India is intensifying efforts to accelerate its digital economy plan, opening the door wider for diverse investors in the tech industry.

As part of this effort, India has thrown an investment banquet for global chipmakers with 760 billion rupees ($10.2 billion) in incentives. The pandemic ushered in a global chip shortage that has sparked a race between semiconductor companies to expand production. With the increase in semiconductor companies around the world, India, like many other countries, is setting itself up for the industry players to embrace.

The chip program, with its variety of incentives, was approved by Modi’s cabinet Dec. 15 and began accepting applicants on Jan. 1. It covers up to half the initial costs of setting up chipmaking hubs in the country, including those for front-end processes involving wafer fabrication. The Indian government will cooperate with state authorities to build high-tech industrial parks equipped with clean water, abundant power and logistics infrastructure, according to Nikkei.

It added that in addition, India will provide assistance for back-end chip facilities, which handle assembly and testing. It also will support chip-design startups and nurture more talent to build a comprehensive semiconductor industry in the country.

While the program seems attractive, and has the potential to bring chipmakers to India, Nikkei pointed out in the report below, other factors that may hinder it, given that India had been here before.

India’s attempt in the past to attract top chipmakers had only a few players expressed strong interest. One option for the country this time may be to focus first on back-end processes, so it can build a rapport with industry leaders before diving into the more technologically sophisticated front-end processes.

“The response so far has been very good,” Ashwini Vaishnaw, India’s minister of electronics and information technology, told Bloomberg TV after the package was announced. “All the big players, all the significant players, are in talks with Indian partners. Many of them are directly wanting to come and set up their units here.”

Vaishnaw predicted that in two to three years, several semiconductor plants will start production and a display panel plant will be nearing completion.

Rhandir Thakur, the head of Intel’s foundry operations, tweeted later that he was glad “to see a plan laid out for all aspects of the supply chain: talent, design, manufacturing, test, packaging & logistics.”

“Intel — welcome to India,” Vaishnaw responded. Though the exchange triggered speculation that Intel looks to form a new chipmaking hub in India, the company said it has no new plans in the country to announce at this time.

Despite the buzz, doubts exist over whether monetary incentives alone will be enough to bolster India’s chip supply. The only markets in Asia to establish a domestic chip industry that includes front-end manufacturing are Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and mainland China.

India has said that securing the land, water, electricity and talent needed to operate chipmaking facilities will be a national priority. But its past attempts to attract major foreign chipmakers often fell through over one of these elements, like opposition from residents over land use, or temporary changes to state labor rules.

Labor relations can be a challenge in India. Hon Hai Precision Industry, also known as Foxconn, and Wistron — both Taiwanese assemblers of iPhones — have been mired in worker protests over labor conditions in the country.

As days unfold, it seems every political leader in Nigeria is deeply concerned about how all sorts of deviant acts would be tactically flushed out of the country’s system in its entirety.

This is perhaps the reason different forms of bills pertaining to criminality or social deviance won’t cease to flood the country’s various lawmaking chambers, both at the federal and state levels.

A few years back, in the National Assembly (NASS), there was a certain bill on the floor of the hallowed chamber that’s targeted at ending every kind of ‘hate speech’, which was the order of the day mainly on the new media platform otherwise referred to as the social media. It’s being sponsored by the Spokesman of the Red Chamber, Senator Aliyu Abdullahi.

The bill, which sought establishment of an ‘Independent National Commission for Hate Speech’ that would enforce hate speech laws across the country as well as advise the federal government in that regard, if passed into law, shall grant a ‘not less than five-year jail term or a fine of not less than N10 million, or both, for offenses such as harassment on the grounds of ethnicity or racial contempt.

Among other prescriptions captured in the amazing bill, it further advocates that upon conviction, hate speech offenders ought to face the hangman’s noose; meaning literally that a convicted culprit shall be facing a death sentence by hanging. The particular clause that sought capital punishment actually concerns hate speech that resulted in the death of someone.

The bill, if eventually signed into law, would unequivocally be in disagreement with Section 39 (1) of the Nigerian 1999 Constitution, as amended, that allows freedom of expression. The said section empowers Nigerians to freely hold opinions as well as receive and impart ideas cum information without interference. Hence, the NASS probably was equally thinking of how to amend this very section.

Criminalizing an activity – free speech – that showcases the true mark of any democratic terrain was enough indication that the people elected to represent Nigerians had abruptly turned against their collective existence. The truth is that, the so-called hate speech does not in any way deserves to be tagged a criminal act let alone warranting a death sentence.

It’s mind boggling that that was happening at a time every bloc across the globe, particularly the United Nations (UN), was seriously condemning prescription of capital punishment as a penalty for any kind of conviction whatsoever.

It came at an era when rational thinkers consider such a type of sentence as barbaric and archaic; at a period various civil societies are advocating life imprisonment as the greatest punishment to be served by any court of law irrespective of the nature of the offense.

The reason life sentence should be preferred to that of death has overtime been made clear. One might be erroneously sentenced, thus if such person is serving a life imprisonment, the judgment could be revisited in the long run when an authentic alibi, or as may be the case, is eventually tendered to the court that convicted him/her. Hence, it’s retrogressive for any legislature to advocate capital penalty in this 21st century.

Besides, it’s baffling to acknowledge that till date, the legislators are yet to sponsor a bill that would prescribe the hangman’s noose upon conviction as regards a case involving looting.

It’s indeed amusing, to assert the least, that this set of elected officers Nigerians look up to is still finding it difficult to align with the popular notion that looters ostensibly deserve capital punishment if convicted.

Why would someone who indulge in an act (looting) that could render thousands of Nigerians jobless and equally results in untimely death of several others be allowed to walk freely and boldly on the streets, but one who expresses his/her feelings or opinions toward the country’s leaders, or public servants in general, would be meant to serve a death sentence?

How do we reconcile this? If your thought is as good as mine, then you will agree with me that the bill in question was simply controversial, hence doesn’t merit a second hearing let alone passing it. We appreciate that it was eventually stepped down by the lawmakers.

Time has obviously arrived for Nigeria’s political leaders to start placing priorities in all their doings concerning governance. It’s not anymore news that their continuous misplacement of ‘scale of preference’ virtually in their everyday activity remains one of the basic reasons they often move aback when expected to drive ahead.

The collective yearnings of the people shouldn’t be shortchanged for their individual interests. Hence, the quest of the people who constitute the majority in the country shouldn’t be swept under the carpet.

I’m also using this medium to urge Nigerians as a people to be much focused whenever they are seeking governance. They ought not to allow their personal hatred for a certain public servant to override their collective quest for good leadership.

It’s more disturbing when realized that even the leaders seemingly don’t like themselves, thus on a daily basis, display speeches that bear hatred in the name of acting in opposition.

As much as I’m in support of the NASS’ dogged move to eradicate the so-called hate speech among Nigerians, it’s also worth noting that such a movement isn’t meant to erode the fundamental rights of the people.