Second Opinion: Ashwani Mahajan
On the night of July 29 a blink-and-miss variety ticker was seen flashing across most English language news channels, reporting that the World Trade Organization's Mini Ministerial talks had failed. It is said that the Indian delegation to the talks had demanded for a significant reduction in subsidies, especially trade distorting subsidies, being given by developed countries to their agricultural sector. The talks failed because these nations were not ready to give in to the demands of India and its supporters. Neither were they prepared to accept special security measures (SSMs) for the security of farmers in developing countries.
The WTO came into existence on January 1, 1995. Prior to that world trade was guided through the General Agreement on Trade and Tariff (GATT). GATT was constituted in order to give international trade a boost, which was disrupted during the second World War. Eight rounds of talks were held under GATT.
During the course of the eighth round four issues suvh as agriculture, services, investment, and intellectual property were taken up. It was now decided that countries would be bound by the decisions taken under GATT. A dispute settlement mechanism was also put in place. All this was included in a document called the Final Agreement and thus the World Trade Organization was born. Since then six Ministerial Conferences have been organised by the WTO. The initial meetings went off 'smoothly' and the wishes of the developed countries were fulfilled. But the developing countries were forced to reduce trade tariffs and remove quantitative restrictions on imports.
In this context the Indian delegation's courage to stand firm despite being pressurised by the developed world is commendable. Even before the talks started on July 21, pressure was being put on India to concede to the wishes of the US, the EU and other developed nations. They wanted India and other developing countries to allow free import of agricultural commodities. But if that happens the livelihood of millions of our farmers will be at risk, which in turn will hamper our food security. Thus, India should remain steadfast and not cave in to the WTO's demands, which is using trade as a potent weapon to colonise developing countries for neo-imperialists such as the US and the EU.
1. The Chairman of satyam has admitted that he has been supported by Audtior
2. The Big 4 is found in every financial debacle all over world. Due to having misleading all their clients. Many companies are ruinned and the process is still going on.
3.They advertise and associated in differnt businesses in India. All business carries same business Symbol. This is ban to other chartered accountats practicing in India.
4. Paying extra fees to them and money goes to foreign which is not digestable. Indian CA should get work and on other hand all companies/client will also get benefit of lower costing with better resources.
Somebody from us should go to president of ICAI to ban big 4 in India. ICAI should take immediate action against the adverse remarks against the Auditor without waiting much.
All chartered accountants without big 4 under Roof of ICAI can better perform then these big 4. For debacle of satyam , the satyam management has accepted the guidelines of Chartered Accountant on which no body should rely atleast for future. The more seriousness is towards audtior and atleast we must forgive from our side to the chairman of Satyam if he co-operates in bringing out the auditors truthness before the nation.