Accountant General Mauritius Car Loan: Fill & Download for Free

Aid to Africa has been very overrated.The amount that Africa has received through multinational aid and conditional loans is “peanuts” compared to Africa’s net loss for the past six decades. Unfortunately, time and time again, African leaders keep making the same mistakes we have been making since the 50’s.To answer your question directly. I will use a few different sources and methods.Between 1960 to 2003: Africa received around $ 600 billion in Aid[1].Between 1970 to 2000: Africa received around $ 400 billion in Aid[2] .In 2009, Dambisa Moyo, one of the Africa’s leading economists published her famous book on aid. Dead Aid: Why is Aid Hurting Africa. It is the most comprehensive book to date about Aid to Africa. She analyzed the whole aid industry going back 60 years since the 50’s.By 2008, Africa had received about $ 1 Trillion dollars in aid packages. Why Foreign Aid Is Hurting AfricaAs of 2018, the aid package to Africa is estimated to be between $ 1.3 trillion to $ 1. 5 trillion dollars.For the past 70 years, Africa has received around $ 1.4 trillion dollars.When will it stop? I don’t know. Many countries have simply no idea of what they are doing. World Bank, IMF, MNCs from developed nations run their economic policies. Instead of looking for homegrown solutions, they keep begging for peanuts. Wasting lots of time and resources, instead of working together on real solutions to alleviating poverty ( trade, business & entrepreneurship, innovation, etc). Free market principles which every other nations have used to get out of poverty.In 2011, Tanzania had to write a little over 2,000 donor reports and had to hold about 1,000 evaluation meetings. Imagine the hours, and the human resources that went through producing these useless reports to “please” and to negotiate with donors?Many countries got independence in the 60’s, a few in the 70’s, and a minority in the 80’s. By early 90’s ( aside of South Africa), all African countries were “independent”.Ethiopia is the only Africa country that was never colonized.The first country to gain independence was Ghana in 1957.The answer to your question is a whooping one trillion and 400 billion US dollars. Aid package to Africa has been about $ 1.4 trillion.What did the money do? What went wrong? Why do we still have poverty in Africa?Why this much money, but Africa is still not developed?According to World Bank classification, we still have 27 lower income countries, 26 middle income countries and only 2 higher income countries. Out of all 55 African countries, only 12 are upper middle and higher income countries.List of African countries by GDP per capitaHigh Income countries (2): [$12,475--above]Equatorial Guinea, and Seychelles.Upper-middle income countries (9): [$ 4,036--$12,475]Angola, Algeria, Botswana, Gabon, Libya, South Africa, Mauritius, Namibia, & Tunisia.Lower-middle income countries (17): [ $ 1,026--$ 4,035]Cameroun, Cape Verde, Republic of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Kenya, Lesotho, Morocco, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, SADR, Sudan, Swaziland, Ghana, Nigeria, and Zambia.Lower income countries (27): [$ 1,025 and below]Benin, Burkinafaso, Burundi, CAR, Chad, Comoros, DRC, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea Conakry, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.The UK and France’s GDP are about $ 2.7 trillion and $ 2.6 trillion ( 2017), respectively. I use these two countries because they colonized more than two thirds of all Africa. Yet, the aid package that Africa has received is half of their today’s GDP.Doing and simplifying the math, 50 countries, $ 1.5 T over a 50 year period. That means that on average, each country received $ 60 million a year. In today’s European football, this amount of money cannot even buy a decent EPL player from one team to another. In his recent transfer window, Cristiano Ronaldo will earn $ 60 million in two years ( after tax).In the traditional aid industry, studies show that only 10-15%[3] of the funds make it to the poor. This means that technically, only $ 6-9 million made it to the actual beneficiairy per country.Is it really that much? Not really.How about all the strings attached it has come with?How about all the problems it has caused? Corruption, stripping African citizens to negotiate with their government for logical development policies and strategy for wealth creation, chronic aid dependency and short-sighted policies to please their donors ( colonial master), etc.When you start to analyze the aid industry, you will be shocked at how much Africa has lost compared to aid package. In the end, it is like when credit card companies charging you 23–30% of interests, but give you 1% cash back. It is very crazy to think that.How much has Africa lost in resources during those times?"Africa is poor" they said!The real answer is hard to know. But I will give it a try. Africa loses money in loss of taxes, transfer pricing, embezzlement of public funds, phony contracts between multinational companies and African corrupt leaders, in mining and oil sectors, etc.Between 2008 and 2018, Africa lost about $ 500 billion alone, according to Thabo Mbeki foundation.Another report by Transparency International reports an average of $ 40 billion a year between 2008 and 2018. That’s $ 400 billion.If you take the average of the two reports, you can say that Africa has lost about $ 450 billion between 2008 and 2018.Going back five decades, how much has Africa lost since 1957? The more unstable a country is, the more MNCs profits by tax evasion, phony contracts, etc. Corruption with dictators in the 70’s and 80’s, and some parts of the 90’s is a good example. They get away easier during political turmoil and instability. Nobody is there to follow up or ask any questions.The following are net loss estimates going back to 1958.From 2008 to 2018: $ 450 billion.