As border hots up, Army brass meet
Pakistan Rangers continue to violate ceasefire; Islamabad accuses Delhi of unprovoked firing
•Army chief Gen. Bipin Rawat held a review meeting with all the Army Commanders in Srinagar on Thursday even as ceasefire violations continued along the Line of Control (LoC).
•One worker of the General Engineering Reserve Force (GREF) was killed and two others injured as Pakistan Rangers violated ceasefire on the LoC in the Pir Panchal Valley of the Jammu region. In turn, the Pakistani Foreign Office accused India of unprovoked firing and lodged a formal protest with the Indian High Commission in Islamabad.
‘Routine meeting’
•Gen. Rawat’s meeting with the Army Commanders was “routine and pre-scheduled”, Army sources said. It comes in the backdrop of recent infiltration attempts and the unrest, especially after the killing of top Hizbul Mujahideen commander Sabzar Bhat.
•It also comes after the episode of Maj. Leetul Gogoi using a local Kashmiri as human shield to ward off stone pelters. During his last visit to the Valley, Gen. Rawat announced a commendation card to Maj. Gogoi over the incident which drew sharp reactions, criticism as well as support, from various quarters. A senior officer said the meeting was to convey to the world that things are normal in Kashmir. “It is like Finance Minister Arun Jaitley conducting the meeting on General Sales Tax (GST) in Kashmir. It could have been held anywhere,” he said.
•The fresh firing and shelling by Pakistan, which started at 7.20 a.m. on Thursday, was aimed at border areas located in the Naushera and Krishna Ghati sectors of Poonch district. Several posts in the adjoining Rajouri district also came under fire and shelling. An intense exchange of fire was also reported in the Balnoi and Mankote sectors.
•Defence spokesman Lt. Col. Manish Mehta said one civil GREF worker was killed and a driver injured in the ceasefire violations.
•“One head constable of the BSF received splinter injury in Krishna Gati sector. He is out of danger,” he said.
•Besides small arms and automatic weapons, the Army said, Pakistan Rangers used 82 mm and 120 mm mortars.
India retaliates
•The Indian posts replied “strongly and effectively.” As reported by The Hindu , the Pir Panchal Valley’s Rajouri and Poonch districts witnessed migration of 2,180 civilians due to ceasefire violations between May 14 and May 17. Three civilians were killed and around seven injured in May due to shelling by the Pakistan Rangers in Rajouri district. The Pakistan Foreign Office on Thursday summoned Deputy Indian High Commissioner J.P. Singh and lodged a protest over ceasefire violations along the LoC.
Jaitley blames services slump for drop in GDP
Minister terms 7% growth reasonable, says demonetisation impact only for a quarter or two
•The slowdown in the GDP in the fourth quarter of 2016-17 was not solely due to demonetisation, Union Finance, Defence and Corporate Affairs Minister Arun Jaitley said on Thursday. Global factors and a slowdown in the services sector had played a part, he said.
•Mr. Jaitley, speaking at a press conference here highlighting the achievements of the Modi government over the last three years, also said the slowdown in the economy was visible even before demonetisation was announced, and that a 7-8% growth rate was “fairly reasonable.”
•“There are several factors that can contribute to GDP growth in a particular quarter,” Mr. Jaitley said in response to a question whether the slowdown in GDP growth was due to demonetisation.
Existing slowdown
•“There was some slowdown even prior to demonetisation. There was an impact of global factors. There could be some impact in one quarter or two quarters of the one particular factor you mentioned,” he said.
•“And if you look at the growth of some sectors, the 9-10% growth that was normally in services, especially in the financial sector, has come down,” the Minister added. “So, these are cumulative factors which played [a part]. And, if you look at it, 7%-8% growth is a fairly reasonable rate of growth for India and globally it is very good.” Ministry of Statistics data on Wednesday said GDP growth was at 6.1% in the fourth quarter, and 7.1% over the entire 2016-17, a significant slippage from the previous levels.
