Questions and Answers
(Provisional transcript)
Dr John Chipman
A question for Sheikh Mohammed Bin Essa. I think everyone recognises that Bahrain was the first also in the Gulf to establish an effectively regulated financial services centre. There is now competition to Bahrain elsewhere in the GCC states. However, since you called for the introduction of high‑skilled labour from India to Bahrain, and implicitly for more investment from different sectors from India in Bahrain, what is the argument that Bahrain makes to an Indian company that is not in the financial services sector as to why they should go to Bahrain as opposed to Dubai or Abu Dhabi, or other countries that have either the appearance or the reality of greater obvious internal wealth to absorb that investment?
Sheikh Mohammed Bin Essa
Briefly, it comes down to three points. Firstly, Bahrain is ideally located to access the opportunities. There are great opportunities in Bahrain, but the main market we have is Saudi Arabia. Any growth strategy should take advantage of the growth in the Gulf. Bahrain is centrally located to access these opportunities, both in terms of physical infrastructure and otherwise.
Second is the cost of doing business. Bahrain today is the most cost‑effective place to do business. Renting office space, renting housing, for example, is less than 50% that of Dubai. We have maintained inflation in Bahrain and therefore we have a very cost‑effective location from which to serve your clients.
The third point actually comes down to quality of life. Bahrain has a good balance and provides a very good, decent quality of life for any employees wishing to come, be it the quality of the Indian schools or the international schools to simply the basic infrastructures.
I believe these three points give us the best value proposition in the Gulf.
Dr Amit Mitra
The lifestyle you talked about is critical. Another question please.
Xiaojun Heng, China Foreign Affairs University
My question is for Dr Shourie. India’s economic development in the past four years has really attracted the world’s attention, especially since the reform process started in 1991. India’s influence in the world has now become more and more prominent. Not because of the size of its population, but because of the competitive power of its industrial products.
My question is about the exports of India. Let us suppose that the country can export four types of things. The lowest is the cheap labour and natural resources, including raw material. A higher level would be products. Products which include value‑added products. The higher level to that is the capital to making investments abroad. The highest level is knowledge; high‑tech, for example, in the area for renewable clean energy.
My question for Dr Shourie is: where would you place India in terms of its exports at the moment? At which level? Also, what is your prediction of India’s exports in this line in the next five to ten years?
Dr Arun Shourie
India’s record is very good, especially after the Prime Minister’s great pessimism which he wrote about when he did his doctoral work many years ago. We now feel that we can compete in the world and our exports are growing at a rate of 24% per year. This is in both services and manufacturing. In services, it is well-recognised in IT and other services, but what is not being sufficiently seen in the world – and about which we will hear much more in the next five years – is that Indian manufacturing has been reinvented on the shop floor. These ‘lights out’ factories of Japan are what we used to read about.
Also, from modern manufacturing, we cannot get the type of job growth that Sir Tim Lankester was mentioning. It will have to come from infrastructure growth, from reinvention of agriculture, and you can see that the Indian manufacturing industry has certainly been completely reinvented in this way. Therefore you will hear much more about Indian manufacturing exports in the coming years.
I personally feel that there is great scope in agriculture also, for instance in high value horticultural products; in China’s success in medicinal plants. In India we have had a long tradition of herbal medicine. That will also be translated into many exports in the coming years.
Dr Amit Mitra
I think you are referring to iron ore experts to China, which are from raw material, rather than value‑added services.
Dr Arun Shourie
There is a strong opinion within India that it is the wrong thing for us to do. Raw materials have been exported, but in that we differ from African countries. There will be strong pressure and value‑added processes will begin in India within the next five years, even with regard to basic materials such as iron ore or processed aluminium and so on.
Admiral Arun Prakash
I have an observation on a slightly philosophic level for Dr Shourie. You made an important point that while we have a plethora of knowledge in many areas, there are certain niche key areas where we lack expertise, such as regional knowledge, languages and the culture of our neighbours. I have had the personal experience of receiving foreign delegations and looking desperately for interpreters. It turns out that one of the delegation speaks much better Hindi than many of us.
The point I would like to make to you is that perhaps we suffer from a sense of hubris that with our ancient culture and heritage we do not need to learn from anybody. That then leads to a requirement for autarchy so that we are self‑sufficient and we do not want anything from anybody.
You also mentioned the defence research. They have achieved a lot, but they also suffer from a sense of hubris where they want to reinvent the wheel when they could very well go out and take knowledge from somewhere else.
This morning Lord Powell in his talk mentioned the phrase ‘high moral ground’ about seven or eight times. Perhaps he was gently chiding us for hubris.
The point I wish to make to you, as a senior leader, is that we need to break out of this hubristic state of mind, and perhaps be a little more humble. We need to go out and learn from our neighbours.