$ 45 billion net loss each year.From 1998 to 2008: $ 550 billion.$ 55 billion net loss each year.From 1988 to 1998: $ 350 billion$ 35 billion net loss each year.From 1978 to 1988: $ 350 billion$ 35 billion net loss per year.From 1968 to 1978: $ 250-$300 billion$ 25 billion net loss per year.From 1958 to 1968: $ 250-300 billion$ 25 billion net loss per year.If you compute the net loss for the past 6 decades, you end up with a net loss of $ 2.2 trillion. From 1958 to 1998, I used my estimates, based on the political instability, how much oil reserves were discovered, mineral that were exploited, dictators or former military generals who were in power, and their lack of understanding of the real value and quantity of their mineral and oil resources.In a nutshell, since the 1956, Africa got $ 1.4 trillion in aid package, but as a continent, we lost an estimated $ 2.2 trillion via tax evasion, transfer pricing, corruption, embezzlement of public funds, etc. In addition to many other issues that came with aid, corruption, political antagonism, dehumanization, low self-esteem, Africa lost about $ 800 billion for the past six decades.Didier Champion's answer to Why is Africa so poor?This is a good documentary about why majority of African countries lag behind economically. Majority of African countries are really rich in terms of natural minerals. However, their resources do not benefit local and average citizens. Nigeria, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger, Togo, and so many others.Ever since the beginning of times, the rich exploits the poor.Africa has not been any different. Africa’s resources are poorly managed.Her resources have been stolen for decades. Multinational mining corporations, unpatriotic and corrupted leaders, and many others. It will not stop until Africa develops her own human resources to transform her natural wealth and raw materials. African industry, African companies, African accountants, finance managers, etc.Africa’s wealth is embezzled, mismanaged by stupid African politicians and their so called development partners ( donors), greedy MNCs, and the list can go on. Compared to how much Africa has lost, we should not even be talking about how much aid Africa has received.Where did the aid package go?Out of the $ 1.4 trillion, we should be asking how much made it to those it was supposed to serve? Honestly, I don’t think more than 10% made it to the beneficiary? This would be about $ 140 billion. Ten times the emergency aid that people donated to Haiti in 2010 earthquake. Is Haiti rebuilt 10 years after the $ 13 billion? Where did the money go and who it benefited? These questions should be answered before advocating for more aid in my opinion.What Does Haiti Have to Show for $13 Billion in Earthquake Aid?The real question we should be asking is what has aid done and what do we need to do to get rid of it? The truth of the matter is that aid has been a disaster and will always be.In Africa, it is meant to control Africa, not to help.In Africa, it is meant to neo-colonize Africa. Africa is still neither free nor independent.Read more below on what Africa need to go to get out of the aid trap.Trade and not Aid.Africa has been getting ripped off for decades. We can pump the breaks or the aid train will break loose. It is now or never. If African economies were to work together, by 2025 or 2030, no African country should still be under the tyranny of aid. Can we work together? Your guess is as good as mine. Nope.We just worship Western agencies. Whatever policies they suggest or impose, our politicians go for it. European or American Economists should not be making economic policies for Africa. Remote control economic policies do not work in practice.Those making recommendations have no idea of economic situations on the ground. How effective are economic policies from wealthy economists for developing countries? Those making six figure salaries have no idea how the poor in developing countries live? Those living on less than $ 2 a day.Because of aid and conditional loans, along with aid dependency, lazy African politicians have no choice but to obey their masters ( World Bank, IMF, UNDP, USAID, UKAID, JICA, etc). That’s how the merry go around of shame and mediocrity keep going back and forth from the 60’s till today.Meanwhile, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan are developed nations when their economies were the same with African nations, 50 years ago.Africa need to phase out Aid to be politically and economically independent.Hope this helps.Didier ChampionThanks for asking Marcis Skerbelis.Footnotes[1] Andrew Mwenda: Let's take a new look at African aid[2] Andrew Rugasira made a case for trade, not aid[3] Africa need to phase out Aid to be politically and economically independent.

