Here we have covered both the editorials of 21 feb 2018 :
A deeper malady: on PNB fraud case
Barely days after news of the ₹11,500 crore fraud at Punjab National Bank broke, another but very different scam of a ₹3,695 crore wilful loan default has surfaced (सामने आया।). The Central Bureau of Investigation has registered a case against three directors of a Kanpur-based company, and others including unknown bank officials, on allegations (आरोपों/अभिकथन) of cheating a consortium (संघ/सह-व्यवस्था) of banks by siphoning (वसूलना/अपनाना) off loans disbursed (चुकाना/क़ीमत देना) to the company. If the two cases must be compared, the similarities lie in the breakdown in internal control mechanisms and in the supervisory (निरीक्षणात्मक/पर्यवेक्षी)failure at the banks. In the case of Kanpur-based Rotomac Global, it had availed credit limits from a consortium of seven public sector banks. Given that the facility was made available from 2008 (in the case of Bank of Baroda, which filed the complaint with the CBI), and was used for a range of seemingly (मालूम होता है/उचित रूप में) unrelated transactions including the import of gems and jewellery and the export of wheat (गेहूं), it is especially surprising that it took such a long time for this diversion of funds to surface as a criminal complaint. It is one thing for individual (व्यक्तिगत/विशिष्ट) bank officials to have been complicit in the commission of frauds as has been claimed in the PNB case but quite another for supervisory cadre and risk detection (खोलना/पता लगाना) and management systems to have delayed taking remedial (उपचारात्मक) action as they did in the Rotomac case. It took too long for the criminal complaints to be filed against the defaulters. On Bank of Baroda’s website Rotomac was listed as its top defaulter almost a year ago; the account had been classified as an NPA in 2015.
In the case of the Punjab National Bank fraud, letters of undertaking were issued bypassing (दरकिनार) the bank’s reporting system; the three-tier audit failed to detect the malfeasance (भ्रष्टाचार/जुर्म). In contrast, BoB was not oblivious (बेख़बर/भुलक्कड़) of the Rotomac default and took unconscionably long to act. It is important to determine why the Reserve Bank of India, which is vested with keeping an eye on bank books, was unable to take prompt corrective action in this case. Rather than routinely (नियमित रूप से)reiterate (दोहराना/फिर कहना) the importance of strengthening(वृद्धि/बढ़ाव ) corporate governance in public sector banks and promising to infuse greater professionalism (व्यावसायिकता), transparency and accountability, it is time the Centre, the major shareholder in these institutions (संस्थानों/समाज), takes serious steps to translate this intent (इरादा/हेतु) into action. Any improvement in the functioning of the PSBs cannot be undertaken without empowering (सशक्त बनाने/अधिकार देना) bank managements and securing their independence from political interference while enforcing strict accountability for lapses. To restore the depositor’s faith in the banking system, the government, the RBI and the judiciary must ensure that prompt and salutary (हितकर/लाभदायक) action is taken. The economic cost of doing otherwise is too painful to imagine.
Synonyms: conglomerate, consortium, corporation, gang, holding company
Synonyms: commonly, consistently, customarily, frequently, generally
Antonyms: infrequently, never, rarely, seldom, sometimes
Synonyms: healthful, aiding, beneficial, fit, good
Synonyms: echo, renew, repeat, restate, ditto
Antonyms: take back
The value of life: on U.S. gun ownership regulation
After decades (दशकों/दशाब्दी) of campaigning (चुनाव प्रचार) to bring about common-sense gun control in the U.S., it appears that a group of children may succeed where even Presidents have failed. Following Friday’s deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida, in which 17 people including 14 students were killed, survivors (जीवित बचे लोगों/दूसरे कीअपेक्षा) जीनेवाला took to the streets in a relatively rare show of anger directed at President Donald Trump and Congress for not doing more to promote gun control. Their courage (साहस/पराक्रम) is to be doubly applauded (सराहना/प्रशंसा करना), for they appear undaunted (निडर/साहसी) by the depressing (निराशाजनक/उदास)history of America’s 227-year-old lethal love affair with guns, built on the constitutional right to bear arms, overlaid with a myriad (बेशुमार/बहुत बड़ी संख्या) state-level laws that make gun ownership easy. After the devastating (भयानक/विध्वंसकारक) school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in December 2012, a tearful Barack Obama, then President, mooted legislation to tighten the regulation of gun ownership. That was speedily seen off by conservative lawmakers. With the failure of all 17 of his attempts to bring common-sense gun control to the floor of Congress, his parting gift to the incoming Trump administration was to close loopholes (बचाव का रास्ता/कमियां) in gun laws through executive actions that would expand background checks for gun ownership and boost funding for federal (संयुक्त/संघीय) enforcement agencies. Mr. Trump nullified those actions in February 2017, as he had promised to do during his election campaign.
The fact that school shootings do not lead to gun control reform shows how powerful the gun lobby is. The National Rifle Association contributes over $4 million each year to lawmakers in Washington to ensure their agenda is prioritised (प्राथमिकता के आधार पर), and sizeable dark flows of pro-gun money likely reach Congress under cover of the Citizens United campaign finance law of 2010. But that is a drop in the ocean for most Congressmen and Senators, whose individual (व्यक्ति)coffers (सम्पत्ति/ख़ज़ाना) can exceed $10 million. The immense (अत्यधिक/बहुत बड़ा) pressure for gun rights thus goes beyond funding. It stems in greater measure(मात्रा) from the pro-gun lobbies’ ability to mobilie (जुटाने की क्षमता) large numbers of voters, who feel strongly about the Second Amendment, whether for personal security, to defend themselves from the “tyranny (अत्याचार)उत्पीड़न) of government” or to hunt wildlife. This ingrained (आरोपित हुआ/पुख्ता)“gun culture” is exacerbated (तीव्र करना/ख़राब करना) by the light-touch regulation of gun ownership, which leads to more mass shootings. While the U.S. has 270 million guns — more than 112 per 100 people — and has had 90 mass shooters during 1966-2012, no other country has more than 46 million guns or 18 mass shooters. A 2015 study found that across countries, after controlling for mental health, racial diversity, video game playing and baseline (आधारभूत/आधार रेखा) levels of societal violence, it was the extent of gun ownership that determined the odds of mass shootings. At its heart, the U.S. debate on gun laws will only turn on the fundamental value attributed (आरोपित करना) to human life. At the present juncture, it is clear what that value is.