While the debate on whether Britain does owe reparations to India is more in the realm of the academic, what the debate did do, was to draw the focus of the generations of Indians, born after Independence, to facts which may not have found their way into school history books.

Samuel P Huntington, in his book ‘The Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking of World Order’, presents that in the year 1750 India + Pakistan + Bangladesh accounted for 24.5% of the world manufacturing output by civilization or country. China was at 32.8 %, the West – 18.2%. In 1913, the Indian sub-continent was at an abysmal 1.4%, China at 3.6% and the West was at 81.6%. In 1980, India climbed back a little to be at 2.3% (effects of being independent, possibly, showing!), China was at 5% and the West was at 57.8%. A quick look at the last few years’ performance (data as of 2012) shows, China is at about 22%, USA at 17%, UK at 1.9% and India at 2.1%. While the West’s share has gone down, China has bounced back in manufacturing output.  https://www.mapi.net/china-has-dominant-share-world-manufacturing

Interestingly, another star of yesteryears is the Indian Rupee. In all probability, the Indian Rupee was possibly one of the most transacted world currencies after the British Pound Sterling, finding acceptance as a legal tender in the British Somaliland, Burma, Ceylon, East Africa, Mauritius, Persian Gulf (Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Dubai, United Arab Emirates), Bhutan, Pakistan, Seychelles, Yemen and Zanzibar at various points of time. http://www.atsnotes.com/catalog/banknotes/india.html . The Indian rupee was replaced in East Africa by the Rupee of the Government of the East African Protectorate in 1905 (and later by the Florin, and then the Shilling, of the East African Currency Board) and again by the Shilling of the East African Currency Board in Southern Arabia in 1951. However, within the states of the Persian Gulf the Indian rupee was still the official currency even as recently as 1959. In 1959, the Reserve Bank of India, issued the Gulf Rupee.  “Facilities have been provided to banks operating in the Gulf States to exchange Indian currency notes collected by them for sterling. However, this currency arrangement has, in the last few years, facilitated the conversion into sterling of large amounts of Indian notes smuggled out, representing proceeds of smuggled imports of gold and other commodities into India, which entailed a substantial drain on India’s foreign exchange reserves.” – Reserve Bank of India Bulletin May 1959 http://www.islamicbanknotes.com/gulfrupees%20(article).htm . Consequently, the Government of India introduced the Gulf Rupee. Over a period of time, these countries, gradually, introduced their own legal tender. The Gulf Notes are now a collector’s dream item for collection.

As the old order gives way to new orders, remnants of the glorious Indian business presence of yore is still seen in all these countries in the form of a thriving diaspora – be it the Sindhis in West Africa or the Gujaratis in East Africa. The first migrants to these places would have been contributors to the Indian Business Economics of the past centuries. If these yesteryears are any indication, the future holds the potential at least of being no less glorious.

                                                                                                          – Gopal

The impression that one carries is that conversion of existing cities to being smart partially may not really be successful. So, would it be better to build a few completely new green-field smart cities from scratch after evaluating the models followed in Songdo in South Korea or Masdar in Abu Dhabi? This can potentially have the best of water, power, sewage, hygiene, waste management, rain water management, vehicle movement & parking, security, e-governance, hygiene, health care and education facilities that India can have.

The detailed action plan on 100 smart cities by the Government of India is eagerly awaited. I am sure it is worth the wait!

                                                                                                           – H T Ramakrishna

 When a government and the legislature struggle to deliver justice efficiently to its average citizen, why bring another law which may not be really called for?

 Further, we rank rather low in attractiveness to do business (quantified under the Ease of Doing Business Index). Does this add to the ease of doing business in any manner? Won’t this be looked upon by FDI investors as just another ploy to tax the companies?

 Though countries like Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, and Australia have mandatory CSR reporting, India, among large-sized countries, will be possibly amongst the first to mandate this. It is estimated that this law would cover anything upto 3000 odd companies and bringing in 2 billion USD or more (rough estimates). That is a lot of money!

 The legislation could have been better drafted and better thought through.  The Ministry of Company Affairs in a subsequent clarification has indicated that the entries “must be interpreted liberally so as to capture the essence of the subjects enumerated”.

 If a company is not able to allocate the mandated 2% of profits in a given fiscal, then the CSR Committee of the Company has to submit an explanation so as to avoid being penalized. The law is curiously silent on what would constitute legally acceptable explanations and what wouldn’t.

 While the intention of the government is commendable, so far as strengthening social responsibility of corporates who may afford it, the rules in their present avatar seem to present a significant scope for improvement. One remains hopeful that these anomalies are looked into at the earliest, and the specific sections re-worked.

                                                                                                                                – Gopal

Interestingly, labelling norms for GM food in different parts of the world is varied. In EU it has been mandatory since 1997, whereas in the US they are yet to adopt stringent norms.

This aspect of labelling may seem a trivial regulatory matter but experience from other countries has shown that it can have far reaching consequences for consumer choice, the food industry, international trade and ultimately, technological choice at the farmer level. In developed countries, the costs associated cannot be bracketed as non-negligible, and it has not achieved its desired level of consumer choice. In developing nations, it has been ineffectual due to unenforceability.We hope that the efficacy of the existing testing infrastructure in the country for GM labeling is robust enough to provide a efficient reporting system. Further, we also hope that the competence to regulate all this activities is also robust enough to ensure that the consumer is well protected.

The fact the we do not see too much of food on the shelves of the retail stores with the GM lable gives us to conclude that there is no GM food that we may be unwittingly consuming. We sincerely hope that the inefficiencies of the system is not leaving the door ajar without anyone knowing.

                                                                                                                                    – Gopal