Search This Blog

Friday 30 January 2009

Want to wow friends and colleagues by pretending you've been hobnobbing with global business and political leaders in Davos over the past 24 hours?


 
  • Robert Peston
  • 29 Jan 09, 10:21 AM
Want to wow friends and colleagues by pretending you've been hobnobbing with global business and political leaders in Davos over the past 24 hours? Here's what you need to know:
 
1) Prime Minister Putin was conciliatory towards the West in a speech devoid of specific commitments on anything of substance. There was an audible "phew" from the global uber-elite.
 
 
Wen Jiabao
 
2) The Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, both reassured and humiliated the western bankers. He reassured them with his account of how the supply of credit is rising again in China, which gives him confidence that the Chinese economy will grow by a more-than-respectable 8% in 2009. He embarrassed them with this manifestation of the strength of Chinese banks compared with their US, UK and eurozone peers (a strength that is the direct consequence of Chinese government policy).
 
It's very irksome for the Americans in particular that the Chinese version of what they see as their business model is holding up so well. And as if to rub their noses in it, the Chinese premier confided that he re-read Adam Smith over the summer (note "re-read") to reassure himself that the founder of modern economics wasn't the dogmatic opponent of government intervention that liberal market ideologues contend.
 
3) As I write, the chief executives of many of the world's big banks are meeting in top-secret, private session - to discuss what to say in their also top-secret meeting with finance ministers on Saturday morning. Here's the scoop on what the bankers will say: "Help!!!!!" (roughly translated as "only the further generosity of taxpayers can prevent us falling over as a consequence of the big losses we're incurring on our imprudent lending").
 
4) The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, had the depressed plutocrats in stitches at Barclays' swanky dinner last night. They loved Boris's refusal to acknowledge that the City is in something of a pickle. Meanwhile, at Standard Chartered's restrained celebration of the Chinese new year, hardened bankers were moist-eyed as the legendary Welsh bass-baritone, Bryn Terfel, led a sing-a-long of "You take the high road, and I'll take the low road". I guess for the first time in their careers the star bankers can empathise with the soon-to-be-executed tragic hero of Loch Lomond.




Share your photos with Windows Live Photos - Free Try it Now!

Why People Defied Election Boycott Call In Jammu And Kashmir

By Ghulam Nabi

28 January, 2009
Countercurrents.org

Elections were held, voter turnout was exceptional, and the government is now formed. But the big question remained unanswered why did people vote this time. The large scale turnout surprised the pro-freedom leadership and pro-Indian parties as well as the state of Pakistan, and India. While the Indian state project the voter turnout in favor of Indian state, and the Kashmir based political parties including the ruling party believes this vote is for development, not for the resolution of Kashmir. New Delhi based news channels and news papers forgot their journalistic ethics which they often do, when it comes to the matter of projecting India as a biggest democracy, and Kashmir as an integral part of India. While some news papers and news channels projected the voter turn out as the defeat of separatist sentiment in Kashmir, while the others wrote Pakistan should stop now taking about Kashmir, as the kashmiris have shown faith on Indian democracy. Indian president in her address to the Nation on the eve of 60th Republic day of India also projected elections in Kashmir as the Kashmiri people’s faith on Indian polity. One wonders how she could forget the protests of hundreds of thousands of people in recent Amarnath controversy when people marched to the streets of Kashmir to demand for Aazadi (independence). On the other hand this was again the time when separatist like Mirvaiz Umar Farooq, first time confessed that the governance and resolution are two separate issues ,alas had separatist leadership realized it earlier we would not have lost hundreds of lives which were killed because they either contested election or casted their vote .

