Business in the firing line

'The government is not given to introspection about its own weaknesses', says the author

The Sangh Parivar in its 21st century avatar appears to have acquired a psychological problem when it comes to Indian business. In 2014, a Make in India extravaganza posited India Inc as the future engine of the country’s economic growth. Over 2020 and 2021, a series of policies invited India Inc to expand exponentially by buying government-owned assets through disinvestment and/or choosing a convoluted route called the National Monetisation Pipeline (NMP). Yet in the space of a month, the ruling party’s minister of commerce and industry and a publication from its mentor organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) launched coruscating attacks on two respected domestic corporate giants.

Both attacks suggest a collective irritation within the Parivar that Indian business has not fulfilled its prescribed role in transforming the economy and burnishing the credentials of the Bharatiya Janata Party and its “CEO” prime minister. In fact, the PM himself has expressed mild exasperation, exhorting businesses twice, in 2016 and 2021, to take more risks and invest — to no discernible effect. The government is not given to introspection about its own weaknesses. So when Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal, whose equations with the PM are known to be good, and Panchjanya, a Hindi language magazine from the RSS stable, accuse the Tata group of “self interest” and Infosys of funding forces inimical to India, it can be assumed that relations between India Inc and the ruling dispensation have entered a new dynamic of tension.

More than anything, both commentaries reveal how little the Sangh Parivar understands the basics of business. Mr Goyal, speaking at a Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) meet, had suggested that the Tata group’s complaints about the new e-commerce policy amounted to putting self-interest before national interest and advised it to “resist the greed” of foreigners. What, specifically, was the Tata group’s complaint? The draft e-commerce policy bars shopping websites selling products from related companies. For the Tatas, which plans to launch a super-app, this would exclude products from its joint venture with Starbucks, among others.

How exactly can a complaint against a policy constraint on business be described as impacting “national interest”, that opaque portmanteau term so beloved of nationalists? And how precisely can a domestic company’s desire to purvey goods from its joint venture on its own platform be ascribed to foreigners’ greed? It may have escaped Mr Goyal’s notice that the Tatas had not complained about this restriction when it was applied exclusively to foreign-owned Amazon and Flipkart all these years but only when the policy was extended to domestic e-commerce platforms.
 

And somehow, despite governmental enthusiasm for foreign direct investment, he seems to think foreign partnerships are a bad thing. “You are welcome to do good, honest business. But in wrongdoings… when I read names that have entered partnerships with anyone and everyone,” which is certainly a novel way to describe Starbucks. Should we assume the same descriptors apply to Google, Facebook and Aramco?

As for Panchjanya, the mag appears to be unaware of the basics of journalism that would, at the very least, have demanded an explanation or comment from Infosys or the government. The glitches on the portal may well have been the result of dereliction on the IT major’s part and they certainly inconvenienced thousands of taxpayers. But to equate poor performance to some sinister anti-India plot is ludicrous and plain scurrilous. 

Neither Tata nor Infosys have offered public rejoinders and, timorousness being a default position for India Inc, CII has taken down recordings of Mr Goyal’s speech. The minister himself has clarified that he has nothing against the Tata group. But it is noticeable that no one in government has chosen to contradict the commerce minister (unless a NITI Aayog note that repeats the Tatas’ complaint can be interpreted that way). And his recent appointment as G20 sherpa suggests that he has not blotted his copybook as far as Lok Kalyan Marg goes.  

As for RSS, it sought to distance itself from the Panchjanya cover story, claiming that the magazine is not its mouthpiece. But Panchjanya is published under the aegis of RSS. And almost as if to contradict itself, as Nistula Hebbar pointed out in the The Hindu, the RSS general secretary fulsomely described Panchjanya as a herald for dharma yudh or crusader for right principles the very next day. Infosys was not named in his speech inaugurating the magazine’s new office but he made an oblique reference to how the nationalists’ viewpoint was gaining ground over “forces inimical to India”.

All told, then, between the fulsome mutual admiration in 2014 through demonetisation, a rushed GST programme, rising tariff barriers and now accusations of ominous plots and anti-nationalism, India Inc can be forgiven if it is confused about its relationship with this government.