Narendra Modi

How Nitish's pragmatic politics beat brand Modi in Bihar

220px-Nitish_Kumar

In the recently concluded bye-election in Bihar, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) won only four out of the 10 seats that went to the polls. The alliance of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Janata Dal United (JD(U)) and Indian National Congress won six seats.
It was widely expected that BJP would do well in these polls given that in the Lok Sabha elections along with Ram Vilas Paswan’s Lok Janshakti Party(LJP) it had won 28 out of the 40 Lok Sabha seats in the state. The LJP won six out of the 28 seats.
In the aftermath of this débâcle a lot of analysis has been put out on why the BJP lost. Some analysts pointed out that the Modi magic did not work in the same way during the bye-poll as it did during the Lok Sabha polls, a few months back. Some others said that Modi did not manage these polls on his own and it was the Bihar unit of the party that managed the polls, and hence the BJP+LJP combine lost.
As veteran political journalist Ajoy Bose writes in The Economic Times “Narendra Modi’s spectacular triumph in the Lok Sabha polls three months ago may not signal a tectonic shift in Indian politics as many political pundits predicted. Nor does the BJP seem poised to become the predominant party in the country despite forming the first single-party majority government in New Delhi after three decades.” Still others have said that people tend to vote differently in Lok Sabha and state assembly elections.
The trouble is none of these analysts have bothered to look at the voting pattern. If they had done that, they would have known that there is just one reason behind the BJP not doing well in Bihar and that is the “first past the post system”.
In the Indian political system, the candidate who wins the most number of votes wins the election, even though a major part of the electorate maybe against him. It is not the perfect way to elect leaders, but that is what we have got.
Election commission data shows that in the Lok Sabha elections, the BJP+LJP combine had got 35.8% of the votes polled. The RJD and the Congress had an alliance during the Lok Sabha polls. The JD(U) had fought the polls on its own. The RJD got 20.1%, the Congress got 8.4% and the JD(U) got 15.8% of the votes polled. In total, this amounted to 44.3% of the total votes polled.
So RJD+Congress+JD(U) got more votes than BJP+LJP. Nevertheless, since RJD+ Congress and JD(U) were not in alliance, these votes did not translate into Lok Sabha seats.
Now what happened in the recent bye-election? Data from the election commission shows that the RJD+Congress+JD(U) got 45.6% of the total votes polled. The BJP+LJP got 37.9% of the votes polled. Given that, this time JD(U) was not fighting the elections separately, the votes polled translated into assembly seats as well, unlike the Lok Sabha polls.
Further, the vote percentages have not changed majorly since the Lok Sabha elections, as a lot of analysis seems to suggest. In fact, the vote share of both the RJD+Congress+JD(U)alliance and the BJP+LJP has improved marginally at the cost of other parties.
The BJP+LJP combine lost simply because Lalu Prasad Yadav and Nitish Kumar decided to come together. What it tells us very clearly is that in the first past the post system, tactical political alliances can clearly neutralize the impact of brand Modi. Both Nitish and Lalu realised this the second time around and came together to form an alliance, despite having been sworn political enemies for nearly two decades.
In fact, early in his political career Nitish had decided to be pragmatic about his politics. Sankarshan Thakur descirbes a very interesting incident in the Single Man: The Life & Times of Nitish Kumar of Bihar. This incident happened sometime in the late 1970s, after the Emergency had been lifted.
Karpuri Thakur became the Chief Minister of Bihar in December 1977. Nitish quickly became disillusioned with this government. As Sankarshan Thakur writes “He thought it had betrayed the promise of the JP movement, strayed from Lohia…He had turned a critic and went about addressing seminars and meetings on how and why this was not the dispensation he had fought for.”
One day, while at the India Coffee House, a scrap at another table, got Niish going. As Thakur writes “He banged the table with his fist and announced: ‘Satta prapt karoonga, by hook or by crook, lekin satta leke acha kaam karoonga.’ (I shall get power, by hook or by crook, but once I have got power I will do good work.”
Nitish became the Chief Minister of Bihar nearly three decades later in 2005. And for the first half of his political career, he propped up Lalu Prasad Yadav even though he knew that Lalu wasn’t fit to govern. Thakur puts this question to Nitish in the Single Man: “Why did you promote Laloo Yadav so actively in your early years?” he asked.
And surprisingly, Nitish gave an honest answer. As Thakur writes “’But where was there ever even the question of promoting Laloo Yadav?’ he mumbled…’We always knew what quality of man he was, utterly unfit to govern, totally lacking vision or focus.”
So why then did Nitish decide to support him? “’There wasn’t any other choice at that time,’ Nitish countered…’We came from a certain kind of politics. Backward communities had to be given prime space and Laloo belonged to the most powerful section of Backwards, politically and numerically.” And thus Nitish ended up supporting Lalu for nearly the first two decades of his political career.
Nitish finally decided to go on his own at the Kurmi Chetna Rally [Nitish belongs to the Kurmi caste] in February 1994. At this rally he roared “Bheekh nahin hissedari chahiye..Jo sarkar hamare hiton ko nazarandaz karti hai who sarkar satta mein reh nahi sakti (We seek our rightful share, not charity, a government that ignores our interests cannot be allowed to remain in power).”
Nevertheless, Nitish had to wait for 11 more years to finally come to power in Bihar. An
d this finally happened after he entered into a pragmatic alliance with the “communal” Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) (As most of the other parties tend to look at the BJP). After more than eight years, Nitish decided to break this alliance once it was more or less clear that Narendra Modi would be BJP’s prime ministerial candidate.
Given this background, it is not surprising that Nitish decided to ally with Lalu even though he thought that Lalu was “utterly unfit to govern”. It was a pragmatic decision to get power by hook or by crook, as Nitish put it many years back.
This pragmatism worked in the recent bye-election. Now Nitish is trying to build an even more formidable alliance by getting the left parties together as well. And this alliance, if it comes together, will be even more difficult to beat, the brand Modi notwithstanding.

