Sugarcane farmers and the industry are at the mercy of political lobbies argues Sutanu Guru It seems the NDA government is mulling a new policy imitative that will make it mandatory for Indian sugar mills to export their “surplus” output. This move to make exports compulsory comes at a time when the global market for sugar is facing a glut and lower prices. At the moment, it is estimated that that the sugar industry in India will produce 28 million tons in the next season. Since domestic consumption hovers around 24 million tons, the surplus “stock” with sugar companies will go beyond 10 million tons. Just look and weep at the logic behind this seemingly stupid policy move. According to media reports, policy makers and bosses of sugar companies know that they will incur losses if they export at the moment since prices are very low; lower even than the cost of production. How does that help the government, the farmer and the sugar company? It seems “compulsory” exports will generate revenue for companies (even if at a loss) which they can then use to repay long standing dues to sugar farmers. Currently, it is estimated that sugar mills owe more than $2.5 billion or Rs 16,000 crore approximately to sugar cane farmers. This has become a pattern in India: sugarcane farmers demand higher prices because of higher input costs and governments at the center and the state willingly oblige. The sugar mills then delay payments to farmers claiming they have no money to clear even old dues. A crisis develops and farmers reach a stage of revolt. The political “bosses” then step in and the issue is somehow sorted out. The latest bizarre attempt to make exports compulsory is perhaps one example of how the perpetual crisis is being “solved” this time. The bottom line is that there is too much political interference in sugarcane and sugar. If prices go beyond Rs 50 or so due to a shortage, there is such a hue and cry in the mainstream media that the government is made out to be a monster. No one asks if middle class households whose children spend upwards of Rs 1,000 on a weekend burger party would go bankrupt if their monthly sugar bill goes up by Rs 30 or so. So diktats are issued and there is brazen interference with the market forces. Not that all this helps the sugarcane farmer as he perpetually waits for his dues to be cleared by sugar mills. Western Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra see the worst kind of this political interference because they are the two largest sugarcane producing states. In the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, the BJP succeeded for capturing the “sugar” vote bank in the two states. Now, it is scared angry farmers will teach it a bitter lessons during assembly elections due in Uttar Pradesh in 2017. But how will making sugar exports compulsory help in the long run? No one has the answer. Sadly, sugar is a symbol of the crazy policy approach of the government towards agriculture as a whole. There are no winners in this political game; only losers.
Read More
The Congress kept up the pressure on the Government on Tuesday (4 August) even as some Opposition parties like the Trinamool Congress, Biju Janata Dal and Samajwadi Party tried to soften the Lok Sabha Speaker, in a bid to get the suspension of 25 Congress Lok Sabha members revoked. “Something is being worked out. Let’s wait till tomorrow,” said an Opposition law-maker, speaking to Businessworld. A Union Minister too confirmed to BW that this was very much possible, “but the decision entirely rested with the Speaker”. The Speaker’s office refused to confirm any such move. The Congress, meanwhile, vowed to take its protest from “Parliament to the streets” with Congress president Sonia Gandhi and vice president Rahul Gandhi leading the charge. The duo reiterated that democracy “had been murdered” in the Lower House. Congress members also decided to boycott the land bill joint committee meeting, scheduled for Tuesday. The meeting has been rescheduled for Monday, as a result. The BJP has done a massive climbdown, and the 30-member joint parliamentary committee is now arriving at a consensus on a 2013-like land acquisition bill. “JPC is like a mini-Parliament. We will accept their recommendations,” said rural development minister Birender Singh, signaling the inevitable. While many lawmakers in the Lower House urged the Speaker to reconsider her suspension order, many wondered whether the disciplinary action that the Lok Sabha Speaker had resorted to, could be repeated in the Upper House. In the Upper House, the Congress members kept on their protests and slogan shouting, as they repeatedly rushed into the Well, much against the wishes of the Chair. The Presiding Officer, however, desisted from taking the extreme measure of suspension of the members. Even as talks were on to revoke the suspension of the suspended Congress members in the Lok Sabha, the Congress said it won’t budge from its position. Rahul Gandhi said that the demand for resignations of Sushma Swaraj, Vasundhara Raje and Shivraj Singh Chouhan was “People’s demand” and not just the “party’s demand”. Government sources conceded that even if the suspension of the Congress members was revoked there were little chances of crucial economic legislations, including the GST, passed through in the current session of Parliament.
