To download PDF , Click Here
Jan 28, 2015
Swift progress on smart cities
Swift follow-up on MoUs to develop Ajmer, Allahabad, and Visakhapatnam
India and the U.S. have made swift progress on their agreement to develop Ajmer, Allahabad and Visakhapatnam as smart cities by setting up task forces for each city, chosen for its significance to tourism and trade.
The decision on task forces was taken at a meeting on Tuesday between Union Urban Development Minister M. Venkaiah Naidu and visiting U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker.
On Sunday, India and the U.S. had signed three memoranda of understanding (MoUs) for developing the three cities.
Mr. Naidu said Ajmer and Allahabad were chosen because they were centres of religious significance and drew tourists in large numbers.
He said these mid-sized cities had the potential to develop into major hubs for religious tourism. “They need development on various fronts and can be models for the development of other cities.”
Visakhapatnam was picked because it, being a coastal city, had the potential to develop into a tourist destination.
The Minister said Andhra Pradesh (after the bifurcation) was trying to develop itself, and the government was keen to offer aid and logistical support to it.
“Through the MoU, we are trying to quicken the pace of development of Visakhapatnam with its large coast and naval significance,” Mr. Naidu said.
Each of the three task forces would formulate concrete action plans in the next three months.
Each team would have three representatives each from the Centre and respective State governments and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA). These task forces would discuss city-specific features, requirements of the project and how to raise funds.
Ms. Pritzker described Tuesday’s meeting as a “pursuance of the directive of President Barack Obama to work on the economic dimension of strategic and commercial dialogue between him and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.” She also referred to Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu and Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje as ‘go getters’ and said U.S. companies would be asked to seize the opportunities in India.
Mr. Venkaiah Naidu said it was time for both sides to walk the talk by acting quickly and concretising the agreements reached. “The joint statement and the MoUs have raised high hopes about smart cities becoming a reality. President Obama’s visit to India has even furthered these expectations.”
The call on the three cities was taken in September last following Mr. Modi’s visit to the U.S. A draft concept note, prepared by the Ministry of Urban Development, had laid down some markers for the identification of smart cities to be developed in India.
India and the U.S. have made swift progress on their agreement to develop Ajmer, Allahabad and Visakhapatnam as smart cities by setting up task forces for each city, chosen for its significance to tourism and trade.
The decision on task forces was taken at a meeting on Tuesday between Union Urban Development Minister M. Venkaiah Naidu and visiting U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker.
On Sunday, India and the U.S. had signed three memoranda of understanding (MoUs) for developing the three cities.
Mr. Naidu said Ajmer and Allahabad were chosen because they were centres of religious significance and drew tourists in large numbers.
He said these mid-sized cities had the potential to develop into major hubs for religious tourism. “They need development on various fronts and can be models for the development of other cities.”
Visakhapatnam was picked because it, being a coastal city, had the potential to develop into a tourist destination.
The Minister said Andhra Pradesh (after the bifurcation) was trying to develop itself, and the government was keen to offer aid and logistical support to it.
“Through the MoU, we are trying to quicken the pace of development of Visakhapatnam with its large coast and naval significance,” Mr. Naidu said.
Each of the three task forces would formulate concrete action plans in the next three months.
Each team would have three representatives each from the Centre and respective State governments and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA). These task forces would discuss city-specific features, requirements of the project and how to raise funds.
Ms. Pritzker described Tuesday’s meeting as a “pursuance of the directive of President Barack Obama to work on the economic dimension of strategic and commercial dialogue between him and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.” She also referred to Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu and Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje as ‘go getters’ and said U.S. companies would be asked to seize the opportunities in India.
Mr. Venkaiah Naidu said it was time for both sides to walk the talk by acting quickly and concretising the agreements reached. “The joint statement and the MoUs have raised high hopes about smart cities becoming a reality. President Obama’s visit to India has even furthered these expectations.”
The call on the three cities was taken in September last following Mr. Modi’s visit to the U.S. A draft concept note, prepared by the Ministry of Urban Development, had laid down some markers for the identification of smart cities to be developed in India.
