Cut and paste from Telegraph,

https://www.telegraphindia.com/business/tata-boardroom-clash-prompts-india-inc-to-rethink-of-shareholder-protections/cid/2181652#goog_rewarded

Tata boardroom clash prompts India Inc to rethink shareholder protections
The governance clash is raising the alarm among Indian companies about how far a board can go to overrule a majority shareholder

“The stand-off at Tata Sons is a result of the Tata Trusts’ limited board representation (of two members),” said Umakanth Varottil, a professor at the National University of Singapore who specialises in corporate law and governance.
“That combination of majority ownership, limited board representation and divided nominee directors is unlikely to be replicated in many companies,” he added.

No argument that it is basically your opinion regarding losing or gaining credibility, when it comes to seeing the cjp in a positive light

Bringing up a conversation that you seem to not have understood even till now, shows how deep your problem of grasping viewpoints you cant fit into your framing is, another a ‘you’ problem.

its prof.RV on indian economy, bit dated and often repeated, but lively..

Yeah. Right.

The ‘real world’. Where the Goan inquisition and “St Francis’ invoke a whole bunch of stammering.

The 71 Bangladesh war has an interesting parallel to the 67 Israeli war.
Pakistan very famously did a pre-emptive strike – operation Ghengiz, attempting to replicate Israelis pre emptive strike in 67 which took out nearly the entire Egyptian air force (300 air craft, 18 bases, 100 pilots).

It was sound PK strategy, even if not very imaginative, but failed to account for the difference in tactical execution with the Israelis.
 
Meanwhile, it isn’t clear what IG and the IAF were doing. In the midst of an imminent war, the Western command radar did not spot any planes, they had no reconnaissance, the entry was unchallenged. 
About the best one can say is they had some intel and the sense to keep the planes in hardened concrete hangars.
After the runways were hit, and repaired same day, they executed good tactical ops with very effective counter strikes.

This brings us back to the question. For all the vaunted TNT, the Pakistanis are not culturally that different. Somewhat like the Arabs though they keep thinking of themselves as a ‘martial’ race (even though, they and the Arabs were just as colonised as peninsular India).

The British put this exploitive idea in their heads with their caste classification, allowing them to twirl their moustaches happily so that the fetters felt comfortable.

There’s something in this that I can’t quite put my finger on. I think it’s a tendency to rush straight into a problem and try to overwhelm it. That used to be all brave and macho but does not work with modern warfare, which is about planning, strategy, execution, but most importantly a flexibility around tactics.

Cavalry charges were the pre eminent form of war right up until massed gunfire.

Incisive and excellent comment. Surely you can write a post? Clearly you have a very good insight on the topic.

Professor Harbans Mukhia remembers Dr. K.M. Ashraf

https://thepeshawarreview.substack.com/p/legends-of-a-guru

This may be the first time I’ve ever agreed with any of your comment and that too in its entirety lol.

But this is where the consensus frays – From an Indian pov, Pakistan is subcontinental Israel – colonial outpost designed to keep this civilization divided and down. Of course, the big difference being it is not a country of European settlers so you don’t get the same level of support but the nature of the problem remains the same.

Superb comment.