Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Modi government moves to ease business rules, weed out archaic laws

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Duellist View Post
    Sometimes I wonder if the Indian opposition parties are bent on self destruction, leaving the BJP the only political pole.
    All opportunists. Whatever you see now is the same crap the present party was at the forefront when it was in the opposition.

    It's just business, this is the way the system works. There will be less excuses to go around this time as they have the numbers in the lower house. The upper house is an ongoing affair.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Jan 15,, 17:53.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
      All opportunists. Whatever you see now is the same crap the present party was at the forefront when it was in the opposition.

      It's just business, this is the way the system works. There will be less excuses to go around this time as they have the numbers in the lower house. The upper house is an ongoing affair.
      Sad for India that its' 'leaders' are so petty and shortsighted. It is the upper house blocking reform here though, not the lower, so I wouldn't blame the government for it. At least with Panagriya in charge of the old Planning Comm, I expect major changes in the way India does business- but the legislative side needs to get moving.

      Comment


      • #63
        Regarding the practice of disruptions in the house and modi preferring to take the ordinance route to pass bills.
        The last session of Parliament left Modi looking weak and hobbled. Opposition disruptions totally prevented the Rajya Sabha from functioning, so it could not even consider, let alone pass bills cleared by the lok sabha
        Modi struck back by issuing ordinances on these two issues in December. Now, ordinances are supposed to be used only when an issue is so urgent that it cannot wait for the next parliamentary session.
        Modi has decided to use ordinances repeatedly. A third ordinance has now regularized e-rickshaws in Delhi. A fourth has amended the land acquisition law. A fifth is planned to ensure speedier arbitration. A sixth will ease visa and related conditions for non-resident Indians. A seventh, on mineral royalties in tribal areas, may also be in the works.
        Modi’s ordinances are not defensive measures. Rather, he is using them as an attack strategy, to combat the opposition’s disruption strategy in the Rajya Sabha.
        Modi is laying the ground for something totally new. He may seek a joint session of both houses of Parliament to convert not just one or two but a vast array of ordinanc es into law in one go.
        The Constitution provides for a joint session if a Bill is passed in one House but defeated in the other. This can also be done if the two Houses disagree on amendments to a Bill.
        The Lok Sabha will pass all Modi’s ordinances in its next session. These will then go to the Rajya Sabha. Disrupters may try to prevent a vote. But after six months of Rajya Sabha failure to vote, Modi can ask for a joint session of Parliament. This joint session can then pass a whole raft of Bills. Far from being an exceptional legislative route, the joint session can become the standard route to ram through most legislation.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Duellist View Post
          Sad for India that its' 'leaders' are so petty and shortsighted. It is the upper house blocking reform here though, not the lower, so I wouldn't blame the government for it. At least with Panagriya in charge of the old Planning Comm, I expect major changes in the way India does business- but the legislative side needs to get moving.
          Expected to in the next session when the all important 'BJP budget' comes out.

          Had read an article that these ordinances are important as a show of intent. He has to do it.

          But ordinances on their own do not sway investors. It leaves the question that the situation isn't certain. A step in the right direction but not enough on its own.
          Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Jan 15,, 12:31.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Duellist View Post
            Sad for India that its' 'leaders' are so petty and shortsighted. It is the upper house blocking reform here though, not the lower, so I wouldn't blame the government for it. At least with Panagriya in charge of the old Planning Comm, I expect major changes in the way India does business- but the legislative side needs to get moving.
            The Opposition used the exact same tactics that BJP + allies had used against the UPA. Dirty tricks all around. Given the BJP is supposed to be the adult party now, they could also have compromised by letting the PM discuss the issues in Parliament. Instead they, along with the opposition, behaved like immature schoolchildren ("I dare you to cross this line")

            I apologize for offending immature schoolchildren by comparing them to politicians
            "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by antimony View Post
              The Opposition used the exact same tactics that BJP + allies had used against the UPA. Dirty tricks all around. Given the BJP is supposed to be the adult party now, they could also have compromised by letting the PM discuss the issues in Parliament. Instead they, along with the opposition, behaved like immature schoolchildren ("I dare you to cross this line")

