Aatmanirbhar Bharat successful because India stayed out of RCEP: Mahajan

We are not against foreign trade, and neither are we against agreements. But we need to ensure that whatever agreements we sign with other countries are in the best interests of our country, he said

Aatmanirbhar Bharat could succeed because India opted out of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), Ashwani Mahajan, national co-convenor of Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM), the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh-affiliated organisation, tells Shreyas Ubgade in an interview in New Delhi. He further says the SJM is not against all free trade agreements. Edited excerpts:

While framing the manifesto for the Lok Sabha polls, will the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) consider the SJM’s feedback?
 

After understanding the fault lines of globalisation and the ‘Washington Consesus’ on which NK Singh has written, 

the government has come out with Aatmanirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India) campaign, which is in sync with the policy of Swadeshi (indigenous). We have been giving our feedback to the government time and again, whether they ask for it or not. They invite and welcome suggestions. If they ask, we will give.

In the 1990s, BJP’s Murli Manohar Joshi defined the FDI approach as “Computer chips, yes. Potato chips, no.” Has anything changed for the Sangh Parivar on that front?

We are on the same page. Even in 1991, the SJM believed that India could be built only by Indians, Indian minds, Indian skills, Indian intellect and, to a great extent, by Indian capital. The Aatmanirbhar Bharat policy is, to a great extent, based on that philosophy. The assumption that reducing tariffs and importing cheaper goods will improve the welfare of the people and consumers is wrong. There is no free cheese in the mouse trap. We realised this when China, after making us dependent on their APIs (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients), raised the prices of APIs by 4-14 times. So, our approach, even today, is that we have to adopt measures to make our industry more competitive and self-reliant. Such measures include the production-linked incentives (PLI) scheme, raising tariffs, imposing standards, or even, if needed, imposition of quotas, as we did in the case of laptops. We forced the companies to apply for PLIs. If you see, 38 companies, including international majors applied for PLI. If you need support from the multinationals for making semiconductors, fine. But the ultimate objective should be to improve the ecosystem here, where domestic producers will ultimately produce. The very success of the automobile industry, even during those days of  “Aandhi of globalisation” was because they were given reasonable protection. So, computer chips, yes. Potato chips, no.

Some experts see similarities between ‘import substitution’ and Aatmanirbhar Bharat. Are they substantially different?

It is a kind of import substitution, unlike the Nehruvian one. It is an import substitution, but not substituting with inefficient products. If we are going to substitute imports of semiconductors, phones, toys, defence, APIs, laptops, chemicals or textiles through production-linked incentives (PLI) schemes, we are also finding a huge global market. So, we will be gaining on two counts: one, we will be reducing our expenditure on imports, and we will be able to produce goods cheaply. For instance, when Tesla wanted to come here. They said they would set up their factory provided we allowed our finished cars to be imported at a lower tariff. We said no because we have to protect our domestic industry at the same time. And today, Tata and Mahindra are producing the cheapest electric vehicles. Therefore, this import substitution is not for autarky, nor for closing our borders. Restricting imports is not by way of forcibly doing it. Wherever force is required, we will use it. But generally, it is a more judicious and more forward-looking approach. 
 

Your policy intervention is said to have influenced India’s withdrawal from RCEP. Wouldn’t India have benefitted from being part of the grouping?
 

The biggest elephant in the room was China. We had some FTA experience with ASEAN, Japan, and South Korea. We researched all these cases and found that the trade deficit had gone up three times after the FTA. Even today, we are suffering because of the ASEAN FTA. Our experience with FTAs was not good. This China factor was there and had we given zero tariffs on 74-75 per cent products with China, we could not even have thought of Aatmanirbhar Bharat. So, the success of Aatmanirbhar Bharat is primarily due to the fact that we did not become a part of RCEP. 
 

How do you view FTAs? Win more or lose more? We are currently in negotiations with the UK.
 

We are not against foreign trade, and neither are we against agreements. But we need to ensure that whatever agreements we sign with other countries are in the best interests of our country. The very fact that we oppose some FTAs, like we opposed RCEP, was due to the Chinese factor and due to the impact of RCEP on our dairy and agriculture. Had that happened, our dairy would have been finished. The problem nowadays with FTAs with the developed nations is that they are not talking much about the tariffs. They are talking more about non-trade issues which we oppose. They want our patent system to be tweaked. They want to introduce a new environment, labour standards among other things. Whether it is protecting the environment, ensuring gender equality, or anything else, we will do it. But if someone is forcing us to do it in the FTAs, that is not acceptable. Therefore, we signed an agreement with Australia, but we never conceded on these issues and we even didn't concede on dairy and agriculture. They were kept out. Similarly, the government has to remain cautious and conscious about the protection of people at the bottom of the pyramid and the national interest by not conceding to the ‘Singapore Issues’.

Indian scientists have said GM mustard is safe and would help India cut imports. But SJM opposed it. Why is it so?
 

This is a fallacious argument. In several meetings with scientists, we told them, citing facts, that our domestic hybrid varieties produce 2,900 kg/hectare. However, as per their claims, the best productivity of GM mustard is 2,200 kg/hectare. How this can reduce the dependence on imports is anybody's guess. The other major reason GM should not be allowed in food crops is that we are exporting billions of agricultural food items to the rest of the world. Whether it is the US or the Gulf, most of our importers are very much concerned about whether the food items they get are non-GMO. The moment we lose this non-GMO tag, it will jeopardise our exports. We have been successful in restricting the introduction of GM mustard in the country. We had opposed GM even during the UPA government. Jairam Ramesh sided with us by not accepting Bt Brinjal. We have been opposing various policies of the government in different regimes, including during Vajpayee's tenure. If we find that the government is not falling in line with the best interests of the country, we openly oppose it.

How do you view the emergence of the 'gig' economy?
 

We don't believe that the 'gig' economy is any solution to the employment problem. Rather, it is leading to a reduction in the quality of employment. We need gainful, remunerative employment, and the 'gig' economy is no solution to that. Therefore, we are opposed to the e-commerce giants, which are basically leading this 'gig' economy. The Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC) is an answer to e-commerce. It is the democratisation of e-commerce. Flipkart and Amazon are allowed to join ONDC, but they have to follow a protocol that reduces their chances of exploiting consumers or vendors.