Indian Prime Minister Narendra
Modi once again covered world headlines by his “Make in India” program. World
leaders and entrepreneurs who carefully listened to what the Indian Prime
Minister had to say on his speech on Sept. 25 applauded his idea.
In its editorial, Hindustan Times
applauds Modi’s ingenious idea and remarks that the program would be
transformational to the country’s growth.
What is Make in India?
Modi first spoke about “Make in
India” initiative in a speech that he had given on India’s Independence Day.
Make in India is an initiative where
Modi has invited entrepreneurs from both local and foreign companies to invest
and make products in India itself. The initiative has number of proposals that
are designed to get foreign companies to set up investments in India and turn
it into a manufacturing powerhouse.
The initiative emphasizes on 25
sectors with focus on job creation and skill enhancement. These include
automobile, chemicals, IT, pharma, textiles, ports, aviation, leather, tourism
among others.
Modi has focused on manufacturing
for the fact that the world is seeking an alternative to China’s labor market.
India has the potential to invite global companies for the fact that the Indian
Rupees is flat to USD. At the present, USD 1 is equivalent to 60 INR. As a
result, although India might pay less in dollars, the money that gets converted
into Indian rupees is more than sufficient to live a good life in the
country.
“‘Make in India’ is about the
present and the future,” Mukesh Ambani, Chairman of Reliance Ltd said, adding,
that his company “committed to the movement”.
REACTIONS TO MAKE IN INDIA
While the world has welcomed such
an innovative move from Modi, the success of ‘Make in India’ still needs to go
a long way. A lot of it depends on the policies that Modi’s government brings
out or scraps to ease foreign and local investments. The editorial of Hindustan
Times expresses that the delay that state governments do to give clearances
would be a herculean task.
Moreover, the world’s biggest
democratic country, with a population of 1.2 billion, the initiative is more
easier said, than done. India faces from a number of challenges including
energy shortages and land problems, tax and labor laws.
Meanwhile, opposition Indian
Congress remarked that Modi’s program was only a “repackaging and rebranding” of
the earlier initiatives that the Congress government took during its time on
power (2004-2014).
REPLICATING THE INGENIOUS
Apart from hydropower and
tourism, Nepal should, now, focus on manufacturing and automobile. It needs to
invite foreign manufacturing and automobile companies to the country and
establish its own lines of manufacturing and automobile lines. The fact that Nepal
does not have necessary skills to start these enterprises on its own is known.
Therefore, it should hire experts and train local people.
Similarly, in order to promote
local products, Nepal needs to levy taxes that it imposes on Nepalese
industries. Doing this, I believe, would make the business community of Nepal
confident to compete against foreign goods.
Between superpower China and
emerging superpower, India lies the underdeveloped Nepal. Regardless of its
potentials, Nepal and Nepalese business community has not been able to compete
with itself to meet the country’s need. As a result, we are relying heavily in
imports. Nepal’s trade deficit, according to Trade and Export Promotion Centre
rose to Rs. 289.62 billion in the first half of the current fiscal year.
As Nepal heavily modernizes to
equate Western lifestyle, the trade deficits are bound to sore. Both government
and the business community share the blame for such failures. I believe that an
interconnected business communities and politics is a driving factor for a
country’s development. Modi’s speech was also addressed to India’s
billionaires. However, we are still stuck at the blame game.
While India is promoting its
strength to compete in the world market, both Nepal and India share a similar
plight. India suffers as much from power failure as Nepal does; hence the
lobbying for India’s GMR Company to build a 900 MW hydro power plant.
Similarly, tax laws in both Nepal and India are both ambivalent. Likewise, the
failure of the state to quicken the process for foreign or national investment
is the same. The delayed Power Trade Agreement that Nepal signed with GMR
Company is an example.
Admitted that Nepal has its
weaknesses. But to what extent should these problems become a detrimental
factor for the country’s growth? Each individual is bestowed with two
options—to complain and to act. While India is working to act despite
obstacles, Nepal, on the other hand, still is complaining.
I firmly believe that Nepal’s
business communities should come up together, propose their business plans and
act and commit to develop the nation despite adversaries. Both political
leaders and the entrepreneurs should be concerned with the outcome and not the
process of an event. Moreover, Nepal should not just promote Nepalese business
community. It should also invite by bringing in innovative initiatives and
incentives to call upon tenders from the global community.