Scathing response
•Former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram, in a scathing response, said: “As we had predicted, the economy has taken a big hit. [It] was slowing down in the middle of 2016. Instead of taking corrective measures, the government came up with this extraordinarily foolish measure of demonetisation, and that has set back the economy even further.”
SC order enhances rights of landlords
‘Eviction proceedings can continue even after taking possession of building from tenant’
•A landlord can continue eviction proceedings against his tenant even after taking possession of the disputed building from the latter, the Supreme Court has held.
•“Merely because the landlords have taken possession on the basis of an order for eviction granted on one ground, that does not mean that the surviving grounds have become non-est,” a Bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi interpreted the rent control laws.
23-year-old case
•The court was deciding on the interplay between Section 11(4)(iii) and Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The judgment was based on a 23-year-old rent dispute case based in Vadakara district in Kerala.
•Under Section 11 (4) (iii), a tenant can be evicted on the ground that he has other buildings in the same city which would suit the purposes, residential or official, for which he is using the disputed rental building.
•Under Section 11 (4) (iv), the landlord can seek the eviction of his tenant for the purpose of demolition or reconstruction of the rental building. In the present case, the local rent control court allowed the plea for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction but not on the fact that his tenant was in possession of another building in the same place.
•The landlord successfully moved the First Appellate Authority for relief also under Section 11 (4) (iii). The tenants moved the Kerala High Court, which held that a landlord cannot continue to seek eviction on various grounds after he has already been granted relief under one, that is under Section 11 (4) (iv) for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction.
India’s polar ship still a long way off
‘Indigenous firms don’t have expertise’
•India’s plans to acquire a ₹ 1,000-crore polar research vehicle (PRV) — a ship that can cut through ice sheets and glaciers — may see fresh delays. Though a Spanish ship-building company was roped in, in early 2015, the contract fell through, primarily due to escalated costs. The new ‘Make in India’ policy gives Indian companies an edge in baggingthese contracts, which are open to international and local bidders.
•This concession allows an Indian company, which may have lost out to a foreign company in the final bidding stage on price, to match the latter’s lower, winning bid and bag the contract.
•Multiple sources, privy to the PRV procurement process, told The Hindu that Indian ship companies are not experienced in building PRVs. “There are very few companies in the world with such expertise. Insisting on Indian companies for the sake of it may mean longer delays,” said a person familiar with the process.
New tender soon
•A fresh, global tender incorporating these changes will likely be floated later this year. The government had authorised the Goa-based National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research (NCAOR), a facility that comes under the Earth Sciences Ministry, to acquire a Polar Research Vehicle (PRV) in 2014. According to a March 2015 press statement by the Cabinet approving ₹ 1,050 crore for the purpose, a PRV was necessary to meet “…the growing need of the scientific community to initiate studies in ocean sciences, (ii) the uncertainty in the charter-hire of polar vessels and the ever-escalating chartering costs, and (iii) the expansion of scientific activities into the Arctic and Southern Ocean (the seas surrounding Antarctica).”
•“An Indian company can also partner with a foreign company for the bidding… once awarded, we expect the ship to be ready within three years,” said Madhavan Rajeevan, Secretary, Ministry of Earth Sciences.
Crucial to nation’s goals
•The ‘ice-breaker,’ as these ships are colloquially called, can cut through a 1.5-metre thick wall of ice. With a lifespan of 30 years, the ship is expected to be central to India’s ambitions in the Arctic and Antarctica in coming years. India has announced plans to rebuild Maitri, its research station in Antarctica, and make it impervious to its harsh environment for at least 25 years.
•Though the plans to procure a ship were laid out in 2011, there have since been design changes and disagreements with the Spain-based company, which had won the tender on the final costs. “These led to the delay at that time,” said Shailesh Nayak, former MoES Secretary.
India, Russia ink nuclear plant pact
Vision document strongly condemns terrorism in all its forms and asserts willingness to fight menace
•India and Russia have signed the much-awaited agreement on setting up two more units of a nuclear power plant in Tamil Nadu and decided to give a “new direction” to the defence cooperation between the two “great powers”.
