It may be shocking for readers to know that fake Indian currency notes of the Rs5, Rs10, Rs20, Rs50 and Rs100 denomination have surfaced in Bangalore! RBI Governor needs to clarify on the polymer currency notes issue and also, when the plan would be implemented
As a parting shot, Dr KC Chakravarty, the deputy governor of Reserve Bank of India (RBI), just before leaving office has stated, as widely reported in the media, that the introduction of "plastic" bank notes of Rs10 denomination has been (indefinitely?) delayed due to failure of the selected bidders in meeting the "required" technical specifications!
In addition to this, it has been stated that there is reluctance on the part of bankers to mop up such "old" notes in circulation. According to information available, as at March 2013, Rs10 notes accounted for 34% of the total bank notes aggregating to Rs7,351.50 crore ; and in value terms, the Rs10 denomination notes accounted for about 2% of the total Rs11.65 lakh crore worth of bank notes in circulation. By December end, notes in circulation increased to 7,647 crore pieces and the coins in circulation amounted to 8,991 crore pieces valued at Rs16,800 crore.
In the past, the counterfeit currency notes minted in Pakistan that were, and still are, being smuggled into the country covered the Rs500 and Rs1,000 denominations. Time and again, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the lead agency in checking smuggling, have caught crores worth of these fake notes, most of which have come into India via Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Cambodia! A little later, these started coming from Gulf countries too, where a very large Indian expatriate population lives. Now, China is one more transit hub for Pakistan based operators to circulate FICNs!
At the moment, no body really knows how much these high value notes have come in during the election, which is still in progress. In the meantime, it may be shocking for the readers to know that fake Indian currency notes of the Rs5, Rs10, Rs20, Rs50 and Rs100 have surfaced in Bangalore!
Instances have been reported where the auto-drivers have "refused" to accept these notes, stating that "these are fakes". The passenger had no alternative but to tender "acceptable" notes and took the trouble to verify with the banker to authenticate the "note" only to be told that these are "fakes"!
It is regrettable that it was Dr Chakravarty, while on a visit to Bangalore, way back in May last year when he gave details of the polymer currency notes, selection of six towns for test marketing and spoke of one billion notes for this purpose. Anyone reading the press reports (coverage) of this visit would automatically come to the conclusion that India was making progress to introduce the polymer currency notes. Now, it looks like we are back to square one, and that, no progress has been made at all in replacing the paper currency with polymer based notes.
It is time that RBI governor Dr Raghuram Rajan clearly make a policy statement on this issue of polymer currency notes. It is hard to believe what Dr Chakravarty has stated in regard to the "failure" of the bidders to come up to the RBI's exacting needs! Are we to understand that ALL the bidders have failed? What is the problem in taking the issue directly with Australian Currency Board and seeking their help?
We need a clear-cut clarification on this issue from RBI.
(AK Ramdas has worked with the Engineering Export Promotion Council of the ministry of commerce. He was also associated with various committees of the Council. His international career took him to places like Beirut, Kuwait and Dubai at a time when these were small trading outposts; and later to the US.)
Liberal spending via dark money groups and super PACs was relatively modest in 2012. But their spending has taken off this year in at least one state in the US
Most people have come to associate outside money — the hundreds of millions of dollars from politically active nonprofits and super PACs pouring into American elections — with conservatives.
And why not? Since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, conservative groups have far outspent their liberal counterparts. In the 2012 federal election cycle alone, conservatives shelled out almost two and a half times the amount of outside money as liberal groups, including labor unions.
But an early look at spending on television ads in North Carolina, home to a hotly contested Senate race and a number of competitive state races, shows that liberals are asserting themselves as never before. They are spending almost as much as conservatives in the Senate race and pouring funds into state contests that conservatives haven't yet spent a cent on.
A ProPublica analysis of North Carolina's top three markets shows liberal groups have booked $2.8 million in ads as of Monday praising Sen. Kay Hagan, a freshman Democrat facing a tough re-election fight, or criticizing her likely opponent. That's about the same amount as conservatives have reserved in ads attacking Hagan. A coalition of liberal nonprofits has also poured more than $1.1 million into ads criticizing four Republican state senators.
