India Culture, Business, Sports and Food. Get all the buzz in India now

 It has built the world’s most talked-about hotel, the Burj al-Arab in Dubai, and is working on the tallest building in the world (the Burj Dubai), but Emaar’s stock offering in India, Emaar MGF, hasn’t got Indian investors excited.

Wednesday, 6^th February, 2008 was the scheduled close of the offer, but subscriptions were received for only 75 per cent of the shares on offer. The infrastructure giant was forced to extend its deadline to February 11 and reportedly reduced the price band of its share from Rs 540- Rs 630 to Rs 530-Rs 630. It wasn’t just Emaar, though. Wockhardt Hospitals‘ stock sale, scheduled closed on 7^th February, 2008 received subscriptions amounting to a mere 3 per cent of the shares on offer till late.

The threat of a US recession is looming and investors are in no mood to put money on giants with revenues only projected in the future. They are opting instead for smaller players with established revenue streams. In a protracted slowdown, revenues in the bag are more important for the share’s valuation than money that may come in only at a later date, feel investors.

The focus has moved from the quicksand of risk to the firmer ground of valuations. “There is a general fatigue in the market,” said an expert. You can blame it on the withdrawal of funds by foreign investors and highly priced initial share offerings.

Y.K. Sharma, chief of research at Anagram Stock broking, said there are two factors that can make a share offering work - a buoyant market or an attractive price. But the market is struggling, so price is the driving force. In stark contrast to Emaar MGF and Wockhardt Hospitals, smaller issues like IRB Infrastructure Developers, OnMobile and Shriram EPC sailed through. IRB was oversubscribed 4.3 times with the share value fixed at Rs 185, the lower end of the price band it offered.

Also, Wockhardt Hospitals and Emaar MGF seem overpriced when compared to earnings per share of listed companies in their respective sectors.

Through the last quarter of 2007, India seemed to have “decoupled” from the US market. The mindless day to day correlation with the Dow and NASDAQ seemed to have been snapped. Sadly it wasn’t an enduring decoupling as we seem to have recoupled again. We are back to the same old grind: eagerly waiting for global market cues every morning and promptly falling in line.

So is decoupling dead? Yes and no. First, even the staunchest proponents of decoupling would agree that it is wishful to expect emerging markets to not blink at all as the US economy faces up to the recession that the world has been fearing for the last one year. This is no empty debate now, nor a distant possibility: it seems to be right upon us. As the bad news gets worse, the bulls throw in the towel and hunker down for a rough patch, a last bit of capitulation always happens. While this capitulation plays out, some of the panic is bound to spill over to markets like ours. As may be happening now.

The important distinction is that this collateral damage is not necessarily economic in nature but in terms of sentiment and liquidity. On the margin, .some institutions will sell stocks in all markets and raise cash. That may hurt us. This money will probably return later to chase growth in this part of the world, which is precisely when the decoupling will play out again.

But that may have to wait for a bit, till our economic and corporate performance can establish that growth in India is not dependent on the US. And till the panic has subsided to the extent that global investors can think rationally and realise that they cannot take their money back to the “safety of their homes’ as their home is where the fire rages.

So decoupling is not dead, merely interrupted or deferred. It’s a matter of timing. If, indeed, the US has 2 or 3 quarters of negative growth, starting this quarter, my guess is that all global markets will move in a synchronized fashion for the first leg of that painful period. Then, markets like India and China (unless it starts tightening) will bottom out well before the rest and start outperforming. Decoupling, then, will be back, after a short break.

I frequently ask myself and get asked the question, especially around Republic Day and Independence Day: which is the single most important reason for India to have remained a true, functioning democracy with a vibrant Constitution despite years of colonial rule, when the neighbouring landscape is littered with the wrecks and ruins of constitutionalism and failed democracies? I have come to the conclusion that there are obviously several structural, historical, political and fortuitous reasons for this phenomenon. But if I was forced to choose the single most important reason, I would ascribe it to the personality and character of one man - Jawaharlal Nehru.