The article was published on www.Firstpost.com on August 26, 2014 

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek) 

Labour reforms: What Modi’s ‘Make in India’ call can learn from the Bolsheviks

narendra_modiVivek Kaul

I was just joking to a friend during the course of a discussion in early August that soon we will start talking about the Rajasthan model of development. And that seems to have happened sooner than I had estimated.
The Business Standard in an editorial titled The Rajasthan Model today (August 19,2014) writes that Vasundra Raje, the chief minister of Rajasthan “is single-handedly creating a “Rajasthan model” of development.” This model, the paper goes on to write, differs from other models like the “Bihar model” and the “Gujarat model” in putting “liberal economic reform at the centre of the development strategy”.
Labour reforms are a key part of what seems to be emerging as the “Rajasthan model”. It is well worth mentioning here that the size of the organised work force in India is only around 15.8% of the total workforce (Source: What’s Holding Back India’s Labour Market Environment? Part 1, Morgan Stanley, August 12, 2014). And this work force which is highly unionised and tends to punch over its weight, has held back the growth of the Indian manufacturing sector.
Before we go any further let’s go back a little in history. Nicholas II, the last Tsar of Russia abdicated(i.e. relinquished) his throne in early 1917, after a massive revolt broke out. As Alan Beattie writes in False Economy—A Surprising Economic History of the World “Undermined by Russia’s dismal military failure on the Eastern Front of the First World War, the Tsar abdicated in February 1917 after a massive rolling revolt grew in Petrograd [known as St Petersburg till 1914, changed to Leningrad in 1924 and back to St Petersburg in 1991]…Starting with industrial workers, the rebellion then progressed to thousands of mutinying soldiers. This was a popular uprising but not a communist uprising.”
In fact, the communists were caught napping around the time of the popular uprising. “The ‘Bolshevik’ political grouping led by Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky, which would eight months later take control of the country and become the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was taken by surprise. Many of its key members were not even in Russia at the time, giving rise to the faintly comic spectacle of a bunch of revolutionaries hurrying home to catch up with a revolution,” writes Beattie.
Over and above that the Bolsheviks did not have support of people across the length and breadth of Russia. The Socialist Revolutionaries had that support. Nevertheless the Bolsheviks still managed to seize power. What worked in favour of the Bolsheviks was their “increasing control over Petrograd’s ‘soviet’, or workers’ organization, through the months that followed.”
As Beattie writes “They [i.e. the Bolsheviks] watched their rivals punch themselves out and exhaust local popular support by trying to run a provisional government after the February revolution. Amid mounting discontent with the [First World] war, which was still continuing, the Bolsheviks’ October revolution was a special forces assassination of a tottering government, not a pitched battle against the commanding heights of a functioning state.”
In fact, more people were accidentally killed when director Sergei Eisenstein was making a movie on the October revolution than were killed “during the event itself”. The Bolsheviks managed to punch way above their weight because their support was concentrated around Petrograd where the seat of power was, in comparison, the support of the Socialist Revolutionaries was spread across Russia’s vast interior. And given this, as Beattie writes “The Bolsheviks found it amazingly easy simply to dismiss the Constituent Assembly which was supposed to take power and in which the Socialist Revolutionaries had a clear majority, and take control themselves.”
The Indian labour market is similarly placed. The organised labour tends to punch above its weight like the Bolsheviks, primarily because labour laws are rigged in its favour. It is also unionised and the unions ensure that any prospect of labour reform which is beneficial to the overall labour force and not to organised labour, is vociferously opposed.

