The “Make Huff” and “Military Huff”
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 17th May 2017
While there has been consistent criticism in media around Belt & Road, somehow most commentary seems around ‘perceived strategic issues’ only. Very little has been said on why despite low cost labour, the jewelry sector or the pharma sector (& these are just examples) has been hampered to access the Chinese market and why still even the nations which have signed on the initiative like Lanka or Bangladesh may not be able to crack it as well (there also have been stories around loan re-structuring’s) even though there may be skills available at relatively low cost. Basically, very little information about the overall scheme of things around ‘market denial’ in East Asian Exporter nations makes into media. That is despite years of continued trade-deficit with these nations especially around manufactured goods and engineering exports. What one can find is the rhetoric & rant on how public finances should be distributed to achieve some chimera, rather.
Basically for the commercial new media, rhetoric is news and investigations are around some political persons and they cannot be around over hard facts (since then these become academic exercise rather than ‘hot stuff’ which gets sold). What is also true is that the Jewelry industry in India is age old and has a significant market share as well as repute. But still the captains would not want to dominate or take global leadership position by clamoring for market access and the commercial news media would start investigating different things even though the ‘Make’ and ‘Jobs’ are our stated priorities. What can perhaps be added though unrelated to header is intractability of the absconding defaulters in the sector. And this might perhaps help the picture that the profits are perhaps not through the ‘Make’ stuff yet the political netas and parties would not raise any issues over it. What one can hear though are segregated stuff like jobs not happening, tensions on some borders etc. which don’t cut much of an ice with public and thus decline of the netas but seldom admitted either by the party or the commercial news media.
Basically the media is dominated by ‘Sales’ with a focus to argue on what should be bought, from public finances. That’s what would explain a majority of arguments carried by it. There is always a lot of focus on large infrastructure projects. Whereas environ and social impact of these are seldom discussed or even the beneficiaries perception/reactions about the projects. This is because while the reportage or reporting cost to argue for a specific argument or buying rationale, to be put to media to shape perceptions is ‘covered; by you know who, however taking reactions from beneficiary or putting out social and environment impact is ‘not covered’. Nearly the same can said about the defense purchases, where the strategic stakes can be higher. The netas, not only for India but most emerging markets are comfortable to ‘buy’ projects and show progress on infrastructure front building a chimera that this will lead to ‘progress’ and ‘jobs’ whereas efforts to develop industry’s market access or raise its competency levels is best left to businesses and entrepreneurs. Some dollops may be thrown in like some subsidy or tax breaks etc. rather than sincere efforts. The entrepreneurs on their own often start finding ‘investments’ in real estate or some other speculative deals more attractive. When stretched beyond a point it results in credit indiscipline and defaults which is then restructured usually with netas’ support again. One can see various arguments right from nationality to political loyalties to incompetence and unemployability etc. in justification for the 'buy' focus of netas for infra or defence or some other high ticket items, but seldom any reportage on the 'public focus' areas in 'independent news media'.
While there is a huge clamour for change especially in the secular opposition camp that also like to maintain ‘airs’. However there is a clear lack of ‘face’ even though many leaders barring a few, can be seen arguing for a ‘facelift’. While ‘faces’ are all about what the politics usually consists of, that is ‘always putting your own face up’, however understanding and defining change that is likely to rub with the people needs to be understood before what such a ‘face’ should be able to communicate is discovered. It is here where the test of leadership may lie. It is notable that the opposition is almost totally splintered as they have failed to rally together behind any single issue or idea. The largest party in opposition seems unsure about anything in it’s goodie bag that would sell but keep going around yesteryear slogans and tricks, which now easily seen through. What could perhaps be better is to re-examine or re-imagine leadership in a wholesome manner in line with ‘game’ which in a democracy has to be played ‘for the people’. That should hopefully correct the approach for selection of people for netagiri that meets up needs for approval of change.
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 17th May 2017
While there has been consistent criticism in media around Belt & Road, somehow most commentary seems around ‘perceived strategic issues’ only. Very little has been said on why despite low cost labour, the jewelry sector or the pharma sector (& these are just examples) has been hampered to access the Chinese market and why still even the nations which have signed on the initiative like Lanka or Bangladesh may not be able to crack it as well (there also have been stories around loan re-structuring’s) even though there may be skills available at relatively low cost. Basically, very little information about the overall scheme of things around ‘market denial’ in East Asian Exporter nations makes into media. That is despite years of continued trade-deficit with these nations especially around manufactured goods and engineering exports. What one can find is the rhetoric & rant on how public finances should be distributed to achieve some chimera, rather.
Basically for the commercial new media, rhetoric is news and investigations are around some political persons and they cannot be around over hard facts (since then these become academic exercise rather than ‘hot stuff’ which gets sold). What is also true is that the Jewelry industry in India is age old and has a significant market share as well as repute. But still the captains would not want to dominate or take global leadership position by clamoring for market access and the commercial news media would start investigating different things even though the ‘Make’ and ‘Jobs’ are our stated priorities. What can perhaps be added though unrelated to header is intractability of the absconding defaulters in the sector. And this might perhaps help the picture that the profits are perhaps not through the ‘Make’ stuff yet the political netas and parties would not raise any issues over it. What one can hear though are segregated stuff like jobs not happening, tensions on some borders etc. which don’t cut much of an ice with public and thus decline of the netas but seldom admitted either by the party or the commercial news media.
Basically the media is dominated by ‘Sales’ with a focus to argue on what should be bought, from public finances. That’s what would explain a majority of arguments carried by it. There is always a lot of focus on large infrastructure projects. Whereas environ and social impact of these are seldom discussed or even the beneficiaries perception/reactions about the projects. This is because while the reportage or reporting cost to argue for a specific argument or buying rationale, to be put to media to shape perceptions is ‘covered; by you know who, however taking reactions from beneficiary or putting out social and environment impact is ‘not covered’. Nearly the same can said about the defense purchases, where the strategic stakes can be higher. The netas, not only for India but most emerging markets are comfortable to ‘buy’ projects and show progress on infrastructure front building a chimera that this will lead to ‘progress’ and ‘jobs’ whereas efforts to develop industry’s market access or raise its competency levels is best left to businesses and entrepreneurs. Some dollops may be thrown in like some subsidy or tax breaks etc. rather than sincere efforts. The entrepreneurs on their own often start finding ‘investments’ in real estate or some other speculative deals more attractive. When stretched beyond a point it results in credit indiscipline and defaults which is then restructured usually with netas’ support again. One can see various arguments right from nationality to political loyalties to incompetence and unemployability etc. in justification for the 'buy' focus of netas for infra or defence or some other high ticket items, but seldom any reportage on the 'public focus' areas in 'independent news media'.
While there is a huge clamour for change especially in the secular opposition camp that also like to maintain ‘airs’. However there is a clear lack of ‘face’ even though many leaders barring a few, can be seen arguing for a ‘facelift’. While ‘faces’ are all about what the politics usually consists of, that is ‘always putting your own face up’, however understanding and defining change that is likely to rub with the people needs to be understood before what such a ‘face’ should be able to communicate is discovered. It is here where the test of leadership may lie. It is notable that the opposition is almost totally splintered as they have failed to rally together behind any single issue or idea. The largest party in opposition seems unsure about anything in it’s goodie bag that would sell but keep going around yesteryear slogans and tricks, which now easily seen through. What could perhaps be better is to re-examine or re-imagine leadership in a wholesome manner in line with ‘game’ which in a democracy has to be played ‘for the people’. That should hopefully correct the approach for selection of people for netagiri that meets up needs for approval of change.