The Valley without 370
Abhinav Kumar | Serving IPS officer
The Indian Express
Kumar says that the Jammu and Kashmir Police, Indian Army, the CRPF, BSF, ITBP and the SSB have all worked hard after the Indian government’s decision to abrogate Articles 370 and 35A to ensure that mistakes made during previous agitations are not repeated now. After five weeks, there has been success in preventing large mob-violence, civilian deaths and terror activities. Civilian casualties have only been reported in “single digits” and “preventive arrests have had a positive impact”.
Parts of national and international media have represented a false view that “uniformed forces are awless psychopaths on the rampage,” writes Kumar. Some public intellectuals have projected their notions of “left and right” and “secular versus communal” on the issue while loosely using words like “genocide” and “concentration camp”. But assimilating Kashmir is essential because another partition may be “fatal”, argues Kumar.
The goal is to ensure peace and end violence that has defined life in the Valley for three decades. “Post-relaxation of curbs, the government’s priorities will be development and employment generation,” concludes Kumar.
The drumbeaters of dystopia
Krishna Prasad | Former Editor-in-Chief, Outlook magazine, and former member, Press Council of India
The Hindu
Prasad says that when news broke about Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination in 1984, Rajiv Gandhi had tuned in to BBC and not All India Radio for the news. Thirty five years later, despite the plethora of private Indian TV channels, newspapers and radio stations, most reports that question the instability in Kashmir are from non-Indian sources.
Foreign outlets splash headlines about the number of arrests, minor detainees and pellet injury-induced deaths. Kashmiri journalists have not been allowed movement or access to communication and out of 174 dailies in the region only 10 are being published. Small sections of the English print and digital journalism have not conformed to the larger narrative, but most journalists are playing the role of “dutiful national-building”, says the author.
Indian journalists have been subjected to intimidation since Narendra Modi came to power in 2014. Tactics of “labelling newspapers as anti-national” and “arresting and interrogating editors” were followed by the reality of “revenue shortfall, salary cuts and job losses”. Most journalists have had to “fall in line”, writes Prasad. He also suggests that the events which led to abrogation of Article 370 were set off by the killing of journalist Shujaat Bukhari, founding editor of ‘Rising Kashmir’.
Why Trump reached out to Taliban, why he pulled back, and what next
Vivek Katju | Former diplomat, who served as ambassador to Afghanistan
Hindustan Times
Katju writes that US President Donald Trump’s foreign policy regarding Afghanistan seems unpredictable. He has always been vocal about wanting US troops to leave Afghanistan and announced his Afghan policy in 2017. He stressed on three things that the US must seek: “an honourable and enduring outcome”, “eschew a rapid exit” and to acknowledge “immense “security threats for the US in Afghanistan”.
His objective was to increase “military pressure” on the Taliban and convince Pakistan to deny it refuge – in order to make Taliban negotiate with the Afghan government. But this did not work out. By 2018, Trump had hit “strategic desperation”. After a 10-month-long negotiation, the US surrendered to the Taliban’s demands to withdraw US forces and a refusal to negotiate with the Afghan government. But Trump faced a pushback.
Does Trump have a “real alternative to renew engagement with the Taliban after a gap?” asks Katju. It is unlikely. There is also no inclination to increase US troops in Afghanistan. The Afghan political class remains divided, indicating that the country’s issues will continue. India should craft practical policies that protect it, diplomatically cooperate with the Afghan government in Kabul and also connect with Taliban.
Free trade agreements: India’s main challenge will come after RCEP
Amitendu Palit |Research lead, Trade & Economic Policy, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore
The Financial Express
Palit writes that India is the only country from the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership member countries, where opinion is unanimously against this free trade agreement.
However, Indian industries’ reluctance to lower market barriers is a “natural response,” argues Palit. Cost of production in India remains higher than several economies, especially the RCEP nations and this produces two primary negative reactions. First, an opposition to cheaper imports — the only way domestic producers can compete is if high tariffs are imposed “making their domestic prices higher”. Second, exporters are less interested in FTAs – despite preferential foreign market access, they will not be able to compete due to the high costs of production.
According to Palit, “concluding the RCEP is probably not as big a challenge for India, as making it useful is going to be”.
Benefits of a progressive consumption tax
Kenneth Rogoff |Former chief economist of the IMF and Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Harvard University
Business Standard
Rogoff advocates the adoption of a progessive consumption-based tax system in place of the current income tax system in the US. While he acknowledges that switching systems would be a “potentially complex transition”, a consumption-based tax can tackle “growing wealth inequality” in the country.
The other method of implementing a wealth tax proposed by Senator Elizabeth Warren “has historically proven difficult to garner large revenues,” writes Rogoff. A consumption tax is based on a sales tax model and is “simple and efficient.” He also proposes providing lower-income households with a lump-sum transfer which would “result in both higher growth and greater income equality”.
Rogoff argues that Republicans may be against the move as it would increase funds for social programmes while the Left has an innate bias against sales tax. However this is the chance to “jump at the opportunity to clean up the system and help mitigate wealth inequality at the same time,” he writes.
Is there much to gain from bank mergers?
Bandi Ram Prasad | Head of consulting firm Growth Markets Advisory Services
The Hindu Business Line
In his piece, Prasad criticises India’s decision to merge 12 public sector banks with over 20 private banks and 35 foreign banks, especially with growing pressures on banking sectors globally. “Returns on equity are sliding whereas operational costs are rising”, writes Prasad, citing a McKinsey report on banks in Asia Pacific.
With regard to India’s recent consolidation plans, there are risks in relation to metrics of the merger, choosing which banks to target and the opportunity costs of foreign investments. Past consolidation efforts like New Bank of India with PNB in 1993 or United Western with IDBI Bank in 2006, were not impressive, writes Prasad. It is also ironic that OBC which was asked to take over Global Trust Bank in 2003, has become part of the merger with PNB. Even banks like Vijaya, Syndicate, Corporation and Andhra located in regions with “rising income levels and an expanding middle class” could have been revived if they had more focus and thrust.
Prasad also evaluates metrics for the merger suggesting they “should have gone beyond mere size”, adding that there should have been less of a “disconnect in profit criteria”. He also highlights the misconception that mergers attract foreign investment given they usually entail less number of banks for investors to choose from.
How low can interest rates go in addressing the downturn?
Niranjan Rajadhyaksha | Board member of the Meghnad Desai Academy of Economics
Mint
Niranjan Rajadhyaksha debates how far interest rates can be lowered given the dip in economic growth. He first puts the current slowdown into context, finding parallels between the current economic situation and that of the Vajpayee government which “gave the Indian central bank confidence to bring down interest rates as price pressures eased”.
First, there was a period of strict monetary policy to combat high inflation but once inflation receded, there was a window to bring down interest rates, explains Rajadhyaksha. Likewise, the current slowdown calls for “credible fiscal policy” so that monetary policy can be eased.
The Taylor Rule, he writes, can be a broad policy guide to balancing a steady interest rate with inflation and other economic conditions. Accordingly, if the neutral interest rate considered is 1.25 per cent, the repo rate should be at 4 per cent, while low levels of neutral interest rates at 0.75 per cent and 0.25 per cent, should put the repo rate at 3.5 per cent and 3 per cent respectively, writes Rajadhyaksha. However, the Taylor Rule is no “magic wand” that can reveal the desired repo rate at any point in time, and therefore the government must construct a monetary policy that takes into account other variables and complexities.