Indian Insights

In November last year, my wife and I travelled to Madhya Pradesh to attend the wedding of a daughter of a gentleman whom I had met through legal practice. The wedding itself was in the worthy but ordinary industrial city of Indore, made delightful, however, by the hospitality not just of the bride’s parents but of their network of friends. As it was the first night of the wedding season, fireworks blazed throughout the night. After the wedding, Cindy and I made our way to an extraordinarily well-preserved 18th century town, Maheshwar, on the banks of the River Narmada, an ancient holy river, adorned by temples. We were fortunate that our visit coincided with a dance festival, which meant that that evening on the ghats by the river, thousands crowded to watch dancers from all over the country. Cindy and I were overwhelmed by the atmosphere – not just of history and tradition and high culture, but of good-natured, joyous fun. In the parlance of the tourist industry, India has that ‘Wow’ factor.

Yet notwithstanding the high service standards of the hotels and the airlines, the edge of the abyss was never far distant. In Mumbai, we thought we’d explore the city while waiting for our connecting flight. A shark of a man hijacked us, and demanded an extortionate fee for the taxi ride. In those dusty, chaotic streets, with him openly ready to intimidate any other purveyors of transport who might stop for us, I was ready to give in – but he met his match in Cindy, who so convinced him she was ready to walk that it was he who yielded. But this episode called to mind Meira Chand’s description of Mumbai, in her 1985 novel, House of the Sun, as a ‘bottomless vat’, with millions struggling upward towards the rim on which the privileged few proudly perch.

Nonetheless, we need to see beyond the desperate pockets of poverty and heart-rending inequalities, and perceive just how much is happening, and how quickly. Whether we compete with Indian law firms, cooperate with them, or just recruit Indian lawyers, the reality of India’s rise is something the Singapore legal profession must take into account. One simple reason why this is so is because the profession of law is a field in which Indians excel – not only do they have the language skills, not only does the Internet and new technology shrink distance, but also Indians have a tremendous cultural tradition of disputation. As Amartya Sen, the Economics Nobel Laureate, opens the first chapter of his excellent collection of essays, The Argumentative Indian: ‘Prolixity is not alien to us in India. We are able to talk at some length. Krishna Menon’s record of the longest speech ever delivered at the United Nations (nine hours non-stop), established half a century ago (when Menon was leading the Indian delegation), has not been equalled by anyone from anywhere. Other peaks of loquaciousness have been scaled by other Indians. We do like to speak. This is not a new habit.’

Among Singaporeans, this Indian talent for argument is usually deprecated as a weakness. It is contrasted with the acceptance of authority said to be found in China. The speed with which infrastructure is built in China (farmers relocated, contracts awarded, workers disciplined) is contrasted with the airport strikes that accompanied the long overdue decisions to modernise Mumbai and Delhi airports, and painstaking negotiations to acquire land from village communities for new roads or power stations. But this weakness, if it is one (and it is cogently argued by Sen that it is in fact an enduring strength), is a natural and immediate advantage in all matters connected to the law. In the next few years, we can expect Indian law firms to capture an increasing share of the world’s legal services market, initially through doing out-sourced work, but in time, no doubt in their own names.

The Law Society has a legal mission travelling to Delhi and Mumbai next month. The purpose of such missions is to create opportunities for Singapore lawyers to meet with their counterparts, learn about the legal system through visits to legal institutions and at the same time, build the brand of the Singapore Lawyer. I am sure members who have signed up for the mission will find it of benefit to their practices, but even more than that, I’m sure they’ll have a great time.

It is wrong, however, for India to disallow Singapore law firms from establishing offices in India to practise off-shore law, given that Indian law firms have that freedom in Singapore and have begun to exercise it. This obstacle placed in the way of Singapore law firms is all the more surprising in the light of the breadth and depth of the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, and the encouraging recent visit of the brilliant Indian President, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam.

For those of you not travelling on the mission, perhaps a little armchair touring can be done through the pages of this month’s Law Gazette, with its focus on India.

Philip Jeyaretnam, SC

President

The Law Society of Singapore