Strident Pakistan presses for UN envoy on Kashmir

Addressing the General Assembly, Abbasi accuses India of rights violations

Pakistan on Thursday blamed India and Afghanistan for the volatile security situation in the region, while denying charges that it is harbouring terrorists who target both the countries.

Striking a strident note against the neighbours and portraying Pakistan as a victim of terrorism, Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi also sought the appointment of a special UN envoy on Kashmir, and accused India of human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir.

Mr. Abbasi’s claims and allegations were refuted by both India and Afghanistan at the UN General Assembly (UNGA). In a strongly worded reaction, India said Pakistan had become a “terroristan,” and Jammu and Kashmir would remain an integral part of India.

Eenam Gambhir, First Secretary in the Permanent Mission of India, said, “In its short history, Pakistan has become a geography synonymous with terror. The quest for a land of pure has actually produced “the land of pure terror.” Pakistan is now ‘terroristan,’ with a flourishing industry producing and exporting global terrorism,” she said.

A representative of Pakistan responded to India’s reply, naming National Security Adviser Ajit Doval for allegedly pursuing a strategy of aggression against Pakistan.

The Pakistan PM told the UNGA that another strike by India on territory under its control would invite a matching retaliation. “…if India does venture across the LoC or acts upon its doctrine of “limited” war against Pakistan, it will evoke a strong and matching response,” he said, adding that his country had “faced unremitting hostility” from India.

He said India was trying to “divert the world’s attention from its brutalities,” by ceasefire violations on the LoC. “The Kashmir dispute should be resolved justly, peacefully and expeditiously. Terming the conflict in Jammu and Kashmir the “most intense foreign military occupation in recent history,” Mr. Abbasi sought an international investigation into “India’s crimes in Kashmir.”

The Pakistan PM said India has responded to Kashmiris’ demand for self-determination “with massive and indiscriminate force…shooting indiscriminately at children, women and youth,” adding that this “constitute war crimes.”

Ms. Gambhir said Pakistan has been trying to dupe the rest of the world on the question of fighting terror. Islamabad has diverted international military and development aid towards creating “a dangerous infrastructure of terror on its own territory,” she said. “Pakistan is now speaking of the high cost of its terror industry. The polluter, in this case, is paying the price,” she said, adding that Pakistan’s “globalisation of terror is unparalleled.” “Pakistan can only be counseled to abandon a destructive worldview that has caused grief to the entire world. If it could be persuaded to demonstrate any commitment to civilization, order, and to peace, it may still find some acceptance in the comity of nations,” the Indian diplomat said. Mr. Abbasi had said in his speech that Pakistan’s counter-terrorism credentials cannot be questioned. “After 9/11 it was Pakistani efforts that enabled the decimation of Al-Qaeda,” he said. Mr. Abbasi said 27,000 Pakistanis have died in its fight against terrorism. “We took the war to the terrorists. We have paid a heavy price,” Mr. Abbasi said.

Mr, Abbasi blamed Afghanistan for the security situation in the country, denying any role for Pakistan in supporting the Taliban. On the contrary, terrorists based in Afghanistan were launching attacks on Pakistan, its PM claimed. Urging Pakistan to adopt a “constructive approach” in tackling terrorism in the region, Afghanistan said facts disprove Pakistan’s claim.

RBI Intervenes to Back Re, but Takes the Futures Route

Mumbai: The Reserve Bank of India sprang a surprise in the currency market as it tweaked its usual way to stem the rupee's sharp intra-day dip against the dollar on Friday.

The central bank sold about $200-250 million in the exchange traded futures market, four people familiar with the matter told ET. The RBI was relatively less active in the spot and forwards markets — where it usually intervened more to stem currency volatility — despite having a record high $400 billion in its foreign currency reserves. Analysts see this as the central bank’s strategy to protect its dollar war chest amid increasing currency volatility globally. The RBI didn’t respond to an email seeking comment.

The rupee on Friday slid to 65.16 to the dollar, a level not seen after May 4. The local unit, though, erased its losses later as some state-owned banks were seen selling dollar aggressively on behalf of the central bank, dealers said. It closed at 64.80, little changed from Thursday.

“The rupee is likely to be volatile with a depreciating bias in coming days amid domestic fiscal concerns,” said Gopikrishnan MS, head of foreign exchange, rates and credit for South Asia at Standard Chartered. 'Also, the dollar may gain strength with unwinding of US Fed balance sheet. We are advising our clients to hedge their exposures.”

Volatility would continue for the next few weeks as global in- (Inverted scale) vestors struggle to chart out a future path amid uncertainties, said KN Dey, managing partner at United Financial Consultant, a forex advisory firm. “The latest fall will encourage exporters, while prompting complacent importers to cover their short-term liability,” he said.

Two days ago, the US Fed said it would start cutting down the monetary largesse, known as quantitative easing in market parlance, amid renewed rate increase hopes. That means, global investors would exit emerging markets like India to invest in US securities, perceived as the safest in the world. Back home, foreign portfolio investors fretted over the prospect of the government loosening fiscal policy and slipping on its fiscal deficit, in its efforts to boost economic growth. The government’s expenditure over revenues is targeted at 3.2% of GDP for this fiscal year.