The surge in advertising by liberal outside groups is obvious when you turn on a TV in the state, said Gary Pearce, a longtime Democratic consultant in Raleigh, N.C.
"It has struck me, I'd say, in the last month," he said. "It's just been a dramatic shift."
About 42 percent of the outside ads in the North Carolina markets — $3.1 million worth — were booked by so-called dark money groups, nonprofits that do not disclose their donors. The rest were booked by super PACs, which do name their contributors, and a liberal charity, which discloses its donors in its annual reports.
In the past, analysts have speculated that liberals' relative lack of outside spending reflected their discomfort with dark money groups and super PACs, both of which can raise unlimited amounts of money. Even the most prominent liberal dark money groups, such as Patriot Majority USA, spent a small portion of what conservative ones like Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity did in 2012.
The leading liberal super PAC in the 2012 cycle, Priorities USA Action, spent $65 million on election activity. In contrast, Restore Our Future, the leading conservative super PAC, spent more than $142 million.
But there's been a growing push on the left to play by the same rules as conservatives. Randy Voller, the chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party, said that while he thought the Citizens United ruling was "a colossal mistake," he didn't think that liberal outside groups had an alternative to playing by the same rules as conservatives ones.
"At this point, these are the rules we have," he said.
So far, in the 2014 cycle, groups focused on the environment have led the way for liberal dark money groups.
Liberal billionaire Tom Steyer has formed NextGen Climate, which plans to support legislators who push for action on climate change and attack those who don't. The organization includes a dark money nonprofit, and has said one of its aims is to counter libertarian billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, who help fund a network of dark money groups. (Steyer's wife, Kat Taylor, is a member of ProPublica's board of directors, and the couple have been significant contributors to ProPublica.) This month, two other environmental nonprofits announced they were starting a collaboration called LeadingGreen to steer donations to federal candidates and help major donors lobby elected officials.
For this story, we analyzed ads booked this year in Charlotte, Raleigh and Greensboro. Most of these ads don't tell people directly to vote for or against a candidate, so they don't have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission unless they run right before an election. But since 2012, the Federal Communications Commission has required TV stations in the country's 50 largest markets to post the ad contracts online. Our analysis only includes ads that were booked since the beginning of the year — although conservatives spent heavily in North Carolina last fall — and there's no guarantee that stations have uploaded every contract.
A conservative super PAC, American Crossroads, part of GOP consultant Karl Rove's outside money empire, has booked the most money in ads for those markets so far in 2014: $1.46 million. But a liberal super PAC run by former aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Majority PAC, is only a touch behind. It has booked $1.45 million in ads praising Hagan so far this year.
On the dark money side, three conservative groups, led by Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers' flagship dark money group, have spent almost $1.4 million on ads criticizing Hagan. One ad portrays her as being best pals with President Obama. "Tell Sen. Hagan to stop thinking about politics and start thinking about people," says another.
But two liberal nonprofits have more than countered in recent months, booking more than $1.3 million for ads of their own. One of them, Patriot Majority USA, has spent more than $500,000 on ads attacking a likely Hagan opponent. The other nonprofit, a charity called the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, has bought several spots praising Hagan.
"Who's behind the attacks on Kay Hagan? Oil industry billionaires, that's who," says one ad, making a veiled attack at the Koch brothers. "They want to undermine the air safety standards that protect us, and Sen. Kay Hagan is working to stop them."
The group's annual reports disclose its donors, but the 2014 report may not be available for a few years. Its most recent annual report is from 2011.
The liberal Southern Alliance has only run ads in North Carolina but the buy is part of a national effort by environmental organizations, said David Di Martino, a consultant for the groups. Other nonprofits have bought ads supporting Sen. Susan Collins, the moderate Maine Republican, and Democrats running for Senate seats in Iowa and Michigan. The groups are coordinating "to ensure that we're getting the most bang out of the buck," Di Martino said.
