Apr. 2, 2012 - 08:48AM |
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI
NEW DELHI
— India remains the largest importer of weaponry in
the world, receiving an estimated 70 percent of the $100 billion market sent
overseas each year. Experts say India will remain the leading importer for five
more years.
But after
that, this market could be up for grabs by India’s emerging technological
powerhouses in a range of key technologies.
“Private
industry is really motoring here, it really is,” said Gerald Howarth, Britain’s
minister for international security strategy.
The key
to a shift is a combination of looser government controls on private industry
and foreign direct investment, and maturing technological and manufacturing
capacity in local industries.
Said one
senior official in the Ministry of Defence, “Poor inflow of both capital and
technology and a slow pace of development of infrastructure is the main reason
for the high level of import content.”
Others
blame intransigence within the government, and Defence Minister A.K. Antony for
favoring the status quo, giving government-owned companies an edge over private
ones. Antony’s political roots grow out of a union base, and he has kept the
brakes on efforts to open competitions to private domestic companies.
But
industrialists here argue that trusting local commercial entities to produce
military systems rather than choosing between only government-run suppliers and
foreign firms is essential for developing the local industry. Waiting for
offset revenue or some fraction of assembly work is not what India needs, one
said.
To tap the $100 billion defense market in the next
five years, more than 100 firms flocked here to Defexpo-2012, India’s biannual
land and maritime systems show. They arrived as the local MoD found itself
ensconced in scandal, with the minister and Army chief squaring off over the
chief’s rightful retirement date, the Army’s state of readiness and the source
of a leaked memo about readiness.
At one
moment, the memo looked like a quick end to Gen. Vijay Kumar Singh’s tenure,
and the next had Singh and Antony in agreement, calling for the leaker of the
memo to be tried for treason.
Many
industry players, both inside and outside India, say the key to bringing
defense production in-country is giving foreign suppliers more incentive to buy
into India. Industry players want to increase the share of a company or joint
venture that can be foreign-owned from 26 percent to 49 percent. Some see the current
limit as a disincentive, dissuading foreign firms from transferring their best
technology to India.
But any
hope that Antony would use Defexpo as a stage for such an announcement were
dashed when Antony said the limit on foreign direct investment (FDI) would
remain at 26 percent.
Boost
Foreign Investment
Nikhil
Gandhi, chairman of India’s four-year-old Pipavav Defence and Offshore
Engineering Company, the nation’s largest commercial shipyard and an emerging
industrial powerhouse, is among those urging a higher FDI limit, arguing for a
hike to 49 percent that would be approved on a case-by-case basis.
“India
definitely needs FDI in defense because global conglomerates spend millions of
dollars in defense [research and development] and want to be part of success
stories on an equal basis,” he said.
He
suggested that the MoD could experiment with selective approvals of higher FDI
limits on an individual basis, noting that in the defense sector, the long lead
times in development and long maintenance tails of most programs make higher
FDI limits sensible in this category.
“I’m not
saying across the board, but on a case-by-case basis,” Gandhi said. “It is very
important so India can attract the world-class technology, and it also opens up
the door for the technology owner to make money, and the end game is that the
government of India will get the top-class products on a timely basis without
cost overruns, which is the need of the government, and new jobs will be
created.”
On the
other end of the spectrum is MBDA of France, which is supplying a variety of
missiles to Indian defense forces.
“Our aim
is to work with Indian defense industry on a long-term basis, and we accept
Indian rules on FDI limits,” said Mati Hindrekus, MBDA’s marketing and
communication manager. “We are talking to private companies in India to set up
joint ventures for a wide range of defense products.”
“The only
way to reverse the trend from imports to homemade weapons is by strengthening
the domestic defense sector, especially the private sector, through tax
incentives and capital investment,” said Nitin Mehta, a defense analyst.
Amit
Kalyani, executive director of Bharat Forge, agreed, saying his firm is moving
ahead without waiting for the government so it can be prepared, and that a
stable government and consistent, predictable laws are more important than
specific ownership levels.
“Indigenization
can be increased in India only if there is a stable long-term policy and
decision-making of the government,” he said. He noted his company recently made
a major investment.
“To bring core technologies in India, we have
recently acquired the entire plant and machinery of Ruag Defence of Switzerland
to build self-propelled artillery guns and vehicles at Pune in India,” he said.