“The central bank looks protective about its forex reserves it built when the rupee was trending to rise,” said Anindya Banerjee, currency analyst at Kotak Securities. “A futures market intervention would not deplete its dollar stock as the rupee keeps whipsawing amid domestic and global uncertainties. “It is always better to have a strong cushion amid expectation of dollar outflows from the country,” he said. In the past two trading sessions, FPIs sold about .₹ 2,400 crore worth of equities. Debt investments, too, showed sign of stress as the benchmark yield remained elevated at 6.66%, eight basis points higher than the level two days ago.

Mistry Cos’ Plea Can’t be Termed Frivolous: NCLAT

Mumbai: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal said a plain reading of the petition filed by Cyrus Mistry’s family firms against Tata Sons showed allegations relating to oppression and mismanagement, and that it could not be termed as a frivolous application. Mistry, who was removed as Tata Sons chairman last year, had a small victory on Thursday as NCLAT granted a legal waiver to his family firms to file a case against Tata Sons. The National Company Law Tribunal had earlier rejected the petition as their shareholding was less than what was needed under law to move against the company. The NCLAT judgement, delivered by Justice SJ Mukhopadhaya, noted that there were several exceptional facts and circumstances that necessitated allowing the waiver appeal. The appellate body sent the case back to NCLT for hearing on merits.

Tata Sons declined to comment on the matter.

The family firms of Mistry — Cyrus Investments and Sterling Investments — are trying to press allegations of mismanagement and oppression of minority shareholder interests at Tata Sons.

The legal battle followed an ugly public spat between Mistry and the Tata Group after he was sacked in October last year.

Rocket Men Face Off

Escalating insults on Korea could lead to mushroom clouds over the Pacific

President Donald Trump heightened fears of a nuclear confrontation on the Korean Peninsula, which had been building for weeks, up a few notches with his blunt threat to “totally destroy” North Korea. Ironically, his concurrent threat to abandon the Iranian nuclear deal helped to remove any incentive for Kim Jong-un to come to the negotiating table. Defence secretary Jim Mattis hinted that Trump’s threat may not be mere bluster when he refused to deny reports that the Pentagon was considering using tactical nuclear weapons against Pyongyang. Other sources have hinted about an unspecified “sharp, short warning shot” at North Korea – a limited application of military force that would ideally not trigger a devastating response.

Trump may be trying to scare the North Korean leader, whom he mocks as a “Rocket Man” on a suicide mission, into joining talks aimed at compelling him to abandon his nuclear weapons. But the salutary example of Muammar Gaddafi – who had voluntarily surrendered his nuclear weapons programme – is a chilling reminder to Kim that denuclearisation is the surest path to an ignominious demise. And, as Trump’s current hostility to the Iran nuclear deal vividly illustrates, there are no guarantees that disarmament would preclude further demands from the US and its perfidious allies.

Having defied countless unanimous UN Security Council resolutions, Kim is unlikely to give up the only weapon that ensures his survival. He also knows that his closest neighbours China and South Korea oppose a US-led military solution that would engulf the entire region. As such, the net result of Trump’s threat might well be to encourage Kim to speed up building his nuclear-tipped ICBM and force Washington to accept the reality of a nuclear-capable North Korea. It was acceptance of the unpalatable reality of Iran’s nuclear capability that led the Obama administration, UK, France, China and Russia plus Germany to enter into negotiations with Tehran. The 2015 agreement essentially stopped development of Tehran’s bomb and sharply constrained its nuclear programme for 15 years in exchange for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions. The agreement was premised in part on the hope that, by the time the agreement terminates, Iran would have discovered that the benefits of global engagement were more attractive than being a nuclear-armed international pariah.

Many Western and South Korean analysts believe that North Korea is so far ahead of Iran in its nuclear and missile development that it is well past time for an Iran-like deal. At this stage, Kim would not likely be satisfied with anything short of a grand bargain in which Washington and the international community recognise North Korea and offer economic aid in exchange for a freeze on its weapons and missile programmes.

Trump has at times hinted that he is impressed by the young dictator, stating that “If it would be appropriate for me to meet with him, i would absolutely, i would be honoured to do it.” This was a course suggested to him by Chinese President Xi Jinping during their first meeting. To assure Kim, Washington has stated that it does not seek regime change – only abandonment of the nuclear programme. But North Korea’s series of missile tests and apparent testing of a hydrogen bomb provoked Trump to increase his own insults and threats. With Kim returning the favour it is increasingly difficult for either side to de-escalate without losing face.

With a majority of Americans favouring military action against Pyongyang, a diplomatic grand bargain could come as a major disappointment to Trump’s fired-up base. China and Russia, conversely, would support negotiations, which would inevitably weaken US-South Korea military ties and reduce American influence in the region. South Korea’s left-of-centre new administration too would warmly welcome a move towards peace and stability.

But with relations between two nuclear powers descending into a schoolyard brawl between bullies, the time for grand bargains is fast disappearing against the gathering threat of mushroom clouds over the Pacific.