•The two countries also decided to hold the first tri-Services exercises, named ‘Indra-2017,’ this year and start joint manufacture of frigates, adding to the co-production of Kamov-226 military helicopters.
•These decisions were taken at the wide-ranging talks on Thursday between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin here, which covered issues like terrorism and increasing trade and investment.
Mutual trust
•Addressing the media jointly with Mr. Putin after the talks, Mr. Modi said the relations between the two nations had been unwavering, based on “mutual love, respect and strong trust.”
•“From culture to security, our relations have been at par... We speak in one language,” he said. In a vision document, the two countries called for an end to cross-border movement of terrorists, and asserted that a decisive collective response from the international community without “double standards and selectivity” was required to combat the threat of cross-border terrorism.
China vows to stick to Paris pact
Urges other nations to do likewise; EU’s Tusk exhorts Trump to abide by deal
•China will “steadfastly” implement the Paris climate pact, Premier Li Keqiang said on Thursday, urging others to do likewise as U.S. President Donald Trump was due to announce whether he would keep Washington in the deal.
•“China will continue to implement promises made in the Paris Agreement, to move towards the 2030 goal step by step steadfastly,” Mr. Li said in a Berlin joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
•“But of course, we also hope to do this in cooperation with others,” he added.
•China has been investing billions in clean energy infrastructure, as its leaders seek to clear up the notorious choking pollution enveloping its biggest cities, including Beijing.
•Mr. Li stressed that it was in China’s own interest to stick to the climate deal.
•“Once China’s development reaches a certain level, it has to move to a sustainable model, that means we have to push green development,” he said.
Kremlin’s reaction
•The withdrawal of key players from the Paris climate deal would “complicate” implementation of the pact, the Kremlin said.
•“For sure the effectiveness of the implementation of this convention without key players will be complicated, but there are no alternatives to it at the moment,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.
•Meanwhile, European Council President Donald Tusk made a personal appeal to Mr. Trump not to pull Washington out of the Paris climate agreement.
•Mr. Tusk warned Mr. Trump on Twitter against such a move as he prepared to host an EU-China summit on Friday designed to fill the void on climate if the U.S. withdraws from the pact.
•Mr. Tusk will join Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Executive European Commission, in meeting the Chinese Prime Minister at the summit on Friday.
How to share intelligence
The attack on Trump for sharing information is somewhat inexplicable, and has lessons for other democracies
•The United States currently gives an impression of being at war with itself. This stems from a series of charges and countercharges levied against President Donald Trump and his advisers, including that of collusion with the Russians, who are accused of meddling with the presidential election.
•Several probes have already been launched in this connection. Meanwhile, the kaleidoscopic nature of the changes taking place in the top echelons of the new administration is hardly helping matters. The peremptory actions of the President, such as the dismissal of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey, has only aggravated this situation. Almost every step taken by the new administration is leading to partisan rows. The media and intelligence agencies are far from impartial in their behaviour. Leaks from within the administration, including the White House, have also created a piquant situation. Nothing comparable to this has been seen since the Nixon years.
Unparalleled disdain
•Liberal America and ‘Beltway’ Washington’s disdain for President Trump, and the manner in which he conducts his policies, is quite unparalleled. Barack Obama, Mr. Trump’s predecessor, is by contrast credited currently with many more virtues than at any time when he was in office. Forgotten is the anger against Obamacare and the Obama ‘doctrine’. He is seen as a moderate, someone wedded to maintaining equilibrium in international relations and, above all, someone at peace with the American nation and its people, in marked contrast to Trumponomics. What has led to a fractured society in the U.S. today carries a message for democracies everywhere. Democracy needs sensitive handling. One of the principal charges against members of the Trump team is that they maintained improper contact with Russian diplomats who, after Ukraine and Crimea, were regarded as international outcasts, at least from the point of view of the U.S. Contact with other foreign diplomats was acceptable, but not with the Russians, possibly a
new and modified form of McCarthyism, but nevertheless the current norm. A point to consider, no doubt, is whether there is indeed something sinister in all this, or it is a case of the liberal media overreaching itself, with investigative and intelligence agencies such as the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) acting in tow. The role of Congress and the elected representatives is little in evidence.