If genuine labour reform has to happen, it is this ability of the organised labour force to punch above its weight, that needs to be controlled. Let’s take the case of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. According to this Act any factory employing more than 100 workers needs the permission of the state government, if it decides to lay off a worker. The permission to lay off employees if the situation demands so is difficult to get.
This has led to a situation where firms continue to remain small even when they have an opportunity to grow. It also explains why a country like Bangaldesh manages to export more apparel than India. Economist Arvind Panagariya in an open letter to Rahul Gandhi in November 2013 wrote that “India exported less apparel than much smaller Bangaldesh and less than one-tenth that by China.” Most Indian apparel firms start small and continue to remain small.
This leads to a situation where they cannot benefit from the economies of scale and hence, cannot compete in the export market. In their book India’s Tryst with Destiny, Jagdish Bhagwati and Panagariya point out that 92.4% of the workers in this sector work with small firms which have forty-nine or less workers. Now compare this to China where large and medium firms make up around 87.7% of the emplo
yment in the apparel sector.
Given this, the smallness of the Indian apparel sector, the economies of scale never come into play. As Panagariya wrote in the Business Standard recently “It is astonishing that Indian laws view a factory of 100 workers as a large, corporate firm. In the United States, any firm with fewer than 250 workers is classified as “small”, while a firm with 250 to 500 workers is classified as “medium”. Even the World Bank, a development institution, defines a firm with 50 to 300 workers as being of medium size, and not large.” This ensures that a firm that starts small, continues to remain small. And this ultimately has an impact on job creation. As Chetan Ahya and Upasana Chachra of Morgan Stanley point out in a research note titled What’s Holding Back India’s Labour Market Environment? Part 1 “All of these ultimately lead to lower job growth. Indeed, the manufacturing sector accounts for only 12.9% of GDP in India (2013) vs. 31.8% in China (as of 2011), 23.7% in Indonesia, 20.5% in the Philippines, and 14.8% in Brazil.”
History tells us that the creation of a strong and robust manufacturing sector is very important for robust economic growth. But in India’s case the system as it stands is rigged in favour of the incumbent large firms and organised labour.
The Industrial Disputes Act also requires the firm to take consent from the workers before modifying an existing job description. “This creates additional rigidities in the use of labour in response to changing market conditions,” write Ahya and Chachra.
Another tricky point is the fact that only 10% of the workforce is required to start a trade union. As the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act, 2001 points out “No trade union of workmen shall be registered unless at least 10% or 100, whichever is less, subject to a minimum of 7 workmen engaged or employed in the establishment or industry.”
This leads to a situation where there is “scope for multiple trade unions in a single factory”. As Ahya and Chachra point out in a note titled What’s Holding Back India’s Labour Market Environment? Part II dated August 18, 2014, “A company with 700 workers can have 70 trade unions. In most other countries, the requirements for minimum membership for trade unions to be recognized are higher than those in India, reducing the scope for multiplicity of unions.”
In Pakistan at least 20% of the workmen are required for the trade union to be registered. In Bangaldesh the number stands at 30%. Sri Lanka requires a minimum of seven employees for a trade union, but collective bargaining is only allowed if the trade union represents a minimum of 40% of the total employees.
Then there are multiplicity of laws to cope up with. This is primarily because labour law is a concurrent subject and both the central and state governments can legislate on it. As Ahya and Chachra point out “This has resulted in multiplicity of laws, at times with overlapping jurisdictions. Currently there are 44 central laws and about 160 state laws on the subject (ILO, 2013).” It is not rocket science to conclude that it is very difficult for any entrepreneur to follow all these laws. As Reuters columnist Andy Mukherjee wrote in a recent column “As a textile businessman recently tweeted, if small and mid-sized companies in India followed all existing rules, “your underwear will cost what your jeans cost today”.”
The Rajasthan government has begun chipping away at these laws. One of the changes proposed is that a firm needs to approach the state government when laying off workers only if it employes three hundred or more workers. These are state level changes being made to central government regulation, and hence, they need the assent of the president.
But Rajasthan is just a small part of the overall puzzle. Labour market reforms are needed at the central government level especially if Narendra Modi’s recent “Make in India” call needs to be taken seriously.
Currently, China accounts for 17.5% of the total global manufacturing exports. India in comparison stands only at 1.6%. Labour markets reforms at the central government level are needed if that number has to go up.