Mistry Cos’ Plea Can’t be Termed Frivolous: NCLAT

Mumbai: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal said a plain reading of the petition filed by Cyrus Mistry’s family firms against Tata Sons showed allegations relating to oppression and mismanagement, and that it could not be termed as a frivolous application. Mistry, who was removed as Tata Sons chairman last year, had a small victory on Thursday as NCLAT granted a legal waiver to his family firms to file a case against Tata Sons. The National Company Law Tribunal had earlier rejected the petition as their shareholding was less than what was needed under law to move against the company. The NCLAT judgement, delivered by Justice SJ Mukhopadhaya, noted that there were several exceptional facts and circumstances that necessitated allowing the waiver appeal. The appellate body sent the case back to NCLT for hearing on merits.

Tata Sons declined to comment on the matter.

The family firms of Mistry — Cyrus Investments and Sterling Investments — are trying to press allegations of mismanagement and oppression of minority shareholder interests at Tata Sons.

The legal battle followed an ugly public spat between Mistry and the Tata Group after he was sacked in October last year.

NCLAT allows Mistry cos to file oppression plea against Tata Sons

Mumbai: In a setback to Tata Sons, the National Company Appellate Law Tribunal (NCLAT) has given investment firms linked to Cyrus Mistry a waiver on the 10% minority shareholding limit required to file a complaint of oppression and mismanagement against the group’s holding company.

However, NCLAT has also rejected an appeal by Mistry firms challenging dismissal of their complaint of oppression and mismanagement on grounds of maintainability and sent it back to the Mumbai tribunal for a hearing. The ruling is a setback for Tata Sons since it means that the tribunal in Mumbai will now have to hear the main oppression complaint against the Tata group holding company in three months.

The petition by the two companies was filed last December about two months after Tata Sons removed Mistry as executive chairman. The complaint was that the Tata group holding company had allegedly acted against interest of minority shareholders, its own interest and against public interest. The termination formed one of the 11 acts of oppression mentioned in the petition. The others included investment in Corus, running loss-making Tata Nano, and the AirAsia deal.

The NCLT bench in Mumbai had held that the Mistry firms were disqualified from filing the plea against Tata Sons as they lacked a necessary 10% issued equity shareholding in the $103-billion Tata group. It had declined their waiver plea. Waiver can be granted only in rare and compelling situation, the NCLT had said.

The appellate body NCLAT has held that to qualify for such a plea, as argued by Tata Sons, section 244 of the Companies Act 2013 requires minority shareholders to have 10% of issued share capital, which includes preference shares and not just equity. But the appellate tribunal bench headed by former Supreme Court judge S J Mukhopadhaya accepted a plea for a waiver on the qualifying condition.

The reasoning was that given the shareholding of the company, only Ratan Tata and one more person, Narotam Sekhsaria, former founder of Gujarat Ambuja Cements who is a preference shareholder, can bring a petition of oppression and mismanagement against Tata Sons. “The applicants hold shares which constitute 1/6th of the market value of the company. Therefore, it is an exceptional case which requires hearing.” Signifi- cantly, NCLAT also held that a “civil court is not an alternative remedy”.

A Tata Sons spokesperson reacted to the NCLAT judgment saying, “Tata Sons has taken note of the order of the NCLAT and will examine it. We strongly believe that allegations made by the petitioners are without basis & incorrect. Tata Sons will continue to defend its position at all appropriate legal forums.”

Cyrus Mistry’s office said in a statement, “The NCLAT ruling is a welcome vindication of what we have stood for and the values for which we are pursuing the petition against oppression and mismanagement of Tata Sons Ltd.’’

With the NCLAT order now the battle will be back before the Mumbai bench of NCLT again. But against an order of the NCLAT, the matter can still be taken in appeal to Supreme Court by either side.

THE TITAN

The man who placed India on the international map

JRD was a nationalist as well as an internationalist,” recalls F.C. Kohli, founder and first CEO of Tata Consultancy Services. “That is why he agreed to be on the board of Air India even after it was nationalised. He was a great human being, and encouraged the staff to aim higher each time.” When Kohli asked JRD’s permission to shift the TCS office to the Air India building in 1971, his first response was whether the software company, then a fledgling firm, could afford it. “I promised him we would find our own resources, and we did,’’ says Kohli, 92, who still has an office in the iconic building in Mumbai’s Nariman Point. Kohli says that had the government not nationalised Air India, it would have been ranked amongst the top aviation companies in the world, thanks to JRD’s vision.

Apart from Air India and TCS, JRD steered the group into new avenues that included Tata Motors, Titan Industries, Tata Tea and Voltas. From the 14 enterprises he inherited, he built an empire comprising 95 companies by the time he retired in 1988, taking the business of the Tata Group from $100 million, when he took over, to over $5 billion. Under his guidance as a trustee, the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust established Asia’s first cancer hospital, the Tata Memorial Centre, in Bombay in 1941. JRD also founded the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research and the National Centre for Performing Arts. He was also a founding member of the National Council of Applied Economic Research.