Rajeev Upadhyay

राजदीप सरदेसाई को लगे चाँटे का महत्त्व

राजदीप सरदेसाई को जिस किसी व्यक्ति ने थप्पड़ मारा वह अनुचित है और उसके लिए उसे कानूनी के अनुसार दण्ड मिलना ही चाहिए। बस इस घटना का इतना ही महत्त्व है इतनी सी बात ही काफी है। इससे अधिक ना तो अलोचना या फिर भर्त्सना करने की आवश्यकता है और ना ही किसी विधवा विलाप की (जो कुछ विद्वान एवं शान्तिप्रिय लोग कर रहे हैं) क्योंकि इस आदमी को आज अमेरीका नहीं बल्कि जेल में होना चाहिए था पर ये पत्रकारी भगवान हैं अतः ये जो करते हैं वो वेद ज्ञान है, जी नहीं माफी चाहता हँ, कोई दूसरे तरह का दैवीय ज्ञान है (क्योंकि राजदीप जी को वेद और हिन्दू लुच्चे लफंगे और दंगाई लगते हैं)।

प्रधानमंत्री मोदी की अमेरीका यात्रा से तुरन्त पहले अमेरीका स्थित स्टैण्डर्ड एन्ड पूअर्स नामक रेटिंग संस्था, जो आर्थिक एवं वित्तिय साख का आकलन करती है, ने भारत की साख को सुधारते हुए नकारात्मक से स्थिर की श्रेणी में वर्गीकृत किया है (Nair, Rebello, & Ami Shah, 2014)। रेटिंग में यह सुधार सामान्य रूप से भारतीय अर्थव्यवस्था के लिए अच्छा और कुछ हद तक सकारात्मक है। परन्तु रेंटिंग में यह सुधार प्रधानमंत्री के अमेरीका यात्रा से तुरन्त पहले ही हुआ है, तो देश में एक विवाद एवं विमर्श शुरू हो गया है कि क्या अमेरीका भारतीय प्रधानमंत्री को मीठी घूँट के सहारे कोई कड़वी दवा पीलाना चाहता है? हो सकता है कि ऐसा ही हो क्योंकि भारत में अमेरीका का बहुत बड़ा आर्थिक हित (विशेषकर विदेशी निवेश) निहित है जिसको वह प्रधानमंत्री और वर्तमान सरकार को साधकर जरूर सुरक्षित करना चाहेगा। इसमें कोई बहुत बराई भी नहीं है क्योंकि वर्तमान परिदृश्य में अन्तराष्ट्रीय स्तर पर आर्थिक संबन्धों का उपयोग राजनैतिक एवं कूटनीतिक हथियार के रूप में सर्वमान्य है। अब ये भारतीय प्रधानमंत्री के विवेक और कौशल पर निर्भर है वे अमेरीका के कूटनीतिक प्रयासों से कैसे निपटते हैं एवं वो भारत के हितों का कहाँ तक ख्याल रख पाते हैं?

India’s central banker Reserve Bank of India today announced its monetary policy and it has decided to keep all the rates vis-à-vis repo rate, reverse repo rate, Cash Reserve Ratio and Statuary Liquidity Ratio unchanged. This move by the RBI has clear indication that RBI does not see lower inflation in near future but at the same time there is no threat on inflationary front. In last few months inflation in the economy has eased to some extent and analysts were expecting lower rates but Reserve Bank of India has decided to play safe than regret later.

This decision has some short term as well as long term implications for the economy. First implication is that even though there is no inflationary threat, inflation remains an important concern for the RBI and perhaps it is of view that economy cannot afford higher inflation in future as higher inflation would erode value. So it prefers lower GDP growth with lower inflation than higher GDP growth rate with higher inflation. That means financing in the economy would remain on the higher side and investments by corporate would on the other side till the policy continue or unless there is any extra incentives. That means India is going remain in high interest era for some more time with relatively lower GDP growth rates. Now it would be interesting to see how government responds through the fiscal policy instruments.

Is Upgrade by S&P Relevant for India?

This week positive news came from global rating agency S&P. S&P has upgraded India's rating from negative to stable position. This means India is slightly in better position than earlier. This was done perhaps on account of higher GDP growth during last quarter and higher expected GDP growth rate that India is expected to post this fiscal year. S&P has also cited that it has higher faith in current regime in India as government would take decisions on time.