Read More
The progress of monsoon, crude prices and the impact of US Fed rate action, going forward, will determine RBI’s ability for more monetary easing, said global rating agency Moody’s. Soon after the third bi-monthly monetary policy review of this fiscal by the Reserve Bank on Tuesday (04 August), wherein it went for a status quo, Moody’s Investors Service today said, “Trends in monsoon rainfalls and global crude prices, coupled with the domestic economy’s ability to absorb US Fed tightening, will determine whether additional monetary easing is forthcoming later in the year.” It also noted that RBI kept policy rate on hold to evaluate the impact of the reduction of 75 basis points in the key benchmark rate since January. The central bank reasoned that it has successfully reined in medium-term price expectations in recent quarters, and listed out factors, including the recent uptick in consumer price inflation and a likely policy tightening by the US Fed, behind its neutral policy move. For a change, the market was expecting governor Raghuram Rajan to hold rates this time around. Apparently, Rajan has ignored pressure to loosen policy, citing a spike in food prices and banks not lowering their rates even after three cuts totaling 75 bps by him. The banks have so far passed on only 30 bps to borrowers. “Given that policy action was front-loaded in June, it is prudent to keep the policy rate unchanged at the current juncture while maintaining the accommodative stance of monetary policy. We will look for more room to ease policy rate depending on fuller transmission of rate cuts by banks, food prices and US Fed normalisation signs,” Rajan said.(PTI)
Read More
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) kept its policy rate on hold at 7.25 per cent on Tuesday (04 August), as widely expected, while leaving the door open to ease further depending on the inflation outlook and how swiftly banks lower their lending rates. The central bank also said government economic reforms and the timing of any increase in US interest rates would be key factors that will determine whether the RBI cuts rates for a fourth time this year.Commentary Chandrajit Banerjee, Director General, CIIThe RBI’s decision to maintain the status quo on policy rates indicates a guarded approach towards monetary easing to restrain inflationary expectations and is in alignment with market expectations. CII is of the view that the policy of frontloading the interest rate cuts should have been allowed to continue as this would have sent a strong signal that the RBI aggressively addressing the growth risks in the economy accruing from weak demand conditions which are holding back investments. No doubt, CII appreciates the RBI’s concerns about the anticipated pipeline risks arising from inflationary expectations and unfavourable external developments as cited in the policy statement. However, crude oil prices have been on a downtrend thereby allaying fears of imported inflation, the timing of the proposed Federal reserve actions, which is anticipated to unsettle our financial market, is still unclear and the government’s food policy management has beneficially impacted inflationary expectations which is reflected in our subdued headline inflation print. At the same time, credit demand is weak and corporates and banks are grappling with a large number of stressed assets, particularly in the infrastructure sector. A cut in interest rate in such a situation would have done much to restore the investment cycle. Going forward, CII expects that the spotlight would be shifted towards growth and RBI would resume monetary easing in its next monetary policy when there would hopefully be much more clarity about the inflation trajectory, the normalcy of monsoons and the possible Federal Reserve actions. Nimesh Shah, MD & CEO, ICICI Prudential AMCThe RBI left policy rates unchanged as was widely expected leaving the repo rate at 7.25 per cent and the corresponding marginal standing facility (MSF) and reverse repo rate at 8.25 per cent and 6.25 per cent respectively at status quo. The big highlight was RBI revised inflation projection downward by 0.20 per cent for Q1 of 2016, in light of softer commodities & energy prices and monsoon turning out to be close to normal against earlier expectation of deficit of 12 per cent. While the RBI highlighted the risk of volatility in case of a US rate hike, overall, it seems confident that inflation and growth recovery look more or less on projected lines. Its forward guidance suggests room for further easing in the coming months once the US Fed’s possible action is clearer, food prices trending favourably in near term, Government's measures on the supply side taking place and further transmission of lending rates. We believe that inflation is likely to come at 5.25 per cent by Q1, 2016, well within the RBI’s projected trajectory of 6 per cent. The current account could be maintained at 0.5—1 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). With the repo rate at 7.25 per cent