              I apologize for offending immature schoolchildren by comparing them to politicians
              But AM, lets take Sadhvi Niranjan's case for example. PM did make a statement about it. Now you expect PM to make statements on everything ? Did MMS ever did that ? If Modi had made a statement then he would be dragged in every time the opposition feels so. Rajnath singh said he was ready for a discussion on this and yet opposition wanted only Modi to speak on this issue. So Home Minister is not important ? I agree BJP played a similar game in opposition but you gotta admit they asked MMS to speak up in Coal issue because he was the Coal minister when the alleged scams happened and conveniently the files went missing

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by antimony View Post
                The Opposition used the exact same tactics that BJP + allies had used against the UPA. Dirty tricks all around. Given the BJP is supposed to be the adult party now, they could also have compromised by letting the PM discuss the issues in Parliament. Instead they, along with the opposition, behaved like immature schoolchildren ("I dare you to cross this line")

                I apologize for offending immature schoolchildren by comparing them to politicians
                Modi did reined in the RSS, but frankly the Congress is just looking to stall Modi to prevent him from succeeding in passing legislation. They would have found another excuse to do regardless. While I agree the BJP was, if anything, worse as an opposition, it doesn't excuse Congress as India is at a key inflexion point and needs these changes pushed through.

                However my main point was that the Congress does not seem to realise (or want to realise) it's dealing with a paradigm shift in Modi. The man can bypass them easily through sheer numbers and simply lock them out of power for a long time to come. The demographics are in his favour, the economics will be soon. He could do a Reagan or Thatcher and increase vote share and seat share in the next election, on top of destroying the old feudal parties everywhere except maybe Kerala.

                It's supremely not in any of their interests to block Modi unnecessarily- the (economic) right wing is now the mainstream in India.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Duellist View Post
                  Modi did reined in the RSS,
                  True, in terms of Gujarat after the 2002 riots. I don't think that's the case now. Modi needs foot soldiers for winning State elections.

                  Originally posted by Duellist View Post
                  but frankly the Congress is just looking to stall Modi to prevent him from succeeding in passing legislation. They would have found another excuse to do regardless. While I agree the BJP was, if anything, worse as an opposition, it doesn't excuse Congress as India is at a key inflexion point and needs these changes pushed through.
                  Payback comes to mind. Congress is decimated, and would do everything to stall reforms so that the people who voted BJP to power, would eventually kick them out. 2018, would then be 15 years of misrule.

                  Originally posted by Duellist View Post
                  However my main point was that the Congress does not seem to realise (or want to realise) it's dealing with a paradigm shift in Modi. The man can bypass them easily through sheer numbers and simply lock them out of power for a long time to come. The demographics are in his favour, the economics will be soon. He could do a Reagan or Thatcher and increase vote share and seat share in the next election, on top of destroying the old feudal parties everywhere except maybe Kerala.

                  It's supremely not in any of their interests to block Modi unnecessarily- the (economic) right wing is now the mainstream in India.
                  Congress, IMO is out of the picture, if not now then shortly. Only if, BJP gets the numbers it needs in the Rajya Sabha to pass bills. And for that Modi needs the RSS and its foot soldiers, atleast for the time being. Until then we would witness some riots here and there, controversial statements and authority of the PM being sidelined. If what you believe and I too, about Modi side-lining the RSS, we would have to wait for some more time until the numbers in both the houses add up.
                  Last edited by Oracle; 10 Jan 15,, 17:47.
                  Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Oracle,

                    I agree with most of that. The BJP needs a new membership base if it is to become a permanent pole of power post-Modi, whenever that is. Hindutva is not part of the agenda for the youth who voted him to power- development is. Changing a party from the grassroots takes time however.