First, the validity of the premise - is India, in fact, an exception? It appears so. It is obvious that there is no other spot on earth, of comparable size, diversity and stage of economic development, which has remained a vibrant democracy after gaining independence in the last century: Going further; I can even add that there is no other country, even of smaller size, diversity or greater economic strength, which has emerged from the yoke of imperialism and managed to remain a vibrant constitutional democracy. Each of the other six   countries prove my point. The ‘Asian tigers’ - Thailand, Taiwan, Philippines, Malaysia - both the Koreas and several other countries including China establish the same point. Most of Africa reinforces the same point. Large parts of South America underline the same point. They are all countries where there is either no democracy at all or there are only formal structures of democracy - the constitution or judiciary - but they are not really independent.

Second, India is one of the world’s most vibrant and dynamic democracies, comparable to the oldest or the most advanced the world can offer. We have a truly independent judiciary - too independent for some. We invented the basic structure theory under which even a constitutional amendment - used by dictators the world over to legitimise illegality - can be declared unconstitutional. We have an Election Commission that is outsourced to other countries to conduct their elections. We have a Comptroller and Auditor General who conducts the grand inquest of the nation. We have an army that is seen but not heard, and which has never tasted blood - except of the enemy during wartime. In a nutshell, we have created so many institutions and they have taken such deep roots that derailing democracy is not easy in India.

Undoubtedly, we owe our independence to Gandhi. Though he left us shortly after independence, his personality, his ethos, his philosophy, his thinking, his deeds and his sayings are responsible, in no insignificant measure, for our existence as a constitutional democracy and for our very identity. In that sense, Gandhi is a concept who transcends his lifetime and will remain India’s longest and most abiding influence.

But it is no exaggeration to suggest that if Gandhi got us our independence, his favourite disciple Nehru is responsible for keeping us a constitutional democracy wedded to the rule of law after having achieved the milestone of freedom. Let me make it clear that this is no critique or analysis of Nehru. Nor is it intended to suggest that Nehru made no mistakes. It is to comment on one and only one facet of India - viz. no other single figure or factor contributed so much towards India’s continuation as the world’s largest constitutional democracy with fully functional democratic institutions as did Nehru.

Nehru was steeped in the liberal, left-of-centre traditions of England. Not only was he a Fabian socialist but he was a rationalist who had trained himself to see or at least to allow the existence of free expression and the flowering of a contrary viewpoint. His entire being epitomised Voltaire’s creed - to disagree with one’s opponent vehemently but to defend to death that opponent’s right to disagree with oneself. His innately tolerant, democratic and free spirit is reflected in every page of his writings, be it Discovery of India or his letters to his daughter. Who else but Nehru could be so wary of and warn himself (and the nation) of the risks of autocracy by writing an anonymous article at the crest of his powers against the dangers of dictatorship? “He must be checked,” he wrote of himself. “We want no Caesers.” He took care not to interfere with the judicial system; on the one occasion that he publicly criticised a judge at a press conference, he apologised the next day to the individual and wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India, regretting having spoken in this vein of the judiciary. Though he was powerful enough to be a (democratically elected) dictator, he frequently did not have his way.

Rajendra Prasad as India’s first President was more Patel’s and less Nehru’s choice, since Nehru wanted Rajaji. P.D. Tandon, elected Congress President in 1950, was again more Patel’s than Nehru’s choice, the latter preferring Acharya Kripalani. He would be upset and would lose his temper in Parliament but never held any personal grudge against his opponent.

Look at the pillars of our vibrant democracy and you will realise Nehru’s unmistakable imprint - adult suffrage, a federal polity, the mixed economy, non-alignment in foreign policy, pluralism, the secular State, a free press, self reliance in core sectors and products and so on.

It is easy to find points to criticise but India should never forget that it was singularly fortunate to have had Nehru in the formative years of its independent existence.