Unlike this election, Elections in Kashmir were either rigged like 1987, or people were forced to vote like 1996, 2002. But amidst this rigging and coercion we could not see a large voter turn out, than this election, why? I believe the resilience of militants not to use gun against the contestants and voters is the biggest reason for large scale voter turn out , as National conference president Farooq Abdullah said in a public debate on NDTV , that if Pakistan and militants had not restrained from attacking we would not have seen this large scale turn out . But at the same time we have seen people from Srinagar, and some other small towns observing complete boycott of elections. So does this mean only people from Srinagar and other small town which observed boycott want aazadi and rest don’t? I would argue with a big No, those who voted do not want to be part of India, as the ones who did not vote; their ends are same, but the means to reach that destination can be different. If we look at the press briefings and speeches of all mainstream parties during their election campaign, either they disassociate themselves with the resolution of Kashmir conflict, and fought the election on the name of governance or they projected themselves as the facilitators for the resolution of Kashmir dispute. In both ways mainstream parties tried their best to disassociate themselves from projecting the so called glory of Indian democracy which has been very much understood by Kashmiri people from last sixty years. However at the same time, regional/religious centric parties like BJP in Jammu and PDP in Kashmir managed to win more seats on the name of religion and region, thus lays the foundation of communal politics in Kashmir, which had failed so far to take its organized form. BJP managed to win 10 seats in Jammu and none in Kashmir, and PDP managed to win 22 seats in Kashmir and none in Jammu is some how leading the state towards communal politics .

History is witness to the fact that Kashmiris have fought against those who went against their wishes .be it towering leader of Kashmir; sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, who was highly praised and respected by the people of Jammu and Kashmir, unlike any of the separatist or mainstream leader of present time, but when people understood he has compromised on Kashmir cause, they went to the extent of dig his corpse out of his grave in 1990’s. The 1990 arms movement created a new leadership who started ruling people, and some times went to the extent of giving judgments on family /community disputes. A section of this community later become part of Hurriyat conference, which virtually started ruling Kashmir. Hurriyat become biggest force after 1990. But the state elections in 1996 when National conference rule was enthroned on Kashmiri people, NC workers started reaching out to people, but Hurriyat’s power did not vanish with it, it played its role and become a parallel force till august 2008, when it again got a control on the mass movement. Thanks to the then Governor of Jammu and Kashmir sate S .K Sinha who forced Aazad lead Congress and PDP coalition government to transfer land to the Amarnath shrine Board, which provoked kashmiris to fight back and get land allotment order revoked. Hurriyat tried to exploit this sentiment, and convert it into mass movement for independence, but the internal politics in both the sections of Hurriyat conference disappointed people and we lost the opportunity to negotiate with India. This was the second chance when India was ready to discuss any solution after 1990, and this time we had gained support from some sections of Indian civil society. Then came the election period, not only two factions of Hurriyat but Yaseen malik , and Sajad Lone who was earlier delinking elections in J&K with the resolution of Kashmir , lost his sanity and was swayed by August protests decided to launch anti election campaign. But they got in response what they had sown. This time they could not lure people for there false claims of bringing independence overnight. So the question arises, why people voted, if they were protesting against India and for aazadi just three months back? The answer is failure of institutionalization of movement.

Almost everybody in Kashmir knows, millions were being donated by people for the Kashmir cause, but the money went to the pockets of our separatist leader’s .For twenty years of resistance they failed to create even a single school, college, library, or hospital. Families of militants and other poor people always remained at the mercy of pro India parties. Even the deceased of august 2008 protests did not receive any monitory support from Hurriyat, except some meager amount of money and award from JKLF to some of the martyrs who were killed in Police firing. With the absence of alternative support, failure of Hurriyat and pro-freedom leadership to support needy ones, people chose what they felt is better for them. They voted, but not compromised their mission to fight for aazadi, thus they proved to be masters of negotiation, unlike our Hurriyat leaders who failed to understand the ground situation. History is testimony to the fact, that those people, who vote, are the same people who were part of 1990 and august 2008 mass movements. They are the people who face the brunt of army, police, and some times the harassments by militants. They fought for independence at every point, but they have been betrayed and disappointed at every time by our separatist leadership, yet they say they vote for development, not for India. At the same time mainstream parties succeeded in delinking elections with the resolution of Kashmir, and thus projected elections for the development and solution for local problems. Thus they succeeded in bringing people out to vote. This is the lesson for Hurriyat and pro-freedom leadership, they need to do introspection and chalk out a proper strategy to lead this movement to the logical conclusion. If they are not able to do it, it is better for them to get out of the way.

