Muslims continue protest against demolition of mosque in China

Munbai/New Delhi, May 4: India expects bad debts at its banks could double after the coronavirus crisis brought the economy to a sudden halt, a senior government official and four top bankers said.

Indian banks are already grappling with 9.35 trillion rupees ($123 billion) of soured loans, which was equivalent to about 9.1% of their total assets at the end of September 2019.

"There is a considered view in the government that bank non-performing assets (NPAs) could double to 18-20% by the end of the fiscal year, as 20-25% of outstanding loans face a risk of default," the official with direct knowledge of the matter said.

A fresh surge in bad debt could hit credit growth and delay India's recovery from the coronavirus pandemic.

"These are unprecedented times and the way it's going we can expect banks to report double the amount of NPAs from what we've seen in earlier quarters," the finance head of a top public sector bank told Reuters.

The official and bankers declined to be named as they were not officially authorized to discuss the matter with media.

India's finance ministry declined to comment, while the Reserve Bank of India and Indian Banks' Association, the main industry body, did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment.

The Indian economy has ground to a standstill amid a 40-day nationwide lockdown to rein in the spread of coronavirus cases.

The lockdown has now been extended by a further two weeks, but the government has begun to ease some restrictions in districts that are relatively unscathed by the virus.

India has so far recorded nearly 40,000 cases of the coronavirus and more than 1,300 deaths from COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by the coronavirus.

'RIDING THE TIGER'

Bankers fear it is unlikely that the economy will fully open up before June or July, and loans, especially those to small- and medium-sized businesses which constitute nearly 20% of overall credit, may be among the worst affected.

This is because all 10 of India's largest cities fall in high-risk red zones, where restrictions will remain stringent.

A report by Axis Bank said that these red zones, which contribute significantly to India's economy, account for roughly 83% of the overall loans made by its banks as of December.

One of the sources, an executive director of a public sector bank, said that economic growth had been sluggish and risks had been heightened, even ahead of the coronavirus crisis.

"Now we have this Black Swan event which means without any meaningful government stimulus, the economy will be in tatters for several more quarters," he said.

McKinsey & Co last month forecast India's economy could contract by around 20% in the three months through June, if the lockdown was extended to mid-May, and growth in the fiscal year was likely to fall 2% to 3%.

Bankers say the only way to stem the steep rise in bad loans is if the RBI significantly relaxes bad asset recognition rules.

Banks have asked the central bank to allow all loans to be categorized as NPAs only after 180 days, which is double the current 90-day window.

"The lockdown is like riding the tiger, once we get off it we'll be in a difficult position," a senior private sector banker said.

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.

New Delhi, Jan 7: When a reign of terror was unleashed by "masked goons" in the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) on Sunday, Delhi Police registered two cases against varsity students union president Aishe Ghosh, who was badly injured in the attack, within a span of five minutes.

The registration of cases on two separate complaints against Ghosh and other students filed by JNU security department on January 3 and January 4 were registered on Sunday night when the violence was on, triggering questions about the motive behind the timing.

While the FIRs against Ghosh and others were registered between 8.44 pm and 8.49 pm after the JNUSU president was admitted to AIIMS, an FIR on the Sunday violence was registered on Monday at 5.36 am against unknown persons. The Sunday violence case has been transferred to Crime Branch for further investigations.

Questions are being raised over the registration of FIRs on Sunday while the complaints were filed on the previous days. Students allege that it was an afterthought from the police and authorities, as a nationwide outrage erupted as soon as the violence was reported.

Delhi Police is under attack for not coming to the aid of students targeted by the mob of ABVP activists armed with iron rods and sticks who went on a rampage on the campus. While no single person in the Sunday violence was arrested, the police are also accused of being a "mute spectator" by allowing the rioters to leave the campus without being arrested.

In its complaints, the JNU Security Department has alleged that Ghosh and others entered into a verbal and physical scuffle with security guards, including women, when officials tried to open the Centre for Information System (CIS) that was blocked by students protesting against the fee hike and registration process.

While the January 3 complaint claims that the students switched off the power supply to the CIS and evicted staff forcefully, the January 4 complaint alleged that they damaged the information system.

They also claimed the students damaged the servers, made it dysfunctional, severely damaged optic fibre cables and broke the biometric system in the CIS. The complaint also cited a Supreme Court order that prevented any protest within 100 metres of Administration Block and claimed the students violated the direction.

The FIR filed on Sunday violence on the basis of the statement of Inspector Anand Yadav said that the first phase of violence was reported at 3.45 pm when "40-50 unidentified" people who had "covered their faces" attacked students in Periyar Hostel and the situation was brought under control.

However at around 7 pm, "50-60 people with rods in their hands" targeted students in Sabarmati Hostel in which students were attacked and public property destroyed.

The FIR said that students were injured but skipped the mention of the attack on teachers, who were injured. At least two faculty members Sucharita Sen and Ameet Parameswaran were taken to AIIMS while several other teachers suffered minor injuries.