Dr Arun Shourie
Of course we should always learn. If you look at, for example, the Indian manufacturing industry, they are always learning. The Indian farmer and how he adopts new practices shows how they are also always learning. Like all philosophical generalisations encapsulated into one word, it is too general in this regard. It is true that sometimes we do not learn. One of the best examples of this is in religion. For example, the Tibetans have been here. We have not learnt anything from them. However, Western scholarship on Buddhism – even in translating Tibetan works – is outstanding. We have to access Tibetan knowledge through Western scholars.
In regard to your point on defence research that we have not learnt because the organisations think they know it all, I do not get that impression. You know them better than I do, but I interact with them and I do not get that impression. The reason this has not happened and that their research output has not been better is due to a complete lack of accountability. It is a conspiracy of silence and the diffidence of the defence forces in speaking out about the products that they have been handed.
I had a personal experience of senior offices in the armed forces testifying when we examined the parliamentary committee. When the Defence Secretary was there they would not speak out. During the coffee break they will tell you what had happened. Is that hubris or is that a bureaucratic culture which is preventing it? That will probably be corrected, just as all other public sector organisations – in airlines and telecommunications – improved their services when the private sector was allowed to enter into their sector, even when the organisations were not privatised. That stage is probably coming in the case of defence production. That is why I mentioned that this is one of the reasons that we can hope for better research and development even in defence.
Dr Amit Mitra
Dr Shourie is pointing to two points. One is the technology denial regime; that our capacity to learn from others is somewhat deterred by the dual‑use technologies denial process. The second point is about private sector engagement. You know that there is a scheme with 13 top private sector companies of India getting engaged, but it has not gone anywhere. It is somehow stuff in the grooves. Effort has been made, but it has not gone anywhere.
Vani Tripathi
My question is for Dr Shourie. I am the National Secretary of the BJYM and I am an actress in television, film and theatre. You have authored one of the best books on a very controversial and debatable subject called ‘Reservation’ which is connected to what you were mentioning: the populous talk in this country about secondary and primary education. Are we compromising excellence in this country when we talk about reservation? There is a recent court ruling which is being debated across the country.
My second query is about whether we are protecting our intellectual property enough? I come from an industry which is also contributing tremendously to information technology, which is entertainment across the globe. Piracy is one of the major issues which is compromising knowledge in this country. What would your take be on these two things?
Dr Arun Shourie
As far as reservation is concerned, it is a very Indian topic and you will probably have to hold a separate conference for that. I can only mention that I would commend my own book, which is called ‘Falling Over Backwards.’ The history of reservations has been traced and the lack of any intellectual or empirical basis for it has been shown. The populism of politicians and of the courts has been documented at great length. It is certainly a part of the assault on standards that I have mentioned.
To respond to your question of intellectual property rights, it is a yes and no answer. It is the denial of dual-use technology which has spurred some of our work in nuclear establishments. It has helped us in computers, certainly in competition technology, as in the denial of the supercomputer. In space also. But in intellectual property rights, because of the new intellectual property regime in the world, it would mean that it would not be possible for us to do the easy thing of reverse engineering. We will have to do fundamental research, as Amit was giving examples of; of discovering new molecules and others.
In the entertainment industry, if the price differentials are so great between what we produce in CDs and how they can simply be forged, no matter how much you police the situation, piracy cannot be stopped and therefore the best way is to stay many steps ahead of those involved in piracy. The Indian entertainment industry has been making efforts in this, but in the end it will have to be more innovative.
Participant
My question is directed towards Dr Pillai. To me, India is a continent, not a subcontinent, as referred to by the late Nirad C Choudhary. This difference of opinion notwithstanding, why compare with a country of more than one billion, with variety and variation, with city states of a few million all the time? There has to be a difference between cities and continents. Secondly, an elephant takes time to do every possible thing, which it does.
Dr Gopinath Pillai
That is a very good question. Singapore, with four million people, cannot be compared. However, if you were to divide India into a thousand Singapores, in which each municipality operated in a way that gives maximum benefit to its people and brings in a certain framework in which everything can thrive, it will be fine. However, having said that, I agree with you. I am not comparing. I am simply saying: with four million people, how much do we spend? We have to depend on getting the best out of our four million people. You have the luxury of saying that you do not need to work with so many people and that you have a talent pool that will emerge anyway. We are on different planets.
The comparison to an elephant I do not quite agree with. I think India moves much faster than an elephant. An elephant moves with a lot of show. Its movement is very visible. India, unfortunately, for a first visitor to the country, gives one the feeling that everything is stagnant. But if you observe, it is actually moving quite fast under the water. There is movement and progress. It is not visible.