The North Carolina Environmental Partnership, a coalition of nine environmental groups formed last month, has reserved more than $1.1 million of ads attacking four Republican state senators — three of whom are facing close races this fall — for their support for fracking. The coalition's two largest members, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Southern Environmental Law Center, footed the bill for the ads. They do not disclose their donors.
While conservative dark-money groups, such as Real Jobs NC, have shoveled money into attack ads targeting North Carolina state senators in recent years, liberal groups haven't done so until now.
"I've never seen the liberal side of the equation do anything like this," said Brad Crone, a Democratic political and public relations consultant in Raleigh, N.C.
Bob Keefe, spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, wouldn't confirm how much the coalition has spent.
"We basically all agreed to not disclose how much we're spending," he said. "But it's a lot."
Although conservative groups have not booked ads in state legislature races so far, two groups — the North Carolina Chamber of Commerce and a super PAC called Justice for All NC — have also reserved ads mentioning candidates in the state Supreme Court races, almost $650,000 worth so far.
What about laws regarding cruelty to animals?
There is a law that disallows cruelty to animals. A friend, Minoo Joshi, was a purser with an airline company. He often arrived home late at night. He stayed on the second floor. His first-floor neighbour loved cats. He left food for stray cats on the small landing. One night, a cat bit Minoo. He, in turn, brought out his air gun and fired a shot at the cat; the cat ran away. Minoo was arrested for cruelty to animals. The maximum fine was Rs400. The poor guy spent the later years of his life attending courts, until he died in an accidental fire.
It is equally illegal to feed animals in public places. Dogs, especially, are known to bite children, in the frenzy to get at the food ahead of others. Pigeons, when fed with grain, roost in nearby rafters. It is said that their excreta carries meningitis germs. True or not, the stuff stinks and attracts cockroaches which then invite lizards. For those who do not believe this: visit our home for a tour. All of us live behind nylon nets.
But what about horses? In Connecticut, a horse bit a two-year-old kid. The enraged father sued the farm-owner. The court held for the farm, not for the toddler with the permanent scar. The judgement was appealed.
You be the judge.
What about laws regarding cruelty to animals?
The child’s father had gone to the farm of his own free will and voluntarily took the child close enough to the horse, to be bitten. The father was, in fact, petting the horses. The horse-owners said that the animal was so docile that this had never happened before. In fact, it was the horse’s first bite.
The appellate court reversed the lower court’s order. At this point, readers are taken back to another article in Moneylife that discussed the ‘wild beast theory’. If a person knows, or is sufficiently aware, of a POSSIBLE mishap occurring, IT IS THE OWNER’S DUTY TO SAFEGUARD OTHERS. The duty of care and negligence dovetailing into one.
Why did the appellate court so decide? We quote, “… held that horses belonged to a species naturally inclined to do mischief or be vicious. More specifically, (the court) held that there was an issue of fact as to whether horses as a class possess a natural tendency to bite, possibly causing injury to a person, even if a particular horse had not previously displayed that propensity. Thus, it was error for the trial court to dismiss the lawsuit…”
The matter went to the Supreme Court. It agreed with what we have always maintained. That, if there is a malady, there needs be a remedy.
We quote again, “After a thorough analysis of the substantive law governing liability caused by domestic animals, the (Supreme) Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision and held that horses belong to a species naturally inclined to do mischief or be vicious.” The Court concluded that, as a matter of law, the owner or keeper of a horse has an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to prevent injuries that are foreseeable, regardless of whether the animal had previously caused an injury or was roaming at large. Accordingly, the owner or keeper may be held liable for negligence if an injury is the result of not taking adequate steps. It also said that, under the circumstances, the minor’s injury was foreseeable because horses do have a natural propensity to bite (So, the immediate solution is to have a warning displayed. And keep your dog on a tight leash or stop feeding cats where they may bite. People are becoming aware of their rights. And the courts are backing them.
Bapoo Malcolm is a practising lawyer in Mumbai. Please email your comments to [email protected] or [email protected]