In these columns, I had predicted that the new Governor of the Reserve Bank India will be different, he being an IITian. He is proving to be so, judging by the tenor of his latest policy statement last week. The RBI’s latest Monetary Policy Review maintains the stance of “watchful waiting,” prioritising inflation control while cautiously supporting economic growth. The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) opted to keep the Repo Rate unchanged at 6.50% for the tenth consecutive time, signalling its unwavering focus on bringing inflation down to the 4% target on a durable basis. The decision to hold the Repo rate was widely expected. With headline inflation still above the 4% target, the RBI is in no hurry to cut rates and risk fuelling price pressures. The policy stance is maintained as “withdrawal of accommodation” to ensure that inflation progressively aligns with the target, while anchoring inflation expectations. The core message from the RBI is that the fight against inflation is not yet over. While there has been some moderation, volatile food prices and external uncertainties pose significant upside risks. The RBI is choosing to err on the side of caution indicating that any consideration of rate cuts is still some time away and will be strictly data dependent. This hawkish undertone is a clear signal to the market that price stability remains the foremost priority of RBI. The RBI remains optimistic about India’s growth trajectory, projecting a robust GDP growth for the current fiscal. Strong domestic demand, a pick-up in investment activity, and a resilient services sector are seen as key growth drivers. By holding rates steady, the RBI believes that it is providing a stable macroeconomic environment that allows this growth momentum to continue without being derailed by high inflation. The RBI continues to actively manage liquidity in the banking system to ensure it aligns with the Monetary Policy stance. Its aim is to keep overnight rates firm and close to the Repo Rate, thereby ensuring that the Policy rate is effectively transmitted through the financial system. In essence, the RBI is playing a long game. It is confident that the current policy rate is restrictive enough to bring inflation down. The central bank is willing to be patient and avoid any premature easing that could undo the progress made in controlling inflation. The message is clear: growth is healthy, but inflation must be tamed before any Policy pivot could be considered. Businesses and consumers should expect borrowing costs to remain elevated in the near term. As far as classical economic thinking is concerned, he is bang on. The Monetary Policy Statement contains Twenty Two – yes, twenty two – separate measures that could fundamentally change how the banking system works in India. These could be a bigger deal than the rate cut itself! Starting next fiscal year, the RBI is introducing risk-based pricing. Better rated banks with sound risk management will pay lower deposit insurance premiums. That is not all. The RBI is opening up capital market lending in a big way! A framework is in the making for banks to finance corporate acquisitions. That is not all. RBI is also hiking limits on lending against shares from Rupees Twenty Lakhs to One Crore per person. This is in addition to removing the regulatory ceiling on lending against listed debt securities. In order to reduce concentration risk, banks are forced to fend for funding through bonds or any other sources. That is now gone. RBI is also proposing to reduce risk weights for NBFC so that they can lend to operational, high quality infrastructure projects. The Policy statement announced three measures to internationalise the Rupee which perhaps is the most significant part of RBI’s package – letting Indian banks to lend in rupees to non-residents from some identified countries, establishing reference rates for currencies of India’s trading partners and permitting Vostro accounts to invest in corporate bonds and commercial papers. These are some of the measures undertaken. Well done, Guv. Donald Trump would be impressed that he has been recognised vicariously!
Sometimes you wonder the sagacity of our apex court, especially in the area of transfer of properties consequent to testamentary succession. This issue came up for consideration of the Supreme Court the other day. The Supreme Court, in the case of Ramesh Chand vs Suresh Chand clarified an already clarified legal requirements for transfers of property and the validity of a Will in India. The takeaway from the judgment is that only a registered Sale Deeds can legally transfer ownership of immovable properties and a Will must be strictly proved according to law, especially when suspicious circumstances exist. The following critical issues got clarified in the bargain.
- Registered Sale Deed is Paramount for Ownership: The Supreme Court unequivocally stated that documents like an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney (GPA), Affidavit or Receipt do not confer ownership of immovable properties. Only a duly executed and registered sale deed can legally transfer title under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. An Agreement to Sell at best, creates a right to seek specific performance of a future sale but does not convey present ownership. For example, if someone buys a house and only has an Agreement to Sell and a GPA, he does not legally own the property until a registered sale deed is executed. This means that they cannot transfer the property to someone else or claim full legal rights over it.
