Govt releases list of 9500 high-risk financial companies including Adani

Bengaluru, May 20: Karnataka Congress leaders held a protest against the state government against amending of APMC Act, at the premises of Vidhan Soudha here.

Few days ago, Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa had said that the new amendment in the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) Act will substantially aid the farmers in getting remunerative price for their produce.

"Amendment will not dilute the powers of the work of the APMCs. All these marketing activities will be monitored by the Directorate of State APMC. This new amendment Act will benefit farmers in improving their income & suffering from losses due to market fluctuations," the Karnataka CM tweeted.

Yediyurappa further said that the amendment will indirectly help farmers in doubling their income by 2022.

"This amendment will indirectly help farmers in doubling their income by 2022. I want to clarify that we have not removed the APMC Act, we are only amending 2 sections of the APMC Act which enable farmers to sell their produce at the markets where they intend to," he tweeted.

Mar 3: Just hours after the ending of a week-long “reduction” in violence that was crucial for Donald Trump’s peace deal in Afghanistan, the Taliban struck again: On Monday, they killed three people and injured about a dozen at a football match in Khost province. This resumption of violence will not surprise anyone actually invested in peace for that troubled country. The point of the U.S.-Taliban deal was never peace. It was to try and cover up an ignominious exit for the U.S., driven by an election-bound president who feels no responsibility toward that country or to the broader region.

Seen from South Asia, every point we know about in the agreement is a concession by Trump to the Taliban. Most importantly, it completes a long-term effort by the U.S. to delegitimize the elected government in Kabul — and, by extension, Afghanistan’s constitution. Afghanistan’s president is already balking at releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners before intra-Afghan talks can begin — a provision that his government did not approve.

One particularly cringe-worthy aspect: The agreement refers to the Taliban throughout  as “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban.” This unwieldy nomenclature validates the Taliban’s claim to be a government equivalent to the one in Kabul, just not the one recognised at the moment by the U.S. When read together with the second part of the agreement, which binds the U.S. to not “intervene in [Afghanistan’s] domestic affairs,” the point is obvious: The Taliban is not interested in peace, but in ensuring that support for its rivals is forbidden, and its path to Kabul is cleared.

All that the U.S. has effectively gotten in return is the Taliban’s assurance that it will not allow the soil of Afghanistan to be used against the “U.S. and its allies.” True, the U.S. under Trump has shown a disturbing willingness to trust solemn assurances from autocrats; but its apparent belief in promises made by a murderous theocratic movement is even more ridiculous. Especially as the Taliban made much the same promise to an Assistant Secretary of State about Osama bin Laden while he was in the country plotting 9/11.

Nobody in the region is pleased with this agreement except for the Taliban and their backers in the Pakistani military. India has consistently held that the legitimate government in Kabul must be the basic anchor of any peace plan. Ordinary Afghans, unsurprisingly, long for peace — but they are, by all accounts, deeply skeptical about how this deal will get them there. The brave activists of the Afghan Women’s Network are worried that intra-Afghan talks will take place without adequate representation of the country’s women — who have, after all, the most to lose from a return to Taliban rule.

But the Pakistani military establishment is not hiding its glee. One retired general tweeted: “Big victory for Afghan Taliban as historic accord signed… Forced Americans to negotiate an accord from the position of parity. Setback for India.” Pakistan’s army, the Taliban’s biggest backer, longs to re-install a friendly Islamist regime in Kabul — and it has correctly estimated that, after being abandoned by Trump, the Afghan government will have sharply reduced bargaining power in any intra-Afghan peace talks. A deal with the Taliban that fails also to include its backers in the Pakistani military is meaningless.

India, meanwhile, will not see this deal as a positive for regional peace or its relationship with the U.S. It comes barely a week after Trump’s India visit, which made it painfully clear that shared strategic concerns are the only thing keeping the countries together. New Delhi remembers that India is not, on paper, a U.S. “ally.” In that respect, an intensification of terrorism targeting India, as happened the last time the U.S. withdrew from the region, would not even be a violation of Trump’s agreement. One possible outcome: Over time the government in New Delhi, which has resolutely sought to keep its ties with Kabul primarily political, may have to step up security cooperation. Nobody knows where that would lead.

The irresponsible concessions made by the U.S. in this agreement will likely disrupt South Asia for years to come, and endanger its own relationship with India going forward. But worst of all, this deal abandons those in Afghanistan who, under the shadow of war, tried to develop, for the first time, institutions that work for all Afghans. No amount of sanctimony about “ending America’s longest war” should obscure the danger and immorality of this sort of exit.

Mumbai, Jan 10: India’s oil demand growth is set to overtake China by mid-2020s, priming the country for more refinery investment but making it more vulnerable to supply disruption in the Middle East, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Friday.

India’s oil demand is expected to reach 6 million barrels per day (bpd) by 2024 from 4.4 million bpd in 2017, but its domestic production is expected to rise only marginally, making the country more reliant on crude imports and more vulnerable to supply disruption in the Middle East, the agency said.

China’s demand growth is likely to be slightly lower than that of India by the mid-2020s, as per IEA’s China estimates given in November, but the gap would slowly become bigger thereafter.

“Indian economy is and will become even more exposed to risks of supply disruptions, geopolitical uncertainties and the volatility of oil prices,” the IEA said in a report on India’s energy policies.

Brent crude prices topped USD 70 a barrel on rising geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, putting pressure on emerging markets such as India. Like the rest of Asia, India is highly dependent on Middle East oil supplies with Iraq being its largest crude supplier.

India, which ranks No 3 in terms of global oil consumption after China and the United States, ships in over 80 per cent of its oil needs, of which 65 per cent is from the Middle East through the Strait of Hormuz, the IEA said.

The IEA, which coordinates release of strategic petroleum reserves (SPR) among developed countries in times of emergency, said it is important for India to expand its reserves.

REFINERY INVESTMENTS

India is the world’s fourth largest oil refiner and a net exporter of refined fuel, mainly gasoline and diesel.

India has drawn plans to lift its refining capacity to about 8 million bpd by 2025 from the current about 5 million bpd.

The IEA, however, forecasts India’s refining capacity to rise to 5.7 million bpd by 2024.

This would make “India a very attractive market for refinery investment,” IEA said.

Drawn to India’s higher fuel demand potential, global oil majors like Saudi Aramco, BP, Abu Dhabi National Oil Co and Total are looking at investing in India’s oil sector.

Saudi Aramco and ADNOC aim to own a 50 per cent stake in a planned 1.2-million bpd refinery in western Maharashtra state, for which land is yet to be acquired.