top of page

By:

Correspondent

21 August 2024 at 3:50:16 pm

Power Shield

When a 99 percent shareholder is not been made an accused in a controversial land deal but a one percent shareholder has been named as one, an investigation has some explaining to do. The Bombay High Court has now demanded that very explanation in the Mundhwa land case involving NCP MP Parth Pawar, son of the late Ajit Pawar, raising the eternal question whether political influence quietly alters the way in which the law of the land is applied. A democracy cannot have one standard of scrutiny...

Power Shield

When a 99 percent shareholder is not been made an accused in a controversial land deal but a one percent shareholder has been named as one, an investigation has some explaining to do. The Bombay High Court has now demanded that very explanation in the Mundhwa land case involving NCP MP Parth Pawar, son of the late Ajit Pawar, raising the eternal question whether political influence quietly alters the way in which the law of the land is applied. A democracy cannot have one standard of scrutiny for the politically connected and another for everyone else. Pawar, a Rajya Sabha MP, holds 99 percent of Amadea Enterprises LLP, the company that acquired the disputed land. The remaining 1 percent is held by Digvijay Patil, another partner and director who has been named as an accused. The land in question is a large government-controlled parcel in Pune. The company that acquired it is overwhelmingly owned by Pawar. The land is in Mundhwa, an increasingly valuable area of eastern Pune that has been transformed by the city’s rapid expansion. The parcel covers about 40 acres and has a complicated legal history. It was classified as Mahar Watan land - a historical category of land grant - and was in government possession and leased to the Botanical Survey of India. The FIR in the case alleges that it was transferred to Amadea Enterprises without the mandatory approval of the state government at knockoff prices far beyond market value. The transaction has subsequently faced scrutiny on several fronts. Authorities imposed about Rs. 21 crore in stamp duty and penalties on Amadea Enterprises; the company’s appeal against that order was rejected. A Pune civil court also ordered the sale deed cancelled, declaring it void from the beginning. So, what evidence led investigators to make such a stark distinction between the two shareholders? What was the precise basis on which investigators concluded that Pawar’s overwhelming stake in the company did not warrant the same scrutiny? The High Court had already raised the issue in September after a submission before it alleged that Pawar had not been named because he was “very highly influential.” The state is expected to protect public land, enforce its own rules and investigate alleged wrongdoing without fear or favour. Yet when the transaction involves the son of a senior political figure, the machinery of the state must now explain why its investigation appears to have stopped short of the person with the overwhelming economic interest in the company. Power is supposed to make public officials more accountable, not less. Political office is not a private shield and family connections are not a legal exemption. The ultimate scandal in the Mundhwa case would be the possibility that proximity to power can determine who gets investigated, who gets protected and who gets left carrying the blame.

The Tariff Tango

Writer: Dr. V.L. Dharurkar
Dr. V.L. Dharurkar
2 hours ago
3 min read

While A Modi-Trump phone call has reopened diplomatic space for trade talks, Piyush Goyal now has the harder task of turning a thaw in rhetoric into a workable deal.

Minister of Commerce and Industry Piyush Goyal is in the United States at a particularly delicate moment in the country’s trade relations with Washington. His visit, from September 29 to October 5, comes as India and the US try to bridge differences over tariffs, market access and the proposed Bilateral Trade Agreement.


The timing has been given an additional diplomatic lift by a telephone conversation between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump. The two leaders reviewed cooperation in trade, defence, energy and critical technologies and reaffirmed their commitment to advancing the India-US Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership. For Goyal, however, the harder work begins at the negotiating table.


He is participating in the G20 Trade Ministers’ Meeting in Milwaukee and holding discussions with American officials, while also meeting representatives of US industry, investors and the Indian community. The objective is to advance a balanced and mutually beneficial trade arrangement at a time when the relationship is being tested by tariffs, energy concerns and competing domestic interests.


Goyal’s task is to determine how much room there is for compromise and whether that room is large enough to produce an agreement that both sides can take home.


The difficulty is that the two countries are negotiating not merely over tariffs but over the very architecture of their economic relationship.


The India-US relationship has travelled a long way to reach this point. During the Cold War, New Delhi and Washington often found themselves on opposite sides of the geopolitical divide. India’s non-alignment and its close relationship with the Soviet Union sat uneasily with American strategic priorities. The relationship began to change after the Cold War, as economic liberalisation in India coincided with the emergence of a more fluid international order.


For India, the American market offers enormous opportunity, but opening it further carries consequences for Indian producers. For Washington, the objective is greater access and what the Trump administration regards as more reciprocal trading arrangements.


The latest complication comes from energy. New US legislation has authorised the President to impose tariffs of up to 100 percent on countries purchasing Russian energy. India, a significant buyer of Russian crude, is potentially exposed to the measure. The provision does not automatically impose a 100 percent tariff on India, but its existence has introduced another uncertainty into an already complicated negotiation.


That makes the Modi-Trump conversation more than diplomatic choreography. Direct communication between leaders can sometimes prevent technical disagreements from becoming political ruptures. But it cannot substitute for the painstaking work of deciding what each side will concede and what it will retain.

Goyal’s unglamorous task is to navigate the gap between strategic friendship and commercial self-interest. India and America can describe each other as strategic partners while disagreeing sharply over tariffs, market access and energy. Indeed, the durability of the partnership may partly depend on whether such disagreements can be contained without allowing them to infect the wider relationship.


The September 30 call at least provided a favourable diplomatic backdrop. Yet the American side has made clear that an agreement is not around the corner. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said on October 1 that negotiations were continuing and described his conversation with Goyal as constructive, but said a deal was not imminent.


That is a useful corrective to the temptation to read every diplomatic contact as a breakthrough.


India-US relations have travelled a considerable distance from the estrangements of the past. Defence cooperation has expanded; strategic coordination has deepened and collaboration in critical and emerging technologies has acquired new importance. The economic relationship is now an essential part of that larger partnership.


For Goyal, the immediate objective is to keep the negotiations alive, narrow the areas of disagreement and establish the basis for an interim arrangement without compromising India’s core economic interests. For Modi and Trump, the task is to ensure that a dispute over tariffs does not become a dispute over the partnership itself.


The fortunes of India-US trade will only turn if both sides can find a bargain sufficiently balanced to survive the politics at home and sufficiently useful to strengthen the partnership abroad. Goyal’s real test will be not whether he can produce a dramatic breakthrough, but whether he can make that difficult bargain possible.


(The writer is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page