Can African countries survive without aid?Absolutely. We would better off.Our countries would be forced to trade with one another.Our politicans would start discussing ideas with others, the people.They would have less incentives to hustle to the top for cheap money.They would be more accountable if our taxes were funding the governments.They would be more efficient and effective.Instead of spending years writing useless “donor” reports, and thousands of evaluation meetings, they would actually work on what improves people’s lives.We would be more respected around the world. Nobody respects beggars.More investments would come into Africa. No private equity wants to invest in an aid dependent country. It is a red flag for corruption, bureaucracy, political antagonism, and others.The list is too long. In the following answers, I explain to you with examples and case studies of countries about why we would be better off without aid.The real question we should be asking is whether the West can survive without African resources. At this point, Africa is better off holding off to our mineral resources until we can develop a knowledgeable and skilled human resources to manage our resources instead of MNCs mining companies.Didier Champion's answer to How much aid was given to Africa since 1956?In a nutshell, since the 1956, Africa got $ 1.4 trillion in aid package, but as a continent, we lost an estimated $ 2.2 trillion via tax evasion, transfer pricing, corruption, embezzlement of public funds, etc. In addition to many other issues that came with aid, corruption, political antagonism, dehumazation, low self-esteem, Africa lost about $ 800 billion for the past six decades.African Union Logo.There are two perspectives about this question and there is the unfortunate reality.The first is the side of those who advocate for more aid.The 2nd side is of those who advocate for less aid.The third perspective is looking at the data for the past 6o years and see what aid has done, who it has helped, and decide if Africa is better off without aid.I should start by clarifying that I am an African who worked in the aid industry for about 3 years and worked directly with NGOs for two years. I will share my experiences about what I learned. During my career, I worked with UN agencies, and have been to lots of conferences with World Bank, IMF, UNDP, and similar agencies.I have studied a little bit about how aid to Africa works, who it benefits, and got a glimpse of how African governments manage with aid. Worked with the Ghanain government and quite familiar with aid in my home country in Rwanda.Below is my honest opinion about aid.Aid AdvocatesIf you work for any of the aid agencies, you will defend the aid industry. You will put together graphs and data to justify what your points of view. I have been there, done that. You can read my story here.Everybody is selfish. If you are making a good living in the aid industry, working the UN, Red Cross, Oxfam, World Bank, and others, of course you are going to defend aid. Lots of good hearted people make a decent living working for these organizations. However, when it’s all said and done, the results just don’t lie.There are many forms of aid, you cannot possibly through all of them. Multinational aid, emergency aid, soft loans, charity aid, and so many others.In this article, I am going to focus on multinational aid and soft loans. The links here has focused on NGO aid and charity in general.For the past 60 years, Africa received about $ 1. 4 trillion in aid. However, the people of Africa do not have that much to show for it. Do we? The harcore facts are clear and at this point, you cannot argue with the results.Aid does not work. It has not worked anywhere and will never work. No country has developed because of aid. Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, and others. Why would Africa be different?Apart from international agencies, there is another section of African people who benefits from the aid industry. African politicians, diplomats, and other bureaucrats. They also get the piece of the pie.These politicians see aid as “ free money”. They don’t have to work hard for it. It is the “manu from heaven”. When developed countries or agencies give money to Africa, they expect somethings back. Political control, mineral resource control. fiscal and monetary policy control, and so on.When they provide aid, African politicians don’t waster any time discussing their people about how to move forward. The agencies give direct orders and conditions to access their money, politicians do their best to comply and to get the money.During their transactions, the African people are simply ignored. Our opinions don’t matter that much. We get stripped off of our rights to discuss economic policies that are supposed to improve our lives. Does this seem fair to anybody?Every African you talk to will mention about “leadership” issues in their home country. Why? Because politicians have no business listening