- General Power of Attorney does not transfer title: A GPA merely authorises an agent to act on behalf of the owner; it does not transfer any ownership rights or interest in the property to the attorney holder. For example, a son holding a GPA from his father for a property cannot automatically claim ownership of that property. The GPA only gives him the authority to manage or potentially sell the property on his father’s behalf but not to become the owner himself through that document.
- Strict Proof Required for a Will: The Court emphasised that a Will is a posthumous disposition and must be strictly proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This typically requires the examination of at least one attesting witness in court to confirm the Will’s proper execution. For example, in this case, the Will presented was not properly proved because no attesting witness was examined in court. The Court highlighted that mere registration of a Will does not cure defects in its execution or attestation.
- Suspicious Circumstances Invalidating a Will: The Supreme Court also applied the “suspicious circumstances” test. If a Will excludes natural heirs without proper justification or if the person benefiting from the Will (the propounder) was actively involved in its preparation, it raises doubts about its authenticity. For example, the father in this case had four children, but the Will allegedly left the entire property to only one son without any explanation for excluding the others. This, coupled with the lack of proper proof, led the Court to declare the Will invalid.
- Section 53A (Doctrine of Part Performance) Applicability: The Court clarified that protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act (Doctrine of Part Performance) is available only if the transferee is in possession of the property in part performance of the contract. As the plaintiff in this case had filed a suit for possession, it indicated that he was not in possession, thus making Section 53A inapplicable.
This judgment reinforces the importance of formal, registered documentation in property transactions to ensure clear and secure titles. It serves as a strong caution against relying on informal arrangements like GPA sales to avoid stamp duty or registration costs, as such practices are legally precarious and can lead to protracted disputes. For inheritance, it underscores the necessity of ensuring a Will is not only properly executed but also provable in court, especially when it deviates from the natural line of succession.
Moldova is a small, landlocked country in Eastern Europe, situated between Romania to the west and Ukraine to the north, east, and south. It has no particular reason to be written about – at least till now. Moldova’s strategic position between the European Union and post-Soviet states shapes much of its contemporary politics, economy and security concerns. The recent Moldovan election results represent a decisive and historic mandate for full European integration solidifying the nation’s pivot away from Russian influence. The victory of the pro-EU incumbent, Maia Sandu, and the concurrent success of the referendum to amend the constitution for EU membership signals a clear and popular rejection of the pro-Russian political forces that have long held sway. This outcome locks in Moldova’s geopolitical trajectory towards the West but also intensifies the challenges from Moscow and the internal breakaway region of Transnistria. The significance of the Moldovan election results extends far beyond a simple change of leadership. It marks a fundamental, constitutionally backed shift in the nation’s identity and geopolitical destiny, moving it firmly into the European camp and away from its post-Soviet past. While this provides a clear path forward, it also sets the stage for heightened tensions with Russia and brings the unresolved issue of Transnistria to the forefront. Will it be the next Ukraine?
Jeff Bezos, the American businessman, has publicly advocated a visionary plan to set up large-scale data centres akin to Global Capability Centres (GCCs) in outer space within the next ten to twenty years! He believes that they could eventually surpass earth based facilities due to uninterrupted access to solar energy and an ideal environment for advanced computing. Bezos points out that space offers 24/7 solar power, eliminating terrestrial limitations like weather, cloud cover, and variable energy costs. Space-based data centres would help address growing electricity and cooling demands posed by artificial intelligence (AI), cloud computing, and big data, potentially reducing costs and environmental impact compared to earth-based options. His wider vision includes shifting not just data centres, but manufacturing and heavy industry into space – freeing earth’s surface for residential and light commercial uses and making life on the planet more sustainable. Bezos sees this as the next step building on successes with communication and weather satellites – first satellites, then orbital data centres followed by production facilities and eventually, large-scale human settlements and industry in orbit. Bezos acknowledges the daunting challenges such as costly rocket launches, maintenance difficulties and technological risks inherent in operating such massive infrastructure in space. Industry observers note that while the concept is overly ambitious, the technological, logistical and financial hurdles remain huge with widespread implementation likely years away. The proposal represents a dramatic leap in thinking about future GCCs – not merely as support operations in India or other global hubs but as potentially off-planet centres harnessing the unique advantages of space. By catalysing such conversations on orbital infrastructure and sustainable development, Bezos’s outlook is influencing the agenda of both tech companies and space agencies aiming for breakthrough innovation and long-term planetary stewardship. Bezos’s opinion combines technological optimism with environmental stewardship. While it may take decades to realize, it is already shaping dialogues about the intersection of space technology, business ecosystems, and sustainability.
