Naveed Jatt killed in an encounter at central Kashmir's Budgam district. He had escaped from police custody earlier this year.
New Delhi: Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) militant...
After Sensex dropped to 23.4 Tuesday, some investors judged the selloff as excessive which rebounded Indian stocks.
Mumbai: Indian stocks rebounded as some investors judged...
The attack on Chhayanaut, newspaper offices, and the public lynching of a Hindu man show that Bangladesh is heading toward Islamist rule, far removed from electoral democracy.
It is argued that India-Israel ties are moving from buyer–seller dynamic to one focused on joint development & manufacturing partnership, a shift 'more durable' than traditional arms sales.
If Pathaan gave both conservatives and liberals room to hide, Dhurandhar extends no such courtesy. Aditya Dhar ripped open that tent of hypocrisy and turned the knife.
A clearly one sided article by a guy who thinks he is smart, the same guy who tried to corner Rahul Gandhi inSingapore & ended up with egg on his face. Lot of factual errors in the article
This seems to be one of the rare articles on sites such as the print. Substantive points made by Basu are indeed factual and he has corrected termed the events of recent past as a game of seeking more and more powers by the RBI management team under the garb of Independence of RBI. The true independence for RBI is the formation of MPC by Modi government. Rest of the activities of RBI ought to be carried out in consultation with the owner of RBI and need to have a wider stakeholder consensus and be Board directed. The debate of RBI independence has clearly missed these points, thanks to a biased media and ideological opposition to the Modi government. The issue of how much capital RBI should have is a technical one and RBI has failed to evolve any methodology for it for a long time. The issue was presented by the media as if government was looking to grab the reserves beyond the minimum statutory requirement as per RBI Act. The issues of relaxation of PCA and liquidity requirement have to be decided based on ground realities and not on dogmatic grounds. In a sense, resignation by Urjit is a step in right direction and I hope Viral and Vishwanathan will also follow him soon. Along with RRR, they can continue to enrich us with their academic excellence and we shall be grateful for their advices on economy, governance and politics. Meanwhile, it is for ordinary mortals like Das to carry on wisely ( even if he doesnot know economics but is just a history major) in the best interest of RBI and the country. I am sure he will do a good job, given his background and experience.
RBI can match the capital-asset ratio of the last year of UPA rule, instead of comparing the ratio with commercial banks. That would be a politically neutral move, until the optimal ratio is decided.
Prasenjit Basu is mistaken about the debate between RBI And the Govenment. It is not about dividends – that has already been resolved and decided during Raghuram Rajan’s time that 100% of the profits would be disbursed as dividends. The argument is about return of capital and the correct amount of capital that the RBI should hold.
A clearly one sided article by a guy who thinks he is smart, the same guy who tried to corner Rahul Gandhi inSingapore & ended up with egg on his face. Lot of factual errors in the article
This seems to be one of the rare articles on sites such as the print. Substantive points made by Basu are indeed factual and he has corrected termed the events of recent past as a game of seeking more and more powers by the RBI management team under the garb of Independence of RBI. The true independence for RBI is the formation of MPC by Modi government. Rest of the activities of RBI ought to be carried out in consultation with the owner of RBI and need to have a wider stakeholder consensus and be Board directed. The debate of RBI independence has clearly missed these points, thanks to a biased media and ideological opposition to the Modi government. The issue of how much capital RBI should have is a technical one and RBI has failed to evolve any methodology for it for a long time. The issue was presented by the media as if government was looking to grab the reserves beyond the minimum statutory requirement as per RBI Act. The issues of relaxation of PCA and liquidity requirement have to be decided based on ground realities and not on dogmatic grounds. In a sense, resignation by Urjit is a step in right direction and I hope Viral and Vishwanathan will also follow him soon. Along with RRR, they can continue to enrich us with their academic excellence and we shall be grateful for their advices on economy, governance and politics. Meanwhile, it is for ordinary mortals like Das to carry on wisely ( even if he doesnot know economics but is just a history major) in the best interest of RBI and the country. I am sure he will do a good job, given his background and experience.
RBI can match the capital-asset ratio of the last year of UPA rule, instead of comparing the ratio with commercial banks. That would be a politically neutral move, until the optimal ratio is decided.
Prasenjit Basu is mistaken about the debate between RBI And the Govenment. It is not about dividends – that has already been resolved and decided during Raghuram Rajan’s time that 100% of the profits would be disbursed as dividends. The argument is about return of capital and the correct amount of capital that the RBI should hold.