to their people. They only listen to agencies who provide advice in the conforts of Geneva, Switzerland or Washington DC, or wherever else in the developed nations.I once attended an “Energy Conference for Africa”, where I met French Economists from the Worlb Banks, working to improve the economies of Senegal, Niger, Benin, and other french speaking countries in West Africa.A good hearted French dude with all the good intentions. He proudly told me he was wokring on the policies to lift those living on less than $ 2 a day out of poverty. Somewhere along our conversations I asked him if he had visited Dakar to get information on the ground. To my surprise, he said “no”. I forgot what city he was from, but I could not imagine how a French person, born and raised in France, could make recommendations to lift the poor out of poverty when he does not even understand anything about the life of the poor in Africa.Trade Not AidThe arguments about aid are very clear and concise. Aid has simply not worked.Why Foreign Aid Is Hurting AfricaYou don’t need that much to prove here. African economies still lag behind other continents. After an estimated $ 1.4 trillion, we only have 11 are upper middle and higher income countries out of all 55 African countries. We have 44 countries still surviving on backward economic models that has never worked anywhere; 27 lower income and 17 middle income countries.List of African countries by GDP per capitaHigh Income countries (2): [$12,475--above]Equatorial Guinea, and Seychelles.Upper-middle income countries (9): [$ 4,036--$12,475]Angola, Algeria, Botswana, Gabon, Libya, South Africa, Mauritius, Namibia, & Tunisia.Lower-middle income countries (17): [ $ 1,026--$ 4,035]Cameroun, Cape Verde, Republic of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Kenya, Lesotho, Morocco, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, SADR, Sudan, Swaziland, Ghana, Nigeria, and Zambia.Lower income countries (27): [$ 1,025 and below]Benin, Burkinafaso, Burundi, CAR, Chad, Comoros, DRC, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea Conakry, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.As an African who cares about Africa’s development, I can attest that Africa would have been better off without aid. We lost huge opportunities in the 80’s. During the 80’s, we had many revolutionary leaders who understood that there was never going to be a political independence without economic independence.Sadly, those leaders were killed, tortured by African puppets, working on behalf of developed nations. Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso, Patrice Lumumba in DRC, Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, and many others. After those wave of good leaders, our textile industries were ignored, efforts to transform raw materials into finished products were halt, African economies stopped trading, with dictarors, and coup d’etats, every country got isolated by their leaders, the unity and a sense of togetherness, which was big in the independence mouvement was divided into pieces. From there, Africa has not recovered.Any Economists know what works. Everybody know what needs to be done and how countries get out of poverty. The fact that Africa is held to a different humiliaring standards is very shameful to me.Access to capital and global markets is how countries develop their economies. Trade, investment, tourism ( in Africa), innovation, entrepreneurship, and the whole principles of a free market capitalism. In my honest opinion, we have nothing to lose anyway.The time to say NO to Aid is NOW or NEVER.President of Rwanda and the head of the African Union, Paul Kagame ( AU Summit, April 2018).For more about aid to Africa, read this answer below.Didier Champion's answer to Why is Africa so poor?Hope this helps.Didier Champion

The Rafale Deal. One More in a Long List.I have known and seen up close ten Prime Ministers of India and can safely testify that except for Dr.Manmohan Singh, all the others collected money. The money was mostly for their parties and some of it inevitably leaked out. Collecting money involves trade-offs. It’s always an investment by the giver for more. Money is the mother’s milk of politics. Without it the political machine that sustains the whole edifice grinds to a halt. Without it the people who mostly man the system by during the propaganda phase to the bringing out the voters phase just will disappear. Thus the main task of a political leader is to raise money. Have no illusions about it. We have a corrupt system.Narendra Modi didn’t get where he did without hush money and slush money. That’s why he figures in the documents were seized in the raids on Birla group companies in 2013, and on Sahara India Group in the national capital region on 22 November 2014. It is alleged that there are noting of Sahara officials that they had paid nine times to Modi between October 2013 and February 2014. It is also alleged documents with Income Tax departments