There will be unrest Reforms with recap
The decision of US President Donald Trump recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and order the process of moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would certainly trigger an upheaval in already volatile West Asia. The decision is intended to tip the scale in Israel’s favour. Historically, the full-fledged state of Israel was established after World War-II and the UN recognised Israel in 1948 and placed the holy city of Jerusalem under International Control in 1949. In a six-day Arabs-Israel War in 1967, Israel captured the eastern section of Jerusalem. In view of this, Israel’s parliament passed a law in 1980 saying Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but the UN rejected this decision. Thus, the status of Jerusalem remained a bone of contention between Israel and Palestine with both sides claiming the city as their capital.
Though the US remains committed to seeking a two-state solution to the dispute and intends to play the peacemaker, Trump’s plan to relocate the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem will reignite the decades-long dispute over a city considered holy by Jews, Muslims and Christians.
The Palestinian territories, along with other world powers while criticising the move said it would spark unrest. Though, India formally recognised Israel in 1950, full diplomatic relations were established only in 1992. The government of India, taking an independent stand on international issues according to the merit of each case, has remained silent
S K Khosla Chandigarh if one company corners all the bids without timely execution of the projects. It upsets state policy planning and in turn the benefit to the general public. These companies known for their work quality should however not be totally blacklisted but nudged into action to remain a participant in future bidding processes. It is only appropriate that the capital strength of the company at the time of bidding should be assessed to ensure that there is no stagnancy in economic movement and credit institutions are not burdened with non performing assets.
C Gopinath Nair Kochi This refers to your editorial “RBI’s justified caution” (December 7). With the Monetary Policy Announcement on December 6 and the media interaction that followed, RBI governor Urjit Patel and his team have given clear signals to the doubting public that this season, RBI has no blurred vision as far as the conduct of monetary policy is concerned. Further, the doubts about banking sector reforms including the focus on governance issues of public sector banks being aired by economists and analysts have been cleared by the assurance that “we don’t sow the seeds of the next boom and bust cycle of lending”.
On recapitalisation, let us take Urjit Patel’s words “Governance reforms in all public sector banks will also feature as a big part of the overall plan” at face value. The observation goes well with the assertion that “The plan will be differentiated across the banks. Recap bonds will be front-loaded for banks that have managed their balance sheet strengths more prudently and can use the injected capital to lend besides providing for legacy asset losses.”
One issue where GOI and RBI need to bring more clarity is about the ‘bail-in” provision contained in the draft Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance (FRDI) Bill. Beyond the clarification from the finance minister that depositors’ interest will be kept in view, a clear statement that whatever be the legislative changes under consideration, savers’ deposits will continue to be safe with banks may go a long way in closing an unhealthy debate now open in the media.
M G Warrier Thiruvananthapuram