The recent killing of tourists in cold blood at Pehelgaon in Kashmir has left ordinary people like me stunned looking at the sheer savagery involved. To kill an unarmed civilian in front of his near and dear is simply revolting whatever be the provocation. It is simply barbaric. The recent attack is a horrifying reminder of the depths of human cruelty. The deliberate targeting of innocent visitors, who were simply seeking solace in the serene beauty of Kashmir, is an act of barbarism that defies comprehension. This massacre, which claimed the lives of twenty-six tourists from across India is not just an attack on individual human beings, but on the very essence of humanity. There are instances and incidents in human history that redefine humanity either positively or negatively. This incident is one such. Such dastardly acts, perhaps, were not surprising for a failed state like Pakistan. The killing of innocent people, the way it was done, is sure to change not only the relationship between India and Pakistan, but also Pakistan and the comity of other nations. No civilised nation or religion promote such abhorrent acts of violence. Decisive retributions are bound to follow. The question is how and when. The government has no option but to respond given the barbaric nature of the violence perpetrated against Indians who happened to be Hindus. The terrorists might not have calculated the likely impact of what they had done. When you mix patriotism with religion, you are, in effect, preparing a concoction whose disastrous effect is not easily predictable. Beyond this, there is yet another angle that is not so subtle. The relationship between the countries have permanently got transformed with this one incident. The government in Delhi has its job cut out. The world leaders are asking the Indian government to exercise caution. However, no nation worth its salt has asked India not to react. Expect a series of decisive counter measures from the Indian side sooner than later. Attacking Pakistan now is a matter of survival for the Indian government. This time the Indian government would not be compelled to show restraint by its people. Even if the government of India wants to paper over this incident, the Indians would not agree. There is so much revulsion against the terrorists and Pakistan in particular that provided safe haven to them. It is better to sacrifice your life by going to war than be slaughtered like they had done in Pehelgaon.
With the arrival of the new Governor at the Reserve Bank of India things seem to have changed. If his predecessor Shaktikanta Das was quite conservative on matters relating to money supply in the market, Sanjay Malhotra, the present incumbent seems to have come from a different school. And the market is not complaining either. In the first meeting of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) itself after he had taken over, one could perceive the winds of change. In that meeting in February 25 the MPC decided to cut the interest rate by 0.25%. In the subsequent meeting in April 25, it further cut the rate to 6%. The Guv had this to say while reducing the interest rate. “Going forward too, considering the evolving growth-inflation trajectories, monetary policy needs to be accommodative.” That was a clear shift in the apex bank’s stance. Explaining the need for balancing and aligning the interest to external factors Mr. Malhotra had this to say: “Coming to the imposition of tariffs, in my view, the implications for inflation are two-sided. On the upside, uncertainties may lead to possible currency pressures resulting in imported inflation. On the downside, a slowdown in global growth will further soften commodity and crude oil prices, which would ease the pressure on inflation.” – clear balancing act between external risks and domestic goals with more attention being paid to the latter. In this background there was yet another development in the horizon. The RBI recently had made life a bit easier for banks. The RBI had earlier released its final Rules on how banks should manage their Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR). These Rules turned out to be far easier than what had been proposed earlier by RBI. This was music to the ears of the banking system. When the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) had failed in the US back in March 23, a lot of start up entities moved their money on the click of a button. This proved to be fatal for the SVB as it turned out. There was no time for anyone to take a pause before the money was transferred because they all happened to be digital deposits. When the runoff happened there was no way to determine how much the bank’s deposit base might get withdrawn during a period of crisis. Earlier draft rules of RBI had proposed increase of these runoff rates from 5% to 10% and for stable deposits it was to be changed to 15% from 10%. Earlier there was also this condition that the FDs given as security may not be fully stable as the customers would break it along the way to maturity. In the final rules the RBI had asked the banks to keep only an addition of 2.50% runoff for deposits with internet or mobile banking access instead of 5%. In the end, what started as a strict post SVB clean up exercise has now turned into a more thoughtful recalibration of rates. With this, the bank stocks had only one way to go – up!
Union Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal recently expressed concerns about the Indian startup ecosystem’s focus on low-value job creation, particularly in the gig economy. Speaking at the Startup Mahakumbh event in New Delhi the other day, Goyal criticised startups for concentrating on services like food delivery, instant grocery delivery and influencer-driven platforms. His argument was that such ventures often turn unemployed youth into low-wage labour catering to the convenience of wealthier consumers. Goyal contrasted this trend with China’s emphasis on deep-tech sectors like electric vehicles, semiconductors, artificial intelligence and robotics. He questioned whether India’s entrepreneurial ambitions should be limited to “making ice cream or chips” or if they should aspire to lead in advanced technological innovations. These remarks of the Minister sparked a backlash from the startup community. Aadit Palicha, co-founder of Zepto, defended consumer internet startups highlighting their role in innovation and job creation. Venture capitalist Mohandas Pai also criticised Goyal’s comments questioning the government’s support for deep-tech startups and suggesting that the minister should reflect on his contributions to fostering such sectors . Faced with strident criticisms on what he had said, Goyal later clarified that his intent was only to encourage introspection within the startup community, urging them to aim higher and contribute to sectors that drive long-term economic growth and innovation. To my mind, there was nothing wrong in what Goyal had expressed. If there is no one to point out the shortcomings in our chosen way of progress, we ourselves would be the losers. The self-appointed apostles of good behaviour on how we should conduct ourselves, we are unwittingly doing a disservice to our own society. If the minister had this to convey to the youth, take it in the spirit in which it is articulated especially when someone across the border is showing you a mirror (read China). It is time our social media good Samaritans grow up and look at the evolving industrial scene.
