Irresponsible rhetoric: On Pakistan leaders’ threats

Statements by senior functionaries of Pakistan including Prime Minister Imran Khan threatening war and violence against India and in Jammu and Kashmir are irresponsible, escalatory and dangerous. Mr. Khan has even spoken about the possibility of a nuclear war, albeit couched in language purportedly meant to be about the dangers of it, while a Minister went to the extent of announcing a time frame for starting a war. Several diplomats have called for jihad. Pakistan’s reputation as a reckless nuclear power is reinforced in all this, and its continuing support for Islamist terrorist outfits is not doing any good for the people of J&K. Pursuit of military parity with India has ruined Pakistan economically, though the compact of generals and clerics that controls it has flourished. These vested interests have placed Kashmir as central to Pakistan’s national identity that they understand as exclusive and Islamist. Now under fire for being ineffective in the face of India’s recent

Citizenship, figured: On Assam NRC final list

The publication of the final National Register of Citizens on Saturday brings no closure to the vexed issue of illegal immigration to Assam yet. Those left out are not foreigners until the tribunals set up to determine their fate pronounce them so. The process could go all the way to the Supreme Court. The Home Ministry has also extended the time to file appeals against exclusion in the Foreigners Tribunal from 60 to 120 days. The point, however, is that the process has yielded an updated register, and a figure. It has had its warts and all even as it left over 1.9 million people staring at statelessness — in a continuing saga of glaring omissions, a serving lawmaker, a former legislator, and retired Army man Mohammad Sanaullah, whose case propelled NRC excesses into the spotlight, did not make the cut. But protests across the spectrum expressing concern over the excluded, suggest the judiciary-led process was perhaps largely robust and the errors were more procedural than
Editorial

Big bank theory: On Public Sector Bank mergers

For its sheer magnitude, the scale and the ability to disrupt the status quo, the mega bank mergers announced by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Friday must go down as the most significant the banking industry has seen in the five decades since nationalisation. The bottomline is clear: to create banks of global level that can leverage economies of scale and balance sheet size to serve the needs of a $5-trillion economy by 2025. The jury is, of course, out on whether this strategy will succeed. Mergers are driven by synergies — in products, costs, business, geographies or technology and the most important, cost synergies. While there may be some geographical synergies between the banks being merged, unless they realise cost synergies through branch and staff rationalisation, the mergers may not mean much to them or to the economy. This is where the government’s strategy will be tested. It is no secret that public sector banks are overstaffed. There is also bound to be overlap in

Editorial

With or without: On U.K. Parliament suspension

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s audacious move on Wednesday to prorogue Parliament for five weeks is a cynical attempt to silence elected representatives on the key issue of Britain’s future ties with the European Union (EU). The decision is all the more suspect because the fraught political climate that has prevailed since June 2016 was the consequence of the country having to renegotiate the nature of its ties with its closest neighbours. Those complex questions could only have been addressed on the floor of the house. Mr. Johnson has sought to play down the controversial decision as no more than an intent to commence a fresh legislative session with the Queen’s speech charting the government’s domestic priorities. But the outrage the country has witnessed suggests that despite its legal correctness, the move may have set a terrible precedent and possibly eroded the Conservatives base. The long suspension announced on Wednesday leaves MPs barely enough time — next week and the

Editorial

Law and opinion: On SC taking up Kashmir special status issue

The Supreme Court’s decision to form a five-member Constitution Bench to examine the validity of the abrogation of the special status given to Jammu and Kashmir puts an end to apprehensions that its response to the Centre’s legal measures since August 5 will only be one of quiet acquiescence. The court appeared reluctant to intervene in the immediate aftermath of the decisions when the restrictions imposed on political activity, communications and movement of the people were challenged. Instead, it chose to give enough time to the Centre to stabilise the situation. It seemed to afford wide latitude to the executive to decide the extent to which fundamental rights, including the freedom of the media, would be restricted in the name of achieving greater integration of Jammu and Kashmir with India and preparing for its development. In some habeas corpus matters, the court is yet to examine the legality of the detention of the persons concerned. True relief in such cases lies in

Tinkering for optics: On FDI rule changes

Message delivered: On Biarritz G7 Summit

Murder most foul: On Kerala ‘honour killing’ case

Gold winner: On Sindhu's victory at the Badminton Worlds

Earth’s burning lungs: On Amazon's rainforest fire

On the wrong side: On PCI backing Kashmir restrictions

Other Articles