Now it is accepted that S&P finds India as better investment destination than earlier. But I want to know “Would it be helpful to Indian economy in anyways?” My answer is if not ‘no’ then it is ‘not much’. The only benefit that I can see is that to some extent debt for India would cost slightly lower than the earlier. Besides this there would not be any changes. I think practically it would not have any relevant impact on Indian economy as investment in any economy is not dependent on ratings alone like earlier times. At the same time the credibility of ratings has deteriorated over time and investors prefer to assess and explore opportunities on their own.

At the same time it is well fact to all that India has huge opportunities for investors and at present it is being said that there is a strong and active government in the center which take decisions instead of sitting on them like earlier government. But at the same time we have to wait and watch for the next monetary policy announcement by RBI. Also these days debt to the government is dependent on relationships than ratings. These together have basically forced S&P to upgrade India’s rating rather than so called basics. Rather there is a lot of questioning about the rating’s credibility and usability in today’s world.

क्या ईश्वर एक विचार है?

यदि धर्मों का नजदीकी इतिहास उठाकर देखा जाए तो हम पाएँगे कि दुनिया के हर धर्म में ईश्वर के प्रति डर और कृपा इन दो मानवीय भावों का बड़ा ही महत्त्व रहा है। परन्तु अधिकतर पुरातन धर्मों के पुराने इतिहास को उठाकर देखा जाए तो यह स्पष्ट हो जाता है कि अधिकतर पुराने धर्मों में कहीं ना कहीं डर ही आस्था की वजह रही है। हालाँकि जैन धर्म बहुत हद तक इसका अपवाद रहा। संभवतः जैन धर्म इन पुरातन धर्मों में नया हो। बुद्ध के आगमन ने ईश्वर नाम की संस्था के आचरण, व्यवहार और संस्कार आदि सब कुछ बदल कर रख दिया। धर्म में दया का महत्त्व बढ़ गया।

कुछ धर्मों में आज भी ईश्वर प्रति डर का बड़ा ही महत्त्व है। हालाँकि ये धर्म से अधिक धर्म के धंधे से ज्यादा जुड़ा है।

सेना द्वारा कश्मीर बाढ़ में राहत कार्य करना अत्याचार है

बुद्धिजीविता का क्या है? बेचारी वो तो बेवश होती है तर्कों की! तर्क मतलब जिसे बुद्धिजीवी तार्किक माने! आवश्यक नहीं है कि वो बात तथ्यपरक ही हो। बस पसन्द आना चाहिए!

किसे?

अरे! भाई बुद्धिजीवी को। छोड़ो! आपकी समझ नहीं आएगा।

खैर।

मेरे कुछ अति विद्वान एवं बुद्धिजीवी मित्र हैं। वे बेचारे भारतीय सेनाओं (गलती से हिन्दुस्तानी मत पढ़ लेना) के कुकर्मों को याद कर-कर बहुत रोते हैं। बहुत मतलब दिन-रात! इतना अधिक कई बार आँसू रोना छोड़कर सोचना शूरू कर देते हैं कि उन्हें अब रोना चाहिए या नहीं! खैर! लगता है आँसू भी प्रलापी हो गए हैं।

Has India done it Right by not Ratifying WTO’s TFA?

There has been a lot of discussion about the India’s stand regarding the WTO's Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) for which developed countries have been lobbying since long. India has made it clear that it will not ratify the TFA until and unless there is a concrete proposal to find out a permanent solution to its public food stock-holding issue for food security reason for ensuring access to enough food to her 1.3 billion population. Before opening the discussion we must look at the previous events.

WTO replaced GATT in 1995 resulting from The Uruguay Round with goals of free trade across the world by reducing trade barriers such as tariffs and subsidies mainly in agriculture, manufacturing and services such as banking and insurance, and to establish powerful and effective intellectual property laws. Most of these goals were aimed to benefit developed countries and MNCs at cost of developing countries and the structure of the WTO was tilted in favour of developed countries. It attracted criticism from many groups like Oxfam, Health Gap and Global Trade Watch. So to prove that WTO works towards better world, Doha Round negotiations started to complete the remaining (so called) trade reforms claiming to have an explicit focus on addressing the needs of developing countries. But again in some ways or others, the interests of the developed countries are dominating with Doha Round trying to convince developing countries to lower subsidies to agriculture and other sectors either through persuasion or pressure.

