Latest news with #AjayBanga
Business Standard
5 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
Centre halted education funds to Tamil Nadu for petty politics: MK Stalin
Addressing a book release event, Stalin said since Tamil Nadu has not agreed to the 3-language policy, the Centre has not released Rs 2,152 crore Ajay Banga Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin on Saturday slammed the BJP-led Centre, alleging it halted education funds to the state for its "petty politics." Addressing a book release event, Stalin said since Tamil Nadu has not agreed to the 3-language policy, the Centre has not released Rs 2,152 crore. "BJP-led Centre has halted education funds to Tamil Nadu for its petty politics," the chief minister alleged. Further, Stalin informed that the state government would for sure approach the Supreme Court challenging non-release of education funds by the Centre. Like the state's success in the Governor case, which fixed deadlines for Governor/President over Bills, Tamil Nadu would win in the education funds related matter too, he expressed confidence. Stalin said the struggle to bring education to the state list of the Constitution would continue and in case education was not shifted to the state list, it would be out of bounds for all, he said, once again reaffirming the DMK's position on this subject.
Mint
26-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
How country pacts are driving foreign trade—and keeping globalization alive
The tariff war triggered by US President Donald Trump raised fears of an unravelling of the existing global trade order, long built on freer movement of goods and services between countries. But, in a recent interview, World Bank President Ajay Banga said that globalization was not going away. What was changing, he added, was the nature of trade, with a greater focus on country-to-country ties. Indeed, trade agreements and deeper and wider trade treaties between countries and blocs have progressively increased. A World Trade Organization (WTO) database shows that 375 regional trade agreements (RTAs) between two or more countries are currently in force, with another 36 in the works. Of the active RTAs, 241 have come into effect over the past two decades. Since many are multilateral, the number of unique country pairings covered by these agreements stands at around 5,500. Read this | What is India's advantage in the global trade reset amid US's tariff flip-flops? India is part of 19 RTAs. One such is with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), beginning February 2022. In 2024-25, the UAE, whose population is less than India's capital city, accounted for about $37 billion, or about 8%, of India's exports. Reliance Industries, India's largest conglomerate, set up a trading hub in the UAE about four years back. Developed economies lead in entering into RTAs. On average, they have signed thrice the number of RTAs as developing ones, while being more evenly matched in terms of the number of partners. And increasingly, in such agreements, they are pressing for a reduction of non-tariff barriers. RTA boost As per a WTO working paper by Rohini Acharya and Thakur Parajuli, the share of global imports from RTA partners increased from 37% in 2010 to 52% in 2022. In the past couple of years, the number of RTAs being signed has slowed, except in 2021, when the UK signed a slew of trade agreements in the aftermath of its decision to leave the European Union (EU). Read this | Mint Exclusive: India-US trade deal before 8 July, talks next week At present, EU countries lead in RTAs, while India is ranked 11th, behind China. Among RTAs signed in recent years, one is tipped to be watched for its impact in the years ahead: the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which came into force in January 2022. The RCEP comprises 15 East Asian and Asia-Pacific countries, led by China, Japan, South Korea and Australia. The 15 member-countries account for 30.5% of the world's GDP. By comparison, the European Union accounts for 18% of global GDP. Beyond tariffs RTAs are increasingly cutting across regions (for example, India-UAE), rather than pivoting around regions (India-Asean). Read this | India, Asean trade agreement review faces delays At present, about two-thirds of RTAs are cross-regional. The other change is a move beyond tariffs to also cover policy domains related to trade and foreign investments, like competition policy, government procurement rules and intellectual property rights. For their broader nature, they are referred to as 'deep trade agreements'. According to a paper by UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD), overall export growth shrank by 13.8% in 2020, the first covid year. Among countries with no RTAs, it declined by 14.1%. But, among those with deep trade agreements, the drop was a lower 8.5%. 'One possible explanation…is that trade flows within RTAs are under more robust conditions and have lower trade costs relative to trade outside RTAs (e.g. lower tariffs and more intensive cooperation in other areas such as trade regulations and investment regimes)," say the authors Alessandro Nicita and Mesut Saygili. Give and take India is placed low on the inclusion of policy areas other than tariffs in trade agreements. According to a database maintained by the WTO, India is ranked 152nd, with an average depth (number of policy areas covered) of 7.2 among the 19 trade agreements signed with 53 countries. By comparison, China and Vietnam have an average depth of 14.6 and 15.7, respectively. This point is also borne out when compared to the US on coverage of key non-tariff domains in their respective domains. Also read | Asian factories bear scars of Trump's tariff blast Some of the ring-fencing by India is from the point of view of protecting key stakeholders—for example, farmers in the context of agriculture markets and cost of medicines in the context of intellectual property rights. This is also the tightrope that India has to walk in trade agreements, as it needs those export markets and foreign capital in high-end and export-oriented sectors. is a database and search engine for public data
