📰 Refund penal interest on EMIs, Supreme Court tells lenders
Lifts govt. bar on banks declaring accounts as NPAs
•The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed banks and financial institutions to refund compound interest, interest on interest or penal interest collected on EMI for loans during the period of moratorium from March 1 to August 31 last year.
•“It is directed that there shall not be any charge of interest on interest/compound interest/penal interest for the period during the moratorium,” a Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah ordered in a 148-page judgment.
•The court said the amount accumulated as compound/penal interest or interest on interest during the six-month moratorium on term loan EMIs should be given as “credit/adjusted in the next instalment of the loan account”.
•Justice Shah, who authored the judgment, reasoned that additional interest in the form of compound or penal is usually collected from loan defaulters. When the payment of instalments had already been deferred during the moratorium, what was the need to burden borrowers, already reeling under the financial loss of a pandemic and lockdown, the court asked.
•The judgment also spelt relief for banks and lenders with the court lifting its nearly six-month bar on them from declaring accounts of borrowers as non-performing assets (NPAs). In October last year, the apex court had stopped banks and lenders from declaring accounts of borrowers as NPAs.
•The judgment concluded that the government’s scheme to restrict the waiver of interest on interest to loans worth only up to ₹2 crore as irrational. This scheme, introduced in October, was limited to debts in MSME, education, housing, consumer durables, credit card, auto, personal and consumption categories within the ₹2 crore limit.
•“There is no justification shown to restrict the relief of not charging interest on interest with respect to the loans up to ₹2 crore only, and that too, restricted to the aforesaid (eight) categories. There is no rationale to restrict such relief,” Justice Shah noted.
•But the court refused to entertain complaints from petitioners that the government did not do enough to ease the burden of financial strain during the pandemic.
•“By and large, everybody has suffered due to lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic. Even the Government suffered due to non-recovery of GST... Merely, since the reliefs announced by the Union of India/RBI may not suit the desires of the borrowers, the reliefs/policy decisions related to COVID-19 cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution,” the court said.
•The apex court further refused the insistent pleas of the borrowers for a total waiver of interest for EMIs falling within the moratorium period. It also declined to extend the moratorium till December 2020 or, as some of the petitioners sought, another six months from August 31, 2020.
•The court said a total waiver of interest on loan EMIs would hit the banks and depositors hard.
•“To grant such a relief of total waiver of interest during the moratorium period would have a far-reaching financial implication in the economy of the country. Banks and lenders have to pay the interest to the depositors. Their liability to pay the interest on the deposits continued even during the moratorium period… Continuing to pay interest to depositors is not only one of the most essential banking activities but it shall be a huge responsibility owed by the banks to crores and crores of small depositors, pensioners, etc, who survive on the interest from their deposits,” Justice Shah reasoned.
•Besides, the court said numerous welfare funds schemes survive on the interest generated from bank deposits.
•The petitioners, which included members of the real estate and power sectors, had wanted “sector-specific reliefs”.
•To this demand, the court replied that “what is best in the national economy and in what manner and to what extent the financial reliefs/packages be formulated, offered and implemented is ultimately to be decided by the government and RBI on the aid and advise of the experts. The same is a matter for decision exclusively within the province of the central government. Such matters do not ordinarily attract the power of judicial review”.
•The court further declined pleas to extend the deadline, from December 31, 2020, for the invocation of Reserve Bank of India’s resolution mechanism for “big borrowers” like business and manufacture sectors. The mechanism titled ‘Resolution Framework for COVID-19-related Stress’, issued in an August 6 circular, had informed that lending institutions, guided by their respective Board-approved policy, would prepare viable resolution plans for eligible borrowers under stress on account of COVID-19.
•The Madras High Court on Tuesday said the Election Commission of India (ECI) can put guidelines in place to ensure that public funds are not brazenly used by Ministers for campaigning purposes. “as is usually being indulged in at present”. It observed that the ECI had sufficient authority to put in place checks and balances allowing Ministers and the like to enjoy their official status while preventing them from spending government funds for campaigning or election purposes.
•Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy said that in an ideal world, there should be a level-playing field so that government functionaries don’t use the perks and benefits of their office while campaigning for elections.
•“Such standards were met by many a politician once upon a time, but are out of fashion these days,” the judges said, while disposing of a public interest litigation petition.
