It appears that the US is trying to put pressure on India's flourishing trade prospects in one way or the other. This should end for the benefit of both the countries. The IPR regime is one of them. But two of America's major defence and civil aviation firms, Honeywell and Boeing have come out strongly in support of India's IPR regulations (FE, March 14). It is welcome. India and the US being the world's largest free-market democracies need each other and should be more friendly with each other. In his Why the US needs India (FE, March 14), Ron Somers has clearly explained this, pointing out the huge trade growth between the two countries. And, rightly, President Obama has said the partnership between the United States and India will be one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century. Sadly, Indias own policymakers failed to make these points in the international fora while they should have done this rather aggressively. India's new generation seeks better governance and growth. We hope US-India commercial and strategic partnership will get strengthened and significantly grow in the near future, especially after the elections 2014 see a change in government.
As you have so rightly pointed out in your editorial Caesar's wife (FE, March 12), hats off to the Supreme Court for coming out with the revolutionary verdict of immediate expulsion of tainted Parliamentarians and disposal of cases against MPs convicted in criminal cases within a year. While the Supreme Court's verdict will facilitate cleansing Parliament, it can also lead to transforming Indian democracy into a more vibrant and lively one. It is also disheartening to note that even in Rajva Sabha, there are many members who are alleged to have criminal records. As you rightly pointed out in your editorial, the Supreme Court's latest ruling plugs a big lacunae. And that India may finally get the politicians it deserves, not just those who have criminal cases against them but are too powerful to be kept out of politics. However, knowing how our polity subverts the laws it makes, it could also be possible that some route out of this bind will be found by
Special purpose vehicle
The idea of incorporating the provision of section 135 under the Companies Act 2013 was to involve corporates by shouldering the responsibility in taking part the social activity as they draw many services from society in direct and indirect manner. Against the idea discussed in your article Centralised system under discussion in FE on March 12, 2014, I strongly oppose the idea of special purpose vehicle (SPV) to complete the social tasks. This will not bring the joy and demonstration of garnering social responsibility by the corporates directly. In the proposed SPV, it is better to levy further tax to corporates and collect such sum in like manner of education cess which then can be transferred to such SPV for completing social projects. In my opinion, corporates can handle this responsibility in much transparent manner and would ensure largely that the destined sum reaches in the right hand and needy would get real benefit. This would also help NGO to have direct connection with HR department of such corporates. It would facilitate the process where some corporates wants to go further beyond the prescribed limits and deliver much more that the new provision forces them in the confinement of clauses.