Business Recorder
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Modi jeopardizing lives of 1.7bn people
Ajay Banga, the President of the World Bank, has said the following about Indus Water Treaty: 'There is no provision in the treaty to allow for suspension the way it was drawn up. It either needs to be gone, or replaced by another one, and that requires the two countries to want to agree.' He further stated that the Bank plays no decision-making role in the Indus Waters Treaty and acts solely as a facilitator: 'We have to pay the fees of those guys through a trust fund that was set up at the Bank at the time of creation of the treaty. That's our role. We have no role to play beyond that.' The writer is fond of looking at the pedigree to determine the discourse by a person. The sensible statement of Mr Banga, a person of Indian origin, reflects the nobleness of the pedigree. The search revealed that Mr Banga's family is originally from Jalandhar, Indian Punjab. His father, Harbhajan Singh Banga, is a retired lieutenant-general of the Indian army. This mind-set is completely different from that of Narendra Modi, who has jeopardized the lives of 1.7 billion (population of India and Pakistan) living in this area since he came to power in 2014; especially, through a misadventure on May 6 and 7, 2025. Though Mr Modi has a Master's Degree; however, he has not worked in any organisation ever to understand realities. He has misunderstood the dynamics of history, culture and mind-set of the people on both sides of the line of control. Now I dwell on some historical facts. The Indus Water Treaty, which governs the sharing of waters of the Indus River system between India and Pakistan, was indeed signed on September 19, 1960, and subsequent protocols were signed on November 27, and December 2 and 23 of the same year. It is not a bilateral document. It is a tripartite treaty. The third party is the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank). It may be considered one of the most comprehensive treaties for water distribution where matters relating to waters of six rivers were settled. This is a unique one in the world with no precedent of this type of relocation of resources. The treaty included financial aspects also by way of Article V. Under that Article India paid 62 million pounds sterling for the construction of water works in Pakistan. These funds were managed by the World Bank. This is a settled position and the lifeline for the economy of Pakistan. At this stage the relevance of this treaty for Pakistan's agriculture is not the subject; however, there cannot be any unilateral action of this subject between two nuclear states as clarified by Mr Banga. The four-day war between India and Pakistan has ended after the intervention of US President Donald Trump. It is a continuation of a misery due to which 1.7 billion people living in this region are facing. This economic issue emanates from the RSS mind-set of a person from Gujarat who does not understand the facts and realities. This misery cannot continue for another seventy five years as is being shown by Modi and Indian media. The problem and solution are summarily discussed in the following paragraphs. The amounts of expenditure incurred by Pakistan and India on defence on a yearly basis are available in public domain; these are at US $ 82 billion and US $ 11 billion for India and Pakistan, respectively. This difference is in line with the population and GDPs of the two countries. However, it is commendable that our forces won against India in the four-day war earlier this month. This shows utter incompetence of Indian forces and gallantry of Pakistan armed forces. It is understandable that there are some problems between the two states for over seventy seven years. These issues are: a. The equitable distribution of water of Indus basis region as all the rivers in this basin start in the Indian or Indian occupied territory; b. The right of self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. In this writer's view, the Indus Water Treaty has amicably resolved the matter and no sensible person would like to disturb that settled status of an international agreement. There are very limited choices for both the countries. The real issue, which remains unsettled, is the Kashmir dispute. India, in this respect, is ignoring certain pertinent facts. Some of which are: a. Firstly, the case of Kashmir is exactly similar to Indian Hyderabad. In Kashmir there was a predominant Muslim population with a Hindu ruler; whereas in Hyderabad there was a Muslim ruler for a predominant Hindu population. In both the cases, irrespective of prejudices, substance has to prevail over form. The form was the decision of the ruler. That is practically irrelevant. The substance is that if the predominant population is Muslim or Hindu then the state has to be aligned to the dominion having respective religion when the primary division was made on the basis of religions of majority of people; b. Secondly, Hyderabad was surrounded on four sides by India. It was a geographical reality that this area was a part of India. Exactly the same is the case in Kashmir which is not understood by many Indians and even by some Pakistanis. c. Thirdly, prior to 1947 there was only one all-weather road to Srinagar, which was from Rawalpindi to Srinagar via Murree. This route had been there for centuries and all the Indians who visited Kashmir before 1947 used