•The Ahimsa Socialist Party, represented by its president, T. Ramesh alias Gandhian Ramesh, had filed the PIL petition seeking a direction to the ECI to consider the representations made to it to prohibit Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition and all others holding public office from campaigning on behalf of their party’s candidates. The party alleged that these people end up misusing their public office during elections, much to the disadvantage of the other candidates in the fray.
•Concurring with the sentiments expressed by the petitioner party, the first Division Bench said, “There are also other considerations which come into play in the modern world. There are security concerns. Thus, even though a Minister may be willing to shed his official bandobast to attend a rally merely as a politician, the very status of the Minister and the requirement to give him security cover may not permit the freedom that would be required for the purpose.”
•“This goes more so with higher officials like Chief Ministers and those holding Cabinet positions at the Centre. To such extent, the petitioner’s idealism may be slightly out of place. However, a strict Election Commission can, nonetheless, put some guidelines in place, in addition to the existing guidelines indicated in the model code, at least to ensure that government funds are not brazenly used for campaigning purposes as is usually being indulged in at present,” the judges added.
•“The Election Commission of India has sufficient authority to put checks and balances in place that allow a Minister or the like to enjoy their status and yet not spend official funds for campaigning or election purposes. However, the malaise is now deep-rooted. One has to wear allegiance to a political leader, if not on the sleeve, at least visibly crying out of the pocket. And these are not only in election time but adopted as a perennial measure almost as a talisman to ward off the evil eye,” the court observed.
•Finding some force in the arguments advanced by the petitioner’s counsel, T. Sivagnanasambandan, the judges said, “For whatever it is worth, the Election Commission of India shall deal with the petitioner’s representation for future elections, if not for the upcoming elections.”
•ECI counsel Niranjan Rajagopalan brought to the notice of the court that the model code of conduct prohibited Ministers from making use of official machinery or personnel for electioneering. “The code also states that Ministers should not combine their official visits with electioneering. The Prime Minister alone has been exempted from this.”
📰 India abstains in U.N. Human Rights Council vote on Sri Lanka
The resolution on ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’ was however adopted after 22 member states of the 47-member Council voted in its favour.
•India on Tuesday abstained from a crucial vote on Sri Lanka’s rights record at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva.
•The resolution on ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’ was, however, adopted after 22 states of the 47-member Council voted in its favour.
Colombo rejects move
•Sri Lanka, which had earlier deemed the resolution “politically motivated”, was quick to reject the UN move to collect and preserve evidence of war crimes in the country, committed by the armed forces and the LTTE.
•“Without the consent and acceptance of the country concerned, it cannot be implemented,” Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena said at a media conference in Colombo. The statement made clear Sri Lanka’s resistance to the process envisaged in the resolution to prosecute war criminals through an international evidence gathering and investigation mechanism.
•The money allocated — an estimated $2.8 million — for the effort would find better use towards providing housing for the war-affected people, the Minister said, even as scores of Tamils continue seeking their lands, new homes and jobs from his government.
•Ahead of the vote, both the government of Sri Lanka and the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), which sought the exact opposite outcomes on the resolution, had expressed hopes of obtaining India’s support.
•On Tuesday, both sides appeared sympathetic to India’s abstention that effectively amounts to support for neither party. However, in an indication that Sri Lanka had construed abstentions as support, Mr. Gunawardena in a tweet thanked the 14 countries, including India, Japan and Nepal, that abstained from voting.
‘Solid support’
•He also extending a “warm thank you” for the “solid support” shown by the 11 countries, including China, Pakistan, Russia and Bangladesh, that voted against the resolution, and in support of the Sri Lankan government.
•On the other hand, welcoming the Council’s adoption of the resolution, the TNA said India must have decided to abstain after “careful consideration” of various factors.
•“We are, however, greatly encouraged by India’s statement ahead of the vote,” TNA spokesman and Jaffna legislator M.A. Sumanthiran said, pointing to India’s reference to “two fundamental considerations” — of supporting the Tamils for equality, justice, dignity and peace, and ensuring the unity, stability and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka.
•The Sri Lanka resolution was the first to be voted on using the extraordinary e-voting procedures established for the UNHRC 46th Session, which has been held virtually.