Girl Child Marriage In Madhya Pradesh - Impedes Child Rights

By Seema Jain

29 January, 2009
Countercurrents.org

“Choti Si Umar Parnai Re Babo Sa, Kario Tharoo Kain Main Kusoor.” These lines from a song sung during marriages put forth the agony of a child’s heart undergoing a marriage ceremony that as to why was she being married off at such a tender age. Child marriage is one of the worst forms of denials of child rights.

Child marriage, involves either one or both spouses being children. The problem of child marriage in Madhya Pradesh is a complex one because it is related with traditional and religious practices. Compared to boys, girls are severely affected due to this practice of child marriage, due to social & physiological factor.

Madhya Pradesh has large number of teen aged mothers who is suffering with unnameable miseries entailed by the customs of early marriage. This wicked practice of child marriage has destroyed the happiness of children's life. Child marriages continue to be a fairly widespread social evil in Madhya Pradesh, despite a law banning it. The DLHS-3 recorded that 40.5% of boys are married below the age of 21 years and 29.2% of girls aged below 18 were married. The scenario of rural parts in the state is nastiest where about 58.5% women aged 20-24 years got married by the time they are 18 years old.

Among the important reasons cited for the continuance of the practice were: tradition, family and societal pressure, feudal set-up, and poverty. Based on the view that `virginity' is essential in a bride, girls are married off at a very young age, beginning five years. Due to these societal pressure & misconception relating to virginity 34.1% of women in Madhya Pradesh got married in the aged 15-19 years.

Among the districts in Madhya Pradesh, the child marriages is far more rampant in Barwani,Rajgarh, Shajapur & Sheopur districts where about 60% girl child gets married before 18. In these districts more than 50% population is illiterate resulting in sickening poverty. Poor families may regard a young girl as economic burden dew to prevailing custom of dowry marriages. Also they find it so difficult to feed everyone in the family that they prefer to "send off" the daughter as early as possible to some other family. This includes tribal inhabited district of Jhabua & Barwani districts.

Many parents say they are scared to keep their daughters unmarried after puberty as they have a big responsibility of protecting them. As a result, these girls are traumatized by sex and are forced to bear children much before their bodies are fully mature. Child Marriage is one of the most persistent forms of sanctioned sexual abuse of girls and young women. Child marriage not only affects the physical health of the bride, but also her mental and emotional well-being. The DLHS-3 findings further revealed that more than 10% of women aged 15-19 were already mothers or pregnant in about 40 districts of Madhya Pradesh at the time of the survey.


Consequences of Girl Child Marriage

 Child’s education is sacrificed.
 Girls become more vulnerable to domestic violence.
 Early pregnancies weaken the mother.
 Babies born to girls under 17 are 60 percent more likely to die in their first year of life.
 More prone to sexually transmitted disease including HIV/AIDS.


High risk/complication is associated with the teen age pregnancy. Out of the total deliveries in the state, 6.9% of deliveries are having high risk/complication. These complications related to pregnancy & child births often leads to maternal & neo-natal mortalities as the state is having significant shortfall of health institution & manpower to ensure safe motherhood. This is visible by the prevailing high MMR of 397 per lakh live birth as per NFHS-3.

These young mothers simply lack parenting skills. Infants of mothers aged younger than 18 years have a 60 per cent greater chance of dying in the first year of life than those of mothers aged 19 years or older. The infant mortality in the state is dreadfully soaring with IMR of 72/1000 live birth.

Child marriage is often associated with multiple health risks. Premature birth is a common syndrome amongst most young mothers. The premature baby thus born are very often suffers from anemia of different grade. In Madhya Pradesh 74.1% children under 5 experience anemia against the national average of 69.5%.

Secondly, young girls face the risk of infection with sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. An analysis of the HIV epidemic shows that “the prevalence of HIV infection is highest in women aged 15–24.