To write a review of a book by an author whom you admire is fraught with distinct but expected danger. So is the case with this book “Age Revolutions” authored by Fareed Zakharia, especially when he happens to be the modern-day Guru for many on geopolitics. Having said this, it is also a fact that you do expect more than a run-of-the-mill tome from him. The book would appeal to a normal reader for whom Zakharia is the last word on geopolitics. Reading the book, unfortunately though, is a tortuous exercise, covering as it does, multiple countries, revolutions and above all it encapsulates results of major historical events that have had a remarkable impact on world events over the years. Zakharia ambitiously traverses a vast historical landscape through this book exploring multiple revolutions – political, technological, economic and ideological – that have shaped modern history. With characteristic erudition and eloquence, Zakaria links these revolutions to a broader narrative of societal transformation, emphasising the interconnectedness of change across different domains. The book’s greatest strength lies in its sweeping scope. Zakaria discusses the classical revolutions such as the American and French Revolutions alongside the Industrial Revolution, the Digital Revolution and even ideologically driven upheavals like the fall of communism. This panoramic approach underscores a core argument: that humanity’s progress is marked by successive, overlapping “revolutions” that continuously redefine governance, economy and culture. However, this very breadth introduces a noticeable dissonance in the author’s style of writing. The transitions between different “revolutions” are sometimes abrupt, with the narrative jumping across timelines and themes that, while related, may lack nuanced integration. The book presents a mosaic of revolutions that are connected conceptually but insufficiently woven together into a cohesive thesis. This, in turn results in superficial treatment of some revolutions leading to a lack of divergence and depth. The thematic dispersion, while intellectually stimulating, does hinder overall coherence of the subjects covered. The book is a compelling survey of transformative moments in history, packed with insightful observations and unique reflections of the author. Nevertheless, its broad scope both enlightens and ennobles the narrative, yet at times undermines depth and thematic coherence. It serves as a thought-provoking primer rather than an exhaustive or definitive analysis, urging readers to appreciate the interconnected mosaic of change rather than pursue a linear or all-encompassing story. All these factors lead to a feeling that the author in his broad sweep has covered certain subjects masterfully while some others in a pedantic manner. In one sense the book has two distinct parts. In the first part, the author narrates history when he is dealing with many a revolution in recorded history. It is in the second part that the author comes into his own while articulating his views on geopolitics of the day, in particular. Having seen the author multiple times on GPS on CNN gives one the confidence of what he has to say. But one still is left with a feeling that the book could have been a notch better. That perhaps is the price the author pays for the familiarity with the reader who is also a viewer!
Before signing off, here is a newsbyte that you cannot afford to miss. I am quoting this verbatim from a BBC Podcast: “Biocomputing is a fascinating and weird branch of science, which involves trying to make machines out of living cells. The idea is that they would be more environmentally friendly and use a lot less power than traditional hardware. Switzerland based software firm, FinalSpark which is replicating human cells from an anonymous donors bought via a clinic, which it then cultures into neurons, brain cells, that cluster into groups called organoids, essentially lab-grown mini-brains. They are nowhere near as complex as human brains, but when these organoids are attached to an electrode, they can respond in an extremely basic way to some commands. In science fiction people have been living with these ideas for quite a long time. And when you start to say, “I’m going to use a neuron, like a little machine, like a transistor, it’s a different view of our own brain.” In my lifetime I will not see these machines in action. But then …… after the advent of Artificial Intelligence … all bets are off!
Thank You.
Venkat R Venkitachalam