📰 Corrective voice: On Supreme Court and judicial patriarchy
The SC did well to lay down guidelines for the judiciary in dealing with cases of sexual crime
•While recognising society’s deep-rooted patriarchy and initiating a course correction in the way the judiciary itself views gender rights, the Supreme Court went back to Henrik Ibsen, a playwright known for his feisty women characters who break free of traditions of familial confines and notions of social propriety. Setting aside an absurd rakhi-for-bail order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to a sexual offender, the Court issued a set of guidelines on March 18 to be followed by the judiciary while dealing with sexual crimes against women. The two-member Bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and S. Ravindra Bhat used a quote from Ibsen to say that a woman ‘cannot be herself’ in an ‘exclusively masculine society, with laws framed by men’, and laid it down as a guiding force for all future judicial proclamations. The judiciary’s corrective voice is a welcome step in the aftermath of CJI S.A. Bobde’s reported remarks during a virtual hearing, when he asked an alleged rapist’s lawyer to find out whether his client would marry the victim. He later said he had been misquoted. The Khanwilkar-Bhat Bench asked all courts to refrain from imposing marriage or mandate any compromise between a sex offender and his victim. Powerful men seem to be reiterating misogyny besides carelessly linking sexual crimes to women being alone at night or wearing clothes of their choice.
•Leaning on the ‘Bangkok General Guidance for Judges on Applying a Gender Perspective in Southeast Asia’, the Bench listed a host of avoidable stereotypes: women are physically weak; men are the head of the household and must make all the decisions related to family; women should be submissive and obedient. Women are battling society’s ingrained prejudices, and the judgment acknowledges this bitter reality, saying gender violence is most often shrouded in a culture of silence. Pointing to the entrenched unequal power equations between men and women, including cultural and social norms, financial dependence, and poverty, it said data may not reflect the actual incidence of violence against women. It is not the first time the Supreme Court is clamping down against gender stereotyping. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (Secr., Ministry of Defence vs. Babita Puniya) had argued against treating women in the Army any differently from their men counterparts for they worked as “equal citizens” in a common mission, and in Anuj Garg, the Court had called out the “notion of romantic paternalism” as an attempt to put women “in a cage”. To break the silence on bias against women, everyone must take responsibility, especially institutions and those in important positions. The Court’s reiteration on where it needs to stand on women’s rights is a move in the right direction because the fight for gender equality is far from over.
📰 The surge of geopolitics in South Asia’s power trade
India’s new trade rules are political and an irritant; instead, New Delhi should be planning a stable institutional model
•India has released new rules governing the trade of electricity across its borders. They define the contours of the South Asian electricity market, placing clear limits on who can buy from and sell into India. This has ramifications for the electricity markets of Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Nepal, which, to varying degrees, have aligned their energy futures with the Indian market. The new rules show that India’s approach is unmistakeably political. It attempts to balance China’s growing influence in the region with developmental aims, both its own and the region’s.
Rules on ownership
•Of central importance is the ownership of power plants wishing to sell to India. In masterful legalese, the rules strongly discourage the participation of plants owned by a company situated in “a third country with whom India shares a land border” and “does not have a bilateral agreement on power sector cooperation with India”. Chinese companies hoping to establish plants in Nepal, Bhutan, or Bangladesh will presumably have a hard time making good on their investments with the Indian market cut off. The rules place the same security restrictions on tripartite trade, say from Bhutan to Bangladesh through Indian territory. To make things even more airtight, the rules establish elaborate surveillance procedures to detect changes in the ownership patterns of entities trading with India.
•With this, it seems South Asia’s electricity politics has hit a holding pattern after several years of unpredictability. In the months after the Narendra Modi government came to power in 2014, India used the framework of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) to make historical moves towards liberalising electricity trade. China soon began to make its presence felt in the region, and India responded by walking back its free-market impulses.
•It imposed stringent restrictions that dissuaded everyone other than Indian and government entities from participating. That threatened to undermine private sector participation and promising joint ventures across the region. Nepal and Bhutan protested for years, leading to new guidelines in 2018 that tried to find a middle ground; these rules formalise that balancing act. They allow private sector participation but exclude Chinese investments.
India-centricity no advantage
•The institutional structure that has emerged through this churn over the last decade is India-centric. The Government of India, through ministries, regulators, planning bodies and utilities, determines the rules of the road. India’s geographic centrality combines with its economic heft to give it a natural advantage in determining the shape of the market; all electrons must pass through it and most electrons will be bought by it. The prospect of an independent regional body governing trade, championed by theorists, is thus unlikely to begin with. It is nearly impossible to fathom in the context of an ailing South Asian project characterised by low levels of trust. India will thus enjoy pre-eminent rule-setting powers, but continually attract the ire of its smaller neighbours who feel their economic growth is being stunted by decisions in Delhi.