and the possibility of further rate cuts, 10-year bond yields at 7.81 per cent are reasonably valued and could come down by 40-50 bps in the next 6-9 months. Long-duration funds appear well-placed in a downward rate cycle. But for those looking to diversify, a debt portfolio with short- and medium-term bond funds could prove to be a good combination. Jimeet Modi, CEO, SAMCO SecuritiesThe RBI behaved in line with market expectations maintaining a status quo on the rates. One of the biggest cues for a dovish RBI stance comes from the fact that inflation expectations have been lowered. We believe RBI’s status quo even in a low inflationary environment has largely to do with the non – transmission of previous cuts by the RBI. We believe that once PSU banks are re-capitalised subsequent to the government infusion, credit off-take will improve which will lead to higher transmission of the past rate cuts. However, this seems to be a couple of quarters away and we don’t expect banks to lower rates in the short term. Arun Gopalan, Vice President, Research, Systematix Shares & StocksThe RBI’s decision to maintain status quo on policy rates was quite in-line with broad expectations. But what was being watched keenly is the stance the central bank takes on the way forward. Though the outlook on inflation seems benign, clearly we are looking at a “wait-and-watch” period. The key factors which the RBI will monitor closely to decide on the future course of action include the inflation trajectory, the progress of the monsoons, the events surrounding the US rate hike and the transmission of the rate cuts by the banks. Together with the RBI’s stand that it will “look for emerging room for more accommodation” , the lowering of the Jan-Mar inflation forecast by 20 bps may seem benign. But the street witnessed quite a bit of volatility after the policy was tabled. Clearly further rate cuts would become increasingly difficult as we get closer to the US rate event.
Read More
The historic Nagaland peace accord is a 50-year labour of love for leaders like Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak-Muivah) general secretary Thuingaleng Muivah and could be seen as one of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's biggest achievements in the Northeast. The accord, if it succeeds, could parallel in import to the Mizo Accord signed by former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1986. The talks received an impetus after Narendra Modi assumed power in 2014 when he pushed for a lasting solution and outlined the broad parameters for the agreement. The move is likely to bring peace to a region riven by a myriad insurgencies and at the centre of Narendra Modi’s plans for sub-regional cooperation with Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal on the one hand and connecting northeast India with the key economies of Southeast Asia on the other. On Monday ( 03 August), the NDA government signed a peace pact with the NSCN (I-M), one of the largest insurgent outfits, which has been demanding a unified Naga identity and a separate 'Nagalim' State for over six decades. The Prime Minister described the accord between his government and the National Socialist Council of Nagaland as "historic". The Naga peace accord took many by surprise, with the Prime Minister making a dramatic tweet on Monday: "I will be making a special announcement at 6:30 PM from RCR." New Delhi and the NSCN-IM have been in talks since 1997. The NSCN (I-M) has been fighting for an independent Nagaland, but later on demanded a 'Greater Nagaland' by slicing off parts of Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh to unite 1.2 million Nagas. The demand was opposed by the three states. In 2012, the United Progressive Alliance government formulated an agreement to be signed with the Naga groups, but it was shot down by Manipur Chief Minister Okram Ibobi Singh of the Congress. One of the contentious questions of territorial integrity of neighbouring Manipur seemed to have been resolved with a step towards more autonomy in the Naga hills of Manipur. According to media reports, the boundaries of Nagaland and Manipur, which has Naga-dominated hill districts contiguous with Nagaland, would not be redrawn. Modi blamed the British for the misunderstanding of the Nagas in India and about Indians among the Nagas. "They spread myths about the Nagas," said Modi. "Today's agreement is a shining example of what we can achieve when we deal with each other in a spirit of equality and respect, trust and confidence," Modi said after the accord was signed. The accord comes almost two months after 18 army soldiers were killed in a major ambush carried out by Naga militants in Manipur's Chandel district. Following this, India had carried out an operation in Myanmar. The accord will not only inspire other insurgent groups to return to peace but also want NSCN to be partners in protecting the eastern frontier with Myanmar. The peace in Nagaland dovetailed with the government's Act East policy, the Prime Minister said.
