Editorial 1 : Jewels in whose crown?
Introduction: Greece has asked UK to return the famous Parthenon Sculptures, which has created a rift between two significant European nations. Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis has accused his British counterpart Rishi Sunak of cancelling a scheduled meeting in London, where Greece’s persistent demand to return the 2,500-year-old sculptures.
What is the Parthenon Sculpture and why Greece is demanding it back?
- The Parthenon Sculptures, also known as the Elgin Marbles, are a collection of classical Greek sculptures that were removed from the Parthenon in Athens, Greece, by British diplomat Lord Elgin in the early 19th century. The sculptures have been on display at the British Museum in London since 1817.
- In 2021, Greece's Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis made a formal request to the British Museum for the return of the Parthenon Sculptures. Mitsotakis argued that the sculptures were "symbols of the eternal spirit of the Greek people" and that their return would be "a gesture of reconciliation and friendship" between Greece and the United Kingdom.
The debate on sculpture’s return
The debate over the Parthenon Sculptures is a complex one, with strong arguments on both sides.
- Those who support the return of the sculptures argue that they are a vital part of Greece's cultural heritage and that their removal from Athens was an act of cultural imperialism. They also argue that the sculptures would be better cared for and studied in Greece, where they could be seen by more people.
- Those who oppose the return of the sculptures argue that they are best preserved and studied in London, where the British Museum has the expertise and resources to care for them properly. They also argue that the sculptures are part of a universal cultural heritage and that they should be accessible to people from all over the world.
Other such demands from nations across world
- The Parthenon Sculptures episode is, of course, only the latest amid growing demands for repatriation of antiquities to their rightful owners by nations colonised by European powers.
- In 2009, Egypt had demanded that France return painting fragments from the tomb of Tetaki.
- Nigeria has long asked for a return of the Benin Bronzes from the British Museum.
- India’s demand of Kohinoor diamond from British Monarchy.
The question of rightfulness is a double-edged sword
- The history of some artifacts passed many hands and it is really not possible to know the real ownership of some of the artifacts. For example:
- History records Nadir Shah’s invasion of Delhi and seizure of the Kohinoor from the Mughals.
- It reached the British after the Anglo-Sikh wars, ostensibly as an act of reparation.
- Competing claims of ownership diffuse the injustices of colonial appropriation and threaten to derail conversation around them.
Way forward
The way forward for countries to get their artifacts back from imperial nations:
- Increased dialogue and cooperation between countries: Countries need to be willing to engage in dialogue and cooperation with each other in order to find solutions to the repatriation of artifacts. This could involve setting up international forums or commissions to discuss the issue and develop guidelines for the repatriation of artifacts.
- Greater recognition of the cultural significance of artifacts: Imperial nations need to recognize the cultural significance of artifacts to their countries of origin. This means understanding that these artifacts are not just objects of art or historical interest, but are also important symbols of a country's cultural identity and heritage.
- More equitable distribution of cultural resources: There is a need for a more equitable distribution of cultural resources around the world. This means that imperial nations should be willing to share their collections of artifacts with other countries, and that countries should be willing to provide financial and other resources to help other countries preserve and care for their cultural heritage.
Conclusion: The question of troubled provenance apart, countries such as France have begun recognising the empire’s role in this displacement and initiated a process of limited transfer or loans. Decolonising the museum might not be entirely possible, but accountability and a willingness to come to the table might be a good starting place.
Editorial 2 : IBC loose ends
Introduction: Outcomes under bankruptcy code continue to fall short of expectations. Measures are needed to improve its functioning.
What is Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code?
In 2016, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code ushered in a new resolution framework that has also helped reset credit relations by strengthening the position of both financial and operational creditors.
What is the mandate of the IBC?
- When insolvency is triggered under the IBC, there can be two outcomes: resolution or liquidation.
- All attempts are made to resolve the insolvency by either coming up with a restructuring or new ownership plan and if resolution attempts fail, the company’s assets are liquidated.