this route. The visits by India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru through this route regularly constitute a case in point. So did Pakistan's founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah use this route. There was a very dangerous road through the Banihal pass, which used to remain shut for almost half of the year. It was not a natural route. Later, Indians constructed a tunnel, by-passing the Banihal pass. Banihal in Kashmiri language means 'blizzard'. There is a railway line between Sialkot and Jammu and distance between the two cities is only 40 kilometers. The history of this line is: The Sialkot-Jammu rail link was opened in 1890 and closed after the Partition of India in 1947. The line was a 43 km (27 mi) broad gauge branch of the North Western State Railway, connecting Wazirabad Junction in Punjab to Jammu, passing through Sialkot Junction. The line was built under the rule of Maharaja Pratap Singh and was the first railway line in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. It was a vital transportation route for trade and commerce, particularly in the sugar trade. The line was abandoned after the Partition, and a replacement line was built from Pathankot to Jammu. Whereas, the distance between Pathankot and Jammu is 106 km. The history of this railway line as described by independent Wikipedia is as under: The Jalandhar–Jammu line is a railway line connecting Jalandhar Cantonment and Jalandhar City in the Indian state of Punjab with Jammu Tawi in Jammu and Kashmir. The line is under the administrative jurisdiction of Northern Railway. This line was made after Indian Independence in 1947. Normally before partition of India and creation of Pakistan, trains to Jammu Tawi from Delhi used to run via Panipat, Ambala Cantonment, Ludhiana, Jalandhar City, Amritsar, Lahore, Narowal and Sialkot. But after partition and creation of Pakistan in 1947, the Sialkot–Jammu Tawi line was dismantled and closed permanently. Jammu and Kashmir became cut off from the rest of India. Hence in 1949, it was decided to extend the line from Jalandhar City to Mukerian till Pathankot and after the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, this line was extended to Jammu Tawi. This 216 km (134 mi) railway line is an important strategic connectivity for Indian Military and Defence. Indians are trying to create unnatural geographical links, which will always remain unnatural. d. Fourthly, all the people living in Kashmir are related to people living in Pakistan. Or, in other words, they are not at all related to those living in India. There are four distinct regions in Kashmir viz. (i) the Valley being Srinagar as capital. It is a valley of River Jhelum and partly Chenab; (ii) Jammu being an area linked with Sialkot by rail before Partition as described above; (iii) Gilgit and Baltistan and (iv) Ladakh. The adjoining area of India with Kashmir is Himachal Pradesh and Pathankot area of Punjab. Any person knowing basic anthropology will agree that people living in Jammu have nothing in common with those on the Indian side, effectively the Kangra Valley. With respect to the people of other regions, there is no doubt that these people have no cultural, historical, religious, political or social ties with those in India. Even Ladakh, a Buddhist area, is very much close to Tibet (China), not India. e. Fifthly, the unnatural rulers of Kashmir who decided in favour of India were not even rulers of Kashmiris as they represented only a clan in Jammu and unlike all other precedents in the world actually bought an area for 'cash' from the British rulers. There cannot be any dispute on the aforesaid facts and no Indian scholar or historian can challenge the same. However, the writer accepts that an aberration arose in Kashmir affairs with the role of National Conference and Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah's politics. The purpose here is not to discuss that role; however, it is a fact that despite all actions by Pakistan and India the grandson of Sheikh Abdullah is the Chief Minister of the Illegally Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. He advocates that Article 35A and 370 of the Indian Constitution must be restored. The writer would not discount the position of his party. There are only two primary questions for the leaders of both India and Pakistan: a. Would India be able to control the area without its around 600,000 forces placed in the region and maintain deletion of Article 35A and 370 of the Indian Constitution? And b. Would Pakistan ever be able to militarily occupy Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir Kashmir? The truth is that the answer to both these questions is in the negative though the leaders and a lot of people of the region are not ready to listen to the truth. The next truth is that there cannot be a nuclear confrontation. The greater problem lies with India as it considers that it may subdue Pakistan by its might which is not practically possible. Furthermore, India cannot ignore the fact that out of a total population of around 13 million of Illegally Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir a lot of Kashmiris have families on both sides of the Line of Control (LOC). Their travel can never be stopped. The length of the LOC is around 470 miles which can never be secured. They call them 'terrorists'. We call them Kashmiris living on both sides of the LOC. Whatever has happened in 2025 is not new and exciting. Almost the same happened in 1948, 1965, 1971, 1991, 2016 and 2019. The solution is not war. The solution is dialogue with three parties being there. Pakistanis, Indians and Kashmiris. Who truly represents Kashmir can be questioned; however, the arbitration by any neutral party is to be limited to that aspect only. All other aspects are to be agreed upon by these three parties. When France and England can sit together after a hundred years' war and Japan can be a big trading partner of the USA after a nuclear attack then why there cannot be an agreement between Pakistan and India. The lives of 1.7 billion people cannot be jeopardized. The Indian society in particular has to fully appreciate the situation. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
