President Obama’s visit to India a few days back was against
the backdrop of the toughest two years that the United States of America has
experienced since the 1930s. Unemployment in the USA is at an alarmingly high
level and there have been protests against outsourcing of work to India. Just
before his arrival, the US President also suffered a setback in the mid-term
elections to the Senate and the Congress. The President was frank when he said
he needed to create jobs back home and that is why he was in India. But the
visit of the President was possibly more ceremonial and it offered little in
terms of path-breaking policy or new agreements.
Obama, in his address to the Parliament, endorsed India’s bid
for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. While the statement pleased
everybody, one must not forget that Bill Clinton during his presidency had made
a similar promise to Japan. And Japan is yet not a permanent member of the UN
Security Council. It is also not out of place to mention that according to
Wikileaks, Hillary Clinton considers India as a self appointed frontrunner for
the permanent seat on the UN Security Council. So let us not get elated with the
promise of support to India. It is still a distant dream.
President Obama, at the Town Hall Meeting with students at
St. Xavier’s College, dealt with the issue of terrorism originating from
Pakistan. While we all commemorate the 2nd anniversary of 26/11, we need to
think about the point that the US President made when he mentioned that when
India is on the move economically, it is India that has the biggest stake in
Pakistan’s stability. We must appreciate that if Pakistan is stable, it has a
stable government, possibly the incentive to promote terrorism will itself be
diminished. It will help India to concentrate on issues of economic development.
Sometimes when we look at the problem from a different angle, it becomes
possible to find a solution. Certainly terrorism or support to terrorism in any
form is unacceptable, but can’t there be a novel way to tackle it effectively?
Another issue which Obama dealt with was how the USA looks at
globalisation. In the past, the USA was an extremely dominant player in the
world economy and it could set the terms while negotiating with others. It did
not matter if economies of other countries were not so open. Other countries
required goods and services from the USA and they could be obtained only on the
terms set by the USA. Today, things have changed. Now there is competition from
other countries like China, Brazil and India. This competition is perceived as a
threat by many in the USA. Today, the USA expects reciprocity from its trading
partners. It wants access to their markets. It wants India to open sectors like
banking, insurance, retail, etc. At the same time, today, the USA, which
advocates an open economy, is itself taking steps to protect its own industry
and Obama was justifying this protectionism followed by them. It is also true
that the President of the USA, like our own government, has also to consider
what is politically feasible and practical, which in terms of economic theory
may not be the best option.
So today, to get a good deal, whether as a nation or as a
private enterprise, we have to learn to understand our strengths as well as
weaknesses and negotiate well. It has become a matter of relative economic
strength, negotiating capacity and capability. Our mindset that Indians have to
sign on the dotted line while dealing with western countries has to change. At
the same time, we have to be efficient, quality conscious and professional in
our approach in our dealings. Let us hope we are able to make the most of the
opportunity that lies before the nation.
Indra Nooyi, Chairperson and CEO of Pepsico, who was one of
the important members of the delegation that accompanied President Obama to
India, explained the point made by the President subtly during the course of a
freewheeling interview to a television news channel. While stating that
globalisation was good and the process should not be reversed, she pointed out
that each country evolves a model that is right for that country. Each country
should evolve its own brand of capitalism but not retreat into protectionism.
She was frank yet subtle when she said that President Obama knows intellectually
that (big) business was very important. She was confident that the President
will be friendlier to business going forward. Similarly, while talking about the
need for India to develop its infrastructure, she said it was not the thought
that was lagging; it was the lack of will of the democratic system to make it
happen. The Prime Minister had to make sure he had to get it through the
political system.
The interview also gave some insight into Indra Nooyi’s HR
skills, her view of the world, how there is power diffusion from the
Judah-Christian world to the multi–religion world of the East and the Middle
East. She adroitly avoided giving a direct reply when asked if she would be the
next head of the Tata Group. Indra Nooyi, who was born and brought up in Chennai
and comes from a modest background, is proud of her Indian origin; but then she
also praised the USA for its incredible meritocracy. While she said she believed
in capitalism and as the CEO of a large multinational, advocated the opening of
markets, she also admitted that compulsions of a head of the government are
different. Running a country is far difficult than being the CEO of a large
corporate. Persons like her are in a sense, world citizens. They have a global
view, wide vision and a down-to-earth approach. They are intelligent and have
worked hard. But even they have to make sacrifices and lose out on the simple
pleasures of life to reach the position where they are today. And occasionally
that becomes obvious. One then realises that these persons are also ordinary
mortals like you and I.