Mega solar project
•These rules provoke some larger questions that must be tackled soon. India’s ambition of anchoring a global super-grid called One Sun One World One Grid, or OSOWOG (https://bit.ly/3f4lcDj) needs an institutional vision. It aims to begin with connections to West Asia and Southeast Asia and then spread to Africa and beyond. The South Asian lesson, contained in these latest rules, is that political realities will constantly collide with, and damage, expansive visions of borderless trade. Impartial institutions for planning, investments and conflict resolution are crucial to multi-country power pools.
•Managing the needs of three relatively small neighbouring economies in South Asia has consumed large amounts of time and political capital for the better part of a decade. Papering over the cracks of a power pool of a dozen countries or more will be much harder. An ad hoc design also makes the Indian project less attractive to countries looking to sign up to a power trading project.
•The logic underpinning OSOWOG is sound. Renewable energy transitions benefit from grids that cover vast areas and diverse geographic conditions. Multi-country grids allow for the unpredictable outputs from renewable energy plants to be balanced across countries, thus avoiding expensive country-specific balancing technologies such as hydropower and gas plants.
Countering China
•It is quite likely, though, that India’s plans will be one among many in a soon-to-be competitive space. China, for example, has its own power pool ambitions. An attractive institutional model can lock countries into the pool by setting standards that investors and utilities plan towards and profit by. Once locked in, countries are thus unlikely to defect to other pools. The likely first battle will be in Southeast Asia, where China presently holds sway. A considered, stable institutional model will likely surpass anything China has to offer. It is worth considering releasing the vice-like grip on South Asia, aimed at countering China, by creating a rule-based regional institution that can counter Chinese offerings in other theatres.
📰 The case that time forgot
The implementation of an integrated digital platform for the criminal justice system would ensure speedy justice
•Vishnu Tiwari, 43, was recently acquitted by the Allahabad High Court in a rape case after spending 20 years in prison. His story is illustrative of the tragic consequences that can follow from cases falling through the cracks of a bloated legal system.
•In 2003, Mr. Tiwari was sentenced to life imprisonment for rape under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. His appeal before the Allahabad High Court was pending for 16 years as a defective matter. These defects are usually in the nature of missing documents or documents in the wrong format and are remedied by the lawyer, and the case gets listed. Mr. Tiwari’s lawyer had no interest in pursuing the case, and the appeal stayed defective. During his incarceration, his parents and two brothers died. The High Court pointed out in its judgment that the State government did not consider commuting his life sentence after 14 years. Shweta Singh Rana, a legal aid lawyer, was handed the case in 2019 when the jail authorities requested the High Court to provide a lawyer to Mr. Tiwari. The process of getting the ‘paperbook’, a compilation of the lower court’s records, took nearly two years. The fact that Mr. Tiwari is now a free man and his case was heard by the High Court is a consequence of fortuitous circumstances and the presence of a few good individuals in the system. A sincere lawyer and vigilant family members, luxuries that only prisoners with economic means have access to, have become essential to secure justice.
A poorly designed system
•An effective justice system should not depend on a few individuals’ goodness and should be robust enough to ensure justice for everyone, irrespective of the individual in charge. Many of the hiccups in Mr. Tiwari’s case do not reflect deliberate malice but result from poor design and the absence of an integrated digital platform for the criminal justice system. This poor design can have enervating effects on individual freedom. While digitisation has transformed the delivery of certain public services like passports, the criminal justice system is still beset with archaic procedures and paper-based processes. Although the eCourts project has made significant progress in digitising the works of courts, there remain substantial lacunae. These are especially glaring in the criminal justice system.
Sharing information seamlessly
•Criminal cases involve various institutions such as the police, prosecutors, legal services authorities and forensic labs. Coordination and communication between these institutions are far from seamless. A criminal case’s smooth movement involves several ‘rubbing points’ where progress depends on one institution securing information from another. For example, the prosecutor needs to get the FIR from the police; the police have to submit the FIR and chargesheet to the court; the forensic labs need to submit reports to the prosecutors and the courts; etc. Allowing these various elements of the system to ‘talk’ to each other through a digital platform that standardises the format and content of data across all the systems will allow for seamless communication and will help avoid duplication of data entry and analyses. If such a platform can track cases from when an FIR is filed till the stage of appeal, it is unlikely that a case would fall through the cracks as Mr. Tiwari’s did.
