FDI in Defence: Change is good
With
a big hue and cry finally FM has increased the FDI in defence from 26% to 49%.
With just having 6 weeks of governance, facing opposition and criticism from
the economists it was definitely not a cakewalk for the NDA.
India’s
policy on FDI has always been a bureaucratic obduracy and perverse
intransigence. Unwillingness to learn from the experience is another aspect
that can be added to it. Considering the fact that FDI in defence was first
mentioned in Budget 2001-02 with 26%, India has received less than $5 million
inflow till today. The scenario was worst in 2004 when the then Defence
Minister George Fernandes was forced to admit in the Lok Sabha that India had
received no FDI proposal till that time. In 2010, the Commerce Ministry
circulated a note recommending the raising of FDI cap to 74 per cent to
encourage ‘established players in the defence industry to set up manufacturing
facilities and integration of systems in India’. But again it was not in the
interest of the country and Ministry of Defence (MoD) retained the 26 %. In May
2013, modifying his earlier proposal, Commerce Minister Anand Sharma suggested
that the upper cap be raised to 49 per cent as a first step. It was again shot
down by the MoD.
There was
always a need to increase the FDI percentage but there were some of the myths
or perception that India was struggling with. Now, NDA has increased the FDI
percentage, this article jots down the major myths that NDA government has put
aside.
Myth One: Increasing FDI
percentage a threat to national security
Apprehensions were
being made that during operational emergencies, foreign investors can show
their back at us, shut their factories and choke their supplies to the armed
forces.
But
the irony is that India is procuring all critical weapon systems
produced/integrated abroad till today. It was not understood as to how India’s
security would get threatened if the same weapon systems would be
produced/integrated in India.
As regards
dependability during crisis situations, no foreign investor can risk loss of
his total investment by shutting down his production facilities. Further, all
major defence equipment producers follow ‘Global Factory’ concept, wherein
various manufacturing functions are spread over a number of locations in
different countries.
Most
importantly, adequate safeguards could have been incorporated while issuing
licenses. India could have reserved the right to take over the licensed
facility under certain extraordinary circumstances of national emergencies.
Most nations include such an enabling provision then why not India. Fears
expressed were totally unfounded and highly exaggerated.
Myth Two: Indian policy
was highly investor friendly and did not require any changes
According to the UPA and
previous government MoDs FDI in defence (26 %) was highly investor friendly and
required no changes. However, if we look by the investor company perspective,
there was nothing for them till now. Management would be under the control of
India, the CEO had to be Indian resident and a foreign investor could not
transfer his equity before the expiry of license.
Oddly, India
expected a prospective foreign investor to be excited by such an asymmetrical
policy wherein he was expected to invest his resources in a venture where he had
no significant control, faced strict capacity/product constraints, no purchase
guarantee and had no open access to other markets (including exports). It
defied logic. Such a lop-sided policy can never attract FDI.
The new budget
has definitely a lot to offer. The outcome will definitely get unwrapped in
couple of months and the list of investors taking interest in it. There is a
need of retrospection in every sector. Every budget in every year promises in
the same way but the execution. With a new government and the famous ‘Achche
Din’ let’s hope the execution proves the mettle on the people’s expectation.
This article is written by Kumar Prashant, a PGDM student of 2014 batch He can be reached at pgp14085.prashant@iimraipur.ac.in"