reveal that the Birla group paid Rs 12 crores to Modi, of a total of Rs 25 crores, when he was Gujarat chief minister. (So lets can this nonsense of an incorruptible Prime Minister. They are all men of the world save Manmohan Singh who has a long relationship with people of grease and sleaze to do the job for him.This why defence deals play such a major role in our politics. Like petroleum taxes it makes for easy collection. India’s defence spend is expected to hit $620 billion between fiscal years 2014 and 2022, with half of it going into capital expenditure. According to SIPRI India is the fifth largest military spender (2016) in the world and the largest importer of arms, accounting for 13 percent of the world’s total imports between 2012 and 2016. As much as 70 percent of India’s arms are imported.India’s first big ticket military purchase was for de HavillanD Vampire jets in November 1948. VK Krishna Menon, India’s first High Commissioner in London, engineered this deal. At that time India had UK Sterling reserves and the cost of the Vampires was just deducted from this. In those days of early innocence this deal escaped notice. Here was a relatively large arms purchase made on the quiet and with no options examined. Incidentally the Vampires arrived without firing pins.Following the Vampires, India ordered several hundred Ouragan’s and Mystere fighters from France, Fairchild C-119G Packet transports from the USA, Hawker Hunter fighter- bombers and English Electric Canberra bombers. Most of these were adhoc purchases and it was always speculated that some money changed hand to facilitate these deals. We were in too much of a funk to use them in 1962.Nothing ever came out on these deals, but soon people started noticing a new class of people in New Delhi. These were the early jet setters with homes in London and business interests in India. Their business interests were mostly centered on highly placed bureaucrats, military officers and powerful politicians. It was not long before the names of sons of some leading politicians also began to be heard in this connection.The only deals that didn’t have such intermediaries were the government-to-government purchases from the former Soviet Union. In fact the deals mostly favored India and often we got the latest fighters, like the MIG29 even before the Soviet Air Force got them.The 1970’s also saw the advent of the likes of the Hinduja brothers and soon arms deals became major sources of slush funds for buyers, sellers, middlemen and everyone else in between, who all went laughing all the way to the bank.The first major deal that went this way was the Anglo French Sepecat Jaguar deep penetration strike aircraft in 1978, when Jagjivan Ram was the Defence Minister. In 1979 the Defence Minister’s son Suresh Kumar was in a fracas in the car park of Parliament in a Mercedes Benz car (a rarity those days) with a group of rival Janata Party activists (led by KC Tyagi, now a JDU MP). When the police investigated the matter, it was discovered that the car was registered in the name one SP Chibber, a known arms wheeler-dealer who was reputedly the intermediary for the Anglo-French consortium which produced the Jaguar.This was when the French Mirage 2000 made by Marcel Dassault Avions made its appearance. Rajiv Gandhi, as a newly elected MP in 1982 and Congress general secretary, saw it put through its paces at the Paris Airshow. He was very impressed. He sat in on the official meeting in the ministry of defence that decided to acquire Mirage 2000. Gandhi had just become a qualified Boeing 737 pilot and this was presumably considered expertise enough.In 1985 the Rajiv Gandhi government decided to induct 150 Mirage 2000 fighters into the IAF. The first 40 aircraft were to be imported from France and the rest manufactured by HAL. But the second part of the program was not operationalized despite HAL having invested in an assembly line for Mirage 2000’s. What happened is still a matter of speculation?The next big deal pertained to Bofors about which so much has been written. The merits of the Bofors FH-77 155 mm howitzer are not in question, though ignorant people like Ram Jethmalani tried to paint it as a dud. But what became apparent was irrespective of which howitzer was bought Ottavio Quattrochi and the Hinduja brothers were cut into the deal. The Hinduja influence to peddle went beyond parties. Atal Behari Vajpayee even wrote to then Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao (another Hinduja friend) to exonerate them of all charges and Jethmalani defended them in court.Even if the Rafale was bought in 2014 as it was cleared by the MMRCA tender for far less, $10.5 billion for 126 aircraft, it would have involved under the table payments. These payments typically go three ways. One tranche to the Indian decision-makers, the second to the middlemen and the third to officials in French establishment and manufacturers. French leaders like Giscard D’Estaing, Jacques Chirac and