•Such a system would have alerted the registry that defects in a particular appeal had been left unrectified for an extended period and would have alerted the accused person in prison that his lawyer was not pursuing his case diligently. Simultaneously, the legal services authority would have been informed of the case so that the lawyer could have been replaced. The digital platform would have been able to monitor the quality of representation of the lawyer provided by the legal services authority. Once the prisoner had served 14 years of his sentence, the system would have alerted the State government that he was eligible for commutation of his sentence. The documents from the lower court would have been transmitted electronically to the accused person’s lawyer and the High Court eliminating the endless wait for the ‘paperbook’.
•Although the Interoperable Criminal Justice System is on the anvil to integrate the information systems of the various institutions in the criminal justice system, it is far from being fully implemented. A critical factor holding back implementation is that these institutions have already created their own information systems that work in silos and are not interoperable. Priority must be given to speeding up the implementation of such a system that provides transparent, real-time access to criminal justice information to all stakeholders, including accused persons.
📰 An extraordinary legislative misadventure
Parliament has sidestepped the law laid down by bringing in thoughtless amendments to the NCT Bill
•“At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man [and woman], walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper [now EVMs] — no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point.” These were the memorable words of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, which the Indian Supreme Court endorsed. The court added that “the little large Indian shall not be hijacked from the course of free and fair elections by mob muscle methods, or subtle perversion of discretion by men dressed in little brief authority”.
Contents of the Bill
•If the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which has been passed by the Lok Sabha, is enacted, the little large Indians of the national capital may as well keep off the polling booths, for their vote will be rendered meaningless. The popular government they have elected will not be able to act on matters which the Constitution vests in it the competence to do. This Bill is an extraordinary legislative misadventure. It states the opposite of what the apex court said when it interpreted Article 239AA of the Constitution. Strangely, however, the Bill proclaims that it seeks to give effect to the interpretation.
•First, the Bill says the expression “Government” referred to in any law to be made by the Legislative Assembly in Delhi shall mean the “Lieutenant Governor”. Second, it vests in the Lieutenant Governor the power to refuse assent and reserve a Bill passed by the Legislative Assembly for the consideration of the President, if, in his opinion, the Bill incidentally covers any of the matters which fall outside the purview of the Assembly’s powers. Third, and most drastically, the Bill says before taking any executive action, the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor shall be obtained on such matters as may be specified.
•The Supreme Court has the last word on the interpretation of the Constitution. That constitutional provision (Article 239AA) remains unamended. Any legislation which speaks to the contrary would be plainly illegal. The basis of the judgment remaining the same, the attempt in the Bill is to legislatively overrule a judgment. That would be an exercise of judicial power, which Parliament does not possess. All that the Bill does is to regurgitate the rebuffed arguments of the Central government by the court. The court stated in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018): “The respondents... highlight that by the constitutional amendment, introduction of the 1991 Act and the Rules of Business, the Lieutenant Governor functions as the administrator in the truest sense... They would submit that though Delhi has been conferred a special status, yet that does not bring any new incarnation. The submission, as we perceive, destroys the fundamental marrows of the conception, namely special status. It, in fact, adorns the Lieutenant Governor with certain attributes and seeks to convey that NCT of Delhi remains where it was.”
•The court was loath to centralise the power in the Lieutenant Governor and went only thus far to say that the Council of Ministers should keep the Lieutenant Governor informed of its decisions. This would enable any decision on which there was a difference of opinion between the Lieutenant Governor and the government to be referred to the President. It said the power to refer to the President was an exception; that the Lieutenant Governor need not in a mechanical manner refer every decision; and most important, he will be guided by the concept of constitutional morality and the question of prior concurrence was out of question, since that would set at nought the ideals of representative governance and democracy.
•The idea was twofold. The earlier judgment in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) had ruled against the deification of any individual like the Lieutenant Governor, for it had warned that elections would then become but “Dead Sea fruits”. Second, the voice of the citizen could not go unrecognised. “This is only possible if the agency enacting and enforcing the law comprises of the elected representatives chosen by the free will of the citizens,” thundered the court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India. The elected representatives and the Council of Ministers, being accountable to the voters of Delhi, must have the appropriate powers so that they can perform their functions effectively and efficiently, the court emphasised. Any other interpretation, felt the court, would nullify the concepts of pragmatic federalism and collaborative federalism.