Read More
It is indeed a climbdown by the BJP-led government on the amendments to the Land Acquisition Bill. By agreeing to green-flag clauses that require consent from families affected, and the precondition of social impact assessment, is a big blow to the reforms programme of the Modi government. What has not sunk in widely is that the capitulation is the first big defeat suffered by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Narendra Modi had made the bringing in of crucial changes in the Land Acquisition Act (the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013) his personal agenda as part of his government’s ease-of-doing-business-in-India programme. The BJP had taken the support of corporate groups and, in the run up to the elections, had pledged that the bottlenecks to acquire land would be removed as part of the quid pro quo if voted to power. At the first hint of opposition, Prime Minister Modi had batted on the front foot against his Congress detractors dedicating one of his weekend ‘Maan Ki Baat’ radio addresses exclusively to why the Congress Land Act needed to be jettisoned. Later, as the Opposition got more strident, Modi took an under-the-radar position. Gurbir SinghThe enthusiasm with which the BJP government has tried to dump the Congress legislation has the Modi stamp all over it. The battle over the Land Bill has been long and hard, and has been documented extensively by Businessworld. Starting December, last year, the BJP has not been able to pass the amendments because of the sustained opposition of the Congress in the Rajya Sabha where the latter still commands a majority. The government’s earlier strategy was to push the changes through by promulgating the amendments as an Ordinance, not once but three times. But this rule by Ordinance could not go on forever. Changes in the Land Acquisition Bill had to be legislated. The BJP then toyed with the idea of a Joint Session of Parliament, where because of the two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha, it would have won the vote. However, perception gained ground that the NDA government was ‘pro-corporate’ and ‘anti-farmer’. Rahul Gandhi’s taunts of ‘Soot-Boot Ke Sarkar’ seemed to ring a sympathetic bell among the rural masses. The BJP position became worse when allies of the NDA, the Akali Dal, the Shiv Sena, and even some arms of the RSS like the Bhartiya Kisan Sangh and the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, opposed the amendments. To diffuse the Parliamentary opposition, the Union government agreed to set up in May a 30-member Joint Committee of Parliament headed by BJP’s Lok Sabha MP, S.S.Ahluwalia. The Committee was charged with suggesting changes to the amendments and making it more palatable. It was to give its report on the first day of the Monsoon Session of Parliament. In a parallel move, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley hinted that the government would allow the Land Ordinance to lapse and lob the ball to the states. With land being a state subject, the government considered using BJP-ruled states as the laboratory for bringing in appropriate legislation to make land acquisition easier. This was the first hint that the government had blinked on the Land Bill. The main bones of contention have been: first, the attempt by the BJP through an amendment to jettison the requirement in the 2013 Act for 70 percent consent of the landholders in public-private projects and 80 percent in the case of private projects; second, the NDA bill exempted the 5 categories of projects – defence, rural infrastructure, affordable housing, industrial corridors and infrastructure projects – from undertaking environment assessment. The Joint Parliamentary Committee, that has been the platform for this fight for the last two months, extended its life till August 3, and the BJP finally gave in. The new recommendations of the Committee will now suggest that six of the nine contentious amendments to the bill that had been brought in by Ordinance should be allowed to lapse. The Congress is seriously celebrating. After the mauling at the hustings and the several exposures of coal gate and other scams, it can now turn claim the support of farmers. BJP spokespersons are playing down the Land Bill fiasco, dubbing it as a ‘Peoples victory’. Whichever way one looks at it, land acquisition for development and corporate growth will become more difficult, and Prime Minister Modi will soon be hearing from India Inc about ‘broken promises’.
Read More
With India already battling the labels of 'tax terrorism', the Centre wants to take no chances this time around, reports Suchetana Ray The Supreme Court on Tuesday (04 August) decided to hear the Castleton case on 29th September, following a request from the Union government seeking 4-5 weeks to study the AP Shah Panel report on the contentious issue of applicability of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) on foreign portfolio investors.This is the case involving Mauritius-based Castleton Investments Limited that had approached the Supreme Court against a 2012 ruling by the Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR), which had said the company would have to pay MAT on capital gains arising from sale of shares. The controversy surrounding MAT hit the government earlier this year, as the revenue department sent out demand notices to FPIs for paying MAT, based on the AAR verdict of 2012. Foreign investors have always contended that MAT is not applicable on them and have also moved the court challenging the tax demands. Though, finance minister Arun Jaitley in his Budget for FY16 exempted FPIs from paying MAT from 1st April 2015, but the issue of coughing up this tax till March 2015 remained unresolved. With this tax controversy threatening the Modi government's promise of a non-adversarial tax regime in India, Jaitley had announced the formation of the three-member AP Shah Panel to be headed by Justice AP Shah in May this year.The Shah Panel submitted its report to the finance ministry on 24th July, reportedly advising the government that MAT is not applicable on FPIs. However, sources suggest that this report which is yet to be made public by the government, has also supported the revenue department saying that they had to serve the demand notices as their hands were tied by the AAR verdict. MAT was introduced by P Chidambaram as finance minister in 2007, as a levy on book profits from stopping domestic companies from evading tax. Sources close to the attorney general say that, "the government has sought time from the Supreme Court to closely study the AP Shah Panel report. Tax demands have already been served and there are legalities involved." So far, 68 notices have been served by the tax authorities and Rs 680 crore has been demanded under MAT from FPIs. With India already battling the labels of tax terrorism, the government wants to take no chances this time around.
