| |
EDITORIALS
Fundamentally Wrong
Is there any need for the government to sponsor an
investment company?
 If
the crisis in US64-India's largest mutual fund scheme run by
the Unit Trust of India (UTI)-was solely the outcome of a plunging stock
market, it would have been understandable. That clearly isn't the whole
truth. There is enough evidence to suggest that the UTI used the large
amount of funds at its disposal to indulge in a series of doubtful investments.
Whether these were prompted by flights of whimsy, political interference
or corporate lobbying is irrelevant. The fact is that money given on trust
was recklessly-and, in some cases, criminally- misused, in keeping with
the worst tradition of the public sector. For successive generations of
politicians and officials, the uti was just a cash-rich milch cow.
While it is entirely possible that political
compulsions will prompt the Government to bail out the UTI once again
with taxpayers' money, this should not be the last word on the subject.
More fundamental questions need to be raised. Why, for example, should
a UTI, backed by an Act of Parliament, exist in today's deregulated market?
It should either become an autonomous corporation accountable to non-government
shareholders and SEBI or go into voluntary liquidation after ensuring
all its unit holders are repaid-and handsomely. Secondly, the crisis has
demonstrated that the Indian equity markets lack depth. Since there is
too much money chasing too few worthwhile investment options, the UTI
became a favourite hunting ground of well-connected carpetbaggers. To
ensure this doesn't happen, financial institutions (FIs) and mutual funds
should be given a free hand, subject to complete transparency, to invest
in a way that gives its investors the best returns. If investments in
India reach saturation point, there is a compelling case for allowing
FIs and mutual funds to look for global options. After being shortchanged
for decades, the Indian investor deserves a break.
Benefit Of The Doubt
Drugs give cricketers thrills, not unfair advantage over opponents
 Cricket
has given PEOPLE enough reason to believe in the worst of it. The latest
allegations of members of the Indian cricket team using "performance-enhancing
drugs", however, must be held up to the scrutiny of both reason and
science. In the absence of a prohibitory code, overseas cricketers have
flirted with drugs, whether sampling cannabis or trying out cocaine and
heroin. But these were young men looking for thrills, not unfair advantage.
What is unproven is whether performance-enhancing drugs (banned in Olympic
sports) can make a significant difference in cricket. They may improve
stamina but strength without direction will not help a bowler. Intense
concentration without technical discipline will not result in runs. A
steroid works on the body only when coupled with the most intense training,
the kind the Indian team is not known for. Whatever Ajit Agarkar is said
to be on, it's obviously not helping. That a coach, who may or may not
have made the allegations, did not bother to find out what his players
were being given is symptomatic of an old-style approach to running a
team. Indian team trainer Andrew Leipus recommending dietary supplements
is part of the new. The difference between the two is an understanding
of the potential and limits of sports science.
The real scandal is in Indian athletics and
weightlifting. Here drug use is rampant and, worse, practised by cut-price
doctors hired from the now-defunct laboratories of the Soviet bloc. Despite
evidence in the form of skewed results, mishandled injuries, and the latest,
a drug bust in the National Institute of Sports hostel in Patiala, it
hasn't caused a stir. Athletics and weightlifting are relatively fringe
sports in India. Cricket is currency.
|
|
METRO TODAY
Web
Exclusives
