The Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train project is likely to significantly impact several areas, from attracting more foreign investment to possibly ushering a transformation of Indian Railways. Here is how.
Background–
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Japanese counterpart, Shinzo Abe, will be laying the foundation stone for the Mumbai-Ahmedabad bullet train project on 14 September.
In-detail:-
In its size, scale and sweep, this project is probably the single largest foreign direct investment into India since independence. Expected to cost approximately $15 billion (Rs 90,000 crore), it is fully funded by the Japanese through a soft loan at an interest rate of 0.1 per cent per annum.
It has been ensured that repayment of this loan is to begin after 15 years and to be repaid over the next 35 years. What makes this loan arrangement attractive is that even loans from multilateral agencies come with more stringent terms. The low interest rate and extended repayment period have the calculated effect of addressing upfront any potential economic downsides in the project.
Besides this sweet deal, the project has significant geopolitical ramifications. At the outset, it signifies the dynamics of the Indo-Japanese relationship and the confidence Japan has on India in general and the government in particular. This in turn will draw in future investments into India from foreign countries on several such projects.
More importantly, the terms of any investment into India, private or government, will henceforth be benchmarked against the terms of this project. Anyone funding projects in India on interest rates above 0.1 per cent and for a term of less than 50 years will surely raise eyebrows.
What is especially astonishing is that for the first time since independence, one sovereign nation has invested so heavily in India on such favourable terms for the latter and for such extended periods. Obviously, the Japanese have more faith in the Indian economy than probably some of our own economists. The glass ceiling has well and truly been broken.
But that is not all. If the economics and geopolitics of the project bring about the ‘make in India’ angle, the technology transfer along with the ‘make in India’ commitment by the Japanese make the project a possible pivot to the entire Make in India campaign. According to experts, the significant fallout of this project would be on this ambitious national project.
As per the agreement between the two governments, this project has well-defined ‘Make in India’ & ‘transfer of technology’ objectives. Consequently, it is understood that four sub-groups with representatives from the Indian and Japanese industries are closely working to identify potential items and sub-systems to ensure that the project has a significant Make in India component. In this connection, the Indian government and the Railway Ministry are encouraging active interaction between the industries of India and Japan. Industry sources believe that quite a few joint ventures will be formed in the near future to ensure manufacturing within India for the project. A significant impact of this will be a quantum leap in the technology available to Indian Railways apart from the change in work culture.
Left to itself and without the promised transfer of technology, training and ensuring ‘make in India’, this project may well be an aid packaged as investment. It is not, though. India, in her current state of development, requires investment (which includes transfer of technology), not aid. Therefore, in this case, the Japanese have redefined the idea of investment and cooperation.
Readers may recall the car manufacturing revolution ushered in by the Maruti-Suzuki tie-up in India in the early 1980s. In just 30 years, India has emerged as a global giant in automobile manufacturing. Today, it not only manufactures world-class cars but also exports to advanced countries, and some of them are domestic brands competing with the best internationally. Only those who have witnessed the rapid transformation of the Indian automobile industry in the past three decades will appreciate this transformation.
Likewise, the bullet train project is expected to revolutionise the construction sector in India by bringing in new technology and work culture. To absorb the desired cutting-edge technology and train adequate manpower, a world-class High Speed Rail Training Institute is being simultaneously planned and developed in India. Expected to be fully functional by the end of 2020, this institute will train about 4,000-strong staff in the next three years, who will, besides being involved in operations and maintenance of the project, also serve as the backbone for future development of other high-speed corridors in India.
Let us also not forget that Indian Railways has been a fiefdom of successive railway ministers and a grim reminder of the failed socialist economics. The upcoming bullet train is all set to alter the functioning of Indian Railways. Currently, the speed of our trains, its cleanliness, and safety records are abysmal. A transformation requires a cultural transplant. And it is getting it through the introduction of the bullet trains. Hopefully, the cross-fertilisation of ideas with the Japanese will transform this moribund organisation into a world-class unit not too far in the future.
Of course, the usual suspects seek answers to the very same questions that they raised when computers were introduced in the late 1980s. The answer to that came from the ordinary Indian within a decade or so, as India became a superpower in computers. Again, people raised questions about the introduction of mobile phones and termed it elitist. But mobile phones ensured the telecom revolution within a decade or so – what the landlines could not achieve in six decades. Today, we boast of a Digital India dream, thanks to the revolution in this sector. This, again, was possible, thanks to the ability of the ordinary Indian in absorbing new technology. At every turn, Indians have lapped up technology and profited from it.
Hopefully, Indians will embrace the bullet train technology too, which in turn is expected to spur manufacturing in India while simultaneously strengthening the Indo-Japanese relationship.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.