Early marriage is often linked to low levels of schooling for girls. Due to gender discrimination in the society, girls are not allowed to go to school and remain illiterate; they are compelled to stay at home to do household work and take care of their siblings. DLHS-3 reveals that child marriage has direct bearing on literacy & vice versa. The districts with more than 40% child marriage has less 50% female literacy. Barwani with highest percentage of child marriage (57.5%) has only 31.8% of female literacy.

It is well established fact that educated women are more likely to have a say in decision-making regarding the size of their families and the spacing of their children. They are also likely to be more informed and knowledgeable about contraception and the health care needs of their children.DLHS-3 data for all the districts of Madhya Pradesh show that more than 30 percent of women age 20-24 reported birth of order 2 & above. And these amounts to more then 80% percent for Barwani district. This indicates the high fertility rate in Madhya Pradesh.

The devastating impact of child marriage continues to be ignored in the state depicted by high infant & maternal mortality. Child marriage prolonged violation of the health and development rights of girls and young women.

H. Jackson Brown -Remember that children, marriages, and flower gardens reflect the kind of care they get.”

Ambitions dimmed but not abandoned

By James Lamont in New Delhi

Published: January 30 2009 00:10 | Last updated: January 30 2009 00:10

The small farmers of Bansur village in eastern Rajasthan overwhelmingly agree that life has changed for the better over the past 10 years. The reason is India’s greater engagement with the world economy.

Many still plough their tidy fields with camels. Between about 100 of them, they share only three tractors. They are troubled by the rising price of food, particularly of wheat, pulses and edible oils. They have also noticed that weather patterns are changing. The summers are hotter, and the monsoon rains a little less heavy.

On the upside, the men feel more connected among themselves and a world outside their village. What has revolutionised their lives is the mobile telephone – almost all of them possess one. They receive weather reports, discuss market prices for their crops and coordinate better among themselves. They even find spouses for their children this way.

“Before we would have to travel, but now we just talk. It saves time,” says Genda Lal Baisla, owner of one of the larger farms.

These same farmers are suppliers to a company listed in London that has its origins in Johannesburg and has global operations that stretch from Milwaukee to Moscow. Although few of the farmers openly admit to drinking beer themselves, they are part of SABMiller's global drinks supply chain. Their barley finds its way into beer distributed across northern India to cheer the country’s claim to be the fastest-growing beer market in Asia.

One of the most often quoted figures to illustrate the promise of the Indian economy is the number of new mobile telephone users who sign up each month. This raised eyebrows when it was 5m a month. But now the figure has reached a staggering 10m a month as mobile operators drive growth by offering call rates for less than Rs1 a minute.

The rampant growth in this sector has become the talisman that many turn to as reassurance that India’s domestic consumption is alive and well.

But as global companies increasingly change the lives of India’s 1.2bn people, the past six months have been testing for India and its engagement with the forces of globalisation. The country is at a critical juncture as it faces the prospect of global recession and a tightly-fought general election in April that pitches the ruling Congress party against the Hindu nationalist opposition Bharatiya Janata party. The battleground will be the economy.

The international financial crisis has had a worse impact on India than policymakers and businesspeople had initially recognised. The expectation was that, with exports representing only 17 per cent of gross domestic product, India would be insulated from troubles elsewhere, most particularly the US. The Sensex, the benchmark index on the Bombay Stock Exchange, lost more than half its value in the second half of last year, the liquidity crunch was felt widely and foreign portfolio investment drained swiftly from the emerging market.

Many top business leaders were soon appealing for deep interest rate cuts and emergency support from the government. Exports fell rapidly, iron ore and rice contracts were defaulted on and mass job losses loomed. Shares of some of India’s leading companies in sectors such as property, pharmaceuticals and IT outsourcing fell sharply. Even the heady days of the country’s domestic airline boom appeared numbered.

The shine speedily came off India's ambitions as corporate valuations seemed terribly overblown. Growth projections were revised down to about 7 per cent, when only in July government officials and business organisations felt double-digit growth to rival China was within reach.

