UAE to tow giant icebergs from Antarctic for water need

New Delhi, Jan 20: Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Sunday said the kind of cleaning in the system that the BJP-led government had to carry out after coming to power in 2014 was "unbelievable" and it undertook the exercise without any grudge or worry.

Between 2014-16, there were a lot of questions as to why reforms did not come fast and there were comments that the government was incapable of bringing them, she said delivering the Nani Palkhivala Memorial lecture on "Road Map to $5 Trillion Economy" here.

Pointing out that there were allegations and criticism that the government wants to do something but it did not, Sitharaman said, "I am fully willing to buy that." She recalled that Prime Minister Narendra Modi often said he did not believe in incremental changes and the country needed good transformational change. The stage in which India is today, it cannot have little marginal increments, but good transformational change.

"But still one might say in the last five years the government never did. That can be a critical analysis and I am fully willing to buy that. Because post-2014 the kind of cleaning up the government had to do was unbelievable and we undertook that exercise without a grudge without a worry.. we had to do it and it is part of the game," she said. Elaborating, Sitharaman said states have their own views on Land Acquisition Bill and the government could not have done anything because land, after all, is with them.

Commenting on the topic 'Road Map to $5 trillion economy,' she said quoting Prime Minister Narendra Modi's comments, the government would take the route "Sarkar ka abhaav nahi hona chahiye, prabhaav hona chahiye aur dabaav nahi hona chahiye."

"Abhaav and dabaav both of which are not desirable, abhaav is the inadequacy or lack of adequate presence or shortfall. You do not need a shortfall. You need a government where it should be present, where it is expected to function.", she said.

"So there should not be abhaav. Dabaav (meaning pressure) is not something you want from the government. So, you want Prabhaav. It is broadly an influence, facilitation, broadly the philosophy with which it is mandated, she said.

Noting that the government has got the mandate through the election, she said, "The mandate was spelt out in so many different ways in its manifesto. So the route towards $5 trillion is this."

"We have to be there to facilitate. We have to be there to make it easy. We have to be where you need us, where there is no policy (reforms from the government)," she said.

On the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) implemented by the government, the union minister said the approach of the IBC was not to shut business. "IBC takes on the approach in having some kind of resolution where all people who exploited the company do not come back through the "back door," she said.

IBC was done through better management so that the institution is alive and kicking. It is something which she wanted to carry forward from Modi 1.0 to 2.0. "The point I am trying to make on this road to $5 trillion economy is that it is not just an abstraction, this is not how I want India to be. But in micro-level too, we are coming in response to every stakeholder," she said.

New Delhi, Mar 20: The coronavirus pandemic will leave behind a global recession with small businesses, self-employed and daily wagers taking the worst hit, Mahindra Group Chairman Anand Mahindra said on thursday.

"The virus will eventually be conquered, but it will have left behind a global recession. The costs of that are incalculably high at this time. The most fearsome toll will be on small businesses, the self-employed & those whose lives depend on meagre daily wages," Mahindra said in a tweet.

Apart from the toll on lives, the legacy of Covid-19 may well be deaths due to stress, loss of livelihoods, a rise in homelessness and in extreme situations, civil unrest, he added.

"The only global experience that has lessons for us in the current situation is the last world war. In the aftermath of WW2, the US came up with the Marshall plan to revive Europe, effectively a giant fiscal pump-priming," Mahindra said.

In the US, the government dramatically dismantled regulations and opened up the economy to trade and these actions led to a boom-cycle that stretched to 1975, he added.

"This time, there will be no victors, only the vanquished. So every country will have to create its own post ‘virus war” marshall plan & take care of those in society who are hit the hardest. Perhaps we too can build the foundations of a sustained global growth cycle," Mahindra 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.