fully and were infuriated by isolated comments – some even demanded I should be sacked. Rational argument went out of the window and, judging by their silence since then, a few carried out their threats to boycott the blog.

I misjudged one Tata story – on the plight of rare Olive Ridley turtles on the Orissa coast. I wrote that Tata was running into trouble with Greenpeace and other environmental groups because the turtles’ nesting habits are threatened by the new port project at Dhamra. Sadly I was wrong. Greenpeace has failed to substantiate some of its accusations (which I queried) and, instead of building a broad-based campaign against Tata, has gone quiet. Other laudable and focused environmental campaigners seem to realize they have lost, now that port construction is well under way. This gives Tata a chance to prove its environmental credentials and ensure that everything possible is done to protect these rare creatures. I wonder if it will genuinely do so. Anyone who has ever seen the turtles crawl out of the sea at night to lay their eggs, and then slide back under the waves (as I have done on the Pakistan coast near Karachi), would want to do everything possible to preserve them.

There’s always a tendency, when writing about India, to suggest that events here are unique, which of course they are not. I realized recently that the behavior of India’s politicians – evident in last week’s confidence vote won by the government – was common in Britain 250 years ago.

Matthew d’Ancona, the editor of the London–based Spectator magazine, wrote in the Sunday Telegraph earlier this month about Gordon Brown, the beleaguered British prime minister [Gordon Brown is still up for it]  who he thinks has become “Namierite”. That is a reference to Sir Lewis Namier, an 18th century British historian, who argued that most political activity is explained “not by the power of ideas and ideals…..but by the complex interaction of factions and connections, the quest for personal advantage and naked careerism”.

In “The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III,” Namier wrote: “Men… no more dreamt of a seat in the House in order to benefit humanity than a child dreams of a birthday cake that others may eat it… the seat in the House was not their ultimate goal but a means to ulterior aims.”

I’m not saying (before angry commentators rise up in fury) that Indian politics are stuck in the groove of 18th century Britain. I’m simply pointing out that politicians are the same everywhere (is the U.S. any better?). So congratulations to all the Yadavs, to Mayawati, to Jayalalitha, and yes, to perpetuators of India’s mushrooming dynasties. You are heirs to a great tradition!

Posted by: John Elliott | July 23, 2008

Bribery claims cloud India parliament ahead of U.S. nuke deal

Three major events happened this week in New Delhi. The first, of course, was that the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance coalition (comfortably) won a confidence vote in parliament, which means that India’s proposed and long-delayed nuclear deal with the United States has full parliamentary approval.

The second was that the rampant extortion and bribery that have swept across Indian politics in the past few years were paraded in parliament and on television. Members of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the main opposition party, stormed into the central area of the Lok Sabha (lower house of parliament) waving thick wads of rupees that they claimed they had been offered to abstain from voting.

The third – and equally significant – event was the emergence of 39-year old Rahul Gandhi, who is widely regarded as a future prime minister, as a credible parliamentary performer. When the fallout of the latest drama has cooled down, this will be seen an important step in Gandhi’s development as the heir apparent to three former prime ministers: his father Rajiv Gandhi; his grandmother Indira Gandhi; his great grandfather Jawaharlal Nehru; and his mother, Italian-born Sonia Gandhi, who leads the Congress Party and UPA coalition.

Rahul Gandhi with his sister, Priyanka

Rahul Gandhi with his sister, Priyanka

Until now, Rahul Gandhi has failed to emerge as a competent politician, despite having been a member of parliament for four years and being projected as the Gandhi’s heir. In recent months, he has been laboriously touring the poorest parts of India, meeting people and hearing their problems – preparing himself, he has said, for his political future.

This week, for the first time, he spoke with confidence in parliament about energy security and the benefits of nuclear power. He parried interruptions and coped calmly with the parliament having to be adjourned because opposition MPs objected to some things he was saying.

The bribery allegations were made when BJP MPs threw bundles of notes totaling one crore of rupees ($230,000) onto the Lok Sabha table. Three MPs alleged that they were offered nine crore of rupees ($2 million) to abstain by the Samajwadi Party, the Uttar Pradesh party that has provided the basis of the government’s support since Communist-led Leftist MPs withdrew earlier this month. They said that this had been endorsed in a telephone call with Ahmed Patel, Sonia Gandhi’s political secretary, thus implicating her and the Congress Party.