World Bank, economists and developed nations have been criticising India for providing subsidies to agriculture sector but at the same time they don’t say a single world about the huge subsidies provided by developed countries to their domestic agriculture sector. Via U.S. farm bills, the United States spends around $20 billion every year on its farmers in direct subsidies in form of "farm income stabilisation". Similarly European Union (EU) spends around $56 billion every year on direct subsidies to the agriculture sector that is around 40% of total budget while India spent only $20 billion in 2010 on subsidies to agriculture sector.

If we look at the agriculture sectors in these countries we find that of total population less than 2% in the US, less than 6% in EU and more than 52% in India is directly dependent on agriculture for income (Chart 1). According to World Watch Institute report, the agricultural dependent population in the US and EU has decreased by 37% and 66% respectively during 1981 to 2011 while in case of India it is has increased by 50% during the same period (Chart 2). It has increased for most of developing countries like China, Brazil and Argentina etc. This clearly indicates that agriculture is far more important for developing countries than that of the developed countries and a country like India cannot afford to ignore agriculture sector where around 70% of total population is dependent on agriculture in different ways. And if a country like India is trying to protect the interests of her farmers, basically she is trying to protect the nation. But still these developed countries criticize India and other countries for providing subsidies to highly sensitive agriculture sector although these developed countries spend more money on subsidies per capita than the developing countries. Developed countries often accuse developing nations for distorted global trade and agricultural production but in fact it are that developed countries that have distorted global trade and agricultural production.

Moving to the reasons why India did not ratify the TFA even after agreeing to do so in Bali Ministerial Meet. There are around 1.3 billion people that India has to feed and at present it is the most important task in the hands of the government. So Indian Government should do everything that can help and even if it has to take tough stand at WTO negations, it must take. The proposed TFA is completely against the interests of India. The current norms for calculating subsidies limit subsidies at 10% of total value of food grain production and the base year for minimum support price is 1968-69. And any country breaching the limit of 10% would be penalized with hefty penalties. These stated norms are completely against India’s interests and its demands for amendment in the norms for calculating subsidies and change in base year to a more current base year are just as the economic profile of India has completely changed since 1968-69.

In India, inflation has been relative on higher side in comparison to developed world, the minimum support prices for different agricultural products have been consistently increasing, procurement of food grains has increased significantly because of Right to Food Act and at the same time, Indian Rupee has depreciated at higher rate against the US dollar. These factors and compulsions altogether put India into a very peculiar situation forcing her to take tough stand.

The first priority of any nation is to feed and provide with a dignified life to its citizen. Considering India’s economic profile, it is clear that it is better for India to protect the interests of its farmers and the poor even at the costs of foregoing possible benefits from TFA than creating jobs for other countries. More interestingly, the stand taken by India has been supported by International Fund for Agriculture Development, the UN body for development of agriculture. So India’s decision is not against WTO and international trade but in favour of the poor across the world.

As far as NAMA is concerned, from empirical evidences from many countries and India it is clear that it is going to hurt India’s interest in short to medium term and nothing can be exactly said about the long term. At present bound tariffs for India are on higher side and under the commitment, India has to make steep cuts in its bound tariffs in most of the sectors (mainly textile and clothing) than that of the developed countries. This will create an imbalance in the outcome of NAMA negotiations which would be a disincentive for the manufacturing sector leading weaker domestic manufacturing sector. Already there has been irreversible damage to the MSMEs in the name of globalisation and free trade agreements. Importantly, it is expected that NAMA would further weaken the MSMEs and informal sectors like fisheries, natural rubber and animal husbandry that are vital for inclusive growth and higher employment opportunities that is important to bring down inequality. India can deal with this issue by creating a safety net for sectors that are expected to be adversely affected by lower tariffs.

For any government or economic policy, it is the interest of people and the nation that is of prime importance than the global trades and treaties. So it is natural that even if India’s stand is a setback to WTO and freer global commerce and liberalisation as well as India’s commitments for liberalisation, India must stand tough with her demands not only for the agriculture sector but also for it vital MSMEs sector. Although it is near impossible to reverse some of the commitments on bound tariffs but it can balance bound tariffs using its services sectors like telecom, IT and business services sectors. Also it is suggested that it should stick to its initial negotiating stand that the developing countries should have the flexibility not to bind certain tariff lines still considered domestically sensitive or strategically important. This would not only will be beneficial for India but also for the other developing and least developed countries and India can gain huge diplomatic gains and inroads in these countries.

