This refers to the news report ‘Banks privatisation Bill not listed for current session, says Government’ ( August 3).

Despite Indian banks having written off loans worth ₹10 lakh crore in the last five years, it was really surprising that the ‘privatisation savvy’ government of the day, seems to have decided to “defer” the privatisation of two already enlisted public sector banks.

What else could explain the “non-listing” of the relevant Bill during the current session of Parliament? It may be pertinent to recall that FM Nirmala Sitharaman had announced the proposal to privatise two PSBs in this year’s Budget and also moved the legislative amendments for the purpose.

Is the government having second thoughts about its proposed privatisation move or is it waiting for the right opportunity for introducing the relevant Bill in Parliament? It goes without saying that the privatisation is no “panacea” for various banking ills and all may not be well in the nation’s private banks too.

Kumar Gupt

Panchkula (Haryana)

Welcome inclusion 

With reference to the news report ‘RBI’s Financial Inclusion Index for March up at 56.4’ (August 3), the rise in the index indicates the contributions of the excluded category of the society to the economy’s growth.

At a time when the banking and insurance sectors are extensively using technology, the customers need to be reasonably literate. Strengthening the familiarisation with financial products and services is crucial to improving the quality of financial inclusion.

While marketing financial products and services the sellers are duty bound to explain the pros and cons to prevent mis-selling.

The quality of financial inclusion is of paramount importance to optimise the contributions from the beneficiaries and that must be accompanied by wide publicity through campaigns and awareness programmes. Here the government, regulators, banking and insurance sectors have a big role to play.

VSK Pillai


The ‘warnings’ conundrum

With reference to the article ‘SEBI ‘warns’ wrongdoers — to what effect?’ (August 3), the crux of the quasi-judicial orders and administrative warnings lies in the fact that, in the former the deficiency has already been determined leading to punitive punishments, while in the latter, it gives a one-time opportunity to the defaulter to set things in order. However, it would be a cumbersome exercise to decide the yardstick of levying punishments in respect of warnings. Certain measures suggested for making warnings effective, like adding up deficiencies to the cost of doing business and CIBIL score mechanism impacting the borrowing powers of the entity etc. may be prudent, but it may be against principle of natural justice.

In an era where business entities have to deal with innumerable compliances thrust upon them by various regulators, a minor negligence should not be treated with a deterrent punishment.

Sitaram Popuri


Digital quandary

The need for extensive communication in a growing economy led to our great digital awakening. But after more than a decade fiscal pressures are holding back the government from taking digital transformation to the next level.

The earlier frenzy over spectrum-fee auctions led to a huge debt burden for the telecom players and preclude competition. That said a more pragmatic policy approach seems to have been adopted in the present 5G episode. But the government’s timidity could still score over its larger digital vision.

The hurdles on the commercial use of the high-speed wi-fi technology of the E-band and the rapidity of access through the V-band is proof of this. The merit of any policy lies in the boldness and determination of its pursuit.

There could be an endless wait for the judgment on 2G allocations, but in less than three years, digital transactions would cover every area.

R Narayanan

Navi Mumbai