New Delhis new modus vivendi of dealing with Islamabad also indicates a clear

preference for summit diplomacy over incrementalism, which by and large

characterised the India-Pakistan dialogue process until now, perhaps suiting the
Indian leaders persona and style

there are concerns in New Delhi, and indeed in Washington, about the increasing
Chinese influence in the region and in Pakistan in particular, which, if unchecked,
will be difficult for both the capitals to handle in the days ahead. China has
increased its presence in Pakistan and has been attempting to engage in the
Afghan reconciliation process. Both the capitals think that reaching out to
Pakistan therefore would be useful in curbing the increasing Chinese influence in
the region
The GHQ is likely to be open to an interaction with New Delhi, which the latter
has never sought, and the civilian establishment in Pakistan may not be too
averse to it if done quietly and sensitively. Moreover, this practice is not unheard
of in Pakistan: many visiting foreign officials, including the current Afghan
President, call on the Pakistan Army chief in Rawalpindi. Doing so will ensure that
the GHQ is on board any agreement the two sides would eventually reach.
Moreover, if the GHQ has a sense of ownership vis--vis the reconciliation
process, it may not easily disrupt the dialogue process.
General Headquarters (GHQ)
North Bengals tea estates are witnessing an unfolding human tragedy as more
deaths of tea garden workers were reported this month from the region. With the
industry as a whole struggling from soft prices and a drop in output as climate
change affects rainfall and weather conditions across the countrys tea-growing
regions, several estates are reportedly being unofficially shut, leaving thousands
of hapless workers in the lurch

The Bankruptcy Bill, as introduced in the Lok Sabha in the winter session, is a
significant step in the right direction and should be welcomed

In light of this, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Bill, 2015, which has now been
referred to a joint committee of Parliament, is a significant step in the right
direction.

one overarching reason (at least in the case of laws) is the lack of legal
infrastructure to effectively implement the laws. Our courts are overburdened,
understaffed and lack basic physical infrastructure.

The other important aspect of the Bill is the strict, time-bound process that is
specified. The Bill mandates that the decision between restructuring and
liquidation should be made by the bankruptcy professional within six months of a
firm being referred to the bankruptcy process
er important aspect of the Bill is the strict, time-bound process that is specified.
The Bill mandates that the decision between restructuring and liquidation should
be made by the bankruptcy professional within six months of a firm being
referred to the bankruptcy process. Under certain limited circumstances, there
can be one extension of three months after which the firm will have to be
liquidated to settle its claims. The spirit of this time-bound process should be
applauded, as the defining inefficiency in Indias bankruptcy regime is the
inordinate delay. Having said that, the implementation of the process depends
crucially on the above-mentioned infrastructure being in place and the courts
sticking to the time limits.

The third important aspect of the law is the significant influence the current
lenders (read secured lenders) will have over the reorganisation process. Given
the nature of Indias financial system, much of the lending is collateralised with
physical assets. Any committee of creditors required to vote on a restructuring
package as envisaged in the current Bill will be dominated by secured
lenders. While at one level it is reasonable to give secured lenders priority when
it comes to getting their money back, giving them the power of veto over what
happens to the firm in insolvency can sometimes result in inefficient outcomes
Knowing that they can recover their money by liquidating their collateral,
secured lenders may sometimes prefer liquidation over restructuring even if the
latter results in higher value for the firms equity holders. An alternative
structure, one that is followed in the U.S., is to give unsecured lenders, who have
lower priority than secured lenders, some say in the bankruptcy process