What is the timeframe for completion of the exercise under the code?
- Companies have to complete the entire insolvency exercise within 180 days under the IBC.
- The deadline may be extended if the creditors do not raise objections on the extension.
- For smaller companies including startups with an annual turnover of Rs 1 crore, the whole exercise of insolvency must be completed within 90 days.
Who regulates the IBC proceedings?
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has been appointed as a regulator and it can oversee these proceedings.
- IBBI has 10 members; from Finance Ministry, Law Ministry and the Reserve Bank of India.
Performance of IBC
- At the end of September, 7,058 cases had been admitted under the IBC framework.
- Another 26,000 applications, where the underlying defaults have been around Rs 9.33 lakh crore, have been withdrawn even before their admission under IBC according to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India.
- Of the cases that have been admitted, roughly half continue to be initiated by operational creditors, underlining that the code does provide these firms, which tend to be small and medium enterprises, a tool to help recover their dues.
- Of the total cases that have been admitted so far, 1,053 have been closed on appeal/review/settled, while another 947 have been withdrawn under section 12A, due to possibly a settlement with the applicant or creditors.
- Resolution plans have been approved in 808 cases, while liquidation has commenced in 2,249 cases.
- In the cases yielding resolution plans, creditors have realised only Rs 3.15 lakh crore or 31.85 per cent of their admitted claims, suggesting that realisations have been lower than expected.
- The liquidation values have been even lower, at only 6.5 per cent of the claims.
- However, around 77 per cent of the cases that have ended up in liquidation were earlier with the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and/or defunct.
- As per IBBI, in most of these cases, the economic value had diminished — their asset values were pegged at only 7 per cent of outstanding debt.
- The shift to a time-bound resolution process was one of the most appealing aspects of IBC.
- As per the World Bank Ease of Doing Business report 2016, it used to take 4.3 years to resolve insolvency in India.
- While the time taken under IBC is lower, it continues to exceed the expected timelines.
- The average time taken for closure of the resolution process is around 653 days.
- In cases that are ongoing, more than 67 per cent have crossed 270 days.
- In cases of liquidation, 55 per cent have crossed two years.
How to improve Insolvency and Bankruptcy proceedings in India?
The potential measures to improve insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings in India:
- Reduce the time taken for insolvency resolution: The current timeline of 180 days for insolvency resolution, with a possible extension of 90 days, is still considered lengthy. Efforts should be made to streamline the CIRP process further to reduce the overall time taken for insolvency resolution.
- Strengthen the role of the Resolution Professional (RP): The RP plays a pivotal role in the CIRP process, and their expertise and efficiency are crucial for the successful resolution of insolvency cases. Steps should be taken to enhance the selection, training, and compensation of RPs to ensure their competency and effectiveness.
- Address operational creditor issues: Operational creditors often face challenges in recovering their dues in insolvency proceedings. Mechanisms should be put in place to prioritize and protect the interests of operational creditors, ensuring they receive due consideration in the resolution process.
- Enhance cross-border insolvency cooperation: India's insolvency framework should be aligned with international standards and frameworks to facilitate cross-border insolvency proceedings and cooperation. This would be particularly beneficial for multinational companies with operations in India.
- Improve NCLT infrastructure and capacity: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is the adjudicating authority under the IBC. To effectively handle the increasing caseload, the NCLT's infrastructure and capacity should be strengthened, including increasing the number of benches and improving case management systems.
- Address legal and procedural issues: The IBC has undergone several amendments since its inception, and there may still be legal and procedural issues that need to be addressed. Regular reviews and updates to the IBC should be conducted to ensure it remains relevant and effective.
- Raise awareness and education: There is a need for greater awareness and education about the IBC among businesses, creditors, and the general public. This would help in understanding the provisions of the code and ensuring its effective implementation.
Conclusion: While several steps have been taken to tighten the code and improve its functioning over the years, more needs to be done.