                    Modi has more flexibility than people realise- he can just call a joint session of Parliament and ram changes through.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by commander View Post
                      But AM, lets take Sadhvi Niranjan's case for example. PM did make a statement about it. Now you expect PM to make statements on everything ? Did MMS ever did that ? If Modi had made a statement then he would be dragged in every time the opposition feels so. Rajnath singh said he was ready for a discussion on this and yet opposition wanted only Modi to speak on this issue. So Home Minister is not important ? I agree BJP played a similar game in opposition but you gotta admit they asked MMS to speak up in Coal issue because he was the Coal minister when the alleged scams happened and conveniently the files went missing
                      Congress did it so BJP should do it. Is that the sum of your argument? Did we not call MMS Maunmohan Singh? The BJP could have been the grown up party and have the PM speak in the Parliament like the Opposition wanted. At the end the bill would still have passed by the joint session, but BJP would have retained the higher moral ground. Here they don't. They played into the hands of the opposition. Modi is smart enough to realize that, but too stubborn to take ownership on this
                      "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Duellist View Post
                        Oracle,

                        I agree with most of that. The BJP needs a new membership base if it is to become a permanent pole of power post-Modi, whenever that is.
                        Soon it would be. People in my home-town are crazily singing up for BJP membership, mainly Hindus. The major reason being the illegal Bangladeshi's and the rising crime rate.

                        Originally posted by Duellist View Post
                        Hindutva is not part of the agenda for the youth who voted him to power- development is.
                        Are you sure? The voices in the internet and some among the elected BJP MPs say something else.

                        Originally posted by Duellist View Post
                        Changing a party from the grassroots takes time however.

                        Modi has more flexibility than people realise- he can just call a joint session of Parliament and ram changes through.
                        You probably mean bringing changes into the RSS. Only Modi can do that, but not yet. And how do a joint session of Parliament changes things? Modi doesn't have the numbers, not to mention the disruptive nature of TMC.

                        This is what I've said before and now a BJP ally had to say - Hindu hardliners diverting Modi govt focus, Union minister Upendra Kushwaha says
                        Last edited by Oracle; 12 Jan 15,, 04:48.
                        Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Duellist View Post
                          Modi did reined in the RSS, but frankly the Congress is just looking to stall Modi to prevent him from succeeding in passing legislation. They would have found another excuse to do regardless. While I agree the BJP was, if anything, worse as an opposition, it doesn't excuse Congress as India is at a key inflexion point and needs these changes pushed through.
                          This is how opposition regains the initiative. We've seen it before. The reason then was the party did not have enough numbers or was divided in terms of leadership. None of these reasons apply with the present administration. This thread is about what the govt is doing and the implications thereof not what the opposition is saying.

                          Originally posted by Duellist View Post
                          However my main point was that the Congress does not seem to realise (or want to realise) it's dealing with a paradigm shift in Modi. The man can bypass them easily through sheer numbers and simply lock them out of power for a long time to come. The demographics are in his favour, the economics will be soon.
                          For Modi to win again, he is very dependent on urbanisation. That is why he pushes infrastructure. The rural urban divide, nationally is 70-30. When it moves closer to 50-50 is when the paradigm shift occurs. Will this happen in the next 5 years ? doubtful. But its closer in Gujarat.

                          For the next 15 years we will be adding 12 million people to the work force every year. Who is going to employ all of them. How they fare will play a major factor in whether he stays or goes and he will not get as much time or chances as manmohan.

                          Originally posted by Duellist View Post
                          He could do a Reagan or Thatcher and increase vote share and seat share in the next election, on top of destroying the old feudal parties everywhere except maybe Kerala. It's supremely not in any of their interests to block Modi unnecessarily- the (economic) right wing is now the mainstream in India.
                          Let's see what people think when the next elections come around. Like every where else the electorate is very fickle. Recall Naidu in AP was at this development game years before Modi. The record of development parties is mixed. Rajiv started it off in the 80s. See the last NDA, they were the ones pushing for investment over consumption. Their policies thanks to the commies blocking UPA from meddling remained and allowed for growth to continue after they left office in 2004.