Read More
At the end, it will be the Land Act that the Congress-led UPA government had enacted in 2013. Woefully short of numbers, the joint parliamentary committee, studying the land bill, on Monday (3 August) decided to bring back social impact assessment and consent clauses. Amendments to this effect were moved by 11 BJP members on the panel. Sources said that the S S Ahluwalia-led panel wanted to bring out a “unanimous report” due to which they had to go for massive compromises, seen in many quarters as Narendra Modi government’s defeat of reformist agenda. But a committee member said: “It’s a people’s victory”. There are still three points on which the BJP and the Congress (and others) don’t agree as yet – a result why a meeting of the parliamentary panel has been called again on Tuesday. The committee will give its report to Parliament thereafter (in all probability on August 7). Apart from the social impact assessment and consent clauses making a comeback, the Parliamentary panel is going to recommend that the land loser gets to be a participant in any commercial enterprise. Monday’s meeting was boycotted by the Trinamool as they said they didn’t get enough time to study the amendments. Sources said that they were against the very idea of acquiring land, and they could not be seen party to the committee’s recommendations. The ruling NDA has 14 members in the 30-member committee. Apart from BJP members, the alliance has one member each from the Shiv Sena, Lok Janshakti Party and Telugu Desam. Among the three areas where the BJP and the opposition still have differences, one is regarding the prevalent practice of money “deposited is money given clause”. Simplified, it means that even if a farmer is having objections to his land being taken away, and if the Collector deposits money in an account, it is deemed as the farmer having received the money. Congress and other opposition parties like the BJD don’t agree with this and want this to be revised. With Monday’s development, sources said that the government may reiterate that the states have a right to frame better land laws. In last month’s Niti Aayog meet, states like BJP/Sena-run Maharashtra wanted to go the whole hog on the land bill.
Read More
Harmony between legislative and judicial policy is key to providing a conducive investment climate. This will ensure that the investor community does not perceive any risk despite compliance with law. That said, there cannot be immunity from judicial intervention where there is breach of the spirit of law. What is therefore necessary is that the legislative intent is stipulated with clarity and the role of the judiciary would then be only to ensure that the legislative intent is not breached. In certain cases however, the legal position remains unclear. Investors are therefore left wondering whether compliance with the provisions of law, in its letter, would be sufficient compliance with its ‘perceived’ spirit. One such example is the provision governing downstream investments under the foreign direct investment (FDI) policy. Under the FDI policy, where an Indian company is not ‘owned’ and ‘controlled’ by resident Indian citizens and/ or Indian companies (in turn owned and controlled by resident Indian citizens), such an Indian company is considered as a foreign company. The effect of this ‘fiction’ is that any investment made by such an Indian entity is considered as if it were made by a foreign entity and thereby regulated/ restricted and subject to applicable sectoral norms and conditions. Conversely, where an Indian company is ‘owned’ and ‘controlled’ by resident Indian citizens and/ or Indian companies (in turn owned and controlled by resident Indian citizens), such an Indian company is considered as an Indian company for the purpose of the FDI policy. This position is clearly borne out in the FDI policy. A simple reading of the latter position would therefore mean that such Indian company can even make investments into a company engaged in an activity which is otherwise not permitted in companies having FDI. The chapter in the FDI policy dealing with calculation of foreign investment contains illustrations to the effect that where an Indian company has foreign investment less than 50%, such Indian company would not be taken as having any indirect foreign investment. One of the conditions stipulated in this regard is that where government approval is required for foreign investment and where there are inter-se arrangements amongst the shareholders having an effect inter alia on the appointment of the board of directors or the exercise of voting rights or creating voting rights disproportionate to shareholding, such agreements have to be submitted to the authorities. The approving authority will then take these into account for determining ownership and control. On the one hand, though this may sound simple as the structure would then be ‘blessed’ by the authorities; this route is not adopted as a matter of course. On the other hand, one could examine a company which does not trigger the above requirement of submission of the agreement to the authorities. In such a case, if one were to brainstorm as to whether such an indirect