The article originally appeared on www.Firstbiz.com on August 20, 2014
(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek)

Rail hike: India needs a bitter pill and Modi must not fall prey to ‘rollback’ culture

 

narendra_modiThe Narendra Modi government has come in for a lot of criticism for raising the railway fares. The criticism has been particularly acute in Mumbai, where the prices of suburban railway season tickets have doubled and in some cases even trebled. And this surely can’t mean acche din for the average Mumbaikar who travels by local trains daily and had voted overwhelmingly in the Lok Sabha elections for the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance.
Now there is talk about the government reconsidering the decision to increase railway season ticket prices. “The Railway Minister has assured us that the monthly season ticket decision will be reconsidered and a decision taken within 2-3 days,” said BJP MP Kirit Somaya after meeting the railway minister Sadanand Gowda today (i.e. June 24, 2014). This might very well turn out to be the case given that assembly elections are scheduled in Maharashtra later this year.
The Modi government will have to take a spate of unpopular decisions over the next few months, if it hopes to do something about the stagnating economic environment. These decisions might include passing on the increase in the price of oil to the end consumers. The price of the Indian basket of crude oil stood at $111.86 per barrel on June 20, 2014. It had averaged at $106.72 per barrel between May 29 and June 11, 2014.
The price of oil has gone up rapidly in June 2014 because of a threat of a war in Iraq. India imports nearly four fifth of the oil it consumes. The government will have to allow the oil marketing companies to pass on this increase in price to the end consumers. If it does not do that then it will have to compensate the oil marketing companies for the “extra” under-recoveries they face on the sale of diesel, cooking gas and kerosene. This would lead to an increase in government expenditure and hence, the fiscal deficit. Fiscal deficit is the difference between what a government earns and what it spends. The government is already precariously placed on the fiscal deficit front. The move to allow the oil marketing companies to increase prices is unlikely to go down well with the middle class.
The government will also have to make sure that it does not increase the minimum support price of rice and wheat at the same rate as the Congress led UPA government had done in the past. This had been a major reason in fuelling food inflation. So, if the government is serious about controlling food inflation this is a step that it will have to take. This move is unlikely to go down well with farmers.
Over and above this, the government will have to go aggressive on selling stakes it holds in public sector companies. This will help the government in controlling the fiscal deficit. Any attempts to sell stakes in the companies it owns is unlikely to go down well with the trade unions and given that they are likely to protest.
The broader point is that various steps that the government is likely to take over the next few months, will be fairly unpopular in nature. And given this there will be pressure on it to “rollback” these moves. In fact, as has been in the case of the railway fare hike, the pressure to “rollback” will come not only from the opposition parties, but also from within the BJP. Nevertheless, these steps are required if the economic environment is to brought back into some shape.
