&w=3840&q=100){kind=logo}
Best of BS Opinion: India must go from pro-business to pro-market
India's external affairs minister, S Jaishankar, speaking at the recent meeting of foreign ministers of the Quad, asked for the grouping to understand India's right to defend itself against terrorism. The joint statement in Washington, too, reflected India's concerns about cross-border terrorism by condemning the Pahalgam terror attack. However, achieving that goal may be challenging, given the nature of the current White House, says our second editorial. The US' willingness to do business with a country that openly supports terrorism in India - as seen in President Trump's hosting of Pakistan's Army chief Asim Munir shortly after the Pahalgam attack - raises misgivings in New Delhi. A key issue is that the nature of the group is itself a source of weakness. While Mr Jaishankar has said a more focused Quad will deliver results, its expansion from a group focused on a more open and free Indo-Pacific region (read: to counter Chinese power there) into one that include vaccines, artificial intelligence, security and even cultural exchanges has diluted its security element. The US' view of the Quad's usefulness could also turn on a dime, given that the Trump administration is swiftly closing in on a trade deal with China, its largest trading partner. Our lead columnist today, Ajay Chhibber, takes a dim view of the growth of the Big Five business houses in India - Reliance, Tata, Adani, Aditya Birla group, and Bharti Telecom - arguing that India has adopted a pro-business approach instead of a pro-market one. As a result, these five have not only overshadowed the next five, even the next 20, but have created massive entry barriers that effectively shut out new entrants in the sectors they are in. What's more, they have exponentially expanded the number of sectors they have a presence in. Also, unlike the Korean Chaebols, which were export-oriented and created linkages with the small and medium enterprises, the Indian Big Five are almost entirely serving a protected domestic market, with hardly any world-class export products. India's strategy of relying on big business to create world-class companies by giving subsidies and tariff protections seems to have backfired - the companies have grown, but they are not helping India grow any faster.
The preliminary report on the Air India flight 171 crash is expected soon, but the lack of any communication from the authorities has meant that conspiracy theories have proliferated, complicating matters for those struggling to get their confidence back in flying, writes Nivedita Mookerji. The truth about what triggered the fatal crash should also outline the future course of action in aviation, particularly the importance of clear communication during a crisis. It is also time for the regulator, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), to prioritise air safety to ensure a smooth aviation system and improve its oversight significantly. Given the growth of the aviation sector, the corpus of trained and experienced human resources has not kept pace with the requirement, a gap that needs urgent attention. In his book review of Robert MacFarlane's Going with the flow of nature, Shyam Saran examines the idea of rivers as living things, and whether they should, or can, be seen as merely a piece of property subject to exploitation for profit. Interestingly, while MacFarlane is an author of some repute on the spoliation of riverine regions by corporate interests, Saran has been a prime minister's special envoy on climate change. MacFarlane explores the notion that rivers, and other natural bodies, are living things and should be treated as such. For this book, he travels along three river systems: the Rio Los Cedros in Ecuador, the Magpie river in Quebec (Canada), and the three rivers that sustain Chennai - the Kosasthalaiyar, the Cooum and the Adyar. In Chennai, he finds that industrial sewage and rapid urbanisation have already destroyed these three river. Saran finds the book compels the reader to face the price that modern industrial civilisation extracts to meet material demands of both affluent and aspiring societies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
34 minutes ago
- NDTV
$1,000,000,000: This Is How Much Harvard Will Lose If Trump Okays Fund Cuts