As nerves jangled in New Delhi and Mumbai, a closed economy suddenly looked appealing again. Sonia Gandhi, president of the Congress party, invoked the prudence of her mother-in-law Indira in closing the Indian economy. But her praise for the nationalisation of banks in the late 1960s sounded a hollow note with a cadre of increasingly foreign-orientated business leaders eager to expand beyond India's shores.

Amid the financial turbulence, there was worse to come for investors. In the closing days of last year, India suffered one of its worst corporate scandals in one of the sectors leading its globalisation drive. Satyam, the country’s fourth largest IT outsourcing company, was dealt a devastating blow when B. Ramalinga Raju, its chairman, handed in a letter to regulators confessing to a $1bn fraud. The company’s share price collapsed, Mr Raju was taken into custody and his board dismissed.

The shockwaves were felt by investors across the world who view the IT outsourcing industry as a powerful driver of services-led economic growth. Satyam had been one of the first Indian companies to list on the New York Stock Exchange.

The fraud dimmed the Indian dream. Mr Raju’s personal journey as the son of a grape farmer in rural Andhra Pradesh, growing up without electricity, to study at Ohio University in the US and then become the chairman of an IT company was a textbook case of the opportunity globalisation could bring.

India’s openness has also attracted other enemies. The Mumbai terror attacks in November were a strike against global capital and India’s prosperity. Quite different from earlier bombs in marketplaces, the Pakistan-trained gunmen targeted hotels frequented by Indian and international business people and a Jewish centre.

In manufacturing the going was tough too. A year ago, the Nano car project to build the world’s cheapest car – to be sold for Rs100,000 ($2,061) pre tax – was held up as the spirit of the era. However, its main production plant in Singur, West Bengal, became mired in a land dispute that highlighted the tensions surrounding industrialisation.

As Ratan Tata, Tata’s chairman and one of the country’s most respected businesspeople, struggled to keep momentum behind the project, further afield, his group’s acquisition of Jaguar and Land Rover, the British car marques, from Ford was attracting strong criticism as a vainglorious enterprise.

“We analysts in the west are all looking at financial quarters and halves. But you have to give Ratan Tata credit for looking 20 years ahead with this acquisition,” says Xavier Gunner, head of research at London-based Arbuthnot Securities and an expert on the auto sector.

India’s believers are doing the same. Higher growth, the ambitions of its corporate leaders, trade’s rising share of GDP, and a high-quality, low-cost workforce are all spurring India to interact with the world as never before.

The trials of the past year have been met by the government with equanimity. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's sober assessment is encouraging. “Our problems will not be over in the current year. The difficult period will continue into 2009-10,” he said. “The important point is that, although growth is lower, it is still much higher than most other countries.”

So long as that is the case, investment bankers in London and New York, alongside barley farmers in Rajasthan, will be happy to hurry India’s globalisation along.

Foreign policy: Craving greater influence

By James Lamont in New Delhi

Published: January 30 2009 00:10 | Last updated: January 30 2009 00:10

Most aspiring world powers are reaching into the policy drawer for a checklist to navigate the global politics of a downturn. None more so than India.

The global financial crisis has hit the country at an inconvenient time, as it reaches out politically and economically to the western world. The sliding markets and liquidity squeeze have shown India and China far from “decoupled” from US and European economies. “The Indian century”, as some like to imagine it, has hit an early global obstacle.

“The credit crisis has delivered the first major external economic shock of India’s meteoric 21st century rise,” says Peter Mandelson, the UK’s minister for business. “India is less dependent on export demand than China or other parts of Asia, but the pressures on developed world investment can, and are, having the same impact on growth in India, China and the other emerging economies.”

Mr Mandelson, on a visit to New Delhi this month, outlined back-of-the-envelope steps for India, urging it to stay on its globalising path. He proposed:

● keeping trade flowing and the economy open;
● signing the European Union-India free trade agreement;
● using the optimism surrounding Barack Obama’s presidency in the US to strike a Doha trade talks deal later this year;
● using the downturn to shift into low-carbon technology;
● and helping the Group of 20 nations, which meets in London in April, achieve a shift in international politics to a new agenda.