Both Patel and the Samajwadi deny the allegations. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha will now hold an inquiry. But whatever the truth of the MPs’ claims, it is widely accepted that many offers of ministerial jobs, political favors, and cash have been demanded by, and awarded to, MPs to switch sides or abstain. These attempts at coercing MPs have been much more blatant than in the past, and they illustrate how corrupt politics in India has become. It is not just the fact that big sums of money were offered, but that political parties have – through extortion and bribery – gathered sufficient funds to be able to afford them.

Despite all that, India can now move ahead with the nuclear deal at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). It hopes that it can overcome some opposition in these two organizations fast enough for the U.S. Congress to approve the deal before President George W. Bush leaves office.

This will open the way for large-scale nuclear power contracts for companies from the United States, Russia, France and elsewhere. The United States also hopes it will improve the chances of its companies winning big defense orders involving companies. Companies such as General Electric (GE), Boeing (BA), Lockheed Martin (LMT), Honeywell (HON), and Raytheon (RTN) stand to gain.

This week’s vote was a major success for Manmohan Singh, the prime minister, who forged the deal with the United States and has taken the initiative in recent weeks to push it through parliament. A shy and retiring former bureaucrat, he has emerged as a capable politician.

He is expected to try to introduce long-delayed economic reforms in the coming months, now that he is no longer shackled by opposition from the Leftist parties. The reforms could include liberalizing pension funds and banking as well as divesting stakes in some public sector companies. He will, however, run into opposition from various vested interests and is likely to avoid anything that needs parliamentary approval because the coalition’s majority in the Lok Sabha is shaky due to the the hodgepodge of small and unreliable parties that formed the majority this week.

But the overwhelming image at the end of a tumultuous two days of debates in the Indian parliament was not the government’s victory, nor Rahul Gandhi’s emergence as a credible politician, but of the MPs waving the bundles of rupees in the air, alleging they had been offered mammoth bribes.

Posted by: John Elliott | July 17, 2008

Big payouts aim to swing votes in Indian parliament

The future of relations between India and the United States – and the future of the two countries’ proposed nuclear deal – partially hangs on changing the name of Lucknow airport in the state of Uttar Pradesh. It also hangs on how six members of parliament, jailed for murder and other crimes, vote July 22 on a confidence motion that will determine the fate of the current Congress Party-led coalition government.

The gap between the coalition and its opponents in the 543-member Lok Sabha (lower house of parliament) has narrowed this past week since the Communist-led bloc withdrew the support of its 59 MPs over the nuclear deal. There is now a risk that the government could be defeated, and this has led to horse trading that exceeds anything seen before.

Bribes as high as $6 million have been offered to some MPs to switch sides, according to widely believed newspaper reports.

Welcome to politics in India where worries about inflation and an economic downturn have had no effect on political parties’ spending.

Bribes have been paid to MPs to change parties for many years, but the sums have now become enormous because of huge amounts of money collected through extortion by top politicians, especially in regional parties.

MPs and their leaders usually want cash or favors, or both, but re-naming an airport is new. The government has agreed that Lucknow airport (the capital of UP) should be called Charan Singh Airport after a farmers’ leader and regional politician from the 1980s. It hopes this will persuade his son, Ajit Singh who leads the regional Rashtriya Lok Dal party, to cast his three MPs’ votes for the government.

It is also usual for major companies to become involved in political horse trading, but bigger stakes are involved this time – summed up in a headline “Govt’s Reliance is on Sahara” in the New Indian Express daily newspaper on July 14. This referred to a battle between Mukesh and Anil Ambani, brothers who control business empires called Reliance, plus a UP businessman, Subroto Roy, chairman of the Lucknow-based Sahara group.

Anil Ambani and Roy are close friends of the Samajwadi Party, which last week partially replaced the 59 Communist-led MPs as the coalition’s main supporter, giving the government confidence that it could win a parliamentary vote and save the nuclear deal. It is widely believed, as I suggested last week, that Anil Ambani is using the Samajwadi’s new links with the government to swing policies against his brother. Roy also wants favors from the government. The Reserve Bank of India is trying to curtail lending to his para-banking companies, on which his vast property-based empire depends for funds.

Mukesh Ambani is reported to have countered his brother’s lobbying by trying to persuade some of the Samajwadi Party’s 39 MPs to defect to parties opposing the government, which would lead to the defeat of the government and limit his brother’s political leverage. He met Manmohan Singh, the prime minister, earlier this week in what government spokesmen insist was a routine meeting.