New Delhi: Harvard University may lose up to $1 billion annually if US President Donald Trump goes ahead with his plans to cut research funding, tax policy and student enrollment, according to a new report in a leading American daily. An analysis of the worst-case scenario losses shows that America's oldest institution may have a budget deficit of over a billion dollars annually, should the impasse in the Harvard-Trump tussle prevail. According to The Wall Street Journal, a loss of $240 million in Endowment Fund, $700 million in research funding and $110 million in college, graduate school revenue puts the total number at over a million. Even though Harvard has a massive $53 billion endowment, which is still wealthier and more powerful than its peers, the university doesn't have much flexibility with that money. Much of the endowment is designed for specific purposes, such as some funds are allocated only for medical research, others for scholarships and some are locked in long-term investments. In addition to this, Harvard is a tax-exempt university. But with Trump's intention to take away the tax-exempt status and impose an 8 per cent tax on endowment, it could lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year. The US General Services Administration (GSA) on Tuesday asked all federal agencies to rethink their contracts with Harvard University and instead look for alternative businesses/companies for future endeavours. Harvard University has a higher percentage of international students, more than 7,000, who pay full tuition fees. With the Trump administration threatening to block the university from enrolling these students, it could reduce tuition fees. Since April, the US administration has taken away over $2 billion in research and education funding. With cuts to this, Harvard University might have to slash programs or departments, lay off professors or researchers, and reduce student scholarships. One of its major schools, the Kennedy School of Government, has started laying off employees and cutting down some of its departments or programs. The university has also started selling investments at a loss. They sold $1 billion worth of private equity investments at a 7 per cent discount. Katharine Meyer, an education policy fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that losing $100 million contract may seem small by itself, but if this keeps happening, the university won't be able to cover all the lost money from federal contracts, grants, and other income sources. She said, "This $100 million dollar contract pullback is certainly the smallest effort that we've seen, but I think the cumulative impact is hurtling toward a point where eventually Harvard does not have infinite funds to be able to fill in where they've lost federal contracts and grants and any other sources of their revenue." Over the last few months, the Trump administration has been at loggerheads with Harvard, particularly after anti-Israel protests over Benjamin Netanyahu's brutal war on Gaza and American support for what demonstrators called a genocide of Palestinians. The administration has also accused to varsity of giving safe space to people with antisemitic views. Karoline Leavitt, the White House Press Secretary, told reporters that Harvard had broken US civil rights laws. She said that if any organisation breaks federal law, like these civil rights laws, they should not be given federal funding, such as grants for research or education. The Trump administration has also removed Harvard University from its electronic student immigration registry. This is used to track international students studying in the US, so if a university is removed, then international students can't legally study there. The US has asked embassies to reject student visa applications of those looking to study at Harvard.
NDTV
34 minutes ago
- NDTV
Trump's Big Bill Cuts Clean Energy Tax, Residential Solar To Get Hit Fast
As Republicans in Congress rushed forward with a massive tax and spending cut bill, a North Carolina renewable energy executive wrote to his 190 employees with a warning: Deep cuts to clean energy tax credits were going to hurt. '(The changes) would almost certainly include the loss of jobs on our team,' wrote Will Etheridge, CEO of Southern Energy Management in Raleigh. 'I'm telling you that because you deserve transparency and the truth — even if that truth is uncomfortable.' The bill now in the House takes an ax to clean energy incentives, including killing a 30% tax credit for rooftop residential solar by the end of the year that the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act had extended into the next decade. Trump has called the clean energy tax credits in the climate law part of a 'green new scam' that improperly shifts taxpayer subsidies to help the 'globalist climate agenda' and energy sources like wind and solar. Businesses and analysts say the GOP-backed bill will likely reverse the sector's growth and eliminate jobs. 'The residential solar industry is going to be absolutely creamed by this,' said Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, a business group that advocates for pro-environment policies. President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' takes aim at renewables broadly, including phasing out tax credits enjoyed by utility-scale solar and wind. But cutting the residential solar credit will happen sooner. Companies have announced more than $20 billion in clean-energy investments in North Carolina in recent years. Etheridge, whose company installs solar panels and helps ensure buildings are energy efficient, was among many in the sector to lobby Republican U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina for changes in the bill. Tillis ultimately was one of three Republicans to vote against the measure, but in a sign of Trump's power over legislators to pass it, Tillis said he wouldn't seek reelection after Trump said he'd likely support a primary challenger. Now, Etheridge says losing the tax credit will likely mean laying off 50 to 55 of his workers. He called the elimination of residential tax credits a 'bait and switch.' 