                          Unfortunately the politics of Reagan or Thatcher isn't as yet compatible (won't win elections) in a country that has 300 million below the poverty line. So (economic) right wing in direction if not extent.
                          Last edited by Double Edge; 12 Jan 15,, 09:58.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            A hotly debated reform : land acquisition

                            Opposition criticism questionable | DH | Jan 18 2015

                            Prashant Kumar, Jan 18, 2015,

                            The land acquisition ordinance promulgated on December 31, 2014, has been the subject of intense public debate, political bickering and contention.

                            Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley has justified the changes saying that in its previous form, the Act was incomplete and included many glaring mistakes and omissions. Critics argue that these changes will negatively impact the poor rural worker and farmers, making it easier for the industry to take land away from rightful owners or ignore the negative social impact of such acquisitions.

                            Too much emotion has perhaps prevented careful analysis of the amendments. Yet, after studying the act of 2013 and its subsequent 2014 amendment in detail, opposition to the ordinance is somewhat bewildering and the validity of the criticism questionable.

                            Not only does the ordinance revise sections that were in need of immediate change, it makes the previously one-sided bill a more balanced law that protects communities while adequately protecting farmers’ interests along with encouraging investment and infrastructure growth.

                            Of the important amendments, the first is the change in the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) requirements. The SIA as suggested by the original bill was a lengthy, open ended process to assess the impact that any land acquisition would have had on the owners of the land and those working on it in the previous few years. No clause in the bill ensured that the SIA report would be published within 2 months as stated by the government.

                            The overly complicated the SIA norms would have taken years to just assess, let alone recommend an award and could have potentially stalled much needed investment for years.

                            Secondly, it finally identifies who will be affected by such acquisitions. Rather than incorporating everyone who is dependent on the land, its focuses on ownership.

                            The 2013 Act had left the identification of those dependents on the land entirely undefined and by doing so not only made compensating those affected by acquisitions completely unrestricted and at times unaffordable but also open for litigation, which would further delay projects.

                            Thirdly, the ordinance only exempts government acquisition in five identified sectors from provisions of the act and does not provide avenues for acquisition by private entities as argued by critics.

                            The sectors which include: defence and security, rural infrastructure and electrification, affordable housing, industrial corridors and infrastructure projects are all beneficial for both rural and urban India and the development of these sectors is the sovereign duty of any central government.

                            Public infrastructure projects
                            Fourthly, the amendment incorporates 13 previously exempted laws that allowed government acquisition of land. Land Acquisition (Mines) Act 1885, Atomic Energy Act 1962, National Highways Act 1956 etc., are now subject to the same compensatory and relocation and rehabilitation (R&R) requirements that land acquisition for large scale public infrastructure projects must adhere to.
                            Fifthly, the ordinance omits the five year limitation of stalled development which returns land to original owners.

                            This allows large infrastructure projects with genuinely longer gestation periods the necessary time period for successful completion. Projects in sectors like nuclear energy, railways, defence and aviation can require longer time periods than just five years.

                            Under these changes, it will be possible to complete projects without the fear of litigation and unrest, demanding return of land as soon as the five years have expired.

                            And finally, the amendment also eliminates restrictions in acquisition due to classification of land by use. The previous clauses in the bill that restricted acquisition of fertile, multi-crop generating land, precluded industrialisation in large areas where it may actually be greatly needed.

                            The entire Indo-Gangetic plain would be left unindustrialised if these changes had not been made. Land in India is highly and unnecessarily politicised.

                            With 328.7 million hectares available of which 158.6 million hectares are arable, the government may not end up needing any fertile land, but a provision allowing to use it, makes development projects easier wherever required.

                            The only valid argument against the ordinance is that the without the SIA, there exists no mechanism to determine if the government already owns land that is unutilised in the area that it is seeking to acquire more land.

                            For this, the government should urgently create land inventories and take stock of the land owned by it, its affiliated entities and public sector enterprises.

                            The government, in its endeavour to serve the overall national interest, has done well in reforming a previously one-sided bill to a more balanced approach that not only responds to the needs of a growing, modern India but maintains the social protections that are needed to safeguard the interests of the farmers and more vulnerable sections of society.

                            The Centre has finally found a solution that does not make land acquisition a zero sum game. It has found a sustainable and equitable compromise between spurring investment and growth on the one hand and farmers’ interests and food security on the other. This is a laudable achievement.