IWT is inviolable
Listen to article The dictum is that India cannot unilaterally pull out of a mandatory international commitment, and its shenanigan of suspending the 1960 Indus Water Treaty is ultra vires. New Delhi's decision to suspend the flow of water down to lower riparian Pakistan, on the false pretext of its involvement in Pahalgam tragedy, was followed by aggression leading to a four-day military showdown. Pakistan's thrust that the treaty is a "binding international instrument remains fully in force and cannot be suspended or violated" has been endorsed by Ajay Banga, President World Bank, who says that the "IWT does not allow for unilateral suspension" and "can only be amended with mutual consent". This word of law must put India in the dock, and make it rescind its stunt and proceed to address irritants with Pakistan, including the dispute over Kashmir. The World Bank, which functions as a facilitator in the context of the treaty to regulate water sharing between Pakistan and India, has reiterated that there is "no provision in the treaty to allow for suspension the way it was drawn up. It either needs to be gone, or replaced by another one, and that requires the two countries to want to agree". This must act as a convention and this episode of water terrorism on flimsy assumptions of interstate mistrust be accounted for. Islamabad is well within its rights to declare it as "an act of war", as it pertains to an existential crisis. As Pakistan and India have agreed for an uneasy peace and a ceasefire is in force, the first and foremost confidence building measure should be to set the IWT back in force, and get talking. Pakistan's call for a composite dialogue with India and its readiness to war if its territorial integrity is threatened is a doctrine of peace in self-defence. It's high time for India to realise that coercion, intimidation, meddling and provocations are leaflets of a malicious era, and the need of the hour is to rise above petty political considerations to usher in broad-based regional peace and stability. The American mediation that it has agreed to must come full circle, and a good neighbourhood ambience must set in.
Express Tribune
15-05-2025
- Business
- Express Tribune
No unilateral exit from IWT, says WB chief
World Bank President Ajay Banga has said that the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) between Pakistan and India does not allow for unilateral suspension, stressing that the agreement can only be amended or suspended with mutual consent. His remarks come in the wake of India's declaration to unilaterally and illegally terminate the treaty following the false flag operation in Pahalgam last month, a move widely criticised in Pakistan and viewed as a violation of international obligations. "There is no provision in the treaty to allow for suspension the way it was drawn up. It either needs to be gone, or replaced by another one, and that requires the two countries to want to agree," he said, speaking to CNBC-TV18. However, he noted that while the Bank does not arbitrate or enforce provisions, it assists in initiating proceedings when the treaty's dispute-resolution mechanisms are triggered. In the event of disagreement, the Bank facilitates the appointment of either a neutral expert or a court of arbitration, without taking a position itself. Banga stated that the World Bank functions purely as a facilitator in the context of the treaty, which was brokered by the Bank in 1960 to regulate water sharing between India and Pakistan. "We have to pay the fees of those guys through a trust fund that was set up at the Bank at the time of creation of the treaty. That's our role. We have no role to play beyond that," he said. The Indus Waters Treaty allocates control of rivers between the two nations and mandates that any changes to the agreement require mutual consent. "It's their decision," he said and confirmed that the Bank had not received any formal communication from either India or Pakistan regarding recent developments. In the wake of heightened tensions following a terror attack in Pahalgam, India moved to unilaterally suspend key aspects of the treaty. These actions include active regulation of water flow to Pakistan, particularly via the Chenab River. India has also halted the mandatory sharing of hydrological data under the treaty and is considering extending its controversial flushing operations to the Kishanganga hydropower project on the Jhelum River. FO response Meanwhile, Pakistan has responded to letters from India concerning the Indus Waters Treaty, reiterating that the treaty is a binding international agreement that remains fully in force and cannot be suspended or violated, the Foreign Office said on Wednesday. FO spokesperson Shafqat Ali Khan said that Pakistan has made it clear to India that any violation of the treaty would be unacceptable. "The Indus Waters Treaty is an international obligation that must be upheld," he added. The spokesperson further emphasised that the treaty does not allow for suspension under any circumstances. "There is no provision within the Indus Waters Treaty for it to be unilaterally suspended. It is fully in force and must be implemented in letter and spirit," Khan reiterated. The FO maintained that Pakistan will continue to raise its voice at every relevant forum to safeguard its rights under the treaty.
