印度尚無底氣拒絕中國投資

In mid-October, Guo Guangchang, founder of Fosun, flew to Mumbai in his private plane to attend the dinner celebrating the Chinese conglomerate’s purchase of Indian pharma company Gland. For many weeks, approval for the transaction had been held up — hostage to the border dispute between India and China in Doklam. The situation was finally resolved not because Delhi signed off but because Gland’s founder, PVN Raju, agreed to sell a smaller portion of his holdings, bringing the transfer below the 74 per cent threshold that triggered the need to secure the government’s blessing. Over mao-tai, (which the Fosun people claimed cost $1,000 a bottle), Mr Guo, clad in jeans and a T-shirt, said he hoped to do many more deals in India, according to several attendees. Fosun has already joined the many Chinese companies backing tech start-ups in the country.

10月中旬，復星集團(Fosun)創始人郭廣昌乘坐自己的私人飛機前往孟買出席這家中國綜合企業收購印度製藥商Gland的慶祝晚宴。受制於印中兩國在多蘭（Doklam，中國稱洞朗——譯者注）的邊境爭端，該交易在好幾週期間遲遲未能獲得批准。這一局面最終得以解決，並不是因爲新德里方面放行，而是因爲Gland的創始人PVN Raju同意出售較少股份，使得股權轉讓份額低於74%的門檻——超過這一門檻的交易必須獲得印度政府批准。據一些參加晚宴的人介紹，身着牛仔褲和T恤衫的郭廣昌舉着裝着茅臺（復星員工稱一瓶茅臺的價格爲1000美元）的酒杯說，他希望在印度做成更多交易。復星已經加入了支持印度科技初創企業的中國企業大軍。

The Fosun deal is a pointer to how complicated India’s relationship with China has become. Swaths of the Indian economy are dependent on Chinese products. If solar energy is now competitive with polluting thermal power plants, owned by corporates such as Reliance and Tata, it is in large part because about 90 per cent of the solar panels come from China. The telecoms industry in India is thriving on cell phones that are made in China, assembled in India; Reliance Jio phones are largely sourced from Chinese maker ZTE. Moreover, some of India’s best-known start-ups, such as Paytm and Flipkart, rely on Chinese capital.

這筆交易表明印度與中國的關係如今變得多麼複雜。印度經濟在很多地方依靠中國產品。如果說現在太陽能發電具有競爭力，能夠與信實(Reliance)和塔塔(Tata)等企業旗下高污染的熱電廠較量，那主要是因爲大約90%的太陽能電池板來自中國。印度電信行業正借力印度組裝的中國手機迅速發展；印度運營商Reliance Jio提供的手機主要來自中國製造商中興通訊(ZTE)。此外，印度一些最著名的初創企業，比如Paytm和Flipkart，都依靠中國資本。

Business and government do not always look on China in the same way. The tensions over the disputed border area at Doklam have subsided at least temporarily. But China has few friends in Delhi. Most Indian politicians remain convinced that it is a political, economic and financial bully that wishes to impinge on India’s sovereignty and to solve its excess capacity issues at India’s expense.

印度企業和政府並不總是以同樣的方式看待中國。兩國在多蘭這個有爭議邊境地區的緊張局勢至少暫時平息了下來。但中國在德里幾乎沒有朋友。大多數印度政客仍然堅信，中國在政治、經濟和金融方面恃強凌弱，企圖侵犯印度主權，並以印度的利益爲代價解決中國的產能過剩問題。

However, the business community has a more nuanced view, based on its dependence on China. That adds to the risks facing corporate India today. Many local industries could ill-afford a political backlash from Delhi against China, but that does not mean that a rupture cannot happen. For example, the first anniversary of India’s big demonetisation push in early November led to a round of harsh rhetoric from the opposition Congress party, led by former prime minister Manmohan Singh and the man who would be prime minister, Rahul Gandhi. Somewhat curiously, what should have been an attack on the BJP government of prime minister Narendra Modi instead took the form of an attack on China’s manufacturing prowess.

然而，印度企業界基於自身對中國的依賴，看法更加細膩。這也加劇了眼下印度企業面臨的風險。印度本土很多產業承受不起新德里對中國的政治反彈，但是這並不意味着兩國關係破裂不可能發生。例如，11月初印度大力推行廢鈔令一週年之際，由前總理曼莫漢?辛格(Manmohan Singh)和未來有望成爲總理的拉胡爾?甘地(Rahul Gandhi)領導的反對黨——國大黨(Congress party)發起新一輪強烈抨擊。有些奇怪的是，原本應該指向納倫德拉?莫迪(Narendra Modi)總理領導的人民黨(BJP)政府的矛頭，卻指向了中國製造業實力。

“One of the primary responsibilities of a state is to provide vocation for its people,” Mr Gandhi wrote in the Financial Times. “China’s global monopoly on blue-collar jobs is a fundamental challenge to other states.” Meanwhile, Mr Singh blamed demonetisation and a new goods and services tax for damaging India’s small businesses. “Our businesses had to turn to Chinese imports at the cost of Indian jobs,” he said.

“國家的主要職責之一就是爲人民提供職業，”甘地爲英國《金融時報》撰文稱，“中國對藍領工作的全球壟斷，是其他國家面臨的根本挑戰。”與此同時，辛格指責廢鈔令和新的商品和服務稅(GST)傷害了印度小企業。他稱，“我們的企業不得不轉向從中國進口的商品，使印度的就業付出代價。”

The situation is especially fraught for Indian entrepreneurs looking to China for funds, given the high cost of funds and the relative lack of domestic risk capital. Paytm ended up taking money from Alibaba (and Japan’s SoftBank) because its founder, Vijay Shankar Sharma, says he needs “continuous capital”. When Mr Sharma first took money from Alibaba (after meeting Jack Ma and his team in Hangzhou), “I knew that India was an open playground,” he says. “I knew Amazon will come and Facebook will come and PayPal will come. We needed outside capital and we needed Chinese money because China understands India. But I chose Jack Ma’s money because I wanted a figure with global respect. He was the first Chinese to inspire global respect. For Ali there is no check limit.”

對於尋求中國資金（由於本國融資成本較高、且相對缺少風險資本）的印度企業家而言，局面尤其問題重重。Paytm最終接受阿里巴巴(Alibaba)（以及日本軟銀(SoftBank)）的投資，因爲其創始人維傑?尚卡爾?夏爾馬(Vijay Shankar Sharma)稱，他需要“連續不斷的資本”。夏爾馬稱，當他在杭州與馬雲及其團隊見面後、第一次從阿里巴巴獲得融資後，“我知道印度是一個開放競技場……我知道亞馬遜(Amazon)會來，Facebook會來，PayPal也會來。我們需要外部資本，我們需要中國資本，因爲中國理解印度。但我選擇馬雲的投資是因爲我想要一位在全球享有聲譽的人物。他是第一位贏得全球尊重的中國人。對阿里來說，支票金額沒有上限。”

But there can be risks. Chinese money can come with strings attached, which is precisely why there is a risk of a political backlash. That is especially true when it comes to sensitive areas such as finance.

但是其中可能存在風險。中國資本可能附帶條件，這正是可能遭到政治反彈的原因，尤其是在涉及金融等敏感領域時。

For India to have more choices and less fraught choices, it needs to have more leverage. But until India’s economy and finances are in better shape, it will be in no position to turn down investments and acquisitions from China, or anywhere else.

要讓印度有更多選擇和不那麼棘手的選擇，它需要具備更大支配力。但在印度經濟和金融狀況進一步改善之前，它沒有底氣拒絕來自中國或者其他地區的投資和收購要約。