On August 23, 2021, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced a Rs. 6 lakh crore National Monetisation Pipeline (NMP) programme as part of India’s infrastructure push. NMP envisages to monetise government’s brown-field (existing) assets and enhance infrastructure spending without straining its finances. It is a 4-year plan to lease out, through bidding, government assets (such as roads, railways, power, oil and gas pipelines and telecommunication) to private sector entities. The funds raised would be used to build green-field (new) assets.,fifa 21 competitions
888 poker instant,It was made clear that there would not be any land sale happening under the programme. NMP relates to brown-field assets where investment has already been made, and which are either languishing or under-utilized, and hence not optimally monetized. Therefore, by bringing in private participation, the government intends to monetize them more productively. The monetization of core assets under NMP is expected to be carried out through public-private-partnership (PPP) models such as operate-maintain-transfer. The asset monetization programme does not entail ceding ownership of these assets.
Announcement of NMP has once again ignited the debate on the desirability and feasibility of continuing with public sector enterprises (PSEs).,eurocup scoresfree spins no deposit fishing frenzy
India's industrial policy after Independence in 1947 was broadly shaped in terms of the Industrial Policy Resolution of April 1948 which envisaged a mixed economy for the country within a democratic framework. Public sector was assigned a dominant role, particularly in the establishment and development of heavy and basic industries. Thus, certain crucial sectors were reserved for government initiative to control the commanding heights of the economy. ,bet365 live casino bonus
The 1948 Resolution was reviewed in the light of experience gained and the new Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956 was placed before the Parliament by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru on April 30, 1956. The 1956 Resolution, launched on the eve of the Second Five Year Plan (1956-57 to 1960-61), and called by some as the economic constitution of India, observed, “The adoption of the socialistic pattern of society as well as the need for planned and rapid development require that all industries of basic and strategic importance or in the nature of public utility services should be in the public sector”. The most important feature of the 1956 Resolution was the reservation of 17 industries for exclusive development in the public sector. These included, inter alia, arms and ammunition, atomic energy, iron and steel, heavy electricals, coal, mineral oils, air transport, railways, and generation and distribution of electricity. ,bbc footballcasino rules
Nationalisation of existing enterprises also contributed to the expansion of the public sector. Soon after Independence, government followed a policy of social control of important financial institutions. The nationalisation of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in 1948 marked the beginning of this policy. This was followed by the takeover of the then Imperial Bank of India in 1955 which was rechristened as State Bank of India. In 1956, 245 life insurance companies were nationalised and merged into the newly created Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). In another significant development, government nationalised 14 major commercial banks in 1969. The year 1972 saw the nationalisation of general insurance companies and the setting up of the General Insurance Corporation (GIC). ,nlop play now
diamond rummy,In another move, the government nationalised coking mines in 1972 and non-coking coal mines in 1973, with the result that coal production in the country came almost completely under the public sector. In April 1980, six more commercial banks were nationalised, making banking business a near-monopoly of the public sector. Similarly, a large number of sick units, mainly in the textile sector, were nationalised from time-to-time.icehl playoffs
Continued presence of public sector in a wide range of activity began to be widely questioned by the beginning of the 1980s. Policymakers started realising the drawbacks of public sector which inhibited competitiveness and efficiency, producing a much lower rate of growth than expected. During the first three decades of development efforts (1950-80), Indian economy grew at a modest rate of 3.5 percent per annum. During the same period, the population grew at an average rate of about 2 percent per annum. Thus, the rate of growth in terms of per capita income was around 1.5 percent per annum. Late Professor Raj Krishna called it the Hindu rate of growth. Pressure for economic reforms was mounting.,casino roulette funnlop play now
The process of economic reforms initiated in 1985 got a big boost when the government of Prime Minister Narsimha Rao announced a new industrial policy in the Parliament on July 24, 1991. The new policy introduced radical changes “to unshackle the Indian industrial economy from the cobwebs of unnecessary bureaucratic controls.” It reduced the list of industries reserved for public sector from 17 (included in the 1956 policy) to only 8. Subsequently, 6 more items were de-reserved. Thus, at present there are only 2 industries reserved for the public sector, namely atomic energy and railways (with some exceptions). It also abolished industrial licenses for all projects, except for a short list of 18 specified industries. After further delicensing, there are, presently, only 4 industries under compulsory industrial licensing, viz. electronic aerospace and defence equipment, industrial explosives, cigars and cigarettes, and specified hazardous chemicals. In short, the 1991 policy was a complete reversal of the 1956 policy.,paypal roulette
