The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) will succeed once its focus has changed from “securing the borders” to “delivering to citizens”. The National Democratic Alliance started the project mainly to differentiate between citizens and aliens, launching it from border districts. The United Progressive Alliance seems to have understood that the real benefit of the project will come when it starts from within the country and then spreads outwards. The second aspect that can make it a success will be to make it attractive for people to get registered on their own, instead of the state chasing them. Once various agencies start demanding their identification number, citizens will hurry to get registered.
— Anand Gupta
I do not agree with the analysis of the banking sector by Madan Sabnavis in his article “An inadequate capital measure” (Mint, 9 September). As a banking analyst, I can’t agree with how he relates capital adequacy ratio (CAR) and non-performing assets (NPAs).
Sabnavis has taken the gross NPA number and CAR, which includes the capital and disclosed reserves. By disclosed reserves it is fair to assume that they include the balance from the profit and loss account. If one goes through some basics, the banks deduct some money from the gross NPAs to arrive at net NPAs and the money deducted is charged to the profit and loss account to arrive at net profit level, which is then added on to the disclosed reserves.
So taking the gross NPA number is, I believe, misleading and not correct. He might have chosen the net NPA ratio to establish his argument. But in that case his self-made “knock-out ratio” will be much less because the net NPA figures for most banks are approximately 10-40% of the gross NPA numbers. So the final outcome and views will clearly differ if he had taken the appropriate input for his calculation.
Having said that, we need to know that banking involves risks and if one takes net NPAs as a yardstick, Sabnavis’ knock-out ratio will be below 10% for most banks, which I believe is a normal thing.
— Jai Prakash Toshniwal
Your editorial on the strike by Jet Airways pilots (“Jet Airways’ labour lost”, Mint, 11 September) is myopic. Are you saying that the relatively well-paid give up their right to express themselves through a collective body? Don’t they have the right to express themselves through such bodies? Chairman of Jet Airways Naresh Goyal, along with other owners and senior executives of private airlines, just did that recently when they threatened to go on strike. You should have pointed out that an industry of this size and our economy in general will have to deal with various unions. To argue against such formations is retrograde.
While 85% of India’s population is without any form of healthcare, and there is dire need for affordable healthcare, a national scheme is not the answer (Gulzar Natarajan, “A national healthcare scheme”, Mint, 8 September).
The government already has several schemes to meet the healthcare needs of the poor. But it does not need to provide this “free” health insurance for all Indians. There is a large and expanding middle class in India, which can well afford an annual premium for healthcare insurance. This segment of the population does not need the government’s help to pay for its healthcare expenses. In fact, if the government were to pay for their healthcare, these citizens will likely not have the incentive to remain healthy. If they are paying for their own care they are more likely to make lifestyle changes that keep them healthy and decrease the onset of sickness.
It is competition that will reduce the cost of healthcare, not a national health insurance scheme.
— Mandeep Maini