                            (The writer is Associate Fellow, Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi)

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              The problem with ordinances is if even one fails to make it into legislation it brings into question the rest.

                              Ordinance survey | Economist | Jan 10 2015

                              The government tries to accelerate the pace of reform
                              Jan 10th 2015 | MUMBAI | From the print edition


                              AFTER its thumping election victory last May, Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been making rather slow progress on pushing through promised economic changes. But suddenly, around the turn of the year, and as the economy has apparently slowed, Mr Modi’s government became hyperactive.

                              On December 29th it issued an “ordinance” (a temporary executive order) amending an imperfect land-acquisition act that the previous administration passed in 2013. The ordinance does away with a requirement that, when a large industrial project is proposed, some 80% of affected landholders must consent to a land purchase for the proposal to go ahead (or 70% for projects in which the government has a stake). It also does away with the requirement that investors in biggish undertakings must first carry out a social-impact study.

                              The new rules apply only to some kinds of projects, and not necessarily to those, such a steelworks, that require vast tracts of land. Compensation terms were untouched. That allowed India’s finance minister, Arun Jaitley, to claim that the ordinance struck a fair balance between the needs of the economy and the interests of small landowners. It did not stop some opposition politicians from claiming it was a licence for a corporate land-grab at the expense of farmers.

                              Mr Modi may be more prepared than previous prime ministers to govern by ordinance as a means of bypassing Parliament. In the parliamentary session that ended last month, the government piloted two landmark bills through the lower house, where the BJP and its allies enjoy a healthy majority.

                              - One bill proposed that the foreign-investment threshold allowed in the insurance industry should rise from 26% to 49% of any enterprise.

                              - A second laid the groundwork for the reallocation by open auction of coal-mining licences that the Supreme Court had annulled in September following rampant graft in the licensing.

                              The antics of the opposition in Parliament’s upper house, where the BJP has just 45 out of 245 seats, meant the bills were not even considered, let alone passed. Mr Modi resorted to ordinances in their stead. Similar executive orders have followed, including making it quicker for ethnic Indians overseas to get visas.

                              Indians impatient for change argue that a bossy executive is preferable to one that has been checked-and-balanced to a standstill. But ordinances are meant to be limited to urgent business when parliament is not sitting. Mr Modi could reasonably claim in some instances that the need was pressing. Many large power and steel plants lie idle for want of a licence to mine the coal needed to fuel them, even as the bank loans incurred to fund such projects sour. However, ordinances give only temporary powers. They lapse if not ratified by both houses of Parliament within the first six weeks of a new session. That limits their effectiveness: few businesses will commit themselves to a big investment in India on such shaky grounds. So the main point of the ordinances seems to be to signal that the government does not intend to be stymied by a stroppy parliament.

                              Mr Modi can at least point to one parliamentary landmark. On December 19th the government tabled a bill to establish a long-awaited national goods-and-services tax (GST) in place of a welter of state levies. The bill came after weeks of negotiations with states, which will be required to give up tax-setting powers in order to make way for a harmonised national levy—of which they will get a share. But tax design is tricky, and small details determine whether a reform helps or harms the economy. Satya Poddar, a tax expert at EY, a consulting firm, thinks that the early signs are not encouraging. For instance, an undertaking to compensate states for five years for loss of revenue gives them little incentive to ensure that collecting the new tax runs smoothly. Mr Jaitley says he is open to suggestions that might improve the bill. A hurried reform can sometimes be worse than no reform at all.

                              From the print edition: Asia

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Duellist View Post
                                The opposition simply does not seem to want to give this govt any breathing room on legislative reform, I suspect everything Modi has proposed will be opposed for the sake of it. The land acquisition and insurance reform will likely not make it through Parliament.
                                Apparently the land regulations being changed were amended by the UPA after consultation and approval from the then Leader of opposition - the BJP.
                                I am not very clear on the type of reforms being made so I cannot comment if the opposition to the reforms is genuine or simply political stalling.

                                Cheers!...on the rocks!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X