Private-sector companies account for just $200
million out of a total procurement budget of $13 billion, said an executive
with the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), an
industry group in Delhi. There are more than 5,000 small- and medium-scale
defense companies hoping to get a piece of the offset market.
“Some
small-scale players in India feel that joint ventures with foreign companies in
the defense sector will not lead to indigenization, and core technology would
still be controlled by the foreign partner,” said Uday Kumar, technical manager
of the Bangalore-based small-scale manufacturer Advanced Micronic Devices.
State-Owned
Preference
One of
the biggest worries among private defense companies is the MoD’s preference of
state-owned companies, which get big-ticket projects based on nominations.
In
February, the Indian government allowed joint ventures to be established
between state-owned and private-sector defense companies. However, the joint
venture proposed through a memorandum of understanding late last year between
private shipyards Pipavav and Mazagon Docks for building submarines and
warships has yet to be cleared by the government.
An
executive with private-sector company Larsen & Toubro (L&T) complained
the government has not done enough to encourage private industry to join the
competition for building new ships for India’s Navy. He would like to see
commercial shipyards build submarines.
They
will. It just isn’t clear yet how many they will build and for what purpose.
Indeed, the Indian Navy is expected to float a
global tender this year to acquire six submarines with air-independent
propulsion technology at a cost of more than $11 billion. However, only two submarines
will be acquired from the selected overseas shipyard and the remaining four are
to be built at Indian shipyards, and only publicly owned defense shipyards will
be considered in the tender. L&T, Pipavav Defence and ABG shipyards are not
in the running for building submarines.
L&T
executives questioned the logic of keeping them out of the tender despite the
fact that the company had been involved in the classified nuclear submarine
project for more than a decade.
Gandhi,
of Pipavav, said “the private sector has to demonstrate skill in building
infrastructure ... to get defense orders.
“The
government can only take the bold step to invite the private sector if the
private sector demonstrates its serious and long-term commitment by making
serious investments and builds world-class facilities to give confidence to the
armed forces and the Ministry of Defence. Many large private companies expect
government to give them the order and then they will build the facilities,
which is hard to accept for the government. If you don’t believe in the sector,
you don’t go for it, and if you believe, put your money where your mouth is
because they want serious investments.”
His firm has invested $1 billion in building the
nation’s largest dry dock, big enough to service an aircraft carrier and build
two large naval platforms simultaneously. Gandhi credited the government for
moving at steady pace in recent years, and did not complain about any perceived
uneven playing field.
But
others did.
“The
state-owned defense companies get orders on a single-vendor nomination basis
and, in turn, become importers of the defense products,” said an executive with
a private-sector defense company who did not want to be named. “This does not
lead to technology transfer,” he added.
Last
year, the Indian Defence Ministry decided to earmark network-centric warfare
projects for state-owned Bharat Electronics, effectively walling off those
programs for Bharat and keeping the domestic companies out, a decision
government representatives called “strategic.”
But an
executive from another private defense company said this kind of practice
undermines the nation’s best interests.
“It is
not possible to draw a business model in the long run if the defense market
earmarked for the private sector is not sure,” he complained.
The Indian Defence Ministry has now made it
mandatory for overseas defense companies to execute offsets to the tune of 30
percent of the total value of the defense contract. The defense offset market
is now estimated to top $12 billion in the next five years, but overseas
defense companies are finding it difficult to execute the offsets because the
domestic defense industry is not able to service and absorb $12 billion in
offsets. Last
year, the Indian Defence Ministry allowed offsets to be carried out even from
the civil aviation sector.
Despite
the rigid policy of the MoD on foreign direct investments, the overseas
companies will have to come to India, where the defense market is expected to
rise further as the country looks to challenge both China and Pakistan, Mehta
said.
Still,
Gandhi said the government has made progress, citing two important steps:
adopting a different procurement policy in 2011 allowing private-sector
participation in the defense sector, and a recent policy to form public-private
partnerships.
“This
will ensure private-sector participation without stepping on the toes of the
government and the government PSUs,” he said. “It is a good two-step process.
“I am one of the severe critics of the
government on many things,” he added, “but I am today the biggest supporter of
the government policy because what has happened in the last 14 months hasn’t
happened in the last 64 years.”
No comments:
Post a Comment