Meanwhile, six MPs jailed for crimes from extortion to murder are being freed for a few days so that they can take part in the confidence vote. Convicted MPs are allowed to vote in parliament and the government hopes to win their support. One of the MPs has been jailed for life for murdering a political opponent and faces 40 other cases of murder, abduction and extortion.

Virtually none of the small parties’ leaders and MPs involved in this horse trading have any interest in whether the nuclear deal goes through or not. They are simply interested in personal power and riches. The Samajwadi Party, for example, was a vitriolic opponent of the government, and was against the nuclear deal, till a week or two ago. Now it sees political advantage in tying up with the Congress Party, both for short-term gains, assuming the government survives, and in alliances for the general election.

The horse trading will continue for another five days till the July 22 vote. No one is sure who will win, apart from those who receive big payouts and are temporarily released from jail – and have an airport named after their father.

Posted by: John Elliott | July 9, 2008

Manmohan Singh wins the first stage of his nuke gamble

At last, he has done it – after looking like a weak prime minister of India for most of his four years in the job, Manmohan Singh has exerted some authority and forced his Congress Party-led government to go ahead on its long-delayed, proposed nuclear deal with the United States. In the process, he has driven Communist-led Leftist parties from their government-supporting role and is actively courting new allies so that the administration can stay in power.

This has been going through the works for the past week or so, but was visibly confirmed today in Toyako when, on the margins of the G8 meeting, Singh discussed with President George W. Bush how the deal can be brought to conclusion before the U.S. elections in November.

“I am very pleased with the state of our relationship, which has truly acquired the characteristic of a genuine strategic partnership,” Singh said after the meeting, using words that underlined the main point on which the anti-U.S. Leftist parties base their opposition to the deal. He had threatened not to go to the G8 meeting if he did not have the draft deal in his pocket.

India’s next step is to seek approval from the United Nations’ Geneva-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which confirmed today that the deal’s draft nuclear safeguards have been submitted to the agency’s board of governors. There have been reports that it will be formally considered on July 28.

Then India will need approval from the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), where there might be some opposition because India has not signed the international nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and finally approval from the U.S. Congress. There will be opponents at each stage.

The government is pinning its not unrealistic hopes of survival on support from the Uttar Pradesh-based Samajwadi Party, which has suddenly become a friend of the Congress Party after four years of bitter personal animosity between its leaders and Sonia Gandhi, who heads the Congress Party and governing coalition.

But the Samajwadi’s 39 MPs will not be sufficient on their own to make up for the 59 Leftists, so the government is pulling in other smaller parties to make up the numbers. Some of the 39 are showing signs of defecting and other parties are playing hard-to-get. Extensive horse-trading in terms of personal favors, policy changes, election deals, and what are euphemistically called “suitcases” (of money) is already under way to secure the votes.

The support will probably be tested in a parliamentary confidence vote sometime in the next two weeks so that Singh can demonstrate he heads a stable administration in advance of the IAEA formal meeting. President Pratibha Patil is meeting Singh on July 10 to discuss a confidence vote.

If the government were defeated, India would have an early general election – maybe in November – instead of on its due date of April-May next year.

The deal would lead to contracts worth billions of dollars for European and U.S. nuclear power companies, with France and Russia currently in the lead alongside the United States. Slowly, it would help India to expand its currently tiny nuclear power generation at the same time as maintaining a controversial nuclear weapons program.

Singh is probably privately pleased to be rid of the Leftists. In addition to trying to scupper the nuclear deal, they have blocked many economic policies including cutting subsidies, allow foreign direct investment in general retailing and in defense manufacturing, as well as raising foreign investment limits in insurance companies.

The Left’s exit does not mean that all these policies will now be implemented. In each case, it has been allied with vested interests such as big Indian retail groups and the defense establishment which still wield blocking power.

Some people however will benefit quickly. Anil Ambani, who heads ADAG Reliance companies is close to Samajwadi leaders and has lost out to his rival brother, Mukesh Ambani who runs the RIL Reliance companies, while the Samajwadi has been at loggerheads with Gandhi. He might well now find it easier to iron out any foreign direct investment wrinkles on his proposed merger with MTN, the South African telecoms company, and he might also gain an advantage on other government projects.

It has always been arguable whether the deal is good for India because, as the Left and others say, there is a serious risk that India will have to toe the U.S. line on foreign policy. That would be tested quickly if the international confrontation with Iran escalates because India does not believe in the use of force against its ally.

Most of the nuclear power gains will take many years to be realized, although India’s current nuclear power stations will be able to obtain supplies of much needed uranium. There will be other gains for Indian companies involved in nuclear-linked technology because they will find it easier to obtain components, and tender for contracts, internationally.