Mr Mandelson's checklist resonates with many Indian leaders, but they acknowledge that if they achieved only one or two of the more modest goals over the coming year they would be doing well.

India’s leadership craves a greater role in the world’s multilateral organisations whether as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council or guiding the global financial system at the G20. They are also aware that India plays a pivotal role in the success of the World Trade Organisation’s global trade talks and initiatives to combat climate change.

Growing influence, however, is not confined to the negotiating table. India is fast modernising its armed forces, already among the largest in the world. The deployment of Indian naval vessels in the Gulf of Aden to protect shipping from pirates at the end of last year was a sign that New Delhi was prepared to expand the reach of its operations outside of UN peacekeeping missions.

In Manmohan Singh, the economist turned prime minister, India’s allies have had a partner hitting all the right notes.

“Our century will be shaped by how we respond to the global economic crisis today. If nations look only inwards and imagine they can solve all their problems on their own, they will fail,” he says emphatically.

Mr Singh has presided over one of the biggest shifts in India’s international alignment since the end of British rule in 1947.

The world’s largest democracy has traditionally behaved as a leading non-aligned country, and always been regarded as a good partner to have on single issues but difficult to engage across a range. Increasingly, as it projects itself more forcefully on the world stage, it is having to develop a broader, more consistent stance befitting one of the world’s fastest growing large economies.

In this regard, India’s single greatest recent foreign policy transformation, of which Mr Singh is the architect, is its fast warming relationship with the US. This had already begun in spheres such as education and IT outsourcing. But it took a civil nuclear agreement, signed with the outgoing Bush administration, to lift sanctions imposed in 1970s and unlock the potential of India’s relationship with the US, thought unimaginable a decade ago.

“The new relationship rests on a convergence of US and Indian national interests, and never in our history have they been so closely aligned,” reports an Asia Society taskforce led by Frank Wisner, a former US ambassador to New Delhi.

Since the nuclear deal’s passage through the US Congress, India’s foreign outlook has changed dramatically, not only because of the global financial crisis, but also because of a devastating terrorist strike on its financial capital.

Since the Mumbai terror attacks last November, India and its neighbour Pakistan have been engaged in a frustrating diplomatic exchange over who was responsible and whether they will be brought to justice. India’s foreign policy has quickly, though temporarily, narrowed to focus on the instability of South Asia and a familiar stand-off with Islamabad, with whom India has fought three wars in the past six decades.

Some commentators, such as Gurcharan Das, the former chairman of Procter & Gamble in India, are critical of what they call a return to the hostilities of the past. Rising Chinese and Indian economic development are higher priorities than a public row with Pakistan, he says.

Vishnu Prakash, one of the government’s chief foreign policy spokesmen, insists that one advantage of his country’s large civil service is that India will never be a “one issue” country. With so much hanging on India’s participation in global debates over financial infrastructure, climate, trade and terror, the international community will want to believe him.

Corporate governance: Scandal raises questions about disclosure regime

By Joe Leahy in Mumbai

Published: January 30 2009 00:10 | Last updated: January 30 2009 00:10

Early in the New Year, a small, moustachioed and otherwise unremarkable software industry executive shocked India and the world.

B. Ramalinga Raju, the chairman of Satyam Computer Services, India’s fourth largest information technology group by revenue, sent a letter to his board confessing to a crime so spectacular in its scale and brazenness that many could hardly believe it.

“Dear Board Members, It is with deep regret and tremendous burden that I am carrying on my conscience that I would like to bring the following facts to your notice …” Mr Raju began the letter, sent on January 7.

Apparently, Satyam’s balance sheet as of September was the numerical equivalent of a novel – an elaborate work of fiction in which everything from revenue and profits to most of its cash balance of Rs53.61bn ($1.1bn) was an invention. The fraud was carried out over a number of years, Mr Raju’s letter said, raising questions over how the company’s auditor, PWC, and stock market regulators failed to spot the scam.

Mr Raju may have unburdened his conscience with his confession. But in one step he undermined the confidence of India’s once unerringly self-assured business community, which had so far avoided the worst effects of the global slowdown.