Nicholas Sarkozy have at various times been accused by French media of taking money from the likes of Jean Bedel Bokassa, Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussain.This is a well-honed European practice. We saw it happen in the purchase of Bofors howitzers when Olaf Palme’s Socialist Party too got a cut. Even the then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s son was found to be getting paid in the Saudi deal to buy 220 Tornado fighters. The Guardian published: “The MoD documents reveal that the price of each Tornado was inflated by 32%, from £16.3m to £21.5m. It is common in arms deals for the prices of weapons to be raised so that commissions can be skimmed off the top”.But how much more are we paying for the “new” Rafale’s is important? Air Marshal M Matheswaran (retd.), the officer who led the evaluation of the six fighters bidding for the MMRCA contract said that the Rafale was chosen as it was “an exceptional aircraft in a multirole capability, but was an expensive aircraft”. According to him the MMRCA tender was cleared “for $10.5 billion for 126 aircraft”. The French Air Force acquired its Rafale for Euros 55 million. The Indian Rafale cost more because of India specific weapons package and avionics modificationsIn the Air Staff Qualitative Requirements (ASQR) provided by the Indian Air Force, there were 13 “India-Specific Enhancements” demanded by India in the 126-aircraft MMRCA contract. These included radar enhancements, helmet-mounted display, towed decoy system, low-band jammer and the ability to operate from high-altitude airfields.That these were the same for the 36 Rafale’s ordered by PM Modi is made clear by the joint statement of April 10, 2015 issued by French President Francois Hollande and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which reads: “…that the aircraft and associated systems and weapons would be delivered on the same configuration as has been tested and approved by Indian Air Force…” (There is much noise about the huge costs at which the 36 Rafale’s have been contracted for. The comparable costs of the 126 and 36 deals can only be read when all the costs are factored in.The cost of the new deal for 36 Rafale’s is 3.42 billion euros as the cost of bare planes; 1.8 billion euros for associated supplies for infrastructure and support; 1.7 billion euros for India-specific changes; and 353 million euros for “performance-based logistics support”; with the weapons package of 700 million euros being the extra. What is new here are the performance-based logistics support and weapons package. So take out 1,053 million euros out and you have the comparable cost, which means it is 7.1 billion euros. It appears that the “fiddle” is in India-specific costs, additional infrastructure and support, and performance logistics support. The first MMRCA deal would also have included India-specific specifications, as in the case of IAF’s SU-30 MKIs. For comparison’s sake, the argument can be that 36 Rafale’s now cost 7.1 billion euros, while 126 Rafale’s in 2012 cost 7.75 billion euros.Clearly a huge cushioning has been provisioned to meet the needs of all the parties concerned – the BJP, Anil Ambani and I would suspect even some French officials to preclude any whistle blowing. Look at these other facts now. According to the ministry of company affairs, Reliance Defence Ltd was registered on March 28, 2015. On April 11, 2015 Reliance Defence Ltd becomes the main partner to ensure the 50 per cent offset clause, under which Dassault and other related French parties would invest half the contract value back in the country.Government officials insist that 74 per cent of the offsets will be exported, earning 3 billion euros for the country in the next seven years. The experience with all offsets suggests that this is far-fetched. It has not happened so far. In the AgustaWestland offsets investigators discovered money trails from Mauritius, Singapore, UAE, Tunisia, UK and British Virgin Islands linking the agents and the manufacturer.)I will bet that Reliance Defence, a company registered just 14 days before the Modi-Hollande deal was meant to create a pathway for “offsets” to come back into Indian hands, for politics and business.Incidentally Anil Ambani’s flagship company, Reliance Communications Ltd. (stylized as RCom), just defaulted on a major foreign loan and its future ability to fulfill its Rafale offsets commitment should now be in doubt.Recently, IDBI Bank filed an insolvency application before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) seeking debt resolution of Reliance Naval and Engineering, the shipbuilding Anil Ambani company, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Yet Reliance Defence is so confident about fulfilling its Rafale-related obligations. I suspect there are no obligations. Reliance Defence is just a pass through. It’s not without reason that Anil Ambani is believed to be close to Prime Minister Modi and to some in his close circle.