मैं ISIS का शुक्रगुजार हूँ

मैं ISIS का शुक्रगुजार हूँ कि उसने मेरे सामान्य ज्ञान को थोड़ा तो बढ़ा दिया नहीं तो यज़ीदी नाम का बहुत पुराना मजहब भी है पता ही नहीं था। इसलिए गुरूदक्षिणा में कुछ और तो नहीं परन्तु धन्यवाद को कह ही सकता हूँ। खून मत माँगना गुरू मेरे शरीर में बहुत खून नहीं है। जीवन भी कितना मनोरंजक और ज्ञानवर्धक है कि हर जगह ज्ञान ही ज्ञान बँट रहा है। वैसे थोड़ा धन्यवाद तो थ्री इडियट्स के आमिर खान को भी जाता है कि उन्होंने ही दुनिया को बताया था कि हर जगह ज्ञान बँट रहा है। इसलिए पक्का वायदा रहा कि आपकी अगली फिल्म देखूँगा! अच्छा मैं शिष्य तो ठीक हूँ ना? वो क्या है ना केजरीवाल जी के आने के बाद सर्टिफिकेशन का महत्त्व बहुत बढ़ गया है।

यदि मेरा ज्ञानवर्धन हुआ है तो उम्मीद है कि बाकी लोगों का भी ज्ञानवर्धन हुआ ही होगा। यूँ भी ये ज्ञानवर्धन मनोरंजन के साथ है। वैसे भी थोड़ा बहुत मनोरंजन भी आखिर अंग्रेजी फिल्मों में मरते लोगों को देखकर मिल ही जाता है और हिन्दी फिल्मों के नायक को खलनायक को मारते देखकर उत्साहित होने की हमारी आदत तो खैर बहुत पुरातन है।

भारत एक क्रान्तिकारी देश है

मेरे कई मित्र कहते हैं कि भारत में कोई क्रान्ति नहीं हो सकती और मैं अव्यस्क उनसे अक्सर सहमत ही रहता था। परन्तु आज मेरे चक्षु खुले और मैं उनसे आज असहमत हो ही गया। और ये खुले हुए मेरे ज्ञानचक्षु बड़े क्रान्तिकारी हैं। हुआ यूँ कि सनी लियोनी ने इस देश में इतनी बड़ी क्रान्ति की है कि आमिर खान को भी नंगा होना पड़ रह है और मेरे दोस्त कहते हैं कि यहाँ क्रान्ति हो ही नहीं सकती! अगर यकीन नहीं होता तो पी के फिल्म का पोस्टर देख लें।

अब तो मेरा मानना है कि इस क्रान्ति का भविष्य बहुत ही उज्जवल है और पुरा यकी है कि ये क्रान्ति भ्रष्टाचार आन्दोलन की तरह असफल नहीं होगी। कारण बड़े स्पष्ट हैं। मुख्यधारा के लोग इसके सिर्फ हिस्सा ही नहीं बन गए हैं बल्कि झन्डा भी बुलंद कर रहे हैं। सही भी तो है जो नंगा है वही आज विजयी है। कम से कम बलात्कार तो रूक ही जाएगा और निर्भया जैसी घटनाएँ तो अब बिल्कुल ही नहीं होगीं!

Budget 2014-2015: Free Trade Agreements

Free Trade Agreements

Government of India has entered into free trade agreements with many countries but most of the FTAs are not in favor country and those needs to be reviewed. From the trend line of the below graph for the period of 2008 to 2013, it is clear that country’s balance of trade situation has worsen in these years. This indicates that we have imported more from the other countries and exported less and this gap is widening although free trade agreements have been entered into with aims of plugging this gap. And this increasing gap is not good for the exchange rate for Indian rupee at all.

There are a number of economists who favor and advocate free trade agreements claiming that it is beneficial for both the economies. With the opening up economy a lot of foreign money comes to economy and this has been the case with India too. And it helps economy to huge extent. But it seems to be not true in case of India.

If we look as longer period from 1991 when liberalization of Indian economy started, it is clear that situation has worsened more during this period. From the below trend line graph, it can be concluded that it has negative impact on net export from India. Till 2003-2004 there was no huge gap in exports and imports but once India followed the path of bilateral economic ties and free trade agreements in 1998 with Sri Lanka, the gap between export and import rose sharply. In most of the trade agreements (bilateral or multilateral) are tilted in favour of the other countries resulting extra burden on Indian rupee. So on the basis of balance of trade one may say that free trade agreements had not been beneficial for Indian economy as a whole. Although it is not possible to scrap these agreements but time has come when these agreements must be reviewed (mainly FTA with China).