“There has rarely been a case of a bull market not having left a few fraudulent residues, but the suo motu disclosure … by Ramalinga Raju, the chairman of Satyam, … must be categorised as the mother of all, at least in the Indian context,” said IIFL, the institutional research division of the Mumbai-based securities house, India Infoline.

“Symbolically, it is akin to the high profile frauds perpetrated by Enron, Worldcom or Parmalat, all of which had overstated profits and the value of assets on books.”

India’s beleaguered stock market has borne the brunt of the revelations. Since December 17, when the first signs emerged that all was not right at Satyam, the Bombay Stock Exchange’s benchmark Sensex Index, has fallen 13 per cent to 8.674.35 points as of January 23. On the day of the confession letter alone it fell 7.24 per cent.

Part of the reason the Satyam fraud was such a shock was that it occurred in in India’s multi-billion dollar information technology outsourcing business, regarded as one of the most progressive industries in the country’s corporate sector.

The episode began when Mr Raju on December 16 suddenly proposed that Satyam acquire the Maytas property and infrastructure companies belonging to his family in a deal worth $1.6bn.

The deal was approved by Satyam’s independent directors. But within hours Mr Raju was forced to abandon the plan after institutional investors launched an unprecedented rebellion against the transaction.

Unbeknown to these investors, Mr Raju was sitting on a time bomb. He had pledged his family’s 8 per cent stake in the company to lenders, which had started selling off the shares as Satyam’s stock fell in line with the broader market.

The Maytas deal was an attempt to cover up the fraud at Satyam. By January 7, the game was up. The lenders had sold almost all of the Raju family’s shares. The company’s share price had fallen to a fraction of its former value. Mr Raju confessed.

The question for analysts now is whether Satyam is an exception or whether, after a five-year stock market bull-run in India’s market that ended only last year, there are other long-running corporate frauds waiting to be discovered.

The scam has prompted calls for the government to tidy up loose corporate disclosure requirements. The most prominent need is to force controlling shareholders to reveal if they have pledged their shares in their companies to lenders.

In a market in which more than half of the key constituents of the Sensex are controlled by families, this is a sensitive issue. But the secretive pledging by controlling shareholders of shares to lenders is a key risk for unsuspecting minority investors. Once a stock that has been pledged hits a certain point, it will trigger a margin call, forcing the lender in question to begin selling those shares. This can collapse the stock price.

“All other disclosure requirements that apply to insider purchase and sell activities should be extended to pledging and loaning of shares,” said Credit Suisse in a report.

Two weeks after the confession letter was released, the Securities and Exchange Board of India, the stock market regulator, made it mandatory for controlling shareholders to reveal their share pledges.

The move was welcomed by the market but experts described it as “too little, too late”.

Professor Sandeep P. Parekh, visiting associate faculty at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad and former executive director of Sebi, said during his time at the regulator he spent three years developing new disclosure standards that have yet to be fully implemented.

Common complaints about India’s disclosure regime include the absence of a requirement on companies to file full balance sheets along with their quarterly results.

The other problem is enforcement. In the long queue of government investigative agencies waiting to interrogate Mr Raju, who at time of writing was in judicial custody in his home city in Hyderabad, Sebi seemed to be the last in line in spite of its role as the market regulator.

And few believe Mr Raju will see the inside of a prison again once he gets out on bail. Almost no serious white collar criminal in India has ever served time after sentencing because of the country’s laborious court system that can take years to reach a decision.

To be sure, India’s corporate governance system is still regarded as among the best in emerging markets. And investors are willing to vote with their legs. There has been a mass exodus from companies considered less transparent in recent weeks to those judged as following best practice. But the Satyam episode shows there is plenty of work that needs to be done by regulators and policymakers.

“Corporate crime in India can’t be addressed by more laws or indeed more governance,” said Krishnamurthy Vijayan, executive chairman of JP Morgan Asset Management in Mumbai, who says the country has “excellent” governance standards. “I suspect that rapid and forceful action against the perpetrators is the main answer.”

