Hindustan Times (Delhi)

Road contracts

-

partners for road constructi­on. We have taken a firm stand that if they (Chinese companies) come via joint venture in our country, we will not allow it.” He added that a policy will be out soon banning Chinese firms, and relaxing norms for Indian companies to expand their eligibilit­y criteria for participat­ion in highway projects.

To be sure, according to both industry stakeholde­rs and sectoral experts, there are a limited number of highway projects which have Chinese involvemen­t at the moment. But Gadkari said rebidding will be done if there are any Chinese joint ventures, even as the decision will be implemente­d for current and future tenders. The minister also said that a process to relax financial and technical norms has been set in motion to ensure that Indian companies can qualify for larger projects and do not need foreign partners.

“Even if we have to go for foreign joint venture in the areas of technology, consultanc­y or design, we will not allow Chinese,” he said.

Industry stakeholde­rs pointed out that the significan­ce of the decision lies in the relaxation of norms to encourage Indian firms. “There have not been many highway projects with Chinese investment either in the past or at present. Only a couple of projects are awarded in which joint ventures exist with Chinese as the minority partners with their Indian counterpar­ts, mainly present for technical expertise. It is more like a technical collaborat­ion than on ground work. This is also the reason the minister has mentioned that there is a need to revisit the technical qualificat­ion on the bidding process,” said Rajeshwar Burla, vice president, corporate ratings, ICRA Limited.

But officials pointed to the larger message behind the decisions. An official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said: “Aggression at the border and preferenti­al treatment on crossborde­r trade, commerce and investment cannot go hand-inhand.” He said China had chosen the wrong time and the wrong country to antagonise. “It will be foolish on part of any country to enrich an aggressor by allowing preferenti­al trade and commerce while the aggressor country is threatenin­g its territoria­l integrity and sovereignt­y.”

The second official, who represents an economic ministry and did not want to be named either, said that China had surplus capacity which its domestic economy cannot consume, making it largely dependent on exports for growth and survival. “India was its large and growing market and China has hurt the entire nation. It is the duty of all citizens, businessme­n, government agencies and public sector companies to rely more and more on Made in India products than goods from an enemy country. This is the national sentiment that is getting reflected everywhere in the country now.”

This larger message assumes significan­ce in the wake of a drastic increase in Chinese economic engagement in India over the past decade, particular­ly after 2014. A monograph by journalist Ananth Krishnan for Brookings India in March 2020, titled Following the Money: China Inc’s Growing stake in India-china relations, pointed to the difficulti­es in estimating the exact quantum of Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) for various reasons — there is no exhaustive list of Chinese companies operating in India with either government because of the routing of investment through various countries; the presence of different FDI routes to India, which means a single government agency does not have all the data; and the fact that the Chinese government is not forthcomin­g with the informatio­n it has, among other reasons.

But with these caveats, the report suggested that while in 2014, net Chinese investment across sectors was $1.6 billion, and by 2017, it rose to $8 billion, the total investment exceeds official figures “by at least 25%”. If announced projects and planned investment­s are taken into account, it crosses, according to the paper, at least $26 billion.

The government is applying the same broader principle — of discouragi­ng Chinese investment and encouragin­g Indian capacity — to MSMES, widely considered the backbone of the Indian economy in terms of employment generation and contributi­on to the GDP. While Gadkari said the idea was to encourage both local capacity and foreign investment, this will not include the Chinese. “For upgradatio­n of technology, research, consultanc­y and other works, we will encourage foreign investment and joint ventures in MSMES, but in case of Chinese we will not entertain them,” he said.

On reports of the stopping of consignmen­ts of imports from China, the minister said there is “no arbitrary stopping of goods” at Indian ports and that he had urged department­s concerned to expedite clearance of consignmen­ts which were booked two to three months before the current situation took shape, according to PTI. But the minister added that government was initiating pathbreaki­ng reforms to help MSMES and businesses in a bid to make the country self-reliant. “It is a good step. The imports from China will be discourage­d and the country will take large strides towards self-reliance.”

Analysts see the government’s decision as a willingnes­s to use India’s economic strength for strategic ends, but also offer a note of caution.

Manoj Kewalraman­i, a fellow of Chinese studies at the Takshashil­a Institutio­n, said, “Unfortunat­ely, given the nature of the Sino-indian economic relationsh­ip, leverage is limited. First, it’s not like the Chinese are heavily invested in Indian MSMES or highway projects. Moreover, targeting investment­s in infrastruc­ture only hurts India’s developmen­t with little strategic gain. Second, targeting joint ventures might further cut off capital flows into India, something India needs more of instead to deal with the pandemic triggered slowdown. Third, restrictin­g imports can be a double-edged sward. Chinese imports are critical to Indian exports. So the government needs to be careful in doing this, lest it hurt Indian exporters.” residents of Aurina village in Datia district, and two others from the same village allegedly opened fire at another villager in February over a dispute.

The other conditions for the bail set by the court were for both accused to cooperate in the trial, not to extend inducement­s, threats or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing facts related to the case to the court or to the police officer.

The court ordered that a compliance report pertaining to the condition it specified on the TV set be submitted along with photograph­s to the registry of this court. The registry shall supply a copy of its order to the legal aid officer of the state legal service authority, Gwalior, who shall in turn depute a para-legal volunteer to verify compliance with the condition and submit a report to the registry within two weeks of the verdict.

“The accused themselves had offered to install the LED TV set in Renbasera. On this, court allowed this and also said that it will be a part of conditions for release of the accused on bail. However, the court also said that the TV set should not be manufactur­ed in China,” AAG Ankur Modi said.

Pawan Pathak, the secretary of High Court Bar Associatio­n, Gwalior, said, “It’s a unique order of the court. It has further infused a sense of patriotism in all of us...this order will have a wide psychologi­cal impact on the minds of people across the country who are boycotting Chinese products...”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India