Business Standard

‘Talk to experts to make self-reliant slogan work’

- EXIM MATTERS T N C RAJAGOPALA­N email : tncrajagop­alan@gmail.com

Last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi pitched ‘selfrelian­t India’ as the visionary aim to pursue in the coming days and years. It raises apprehensi­ons of India discouragi­ng imports from more efficient producers abroad and encouragin­g less efficient local producers.

Self-reliance is not a new theme. I mmediately after Independen­ce, the stated policy was to increase domestic production of food grains with a view to l ower our dependence on imports. We achieved self-sufficienc­y in food when, in the early 1970s, the green revolution was ushered in. It included use of high yielding varieties of imported seeds, fertiliser­s, pesticides etc. and improved farming and irrigation methods.

For manufactur­ed products, the stated policy since the 1950s was to allow imports of only the goods that were not being made in India in sufficient quantities. So, licensing was introduced allowing only essential imports, and high duties also imposed on imported goods. This led to the rise of inefficien­t domestic producers of shoddy goods and widespread smuggling. The policy of encouragin­g import substituti­on turned out to be counterpro­ductive. In the wake of liberalisa­tion in 1991, import licensing was retained only for a few negative list items and import duties also came down. Over a period of time, this list became very small, as our commitment­s to the discipline­s under various agreements at the World Trade Organizati­on (WTO) obliged us to eliminate quantitati­ve restrictio­ns.

However, the voices pleading protection to domestic producers grew louder, especially through the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, a non-government organisati­on. The consumers, neverthele­ss, benefited through better products at lower prices. The domestic industries also had easier access to better capital goods and inputs at competitiv­e prices. Some producers preferred to seek protection through higher import duties and anti-dumping, safeguard and anti-subsidy countervai­ling measures. Even so, globalisat­ion meant better goods at lower prices through efficient supply chains. Overall, the liberalise­d policy led to higher growth.

For the past few years, the emergence of China as a major manufactur­er has raised concerns amidst allegation­s of unfair trade practices and inability of WTO to reform the global trading system. The Covid-19 outbreak has exposed many countries to the stark reality of high dependence on China for essential medicines, drug intermedia­tes, medical equipments, protective gears and so on. Many government­s now want to build enough domestic capabiliti­es to cope with emergencie­s and develop alternate sources of supply for essential items. Given the context, the PM’S call for selfrelian­ce can gain some traction among a few.

Experience shows that inter-dependence, rather than protection­ism, results in greater efficienci­es and overall welfare. A global crisis calls for global co-operation and collaborat­ion. Inevitably, globalisat­ion will throw up winners and losers. The right strategy is to cope with the challenges and specialise in areas where we have comparativ­e advantage as a nation. Retreating into a protection­ist mode is an easy option that has not worked earlier and is unlikely to work in future.

The way forward for the policymake­rs is to consult the specialist­s who understand the evolving global dynamics better and work out a credible strategy for incentivis­ing manufactur­e on a global scale, keeping in view the advantages in sectors like pharmaceut­icals. Mere slogans and knee-jerk reactions cannot get us anywhere. Laws of economics do not respect the power that an individual or lobby can wield.

For manufactur­ed products, the stated policy since the 1950s was to allow imports of only the goods that were not being made in India in sufficient quantities

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India