There was an interesting news item that had appeared in the newspapers recently. In fact, it is an extremely useful strategy while preparing a Will. The Will, prepared primarily to pre-empt future litigations has come to acquire the dubious distinction of being the most contested form of legal document in India. The amounts involved behind these contested documents would run into crores. What is more, the time taken to determine the validity of a Will would take lot of time and effort, not to speak of the mental agony of friends and relatives of the deceased, hardly the kind of reaction the testator had wanted to see, while making a Will. Recently, I came across a news item in the context of the Will prepared by none other than late Ratan Tata, the doyen of Indian industry. Knowledge of what he had done while drafting his Will could be an object lesson for all of us. In his Will, the late Tata had inserted a “no contest” clause. This clause is usually inserted in a Will to avoid any litigation among beneficiaries, and it is considered a safe way of keeping the Will away from the courts. This is particularly so, in a highly litigious society like ours. As per newspaper reports, the no-contest clause in Tata’s Will would render anyone who contests or even challenge the Will would stand to lose his or her potential benefits from the Will. In such cases where there is a ‘no-contest’ clause, the language of the Will has to be clear leaving no scope for ambiguity or alternate interpretations. Such no-contest clause in a Will serves as a threat to someone who thinks of contesting the Will. He would forfeit whatever inheritance he would otherwise be getting under the Will if he loses. The objective of this provision is to deter frivolous or disruptive legal challenges, promoting faster and smoother estate settlements. Typically, it forces potential challengers to think twice before suing – because if they lose, they get nothing (or a reduced share). One should keep in mind that in such Wills there should be a provision that if a potential beneficiary only seeks clarifications from the Executor, it does not lead to disinheritance of that beneficiary. Any clarification sought by a beneficiary from the Executor would not amount to blocking his or her entitlement under the Will. So is the case when valid claims are necessitated because of fraud, forgery or undue influence if sufficient evidence is presented to prove the allegation. Though such a “no-contest” clause may not be widely prevalent in India today, it is highly recommended that in a Will with sufficient safeguards, a no contest cause is inserted by the testator. Thank you, Mr. Tata, for teaching me a lesson that I would definitely want to propagate.
Emergency in India is considered a blot on its history. We generally believe that such dubious attempts to latch on to power is tried by those in developing countries. If so, think again. Donald Trump became President of the US one hundred days back. Along the way he has imposed national emergencies eight times in his first one hundred days! For instance, he did not introduce any smart economic reforms when he introduced blanket tariffs (including a group of barren, uninhabited volcanic island near Antarctica, covered in glaciers and home to a few penguins) has been swept up in Donald Trump’s trade war as the US president hit the penguins also with a 10% tariff on goods! In the US, the Presidents also are addicted to these untrammelled powers. When the President invokes a national emergency, he can bypass the Congress, intimidate the courts and run roughshod over normal procedures, even civil liberties. Today, Donald Trump is pushing the boundaries of presidential power in ways that is well beyond what their Constitution had envisioned. But then, Trump runs his country like an emperor – he is answerable only to himself.
I am not a Christian nor do I follow regularly what happens in the Church. It was so till Pope Francis was anointed as the Pope who passed away last week. He touched the hearts of many people, not necessarily rooted in religion. Pope Francis, born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, passed away on April 21, 2025, at the age of eighty-eight. As the first Latin American and Jesuit Pope, his tenure was marked by humility, reform, and a deep commitment to social justice. Throughout his 12-year papacy, Francis championed the poor and marginalised, advocating for economic equality, environmental responsibility, and inclusivity within the Catholic Church. His leadership was defined by bold reforms, including efforts to modernise the Vatican’s financial systems and address clerical abuse. Despite facing criticism from conservative factions, Francis remained steadfast in his mission to create a more compassionate and accessible Church. His decision to reside in a modest guesthouse rather than the Apostolic Palace reflected his personal commitment to simplicity and humility. He stood up for what according to him was right and spoke fearlessly to power. Francis leaves behind a legacy of reform, kindness, and unwavering dedication to the principles of faith and humanity. His influence will continue to shape the Church and inspire generations of his followers. In a manner of speaking, he was a pop star among God’s messengers on earth. May his soul attain salvation that it richly deserves.
Thank you.
Venkat R Venkitachalam