But before all this can happen, the government has to get through the next couple of weeks and prove it has a parliamentary majority. My bet is that it will succeed – although it will probably be a last minute cliff-hanger as potential supporters hold out for as many benefits as possible.

Posted by: John Elliott | July 7, 2008

India’s education is a $120bn business opportunity

There’s a new business opportunity opening up in India that could become as big and popular for investors as telecoms and retailing.  It is education, which is one of the biggest blockages to India’s growth and development because standards are currently so bad.

Even poor families spend 20% of disposable income on private schools and universities, rather than expose their children to 950,000 mostly ill-equipped and under-staffed government schools. Independent surveys have suggested that absenteeism by teachers (yes, teachers!) averages 25%, rising to more than 40% in the poorest and least regulated states. Absenteeism by children is also high — 20% among those aged between 15 and 16.

The availability of secondary education is vastly below demand, and many graduates are ill-equipped for employment. Only 7% of young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 go to universities compared with 16% in China and far more in the United States and Europe. Many that do go emerge ill-equipped for employment. NASSCOM, India’s software trade organization, said in 2006 that only 25% of graduate engineers and 10-15% of ordinary graduates applying for IT jobs were employable, echoing statistics in a 2005 McKinsey report. Kiran Karnik, who was then NASSCOM’s president, primarily blamed obsolete curricula and equipment

Although there are a few signs that school attendance is improving, this dismal record shows that India risks missing its widely trumpeted “demographic dividend”  — 40% of its 1.2 billion-population are under the age of 18. There’s not much point in having one of the youngest populations in the world if they are under-educated.

Technopak, a Delhi-based investment consultancy, estimates that the current private-education market is worth $40 billion a year, and that this could roughly triple to $110-120 billion in ten years’ time. The potential is attracting foreign companies such as Pearson Education (PSO), part of the UK-based publishing group, and McGraw-Hill (MHP), as well as private equity firms that include Blackstone (BX), New Vernon, and Deutsche Securities, part of Deutsche Bank (DB).

Government regulations, however, restrict what Indian and foreign private-sector companies can do. For-profit investment in schools and universities is banned, but it is allowed by charitable trusts, which run some 50,000 schools. Many of the trusts have been formed by companies that theoretically plough back the profits, though many siphon money into other businesses. One of the largest companies, the family-controlled Amity University, has 50,000 students across the country.

There are also about 50 for-profit schools, which are allowed to slip through the controls because they are affiliated with international bodies like the International Baccalaureate (IB) examination program. Some private-sector groups run a profit-making IB programs alongside (notionally) Indian-affiliated nonprofit programs.

Real estate companies have also found a way into the country’s education business by linking up with firms like Educomp (considered to be India’s biggest education provider) and foreign firms to equip and run charity-registered schools for children of families that buy their homes.

There’s a debate in the government about whether formally to allow private-sector companies to investment in education for profit – instead of tolerating these sorts of loopholes – but the idea has been blocked by Leftist Communist-led parties, which oppose limiting the role of the public sector.

This leaves two major areas where the private sector is not restricted.

One is vocational training, which is attracting several major Indian companies like Larsen & Toubro, the Singhania family-controlled JK group, and Bharat Forge, the world’s second-largest forgings company. These companies are not after profits so much as a steady stream of young people who are educated and trained in urgently-needed subjects and skills. They have found that the only way to fill the void left by the public sector’s failures is to act themselves, supplying colleges with appropriate curricula, and guaranteeing jobs for successful students.

Bharat Forge has an engineering college on its factory campus in Pune that runs a masters degree program with Britain’s Warwick University. It also has a bachelors’ program run with an Indian institute that, says Baba Kalyani, the chairman, “enables workers to become engineers.” Below that there is a “talent pipeline project” with technical colleges in small rural towns, developing work-related courses and identifying bright students to work in his company during vacations.

The second major area for private-sector investment is providing educational systems and support services to schools and colleges of all types. This is the opportunity that has attracted international companies such as Pearson and McGraw-Hill, as well as universities like Oxford from the United Kingdom and the Georgia Institute of Technology from the United States. The services range from teaching aids to teacher training, examinations, and language tuition.