investment would mean that a foreign entity would receive income from an activity/ sector which the foreign entity could not have engaged/ invested in directly, the permissible activity appears to fall in a grey area, on a conservative basis. This is where the concern lies. Now add to this a possible judicial interpretation that such downstream investment breaches the spirit of law since one should not do indirectly what cannot be done directly. A recent decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited vs. Hubtown Limited is perhaps suited to draw a reference here. Aside of the facts specific in the said matter and that the decision was not a final determination on the point, the decision while stating the obvious judicial intent that any transaction that is illegal and prohibited by law is unenforceable, has taken into consideration references from the Vodafone decision that it is the task of the Court to look at the entire transaction as a whole and not to adopt a dissecting approach. Such holistic approach increases the uncertainty on the implication of transactions which fall in the grey area, perhaps when viewed as a whole or on a conservative basis, despite fitting well within the legal framework. It is therefore important that fundamental aspects of such nature are clarified by the policy makers, in the interest of all concerned. As unwarranted was the legislature’s action of retrospective amendment to defeat the judicial analysis, legislative policy makers should ensure there are no unwarranted decisions of the judiciary stepping out of the legislative intent or spirit. The author, Raj Ramachandran, is a Partner with J. Sagar Associates, Advocates and Solicitors. Views are personal.
Read More
The Narendra Modi-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government races against the clock to pass the Goods and Services Tax (GST) bill —- often termed as a potential game-changer for the country's economy — in the current monsoon session. Finance minister Arun Jaitley has accused the Congress party of disrupting Parliament for "political reasons". He further alleged that they are "upset with the electorate for their 2014 verdict", and urged it to "seriously introspect" on its conduct. "Should its obstructionist tendencies inflict an economic injury on the country," the finance minister said in a scathing Facebook post. Jaitley's attack on the grand old party clearly shows that the NDA government is hardly expecting a breakthrough in it. If the Constitution Amendment Bill does not get passed during the monsoon session, the chances of implementing the GST from April 1 next year will be bleak. In such a situation, the new indirect tax system would be in a place only a year later, that April 1, 2017, as such a taxation system cannot be implemented in the middle of a fiscal year. Issuing a point by point reply on the dissent note given by the Congress in the select committee report on the constitution amendment bill, Jaitley pointed out that most of the changes proposed by the Congress were contrary to the stand taken by the Congress government in its previous stint at the centre. Business tycoons have long appealed for the GST, arguing it would simplify interstate transactions, turn India into a single market and increase economic output. In the 245-member Rajya Sabha, the NDA government has only 63 members and a constitution amendment bill can only be passed with the support of two-third of its members. The GST is key to Prime Minister Modi's promise of injecting investment and boost ease of doing business in the country because a single tax would come as a boon for industry, which has to often deal with multiple levies within the country. The main purpose of the GST bill is a unified regime that will subsume most indirect taxes levied by the central and state governments such as excise duty, service tax, value added tax, sales tax and octroi to facilitate a common market across the country. Congress president Sonia Gandhi has rejected government’s offer of Prime Minister Modi’s intervention in the Lalit Modi and Vyapam controversies in Parliament to break the impasse, insisting that those responsible for “gross wrongdoings” should first resign.Gandhi said the BJP had regularly disrupted Parliament and impeded the legislative progress when it was in opposition during the previous ten years of Congress rule. However, the logic is untenable, beyond a point. There is no harm in delaying GST implementation by one more year to April 2017. Let the Congress scuttle the passage of the modified Bill accommodating the select committee’s suggestions in the Rajya Sabha. While the government will get one more year to prepare for the GST and finalising the contours of the biggest tax reform in the country besides holding further discussions on its flaws, the Congress party will have to take the responsibility for this delay in a critical reform measure, according to a report in the Financial Express. The monsoon session precedes the crucial assembly elections in Bihar later this year and the Congress punctured the government's plans to showcase its policy initiatives at the centre to win over voters in the state.
Read More