People often mistake this as the visual impact is underplayed in India. For a foreign person coming into Bombay airport, it is a disaster. When a person arrives at Singapore airport, it is fantastic. That does not mean that India is not improving. India does not move like an elephant, but moves stealthily, effectively and at its own pace. I am not asking it to move faster.
If you want to be a knowledge-based economy, you have to allocate resources for research and development, and education. One of the big shortfalls you have, for example, is in technical education. You have excellent IITs. However, at the lower level – the machinists, the mechanics – the training is stopped. This is because the Industrial Training Institutes are quite pathetic. I have seen them myself. I am saying this as a friend. If you go to IIT Madras or IIT Bombay, they are incomparable. They are fantastic and the quality of the people is outstanding. However, they are not the ones who are going to sharpen your instruments or screw on your nuts and bolts. Those people need to be trained. At the moment it is a case of trial and error, and there are more errors than success. There is a tremendous cost.
There must be investment in these areas before you move into a knowledge‑based area. I am sorry if I offended you.
Dr Amit Mitra
Not at all. I think it is a very good point. I think you went from elephant to crocodile. It moves stealthily, under the water and you do not see it!
Krishan Kalra
My question is for Dr Shourie. I am from the PHD Chamber. Dr Shourie, you made a brief reference to the tripling of the outlay on education. I agree with the observation that you made that this would not deliver. However, where are the answers to the questions that we have? Teachers are not reporting; classes are not available; students are dropping out. In some regions, 89% of the students are dropping out. This is a very shaky foundation of our education system. Even before we talk about vocation, and the reference that Dr Pillai mentioned, or before we talk about higher education, this is the foundation we need to put right. Without it, the demographic dividend might turn into a burden.
Dr Arun Shourie
It is right for a Singaporean to be so generous in his remarks and to give us so much latitude, but the fact is that we must learn to benchmark against the best. We should not exempt ourselves because we are a continent and others are small city states. We have to compete with 1,000 Singapores. There is a Singapore in each industry. As a continent, we will be facing every industry and we must therefore learn to benchmark against the best. In India we have a habit of exempting ourselves as being too big and therefore we do not consider Singapore, for example, or consider that China is a dictatorship, and so on. In spite of everything we have to be better than the others. It is not enough to be better than yesterday. We have to be better than our rivals are today in each industry.
There are separate answers to students who are dropping out and separate answers to teachers who are not reporting. With regards to the teacher shortage, we need to use our great advantage in IT and in communication technology for broadcasting lectures and of making our curricular and reading materials public. If MIT can do it, why cannot our IITs put their course material on the net so that everyone has access to it? These are simple solutions. They work elsewhere. We should be able to do this.
Similarly, in teaching, I remember an experiment by FC Kohli, the father of IT in India. By this total immersion method, they found that we are teaching people to be literate by looking at one alphabet and learning it. However, that is not the way. The adult who is illiterate already knows the vocabulary. He has learnt the language. Why not teach him the word as a symbol? The experiment found that if a person is taught 700 words only, he will be able to read the daily newspaper with complete fluency. By having a monitor, by having a picture, the person recognises it as a word. After eight to 10 weeks of one‑two hours’ instruction, in their own time, 200,000 people became literate using this method.
We should think of innovative solutions. The private industry is not going to set up a Fabrication Laboratory (FAB). China is setting up six FABs. It requires $3 billion per FAB. The government should do that and liberalise the education sector so that there will be accountability. A teacher who is a government servant is unionised and will not come, but a private fellow setting up a school or a university will be able to make sure one way or another, in spite of labour laws, that the teachers come in time.
The short answer is that it is not either/or an Indian habit, but and/also. We have to do many things together.
Dr Amit Mitra
There are two things which may not have arisen directly in the discussion. One is the soft element of being a major power in the knowledge area. The scientific temper: do we have it? Secondly, technological culture: from childhood, the young people are beginning to get that. Young Indians knows their way around the computer because they are part of that temper. However, that has to be built. The third issue is: critical thinking skills. I do not think we have mentioned that one of the biggest lacuna in the knowledge development of India is that, right from the start, we assume that the teacher knows what is right. On the basis of what the teacher tells me and that I re‑report, I am evaluated.
When I was teaching in the US, Indian students would be lost in the first semester despite tremendous capability, even from an IIT. However, they improve massively in the second semester because they have now learnt critical thinking skills; challenging ideas and constantly pressuring. It is a very important element.
There are three areas which we need to focus on to be a knowledge superpower. Firstly, genetics: the intersection of information biology. We are not doing enough here. Secondly, nanotechnology. The US has 4,000 institutions graduating 100,000 nanotechnologists a year. That is a separate curriculum. Thirdly, robotics. These three are going to be the future of the knowledge field.
There are still several questions, but we have to close the question and answer discussion now. Thank you very much to the very distinguished panellists for a remarkable session which has now come to an end.