'I made a decision from being an employee to taking out a loan from my grandmother to buy into my business and put my house on the line' in part because of the stability of the tax credits, he said. He said he'll scramble now to figure out ways to diversify his business. 'If you require a money-spigot from Washington to make your business viable, it probably shouldn't have been in business in the first place,' said Adam Michel, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. Michel said he doubted many clean energy companies would go out of business, but 'I think that they will be right sized for the market and that the people that are employed with them will find better jobs and more stable jobs in industries that are actually viable and don't require billions of dollars of federal subsidies.' Even ahead of debate over the bill, experts at E2 said in May that $14 billion in clean energy investments across the country had been postponed or cancelled this year. The bill the Senate passed Tuesday removes a tax on some wind and solar projects that was proposed in a previous version and gives utility-scale projects some time to begin construction before phasing out those tax credits. Karl Stupka, president of Raleigh-based NC Solar Now that employs about 100 people, said the Senate's bill eased the impact on commercial projects 'while destroying the residential portion of the tax credits.' Roughly 85% of his business is residential work. 'They took it away from every average American normal person and gave it to the wealthier business owners,' he said. Stupka said if the bill becomes law, companies will rush to finish as many solar jobs as they can before the credit ends. He expected to lay off half his employees, with 'trickle-down' job losses elsewhere. 'It would cause a pretty severe shock wave,' he said.
Mint
35 minutes ago
- Mint
Why did the Dalai Lama refrain from naming a successor? Is it linked to 1995 abduction of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima?
The Dalai Lama on Wednesday announced that he intends to reincarnate, paving the way for a successor to take on a mantle that stretches back 500 years after his death. The eagerly awaited statement, delivered just days before the ailing Nobel Peace Prize laureate's 90th birthday, quashed speculation, started by the Dalai Lama himself, that he might be the final spiritual leader of Tibet, bringing an end to a centuries-old tradition. Speaking during a week of celebrations in the northern Indian hill town of Dharamshala to mark his birthday, the Dalai Lama said a non-profit institution he has set up will have sole authority to identify his reincarnation, countering China's insistence that it will choose his successor. As per experts, the Dalai Lama's decision to forgo naming a successor may be linked to the abduction of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima. In May 1995, six-year-old Gedhun Choekyi Nyima was named by the 14th Dalai Lama as the 11th Panchen Lama, a role second only to the Dalai Lama in Tibetan Buddhist hierarchy. However, three days after the announcement, on May 17, 1995, the boy was allegedly kidnapped by Chinese authorities and his family taken into custody. They have remained missing ever since. Weeks later, China installed its own Panchen Lama, Gyaincain Norbu. Even today, the Tibetan exile community continues to recognise Gedhun as the legitimate Panchen Lama, while the Chinese government backs its own chosen successor. In the last 30 years, China has shared only limited details about Gedhun, like in 2007 and again in 2020, when officials claimed he had completed college and is employed. However, no photographs, videos, or public sightings have ever verified such claims. They also stated that 'the family wished to maintain a private life'. Several human rights activists noted that the Chinese government should be pressured to secure the freedom of Gendun Choki Nyima and his family. In May of this year, US Secretary Marco Rubio voiced a similar concern. Shortly after the Dalai Lama's Wednesday announcement, China's Foreign Ministry once again said that the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama must be approved by the central government in Beijing. Spokesperson Mao Ning reasoned that Tibetan Buddhism is a religion with Chinese characteristics and that the reincarnation process must follow traditional methods, including drawing lots from a golden urn. Mao Ning cited an 18th-century Qing dynasty tradition in which a golden urn was used to draw lots in order to identify the reincarnations of prominent Buddhist leaders. "The reincarnation of the Dalai Lama, the Panchen Lama and other great Buddhist figures must be chosen by drawing lots from a golden urn, and approved by the central government," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning.