Given this, the government can take some inspiration from Paul Volcker. Volcker was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States, the American central bank, between 1979 and 1987. When Volcker assumed office in August 1979, things were looking bad for the United States on the inflation front. The rate of inflation was at 12 percent.In fact, inflation had steadily been going up over the years. Between 1964 and 1968, inflation had averaged 2.6 percent per year. This had almost doubled to five percent over the next four years, that is, 1969 to 1973. And it had increased to eight percent, between 1973 and 1978. In the first nine months of 1979, it had averaged at 10.75 percent. Such high inflation during a period of peace had not been experienced before. Volcker was not going to sit around doing nothing and came out all guns blazing to kill inflation, which by March 1980 had touched a high of 15 percent. He kept increasing the interest rate till it had touched 20 percent by January 1981. This had an impact on the inflation, and it fell to below 10 percent in May and June 1981.
The prime lending rate or the rate at which banks lend to their best customers, had been greater than 20 percent for most of 1981Increasing interest rates did have a negative impact on economic growth and led to a recession. In 1982, the unemployment rate crossed 10 percent, the highest it had been since 1940 and nearly 12 million Americans lost their jobs. During the course of the same year, nearly 66,000 companies filed for bankruptcy, the highest since the Great Depression. And between 1981 and 1983 the economy lost $570 billion of output.
Of course, all this made Volcker a very unpopular man. As Neil Irwin writes in The Alchemist—Inside the Secret World of Central Bankers “Automakers were…livid: High interest rates meant that consumers couldn’t afford to buy cars…They [i.e. the automakers] mailed Volcker keys to unsold vehicles. But farmers may have had it worst of all. During the late 1970s, many had taken out loans to buy more land on the assumption that crop prices would keep rising at an extraordinary clip. When food prices fell and interest rates rose, people across Middle America lost their farms. They protested by driving their tractors to Washington and circling the Federal Reserve’s grand marble headquarters.”
The politicians also protested. As Irwin writes ““We’re destroying the American Dream,” said Republican representative George Hansen of Idaho. A building-trades magazine accused Volcker of “premeditated and cold-blooded murder of millions of small businesses.””
But Volcker stayed put and finally managed to bring the inflation monster under control with the bitter pill that he administered. By July 1982, inflation had more than halved from its high of 15 percent in March 1980.The steps taken by Volcker ensured that the inflation fell to 3.2 percent by 1983. After this, the United States saw solid and almost non-stop economic growth till 2000, when the dotcom bubble burst.
Interestingly, Volcker may not have been very popular in the first few years of his tenure, but now he is among the few men in finance who continues to be well respected.
At certain points of time economies need to be administered the bitter pill if they are to be healed back to health again. India is in a similar position currently. Tough economic decisions will have to be made and these decisions will be unpopular. And given that there will be protests. When there are protests the easy way is to “rollback” whatever is being protested against. But that will only postpone the problem.
The Narendra Modi government of course cannot operate totally like Volcker. Volcker was not elected by the people and he did not have to explain what he did directly to the American citizens. He did have a lot of explaining to do to the American Congress though.
But what the Modi government can learn from Volcker is that at times it is important to administer the bitter pill to the economy and not get bogged down by the protests. The important point here is that the Modi government needs to communicate more and more in order to explain its decisions to the people. This can be done through the social media, ministers talking to the media and even putting out detailed press releases. Also, it should not fall prey to the “rollback” culture made so popular by the Congress.
The article originally appeared on www.firstbiz.com on June 25, 2014
(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He can be reached at [email protected])