•Even after becoming President, Mr. Trump remains a ‘disruptor extraordinaire’. Disruption is today acceptable in fields such as technology and business, even regarded as essential for progress, but the same cannot be said for politics and diplomacy.
•The jury is still out on his overtures towards Russia, his simultaneous diplomatic forays vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia and Israel, his approach to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Europe, his attitude towards China and the policy towards North Korea.
•For the present, hence, the President appears to be under a virtual siege. Apart from Congress and Congressional committees, which constitute an essential element of the U.S. system of ‘checks and balances’, he is today confronted by teams of lawyers assigned to a kind of ‘Trump Watch’, journalists, and NGOs. These apart, there are the street protesters. Seldom has an elected President had to face a situation of this kind.
•The most recent accusation levelled against the President, viz. that of leaking state secrets, surpasses anything levelled against him previously. It was the result of a leak from within the White House, and related to a meeting that Mr. Trump had with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in the Oval Office on May 10. The accusation is that the President revealed certain highly classified intelligence information to Mr. Lavrov.
•The impression conveyed was that the President had thereby violated the strict norms that govern dissemination of secret information. The classified intelligence is said to have been provided by a West Asian ally to the U.S. and was not to be shared with anyone. It was stated to be so sensitive that U.S. officials had not shared it widely within the U.S. government, and had not passed it on to other allies. The fear expressed was that the West Asian ally would not share any sensitive information with the U.S. in future.
•The facts of the case do not quite add up to what has been put out. An element of bias does seem to have crept in. It would seem that the main grouse of Washington ‘insiders’ was to the meeting effected between Mr. Trump and Mr. Lavrov, which also included the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, a meeting from which the U.S. press was excluded and to which the Russian press was privy. Mr. Kislyak’s presence was a kind of ‘red rag’ as his name had previously figured in the controversies involving Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
•Leaking of sensitive secret information became a useful plank to hit the President with. The secret intelligence referred to was that of advances made by the Islamic State in bomb-making, and its plans to mask the explosive devices by concealing it inside laptop computers, which could be carried on to an aircraft to launch a terrorist attack. No mention seems to have been made about the identity of the source or the mechanics of how the intelligence was obtained. Only the city from where the intelligence was obtained had been mentioned.
•It is not unusual for Presidents and Prime Ministers to exchange sensitive information — including of the intelligence variety — in closed-door sessions. It is again the general practice worldwide that heads of state and government are the best judges of what they can divulge to their counterparts at such closed-door meetings.
•In this case, the President was apparently expansive during his meetings with the Russian Foreign Minister. There is nothing to indicate that he went beyond ‘boasting’ about the intelligence information in the possession of the U.S. In itself, what the President revealed was hardly a crime. It is well-known that leaders at this level are far less parsimonious in parting with intelligence than are intelligence chiefs and members of the intelligence fraternity.
The Indian experience
•We in India have been victims of such inadequate provision of intelligence by friendly countries, despite having elaborate arrangements for counterterrorism cooperation, an instance in point being the failure of friendly counter-intelligence agencies in 2008 to share all the information in their possession which might have prevented the November 26, 2008 terror attacks on multiple targets in Mumbai. A welcome departure from the attitude of intelligence chiefs is generally the approach of Presidents and Prime Ministers, who tend to take a more liberal view. Mr. Trump is perhaps guilty of breach of intelligence protocol. Intelligence protocol stipulates that prior approval should be obtained from the country providing the intelligence to share the classified information with a third country. Disclosure of ‘bare-bone intelligence’, short of identity and mechanics, is not an offence. That the media should have portrayed it as one of the gravest crises yet for the White House is inexplicable.