caesars slots real money,Since then, successive governments have carried forward the reforms in industrial, financial, fiscal and external sectors. Agricultural and labour law reforms are latest on the list.volleyball tvn
Disinvestment of a part of government equity in public sector enterprises is a major policy initiative in India to carry out economic reforms. The purpose of disinvestment exercise is to improve the performance of public enterprises as also to increase their public accountability by broad-basing their management and ownership. Public enterprises are wealth of the country and this wealth should rest in the hands of the people. Citizens have every right to own part of the shares of public enterprises. Ever since 1991-92, disinvestment receipts are shown in the Central Budget as part of the non-debt capital receipts of the government. ,handball livescorebet365 poker app iphone
Indian economy is well-dovetailed with the global economy. Many goods and services are imported and exported liberally under the rules and regulations of World Trade Organisation (WTO). In a world of cut-throat competition and cutting-edge technology, can public enterprises compete in the domestic and foreign markets? In terms of global practices, interests of consumers are better protected through effective regulation and competition than public ownership of enterprises. ,katai hindi meaning in english
A case is made for the presence of public enterprises in strategic sectors; but what constitutes strategic and non-strategic is relative and time-specific. Landline telephone instruments and telephone cables were considered sensitive and hence items of strategic importance in the 1950s. They were included in the list of 17 items reserved for exclusive production by government-owned enterprises under the Industrial Policy, 1956. Today, they are ordinary items. Likewise, what is of strategic importance presently (e.g. atomic energy) may become non-strategic after a few decades. In addition to nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines, we may have nuclear-powered aeroplanes, railway engines and even motor cars.,fire joker free spins no deposit 2020
bbc football,India has made rapid strides on various global indices of economic and technological progress. It has consistently and significantly improved its ranking on ease of doing business from 142 in 2015, to 130 in 2017, to 100 in 2018, to 77 in 2019 and to 63 in 2020, a jump of 79 spots over the period from 2015 to 2020. In the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness index, India jumped 18 spots in 4 years (from 52nd in 2015 to 34th in 2019). Similarly, India has taken rapid strides in advancing government e-payments capabilities and is one of the top-performing countries in terms of citizen-to-government (C2G), business-to-government (B2G) and government-to-business (G2B) transactions. It has also improved its rank on World Digital Competitiveness Index, and Global Innovation Index.
However, the country has performed poorly on various socio-economic global indices. According to the Human Development Report (HDR) released on December 16, 2020, India ranked 131 among 189 countries in 2019 in terms of human development. Likewise, India was classified as a country with serious levels of hunger according to the Global Hunger Index (GHI), 2019. India was ranked 102 out of 117 countries in terms of severity of hunger. In other words, there were only 15 other countries in this index which were worse-off than India. Nearly all these were African countries. ,juve vs spal
campo bet 1x2,The dismal performance of India on HDR and GHI underscores the need for higher investment in social infrastructure like medical and educational sectors. The Covid-19 pandemic has further aggravated the problems of migrant labourers, marginal farmers and small businesses. This calls for relief packages for the disadvantaged sections of society rather than bail out packages for sick white elephants of the public sector. Minister of State for civil aviation V.K. Singh told the Rajya Sabha on August 4, 2021 that Air India had accumulated losses to the tune of Rs. 70,820 crore till March 31, 2020. The so-called national carrier incurs an estimated daily loss of Rs. 20-25 crore.
Budgetary support to loss making public sector units has been a recurring feature over the last several years. Increased competitive pressures have adversely affected many such units which were earlier profitable. Growing financial stringency of the government in view of various social security schemes has reduced its capacity to support them. Loss making public enterprises are a drain on the budget unless a viable policy of disinvestment is evolved and implemented for them. These new realities must be recognised in order to shape and develop a public sector policy with adequate focus on fiscal costs and benefits. ,find a poker game
M.M. Sury is a guest contributor. Views expressed are personal.,livescore.com