• The issue of One Rank One Pension was discussed during the recent parliamentary panel meet.
• The review of One Rank One Pension (OROP) has been pending since June 2020.
• certain loopholes need to be fixed in the scheme.
• A committee has been constituted to look into the issue by the Defence Ministry to work out the modalities of the revision but no announcement has been made on when the revision would be undertaken.
One Rank One Pension:
• OROP implies uniform pension to personal based on rank and length of service, irrespective of the date of retirement.
• The Government had implemented the long pending demand of veterans in November 2015 and as per the notification, it is to be revised every five years.
• Armed Forces Personnel who had retired till 30th June 2014 are covered under it.
• The implementation of the scheme was based on the recommendation of the Koshiyari committee.
• Before OROP, ex-servicemen used to get pensions as per the Pay Commission recommendations of the time when they had retired.
• Uttar Pradesh and Punjab have the highest number of OROP beneficiaries.
Arguments in Favor:
• The shorter period of service of military officers: The defense personnel is made to retire at the age of 33 to 35 years due to the necessity of maintaining a younger army whereas the officer of the civil side retires at the age of 60 years.
• It is the moral obligation of the state to look after the welfare of the soldiers who served the nation.
• A lowered pay status compared to the civilian counterparts with less period of service affects the morale of forces.
• The issues, veterans emphasize, are justice, equity, honor, and national security.
• Financial hurdle as the estimated time cost of implementation is 8000-10000 crore rupees.
• This will increase with every further revision of salary.
• Expenditure on arrears would be around 10000 crore rupees.
• Lead to demands from other army personnel like CRPF, CISF, etc.
• It is also an administrative challenge due to the lack of records going back to many decades.
The government has recently released a new Public Sector Enterprise Policy.
The New Policy:
• Strategic: Atomic energy, space, defense, trans and telecom, power, petro, coal, other minerals, banking, insurance, and financial services will be classified as strategic sectors.
• Privatization: The remaining companies in strategic sectors will be considered for privatization/merger/closure and non-strategic sectors will be considered for privatization, where feasible or closure.
• In strategic sectors, the minimum presence of existing companies at the holding level will be retained under government control.
• The strategic sectors have a limited number of players restricting it to a maximum of four public sector enterprises of the holding nature.
• Having a robust disinvestment policy would be critical for the government at a time when it needs resources to bridge the fiscal gap and for spending on key policy initiatives to battle the Covid-19 pandemic affected economy.
• Though Sri Lanka armed conflict ended in 2009, the entrenched impunity for the deaths of tens of thousands of Tamil civilians has kept the conflict on the Human Rights Council agenda ever since.
• The Tamil minority in Sri Lanka was facing persecution under the rule of the nationalist Sinhalese government.
• The rift also fuelled Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam-led extremism in the nation which engulfed the nation into years of civil war.
• The previous Sri Lankan government, headed by the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, had co-sponsored the resolution in 2013.
• It had called for accountability in alleged war crimes committed by the government forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam during the final phase of the near-three-decade-long civil war in May 2009.
• The current government, led by Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna, has officially withdrawn from the resolution.
• Participatory notes of Overseas Derivative Instruments tend to raise the hackles of the regulators.
• Outstanding Participatory notes hitting a 31-month high in November is likely to have caused considerable consternation.
What is the Concern?
• These instruments have gained notoriety on account of their rampant misuse before 2008.
• The anonymity provided by P-notes, where the final owner can be concealed from regulators, had led to entities using this route to round-trip funds.
What has the SEBI said?
• There is no real cause for alarm as these instruments account for only 2 percent of FPI assets currently.
Increase in value of outstanding P-notes:
• The rally in stock prices has resulted in inflating the value of existing P-note holdings.
• There has been a great surge in FPI inflows this fiscal, with investments so far exceeding ₹2,42,000 crore.
• Participatory Notes are financial instruments issued by a registered foreign institutional investor (FII) to an overseas investor who wishes to invest in Indian stock markets without registering themselves with the market regulator, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).
• P-Notes are Offshore Derivative Investments (ODIs) with equity shares or debt securities as underlying assets.
• They provide liquidity to the investors as they can transfer the ownership by endorsement and delivery.
• While the FIIs have to report all such investments each quarter to SEBI, they need not disclose the identity of the actual investors.