 

The costly ticket to achche din

narendra_modi
A few days back a friend complained on Facebook that since the Narendra Modi government had come to power, power cuts in his city had gone up dramatically, and he had not been able to sleep at all during the night. “So where are the acche din that had been promised?” he asked. To this someone cheekily replied that the promise was of acche din and not acchi raatein.
Narendra Modi and the Bhartiya Janata Party fought the Lok Sabha election on the plank of “acche din aane waale hain”. The slogan offered “hope” to the people of this country, in an environment where economic growth had been falling and inflation had been rising. It was for the first time that a political party was not treating the voter as a “victim”. The slogan struck a real chord with the Indian voter.
The success of the slogan has now led to a scenario where every tough economic decision that the Modi government makes is and will be viewed through the lens of the “acche din aane waale hain” slogan. Take the recent case of the decision to increase the railway passenger fares by 14.2 per cent and freight fares by 6.5 per cent.
The hike in railway passenger fares has been the steepest in 15 years and has been long overdue. Between 1999 and 2014, the passenger fares were increased only thrice, of which one hike was reversed. This has left very little money with the railways for any sort of modernisation and the upkeep of railway tracks. It has also led to a scenario were traveling has become increasingly unsafe, as can be made out from the spate of railway accidents over the last few years.
The trouble is that for too long Indian Railways has been used as a political tool and not a service which is economically viable on its own. One way to correct this is to index fares to the prevailing rate of inflation and increase prices on a regular basis, every year. So, if the inflation is 8 per cent during the course of the year, then fares can go up by 8 per cent at the beginning of the financial year, on April 1. If this practice were to be followed, the chances of railways being economically viable and safer are likely to go up. Also, it would rule out the chances of one-off increases in fares, which upset the monthly budget of people who use the railways to travel regularly.
In the short-term, this increase in fares is expected to add to inflation. There are other decisions that the government will have to make over the next few months which will add to inflation. Take the case of oil. The price of the Indian basket of crude oil stood at $111.94 per barrel on June 19, 2014. It averaged at $106.72 per barrel between May 29 and June 11, 2014.
The price of oil has gone up by close to 5 per cent in such a short period of time primarily because of a threat of war in Iraq. India imports 80 per cent of the oil it consumes. The government will have to pass on this increase in the price of oil to the end consumer. If it does not do that it will have to compensate the oil marketing companies for the “extra” under-recoveries they are likely to face on the sale of diesel, cooking gas and kerosene. This would lead to an increase in government expenditure and, hence, the fiscal deficit. Fiscal deficit is the difference between what a government earns and what it spends.
The government is already very stretched on the fiscal deficit front with the last government leaving unpaid bills of more than Rs 1,00,000 crore. Hence, it will have to pass on the increase in the international price of oil to the end consumers. This will mean higher inflation and another jolt to the promise of acche din.
What makes the situation even more difficult is the fact that the monsoon is expected to be much lower than average this year. In fact, data from the India Meteorological Department shows that rainfall upto June 18 has been 45 per cent lower than normal. This number may improve in the days to come, given that it is still early days for the monsoon. It needs to be pointed out that a bad monsoon does not necessarily lead to a lower production of food. In 2009, even with a 22 per cent deficient rainfall, the agriculture production did not go down. The real problem is once the psychology of drought sets in, the prices of food products start to go up, even though their production may not be impacted.
One thing that the government can do to prevent inflation is to procure a lower amount of rice and wheat from farmers this year. As on June 1, 2014, the Food Corporation of India (FCI) had food grain stocks of 74.8 million tonnes, when it does not require more than 41-47 million tonnes. By buying less from the farmers, the government can ensure that more rice and wheat lands up in the open market, and helps prevent a price rise. The government also needs to ensure that it does not raise the minimum support price of rice and wheat at the rate that the Congress-led UPA government had done in the past. These moves are unlikely to go down well with the farmers, who have also been promised acche din.
It is important that Mr Modi borrows a leaf from Franklin Roosevelt, the President of the United States between 1933 and 1945. This was a difficult time for the US — the Great Depression was on. Between 1933 and 1944, Roosevelt made 30 fireside chats through the radio, explaining to Americans the tough decisions he was taking to get the economy back on track. Mr Modi and his government need to keep talking to the people and explain why they need to take some tough decisions over the next few months.

The article originally appeared in The Asian Age/Deccan Chronicle on June 23, 2014
Vivek Kaul is the author  of the Easy Money trilogy. He can be reached at [email protected]