•This does not absolve Mr. Trump of not being careful with the intelligence in his possession, and to which he is privy through the Presidential Daily Brief and periodic meetings with his Director of Intelligence, and the heads of intelligence and investigative agencies such as the CIA and the FBI. One such intelligence gaffe on the part of Mr. Trump was his recent disclosure to the Philippines President of the location of two nuclear submarines in the waters off the Korean Peninsula, while discussing the situation in North Korea.
•Relations between President Trump and sections of society in the U.S. appear stalemated at present. The avalanche of leaks from within the government reveals an unhealthy atmosphere. Maintaining secrecy of information is important, especially where it concerns exchanges between two governments.
•For democracies everywhere, there are lessons to be learnt from the present imbroglio in the U.S. The need to maintain a balance between the government, the judiciary and the legislature, the media, interest groups and various elements in society is vital. Without this, the functioning of government and institutions would become highly untenable.
Pharma lobby strikes: on the threat from e-pharmacies
Pharmacies protest as they increasingly feel the heat of competition and regulation
•Pharmacies across the country went on a one-day strike this week to highlight their concerns about the threat from e-pharmacies, and the cost that will be imposed by new regulations on the sale of medicines. The strike, called by the All India Organisation of Chemists and Druggists, had the support of well over eight lakh pharmacies. But perhaps the only thing clear from the AIOCD’s demands is its intention to protect the business interests of traditional brick-and-mortar pharmacies, even if it comes at the cost of the consumer’s interest. Traditional pharmacies have been knocking at the doors of the government for some time now as they face intense competition from e-pharmacies. Their profit margins and market share have faced pressure in recent years from e-pharmacies that often offer medicines at cheaper prices. While this has improved the accessibility of drugs to a wider population, the concern of traditional pharmacists too is easy to understand. The AIOCD has repeatedly accused e-pharmacies of a wide range of malpractices, including selling fake drugs and enabling self-medication. The organisation has been citing these issues to seek a ban on the sale of drugs online. At the same time, pharmacies too have been fighting the government as it tries to tighten the screws on the illegal sale of drugs.
•In March this year, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare proposed the setting up of an e-portal to track and regulate the sale of drugs across the retail chain. The aim was to prevent the sale of fake and substandard drugs, which are estimated to account for a substantial share of India’s drug market. The AIOCD has opposed the proposal, arguing that smaller pharmacies lack the necessary infrastructure to meet the stringent demands of the Ministry, even as the same rules apply to e-pharmacies. With the strike, pharmacists further upped the ante by temporarily halting the supply of an essential good. This is unfortunate. The Ministry’s proposal to bring both traditional and e-pharmacies under the ambit of the e-portal to track drugs is a welcome move. The risks associated with e-pharmacies, especially when it comes to the dispensation of prescription drugs without the necessary checks, cannot be taken lightly. However, the Ministry’s plan on regulating e-pharmacies is a rather outdated one. It has mandated that e-pharmacies must set up a “licensed brick and mortar facility” as part of their operations to comply with the new regulations. This seems like an indirect way of delegitimising the business model of e-pharmacies, rather than a regulation that aims to improve their transparency and regulation. The huge potential for e-commerce in the retail drugs industry is enough reason to avoid such unreasonably stringent standards.
Winning back their country: on Afghan women re-entering the public space
Afghan women are re-entering the public space in Kabul, but it’s imperative to take empowerment to countryside
•During the Taliban rule, like all other working women in Afghanistan, Suraya Raisada had to quit her job. “I began giving tuitions to schoolchildren at home,” said Ms. Raisada in broken Urdu, a reporter with a leading daily in Afghanistan who began working in the early 1990s during the mujahideen period. When the Taliban came into power in 1996, women were prohibited from public life, except for providing health care to other women. They were also not allowed to attend school. Further, severe restrictions were placed on the media. In 2001, when the Taliban were ousted, Ms. Raisada rejoined the daily. As I sat in her office in Kabul with three more Afghan women reporters, incomprehensible murmurs in a mélange of Dari, English and Urdu filled the room. She continued, “I studied journalism at Kabul University in the early 1990s. My parents have always supported me and have encouraged me to work.”