Indian companies are also active. Delhi-based Educomp, founded in 1994, is a Indian market leader. For five years starting in 2000, it had a small private-equity investment from the Carlyle Group. It has 4,000 employees and is boosting teaching standards in Indian private schools by providing a range of IT-based distance-learning aids. It also provides learning labs for 6,000 Indian government schools. It has just bought Learning.com in the United States, which gives it access to two million American students, and has expanded in Asia, including China, through a link-up with Raffles Education Corp of Singapore.

So there are plenty of companies with the skills and the interest in boosting India’s education. Since there is little chance of government schools and colleges improving significantly on their own, the only sensible course is to open up the system to the private sector. But for that to happen, the government needs first to recognize that there is a real risk of losing what it grandly calls its “demographic dividend!”

Posted by: John Elliott | June 26, 2008

Crunch time for India’s government and U.S. nuke deal

After months of shilly-shallying, the future of both India’s Congress-led coalition government, and its proposed nuclear deal with the United States, will probably be known by the end of next week.

That’s quite a brave forecast in India’s current political firmament. It seems that the government will have to decide by then whether to do what Prime Minister Manmohan Singh wants, and pursue the deal – even though that would mean losing the support of Communist-led Leftist parties that give it a parliamentary majority.

It looks as if it will do so, if it can muster enough votes to replace the Leftists – but that is a big “if”.

Why the end of next week? Because Singh has been telling colleagues that he is not prepared to go to a G8 meeting in Tokyo on July 7 and 8 and face George Bush and other world leaders as a prime minister who has failed for three years to seal the nuclear deal. There have been widespread reports, which I am told by good sources are correct, that he has threatened to resign if the government does not back him.

This has put Sonia Gandhi, the Congress president who heads the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) coalition, in a difficult position because her regional party allies are reluctant to risk an early general election for a deal that has little electoral resonance. It’s not a good time to hold polls – inflation is rising at over 11%, the stock market is sliding, the bank rate has just gone up to 8.5% and there are fears that economic growth is slowing.

Gandhi could let Singh resign, but she has no-one capable and trust-worthy to replace him because her 38-year old son Rahul, who is being dynastically groomed for the job, is not yet ready.

She and the other parties would therefore prefer to avoid crises and hold the general election when it is due around April next year. Singh, on the other hand, believes that the deal and India’s credibility (and his place in history) are more important than the risks of an early general election. He argues that the deal has been approved by the cabinet and the UPA and that the Leftists should not be allowed to stop it.

The outline deal was signed by Singh and Bush in Washington in July 2005. It would allow India access to nuclear technology and equipment from America and other countries for the first time in over 30 years, without India having to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Currently India has 14 reactors supplying about 3% of its electricity. The aim is for nuclear generation to rise to 25% by 2050, so India needs the deal, which would also give it access to urgently needed uranium for its existing reactors.

The deal has been criticized by several senior figures in India’s nuclear and science establishment because they fear it would not be able to pursue its nuclear weapons program effectively. This program is needed to give it strategic defense against Pakistan and, more importantly in the longer term, China. There is also a considerable body of opinion that fears India’s foreign policy would be restricted by the U.S. – for example, by interfering with its long-standing friendly relations with Iran and possibly with links with Russia.

But the most significant opposition – which is causing the current political crisis – has come from the Leftist parties that are ideologically opposed to any close relationship with the U.S. Singh had hoped that they would back down over the past three years, but their stance has if anything hardened. Yesterday (June 26) they made it clear at a meeting with the government that they would withdraw the support of their 59 members of parliament if it went ahead and ratified the deal at the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA), the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog.

Theoretically, that ratification could happen soon, but it could also be blocked if the UPA loses its parliamentary majority and becomes a minority government. China is believed to have been arguing that only a strong government should be allowed to go ahead.

After the IAEA, the deal would have to go to the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG), whose 45 member-countries all have to agree. Then it has to go to Congress in Washington for ratification.

The United States has been warning for months that time is getting short, given that there is a presidential election in November. “We are kind of playing in overtime right now,” Richard Boucher, assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia, said nearly three months ago. Officials now say however that it could still be possible to get the deal through (by arranging for a 90-day voting process to be waived), but that India should move quickly.

The first step is for government to overcome its domestic political problems. It is courting the Samajwadi regional party from Uttar Pradesh to give it support. The Samajwadi has 39 MPs who, together with votes from some other small unaligned parties, could give the government the majority it needs without the Leftists. That could save the deal.

If the Samajwadi Party, which Congress has treated unkindly since the last general election, refuses to join in, the government will have to decide whether to go ahead at the IAEA, and risk an early general election, or risk losing its prime minister.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Categories