Administrative chaos
•Sidestepping the law laid down, and in a manner as to herald administrative chaos, by these thoughtless amendments, the Lieutenant Governor has been made synonymous with the Government. The government, a product of the beautiful democratic process, is replaced by one individual, a nominee of the Central government, who will occupy office at its pleasure. Not stopping there, the Bill vests in that individual enormous powers to refer all and sundry matters to the President. Now it is so well settled in constitutional law that what is to be seen is the pith and substance and not incidental aspects, while testing the competence of a legislature. That is why the referral power was to be an exceptional power and a confrontational attitude was to be abhorred. The further mandate in the Bill that before taking any executive action, the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor needs to be taken is in the teeth of the court’s interpretation, which only wanted the Lieutenant Governor to be kept informed.
•The majestic institutions that adorn Lutyens’ Delhi and the embassies of foreign nations that punctuate it symbolically convey a lot. Delhi cannot afford administrative breakdowns. To the outside world, Delhi is India’s face. It will reflect very poorly on the Central government if administration comes to a standstill in the capital. In any case, the little large Indian voter in Delhi cannot be hoodwinked. The Prime Minister should step in and immediately abort the Bill in order to uphold the principles of participative democracy, cooperative federalism, collective responsibility to the House and, above all, constitutional morality, which we deeply cherish.
📰 Recalibrating India-Taiwan ties
Helping Taiwan navigate the regulatory and cultural landscape in India will strengthen relations
•India and Taiwan are celebrating 25 years of their partnership. However, the growing relationship has been a low-key affair as India has been hesitant to acknowledge the improving ties in public. Though mutual efforts between Delhi and Taipei have enabled a range of bilateral agreements covering agriculture, investment, customs cooperation, civil aviation, industrial cooperation and other areas, the time has come to recalibrate India-Taiwan relations.
Cultivating political framework
•Creating a political framework is a prerequisite to doing this. Both partners have increasingly deepened mutual respect underpinned by openness, with democracy and diversity as the key principles for collective growth. The shared faith in freedom, human rights, justice, and rule of law continues to embolden their partnership. To make this relationship more meaningful, both sides can create a group of empowered persons or a task force to chart out a road map in a given time frame. Political will is the key.
•India’s has been in the forefront of the fight against COVID-19. Likewise, Taiwan’s handling of the pandemic and its support to many other countries underlines the need to deepen healthcare cooperation. India and Taiwan already collaborate in the area of traditional medicine. The time is ripe to expand cooperation in the field of healthcare.
•Maintaining air quality has become a mammoth challenge for the Indian government and stubble burning is an important reason for severe air pollution. Taiwan could be a valuable partner in dealing with this challenge through its bio-friendly technologies. Such methods are applied to convert agricultural waste into value-added and environmentally beneficial renewable energy or biochemicals. This will be a win-win situation as it will help in dealing with air pollution and also enhance farmers’ income. Further, New Delhi and Taipei can also undertake joint research and development initiatives in the field of organic farming.
•India and Taiwan need to deepen people-to-people connect. Cultural exchange is the cornerstone of any civilisational exchange. It not only helps one appreciate another culture but also helps in overcoming prejudices and cultural misunderstanding. Tourism is the key tool in this exchange. However, Taiwanese tourists in India are a very small number. The Buddhist pilgrimage tour needs better connectivity and visibility, in addition to showcasing incredible India’s diversity. This will accelerate the flow of Taiwanese tourists. With the Taiwan Tourism Bureau partnering with Mumbai Metro, Taiwan is trying to raise awareness about the country and increase the inflow of Indian tourists.
Deepening economic ties
•Trade relations have grown. India’s huge market provides Taiwan with investment opportunities. Taiwan’s reputation as the world leader in semiconductor and electronics complements India’s leadership in ITES (Information Technology-Enabled Services). This convergence of interests will help create new opportunities. India’s recent strides in the ease of business ranking not only provide Taiwan with lucrative business opportunities but also help it mitigate its over-dependence on one country for investment opportunities.
•The signing of a bilateral trade agreement in 2018 was an important milestone. There are around 200 Taiwanese companies in the field of electronics, construction, petrochemicals, machine, Information and Communications Technology and auto parts operating in India. Despite the huge potential, Taiwan investments have been paltry in India. Taiwanese firms find the regulatory and labour regime daunting with stray incidents such as the incident in the Wistron plant last year creating confusion and mistrust.
•Policymakers need to coordinate better with the business community to help them navigate the regulatory and cultural landscape for better ties.