•Another woman reporter, Shukria Kohistani, who works at the same daily, also had to leave her job during the Taliban period. She explained, “My parents and especially my father encouraged me and my sister to work.” Ms. Raisada noted that in Afghanistan the communities in general, particularly outside Kabul, do not easily accept working women.
Women and journalism
•In Afghanistan, the idea that women should be viewed as contributing members of society beyond motherhood was introduced during Amir Habibullah’s reign (1901-1919). Mahmud Beg Tarzi, who began publishing a bimonthly newspaper called Seraj-ul-Ahkbar Afghanieh in 1911, argued that under egalitarian Islam women are not denied education. Tarzi devoted a special section in Seraj-ul-Akhbar to women’s issues titled ‘Celebrating Women of the World’, edited by his wife Asma.
•During King Amanullah’s period (1919-1929), the first woman’s magazine, Erschad-al-Nasswan was published in 1922 by Queen Suraya in Kabul. During Zahir Shah’s rule (1933-1973), the 1964 Constitution allowed women to vote and enter politics. The 1960s and early 1970s saw the expansion of press and women increasingly entered journalism.
•After Shah’s government was overthrown in a 1973 coup, severe constraints were placed on the media in the late 1970s and during the years of the Soviet invasion although women’s rights were promoted. The Taliban era (1996-2001) dealt a severe blow to both media freedom and rights of women in the country.
•Since 2001, women, mostly in Kabul, began to engage in public life and there was a boom in the media industry that continues to date.
•It is critical to note that the reforms of the 1920s, 1960s and 1970s for women’s rights in Afghanistan were mostly limited to urban women. Post-2001, noted Maliha, translator for a private news agency in Kabul, the status of Afghan women improved, but it remained limited to major cities. “Even now women in remote areas are not really aware of their rights,” she said. It is imperative that the reforms reach the rural women, and in a manner that doesn’t alienate them from their family and kinship networks.
•Hamidullah Arefi, editor-in-chief of state-run daily The Kabul Times, said, “In Kabul, there are many women in the media; however, in the provinces there are just a handful.” He added that there are currently seven female journalists in his paper.
•In the recent past some women have left journalism due to the hostile security situation in the country, including frequent terror attacks such as the one in Kabul on Wednesday in which 90 people were killed. Journalists in Afghanistan are often under pressure from different sides such as the Taliban, Islamic State, warlords and the state. When I asked Ms. Raisada and Ms. Kohistani about the challenges, both noted that women journalists are paid much less than their male counterparts. “For both women and men reporters, a critical challenge is difficulty in accessing information from the provinces with Taliban presence,” added Ms. Raisada. Despite these challenges, both the reporters enthusiastically articulated their passion to continue as journalists and highlight the issues that confront their country.
March towards isolationism
Trump’s hostile stance on key issues is changing the terms of diplomacy
•It was a diplomatic double whammy by the U.S. last week when President Donald Trump virtually held the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the Group of 7 industrialised states (G7) hostage. The President’s near-repudiation of NATO’s key principles at the Brussels meet and the Paris Climate Accord at Taormina, Italy is the clearest sign yet of the diametrically opposite pathways the U.S. and its European partners have been traversing of late. The big difference, of course, is that the U.S. under Mr. Trump insists on going it alone; while Europe now has no option but to find its own feet. The normally circumspect German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, did not conceal her utter disappointment over the deepening rift among the Western allies on her return from the summit in the Sicilian town. She even implored the constituents of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) to remain prepared for greater global engagement, given the uncertain future that lies ahead. Notwithstanding the divisions that surface frequently in transatlantic relations, the security umbrella under NATO has been an article of faith in Europe’s post-war partnership with Washington. But Mr. Trump refused last week to reaffirm a commitment to the mutual defence clause, a reassurance his counterparts had hoped would allay their apprehensions over the extent of U.S. isolationism. However, to their dismay, he upbraided them on their supposed failure to contribute to NATO’s finances.
