The fundamental understanding of word ‘reform’ is somehow missed out from its original path. Secondly, several of economists, policy analysts understood wrongly by relating
Of course, the economic agents and policy makers ‘intentionality’ is nowhere close.
Mr Rakesh Mohan in his interview says “There are also some overlaps with the Percy Mistry lot, and with Raghu’s crew. So I think these panels were independent. Second, we had international peer reviewers who are amongst the most respected in each of their fields and therefore the process was designed to address the issue of impartiality.”
However, Mr Jaideep Mishra says “the policy debate to chalk out a suitable road-map for financial sector reforms. And here, the CFSA report does not seem to materially differ from the earlier Percy Mistry and the more recent Raghuram Rajan committee reports in terms of direction and scope, although there are differences in terms of nuances and emphasis on the way ahead. ”
And A V Rajwade blames in his BS article that “the political class that relaxed rules and supervision to allow bankers to create the mess they did.”
But who will correct the misunderstanding cycle?