Best of BS Opinion: A test of how power becomes credible
September 14, 2026 / /
It is easiest to recognise power in its visible forms: A summit declaration, a vast business empire, a state’s ability to borrow, a regulatory certificate, or a billionaire’s fortune. But power lasts only when the underlying institutions are credible. Without transparency, accountability and trust, declarations become theatre, legacy structures become constraints, borrowing becomes fragile, compliance becomes doubtful, and wealth becomes insulated from consequence.
Our first editorial today, “Regulatory clarity”, looks at Tata Sons. The RBI’s rejection of Tata Sons’ application to deregister as a core investment company has cleared the way for its listing. This will mark a significant break from the Tata group’s legacy structure, especially because Tata Trusts, with a 66 per cent stake, may lose much of its veto power over key decisions once the Articles of Association are recast. But the editorial argues that greater transparency, oversight and governance are necessary for a group of this scale. Listing could also improve capital allocation, provide liquidity, help the Shapoorji Pallonji group, and ultimately strengthen rather than weaken the group’s philanthropic commitments.
The second editorial, “Showy summitry”, turns to the 18th Brics summit in New Delhi. The meeting exceeded modest expectations by producing the New Delhi Declaration, despite tensions among members over the US-led war in West Asia, Iran, the UAE, Russia and Ukraine. India’s diplomatic success lay in keeping the language neutral and preventing the grouping from acquiring a sharply anti-West tone. The summit also enabled a meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping, raising hopes of a reset in India-China ties. But the editorial is careful not to confuse spectacle with substance. Brics remains a large and diverse grouping in search of a clearer objective, and the real test of India-China engagement will lie in what happens on the border, trade and investment.
Ajay Shah’s column, “Fiscal roots of national power”, makes the institutional argument most directly. Liberal democracies won major conflicts not only because they had larger economies, but because they could borrow at scale in moments of crisis. That capacity depends on low baseline debt and the trust of voluntary lenders. India, Shah argues, lacks both. Its public finance system relies heavily on financial repression, while chronic primary deficits keep the state close to its fiscal limits even in normal times. A capable state needs public finance that earns trust before crisis arrives.
Sunita Narain’s column, “Plastic regime needs transparency”, applies the same test to environmental regulation. Official data says India has recycled 17 million tonnes of plastic packaging waste since the extended producer responsibility regime came into force in 2022. Yet plastic remains visible in drains, dumps, rivers and cities. The problem lies in verification, self-reported targets, opaque audits, closed data and incentives that may reward certificates rather than actual recycling. A regulatory market without transparency cannot command public confidence.
“The rise and fall of an Epstein financier”, Jonathan Mahler’s review of William D Cohan’s Money to Burn looks at Wall Street. Leon Black’s rise, disgrace and continuing wealth show how private financial power can survive reputational collapse when structures remain opaque and accountability is limited.
Scale, office and wealth, these pieces show, do not make power credible; the institutions behind these do.
Posted in Beauty