•Washington remained equally unyielding at Taormina, both on the commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to advance global trade. A mere reference in the final G7 communiqué, to the promotion of multilateralism, was the only concession the other Western allies could extract from the U.S. President. That was enough for diplomats to put a positive spin on their otherwise fruitless efforts to prevent Mr. Trump from walking away without a categorical endorsement of the 2015 Paris Accord. As the country responsible for the world’s second-largest volume of carbon dioxide emissions, the U.S.’s refusal to cooperate risks encouraging other countries to lower their own treaty obligations. Some of Mr. Trump’s advisers sense an opportunity for Washington to renegotiate more favourable terms by remaining within the accord. Mr. Trump himself has indicated that he may pull the U.S. out of it. Meanwhile, the Earth has registered the highest temperatures on record in the past three successive years, a trend which portends the dangers of global warming. The warming of the planet by more than half-a-degree Fahrenheit between 2013 and 2016 was the largest temperature increase in a three-year time span since temperatures began getting recorded in 1880. Of the 17 hottest years on record, 16 have occurred since 2000. So far, the anti-establishment mood of recent years has largely coalesced around the opposition to immigration and globalisation in national elections. Mr. Trump’s hostile stance in the two forums last week has placed it on a wider canvas.
Manipulation probes by SEBI hit a new high
The market watchdog probed 174 cases between April and December 2016, the highest in any fiscal so far
•SEBI’s 54-page March order barring Reliance Industries and 12 other entities from the equity derivatives segment for one year and directing them to disgorge almost ₹1,000 crore featured the word ‘manipulation’ 15 times.
•That the markets regulator wasn’t singling out this one high-profile case was evident from the fact that the number of market manipulation and price rigging cases investigated by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) touched an all-time high of 174 in the nine-month period between April and December 2016.
•This was the highest in the last seven financial years since data had been made available. Incidentally, this was also the first time that the number of such cases had exceeded 100 in a fiscal. The previous high was 86 in 2012-13.
•“SEBI’s increased monitoring perhaps in the matters relating to collective investment schemes, misuse of long term capital gains (LTCG) and intentional self-trades through algorithmic trading seems to have led to the increase in numbers,” said Sumit Agrawal, partner, Suvan Law Advisors.
•“Usually operators tend to do some of these activities assuming SEBI might not be able to capture it in their alerts or systems.
•But SEBI has come a long way in its surveillance systems and risk containment measures,” he added.
•In 2015-16, SEBI had initiated investigation into as many as 84 case for market manipulation and price rigging.
•The investigations are yet to be completed and in some instances, could be that the probe may reveal that it was not a case of manipulation or price rigging.
•Even in cases where investigations were completed, manipulation and price rigging as a category had historically accounted for the largest share among all forms of investigations.
Price rigging
•Between April and December 2016, SEBI completed investigations in 70 matters of which 57 were related to market manipulation and price rigging.
•The SEBI data, however, does not throw light on the number of cases related to global depository receipts (GDRs), mutual funds or collective investment schemes (CIS) being investigated into.
•Also, it is unclear how many cases relating to non-disclosures are under examination.
•Apart from market manipulation and price rigging, the market regulator had categorised investigations under insider trading, takeovers and issue related manipulation segments.
•Further categorisation of cases could certainly provide clarity as going by some of the interim orders, notices or appeals at the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), it is clear that there have been many instances of investigations related to misuse of long term capital gains (LTCG), front running and self-trades in the recent past.
•Interestingly, experts also attribute the rising number of such cases (being investigated) to the fact that the regulator had strengthened its investigation and surveillance prowess and a higher number of alerts are now being handled.
‘Increased bandwidth’
•“The emphasis clearly seems to be on reducing market manipulation activities and with the increased bandwidth, the regulator seems to be taking up more alerts,” said Tejesh Chitlangi, partner, IC Legal.
•“Stock exchanges provide information to SEBI that generates internal alerts as well. SEBI has been hiring professionals from top institutions, that has increased its capacity to better handle such cases. Market integrity is of paramount importance and SEBI has started looking at more cases of market manipulation,” added Mr. Chitlangi.
