&w=3840&q=100)
India-China friction has not impacted AIIB's functioning, says VP Pandey
Frictions between India and China have not affected the functioning and growth of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), where both countries are the top two investors, the bank's Vice President of Investment Solutions Ajay Bhushan Pandey has said.
In a detailed interview with PTI Videos here, Pandey, a former finance secretary and CEO of Aadhaar, sought to dispel the impression that the AIIB was a Chinese bank and said it truly emerged as a multilateral development bank (MDB) with well-established governing structures.
According to the bank's official data, China is the largest shareholder of the AIIB with 26.54 per cent voting shares. India is the second-largest shareholder with 7.58 per cent, followed by Russia with 5.9 per cent and Germany with 4.1 per cent.
In his nearly hour-long interview, Pandey addressed a range of questions, including whether India-China tensions and the absence of influential countries like the US and Japan impacted the bank.
Pandey, who took over as Vice President of Investment Solutions of the bank in April this year, said differences and frictions between India and China have not impacted the bank's functioning in any way.
"MDBs are supposed to be professional organisations. The countries may have political differences, but when they sit at the table on the bank, you know, they are governed by their own economic interests," Pandey said.
"At any given point in the world, you know, there are always some geopolitical tensions between some countries or a group of countries," Pandey said.
"Outside the bank and the other political space and in the media space, countries' behaviours towards each other may be very different, but it is not reflected in the bank's functioning," he said.
The countries may have political and other differences, but those differences do not get reflected in the bank's functioning, he said.
The Beijing-headquartered AIIB, established in 2016, is holding its 10th annual meeting of the board of governors from Tuesday to Thursday here. The meeting is being attended by a host of top officials from its 100 member countries.
As the Vice President of Investment Solutions, Pandey oversees the Sectors, Themes and Finance Solutions Department (STF), the Sustainability and Fiduciary Solutions Department (SFD) and the Portfolio Management Department (PMD).
I also heard this before I joined here when I was (India's finance secretary), and I used to hear this, he said, replying to a question about the AIIB being regarded as a Chinese bank, as it was initially sponsored by it.
But if you look at...the governance structure of this bank, the governance structure is that any major decision in this in the bank is taken by the supermajority. That supermajority is 75 per cent of the vote, Pandey said.
The governing structure of the bank is such that it should allay apprehension that the AIIB is a Chinese bank, he said.
India is the largest borrower, right? So, can anyone infer that it is a bank of one particular country?" Pandey asked.
The bank's 670 employees have been drawn from different countries, including those from the US and Japan who are not members of the bank, he said.
Over 60 Indians are employed in several positions in the bank.
Also, the projects are chosen through the best practices, he said.
"If you look at these points, I will leave it to any neutral observer, having the impression that this particular bank is driven by one country, or it is a one-country bank," he said.
The AIIB has 100 full members, 110 approved members from six continents representing 81 per cent of the world population and 65 per cent of global GDP, according to the bank's official data.
In the last nine years, the bank has approved 310 projects amounting to about USD 60 billion in funding in 38 member countries, with India topping the list with USD 11 billion.
On India's participation in the bank, Pandey said, "If you look at India's participation in the AIIB...if you look at the entire Asian region, India is one of the dominant players." "Somewhere around 2014-15, when the talk was going on about having a bank like AIIB, India participated. And India is the second-largest shareholder in this bank," he said.
On the project funding obtained by India, Pandey said if you see India's portfolio today is about USD 11 billion.
Pandey also paid rich tributes to the leadership provided by the outgoing founder President of the Bank, Jin Liqun.
Jin has united 110 countries to create institutions that serve the global public goodan extraordinary contribution in a divided world, he said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scroll.in
36 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
‘Travesty of justice': SC summons UP jailer for not releasing man two months after bail
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it was a ' travesty of justice ' that a man it had granted bail to in April in a case under Uttar Pradesh's anti-conversion law was not released from the Ghaziabad district jail yet, reported Live Law. A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh directed the superintendent jailor of the prison to appear before the court on Wednesday. The Uttar Pradesh Director General of Prisons was also directed to appear via video conferencing. This came after the prisoner alleged that he had not been released because a sub-section of the provision under which he was booked was not mentioned in the bail order, PTI reported. The man was booked under sections of the Indian Penal Code pertaining to kidnapping, abducting or compelling a woman to marry against her will, in addition to sections of the 2021 Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. The court said something 'something fishy' was underway and called the development 'ridiculous', proposing contempt action against jail authorities if the petitioner's allegations were found to be true, Live Law reported. The bench highlighted that the 'concerned sections are clearly mentioned' in the top court's April 29 order, The Indian Express reported. 'This calls for a serious inquiry,' it added. At the same time, the court warned the petitioner that action would be taken against him if it is found that his statement is not correct, 'or that you are detained for due to some other case'. 'But if we find that this sub-clause was the reason, we will initiate contempt proceedings because it's a matter of liberty,' said the bench. 'Do not take this court for granted!'


Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
India, UK likely to sign trade pact by July end; commerce secretary in London: Official
India and the UK are moving closer to signing a free trade agreement. Legal scrubbing of the text is progressing rapidly. Commerce Secretary Sunil Barthwal is in London to expedite the process. The agreement aims to boost trade between the two nations. It will eliminate taxes on key exports. The deal requires approval from both parliaments. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The process of legal scrubbing of the India-UK free trade agreement (FTA) text is progressing at a faster pace, and the pact is expected to be signed by the end of July, an official said on give an impetus to the process, Commerce Secretary Sunil Barthwal is in London with his official will meet UK Secretary of State for Business and Trade Jonathan Reynolds and other British senior officials during his two-day two countries announced the conclusion of the negotiations on May 6. It will remove taxes on the export of labour-intensive products such as leather, footwear and clothing, while making imports of whisky and cars from Britain cheaper, in a bid to double trade between the two economies to USD 120 billion by world's fifth and sixth-largest economies concluded the deal after three years of on-off the FTA is signed, it will require approval from the British Parliament and India's Cabinet before it can take effect. The implementation is likely to take about a year after the signing."The agreement is likely to be signed by July end. India's legal team is also there in London for the legal scrubbing of the text. The pact's text would be put in public domain after signing," the official said, adding the commerce secretary's visit is important, as issues such as the implementation process of the pact would be and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal was also in London earlier this month. He held discussions with Reynolds on issues related to the implementation of the Minister Narendra Modi has invited UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to India.


Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
‘Where fear is, justice cannot be': The intrepid H R Khanna
In the 21 months that the Emergency was in force, starting June 25, 1975, more than a lakh people were detained without trial, including top Opposition leaders. During this dark time, a Justice of the Supreme Court left an indelible mark by standing up against Executive power to defend the rights of citizens, at a cost to himself. The judge was Justice Hans Raj Khanna, who lost the chance to become the Chief Justice of India (CJI), and the case in question was the habeas corpus or ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla case. A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court looked into the question of whether the right to move court under Article 21 — the right to life and personal liberty — remains suspended when Emergency is in operation. By a majority judgment of 4:1, the Court ruled that citizens could not sue against the violation of the right to life and personal liberty during Emergency, with Justice Khanna recording his dissent. In his autobiography Neither Roses Nor Thorns, Justice Khanna recalled Attorney General (A-G) Niren De arguing that the petitions of people detained without trial were not maintainable during Emergency, adding that 'some of my colleagues who used in the past to be very vocal about human rights and civil liberties were sitting tongue tied'. Justice Khanna asked De a question: 'Would there be a remedy if a police officer, because of personal enmity, killed another man?' To this, the A-G. replied, 'Consistently with my argument, there would be no judicial remedy in such a case as long as the Emergency lasts. It may shock your conscience, it shocks mine, but consistently with my submissions, no proceedings can be taken in a court of law on that score.' The arguments continued for six or seven weeks, after which Justice Khanna began to write his judgment. He recalled his line of argument in his autobiography: 'The suspension of the right to enforce Article 21 could not have greater effect than the repeal of Article 21. Supposing Article 21 was not there in the Constitution, no state and no policeman, even in the absence of that Article, could deprive a person of his life or personal liberty without the authority of law. If they did so, they would be guilty of culpable homicide or illegal confinement.' He added, 'Article 21, in my opinion, was not the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty. Those rights had existed even prior to the framing of the Constitution. To hold that because of the suspension of the right to move the court for enforcement of Article 21, any policeman could mala fide kill or keep in confinement any man, and there would be no remedy against such killing or detention, was tantamount to declaring that there was no longer any rule of law.' Before the judgment was pronounced on April 28, 1976, Justice Khanna recalled that he told his wife and sister while on a family trip to Haridwar, 'I have prepared a judgment that is going to cost me the Chief Justiceship of India.' Being the sole dissenter in favour of the right to life and personal liberty even during Emergency, Justice Khanna said while reading out his judgment, 'Unanimity which is merely formal and which is recorded at the expense of strong conflicting views is not desirable in a court of last resort.' Following the judgment, Justice Khanna became persona non grata for the government and stopped getting invitations to official dinners. Yet, many people called him to compliment him. The New York Times wrote an editorial praising him, which was sent to him by his American acquaintances. Justice Khanna wrote, 'One evening two or three months after the judgment, a Congress member of Parliament from Bihar … came to me and told me that he had come to express the feelings of more than half the Congress members of Parliament that they admired my judgment.' Niren De personally congratulated Justice Khanna personally when they met at a reception. On January 28, 1977, when he returned home after work, he heard on the radio that Justice Mirza Hameedullah Beg, a judge junior to him, had been appointed CJI. He immediately wrote his resignation and dispatched it to the President of India. Justice Khanna recalled that after this, lawyers visited him and informed him that their peers nationwide had decided to protest this. Lawyers boycotted courts and passed resolutions at Bar Association meetings against the government's decision to pass over Justice Khanna for the CJI job. 'Two or three days thereafter we all felt overwhelmed to see on the front page of The Indian Express an article by Nani Palkhiwala titled 'Salute to Justice Khanna',' the judge wrote in his autobiography. At his farewell dinner hosted by the Supreme Court Bar, Justice Khanna said, 'There can be no greater indication of the decay in the rule of law than a docile Bar, a subservient judiciary and a society with a choked or coarsened conscience. Fearlessness is the tradition of the Bar since the days of the struggle for independence … Where fear is, justice cannot be.'