What Modi can do to bring acche din for home buyers

India-Real-Estate-Market
Vivek Kaul


People have taken the Bhartiya Janata Party’s election slogan “acche din aane waale hain”a little too literally. I have often been asked on the social media over the past few weeks whether real estate prices will fall, now that Narendra Modi government is in power. I wish I had a definitive answer for that.
Nevertheless, there are many things that the Modi government can do so that home prices start to mirror the actual demand from people looking to buy homes to live in. Right now, a major part of home demand comes from investors and speculators looking to park their money. How can this be taken care of?
There are a number of steps that can be taken.
a) The Modi government wants to get back the black money Indians have stashed away internationally. As per data from Global Financial Integrity, this amounted to a whopping $644 billion as of 2011. While the intention to get back all this black money is certainly noble, how practical is it? Also, if the idea is to recover black money then why discriminate between those who have managed to transfer the money abroad and those who haven’t.
It will be certainly easier to recover black money that is still there in the country. Also, the amount of black money that has remained in the country is likely to be significantly more than what has left the shores. A lot of this money has been diverted into buying real estate. This link between black money and real estate needs to be broken.
Former finance minister in the budget speechhe made on February 28, 2013, said “There are 42,800 persons – let me repeat, only 42,800 persons – who admitted to a taxable income exceeding Rs 1 crore per year.” This number is totally unbelievable given that nearly 27,000 luxury cars are sold in India each year. Over and above this estimates made KPMG suggest that there around 1.25 lakh high networth individuals in India who have an investible wealth of at least a million dollars(around Rs 6 crore), and also own a house and other durables.
What this clearly tells us is that as a nation we barely pay taxes. This means we are generating a lot of black money. A large amount of this money goes into real estate, and ensures that real estate prices remain firm. This wouldn’t have been possible without the cooperation of the highly corrupt Income Tax department.
In fact, the Modi government could do some out of the box thinking like the Greek government, to recover this black money. The Greek government used Google Earth to track those who have swimming pools and then cross indexed their address with the amount of tax they are paying. Ideas along similar lines need to be come up with. The property dealers of the National Capital Region and the amount of taxes they pay, will be a good target to start with.
If real estate prices need to fall, more and more people need to be forced to report their income properly and made to be paid a tax on it.
b)One of the most well kept secrets of the Income Tax Act is that it actually encourages people to speculate in real estate. There is no restriction on the number of homes against which you can claim a tax deduction on the interest paid on the home loan to fund the property. Only one of these properties needs to categorized as a self-occupied property. On this self-occupied property, an interest of up to Rs 1.5 lakh can be claimed as a tax deduction.
But this limit does not apply to the remaining homes that an individual may choose to buy. Any amount of interest paid on home loans can be claimed as a deduction as long as a “notional rent” is added to the income. We all know that these days “rents” are relatively low in comparison to the EMIs that need to be paid in order to repay the home loan. Hence, the interest component tends to be massive during the initial years and helps people with two or more homes, claim huge tax deductions.
This “loophole” has been used effectively by well paid corporate employees to bring down their taxable income over the years. People who use this deduction are more interested in claiming the deduction than actually making money from an increase in price. Hence, they are likely not to sell, even in a scenario where prices may be falling.
While offering a tax deduction on a self occupied property makes some sense, there is no logic to offering a tax deduction on a home, one is not living in. This “loophole” needs to be plugged immediately.
c) The Modi government needs to work towards building a credible real estate index. Currently, there is no way of figuring out which way the real estate market is heading. Are prices rising? Are they flat? Or are they falling? These are important questions for anyone looking to buy a home to live in. Brokers will always tell you that prices are going up. Real estate consultants bring out reports on home prices, now and then. But given that they make their money from real estate companies, these reports needed to treated with a pinch of salt.
The National Housing Bank does have a real estate index. But not many people know about it. Also, it is a quarterly index, and by the time the data actually comes out, it is not of much use. As of now the datafor up to December 2013 is available. But we are already in June 2014. The government needs to look at building an index along the lines of the Case-Shiller real estate indices in the United States. This will not lead to results immediately but will really help over a long term.
d) In the short term the government needs to look at the real estate lending of banks closely. Most recent data released by the Reserve Bank of India shows that between April 19, 2013 and April 18, 2014, the overall bank lending grew by 13.9%. During the same period the lending to commercial real estate grew by a significantly higher 19.8%.
This, in an environment where real estate companies have huge inventories. So, why are banks lending money to real estate companies? And what are real estate companies doing with that money? One possible explanation is that banks have been giving fresh loans to real estate companies so that the companies can repay their old loans. This has allowed real estate companies to not cut prices on their unsold inventory and ensure that prices do not fall.
This is something that needs to be looked into closely.
e) These days more and more real estate companies seem to be interested in launching new projects, rather than delivering the homes that they have already sold to the consumer. Companies use the money they raise for new projects to pay off interest on debt as well as repay debt that they have taken on over the years. Hence, there is no money left to build homes.
In this situation, the only way left for the company to raise more money to build homes is by launching newer projects. The money raised for one project is used to pay off interest on outstanding debt as well repay debt that is maturing. In order to build homes promised under the project, another project needs to be launched. This leads to the first project being delayed. To build homes promised under the second project a third project needs to be launched.
And so the cycle continues. In order break this cycle, the idea of a real estate regulator had been proposed a while back. That does not seem to have gone anywhere. It needs to be re-considered, even though it may not lead to immediate results.
If these steps are taken in the days to come, there might be some relief for people looking to buy homes to live in.
The article originally appeared on www.FirstBiz.com on June 13, 2014 

(Vivek Kaul is a writer. He can be reached at [email protected])