Citizenship: Diaspora suffers ambivalence

By Amy Kazmin in New Delhi

Published: January 30 2009 00:10 | Last updated: January 30 2009 00:10

Despite India’s rapid growth and his undergraduate degree in bio-technology, Deepak Jakhar, a 23-year-old aspiring cancer researcher, sees few career prospects in today’s India.

The job offers he received to sell pharmaceutical products had little appeal. An internship in a government laboratory taught him that dilapidated state research facilities offer little scope for professional growth.

That’s why Mr Jakhar, who has never travelled abroad, is now spending Rs2m ($41,000) on a two-year graduate programme – the second year of which will take place at the UK’s Cranfield University. After he finishes his degree in clinical research, his aim is to work in the UK for several years and then come home.

With a “UK-returned” label, he feels he will easily land a good job in what by then will be a large Indian drug trial business. “Conditions in India are improving day by day, but we can’t wait,” he says.

In seeking out better opportunities, Mr Jakhar, the son of a small businessman from the northern town of Rotak, is following a path trodden by tens of millions of Indians.

Since the British colonial period – accelerating since independence – Indians have streamed abroad in search of education, jobs and opportunities unavailable at home, creating one of the world’s largest diasporas.

Yet New Delhi retains an ambivalent attitude towards its massive diaspora. It prohibits dual citizenship and bars non-citizens from holding jobs in public sector institutions, such as universities, research laboratories and state enterprises – the areas most desperately in need of training and experience gleaned from abroad.

“India has severely under-leveraged its diaspora,” says Devesh Kapur, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for the Advanced Study of India. “You would think that we would be tremendously welcoming of talent. In fact, we are not.”

In the early years after independence, many Indians went abroad on government scholarships to acquire skills such as engineering and science on condition that they returned to help to build the nation. Today, in a perverse inversion, western companies plunder graduates of India’s most elite institutions – who have been educated at taxpayer expense.

Even during the recent years of economic growth, the number of Indians going abroad as unskilled or semi-killed labourers has surged from 199,000 a year in 1999, to 549,000 a year in 2005, according to government statistics. The result of decades of brain drain are evident.

According to the US census, people of Indian origin are the best-educated, most affluent ethnic group in the country, with higher median family incomes and more advanced degrees than any other community. “The Indian diaspora is the most exceptional migrant group ever in American history besides the German Jews of the 1930s,” says Mr Kapur. India also has large, affluent communities in the UK, Canada, Australia and the Middle East.

Private companies have long recognised the benefits of tapping this vast overseas Indian talent pool. Since India’s economic liberalisation began in 1991, many foreign companies have sent overseas Indians, or their foreign-born children, to start operations, investment funds, banks and other enterprises in India. Many Indian professionals living overseas have also returned to start companies, or work in private firms, especially in the IT industry.

But Indian officialdom still looks warily at the overseas community. New Delhi has in recent years started issuing “Overseas Citizens of India” cards to people of Indian origin. Cardholders say it is more like a life-time multiple entry visa than genuine citizenship, as it does not permit holders to vote or take public sector jobs.

Part of the problem appears to be protectionism against the threat of competition for jobs from overseas. Yet non-resident Indians suggest that policymaking towards the diaspora is also clouded by questions over definitions of who actually is “Indian”, given the partition of the Indian subcontinent at independence in 1947.

“The breakup of India is a thorn in the side of the country’s ability to think strategically about what to do with its people because it doesn’t know how to define it’s people,’” says Anand Shah, founder of Indicorps, which brings people of Indian origin, mostly from the US, to internships in India.

India does seek to lure capital from its diaspora, granting them a variety of special investment privileges. Non-resident Indians, for example, are permitted to hold foreign currency accounts in India, which are earn higher interest rates than they could earn at bank accounts at home.

But Mr Shah says many people of Indian origin would like to do more to help India tackle its challenges.

“If the government made a serious effort to recognise that there are people that have some sort of affinity to India who would love the opportunity to share their expertise, or if they created structured ways for people to contribute, you’d see a lot of people jump at the opportunity,” he says.