Source - The Hindu
[Ed] Dealing with PDS reform
The Shanta Kumar panel’s recommendations are broadly in the right direction
The Shanta Kumar panel to rationalise the National Food Security Act, 2013, has made some sensible suggestions. The law, by placing a huge burden on the exchequer for illusory public gain, requires a sense of balance. The subsidy involved in providing 5 kg of cereals (wheat, rice, coarse grain) per capita per month to 67 per cent of the population at Rs.3/2/1, is conservatively estimated at Rs.1.3 lakh crore. The real problem with the outgo is that it does not help food producers or consumers. National Sample Survey findings tell us that only 6 per cent of farmers, essentially big landlords, sell wheat or paddy to a procurement agency, while the rest are forced to sell below the support price to recover costs as quickly as possible. If most producers are outside the ambit of the procurement network, consumers too rely on the market for more than half their grain needs. NSSO figures say the average Indian requires close to 11 kg per capita of foodgrain a month, more than what the food law sets out to provide. The suggested changes involve providing a larger quantity of grain to fewer people. The food law entails an annual procurement of 61 million tonnes, close to half of which will not find its way to the poor, with leakages at 47 per cent. High procurement without liquidation of stocks has led to inflation, while fair price outlets remain under-stocked. This is clearly an absurd situation.
Even as the proposed moves are broadly in the right direction, they could run into resistance from States. The panel has suggested that subsidised grain (7 kg per person per month for 40 per cent, and not 67 per cent of the population) be given at 50 per cent of the MSP, and not Rs.3 or less. If States such as Tamil Nadu want to continue with their universal PDS, they will have to take a hit of about Rs. 5 per kg just on BPL rice — the difference between the proposed issue price of Rs.10 a kg and the BPL price of Rs. 5 a kg. Besides, they will end up buying more grain at above-poverty-line rates as the proportion of BPL foodgrain available to States will fall. While the proposed steps will enhance grain availability in the market and reduce the incentive for diversion, the cases of Tamil Nadu and Chhattisgarh, where universal PDS has been successful, deserve a specific response. Other States too may want to tailor the scheme to suit regional needs.
The committee has rightly suggested that the Jan Dhan-Aadhaar network be used to transfer subsidy to beneficiaries. Reforms in pricing, targeting and delivery of grain will lead to an annual saving of Rs. 30,000 crore, which should be used for rural infrastructure. Moving to direct transfer is to be welcomed, as there seems no other option to plug leakages and check corruption in the distribution of subsidies.
The Shanta Kumar panel to rationalise the National Food Security Act, 2013, has made some sensible suggestions. The law, by placing a huge burden on the exchequer for illusory public gain, requires a sense of balance. The subsidy involved in providing 5 kg of cereals (wheat, rice, coarse grain) per capita per month to 67 per cent of the population at Rs.3/2/1, is conservatively estimated at Rs.1.3 lakh crore. The real problem with the outgo is that it does not help food producers or consumers. National Sample Survey findings tell us that only 6 per cent of farmers, essentially big landlords, sell wheat or paddy to a procurement agency, while the rest are forced to sell below the support price to recover costs as quickly as possible. If most producers are outside the ambit of the procurement network, consumers too rely on the market for more than half their grain needs. NSSO figures say the average Indian requires close to 11 kg per capita of foodgrain a month, more than what the food law sets out to provide. The suggested changes involve providing a larger quantity of grain to fewer people. The food law entails an annual procurement of 61 million tonnes, close to half of which will not find its way to the poor, with leakages at 47 per cent. High procurement without liquidation of stocks has led to inflation, while fair price outlets remain under-stocked. This is clearly an absurd situation.
Even as the proposed moves are broadly in the right direction, they could run into resistance from States. The panel has suggested that subsidised grain (7 kg per person per month for 40 per cent, and not 67 per cent of the population) be given at 50 per cent of the MSP, and not Rs.3 or less. If States such as Tamil Nadu want to continue with their universal PDS, they will have to take a hit of about Rs. 5 per kg just on BPL rice — the difference between the proposed issue price of Rs.10 a kg and the BPL price of Rs. 5 a kg. Besides, they will end up buying more grain at above-poverty-line rates as the proportion of BPL foodgrain available to States will fall. While the proposed steps will enhance grain availability in the market and reduce the incentive for diversion, the cases of Tamil Nadu and Chhattisgarh, where universal PDS has been successful, deserve a specific response. Other States too may want to tailor the scheme to suit regional needs.
The committee has rightly suggested that the Jan Dhan-Aadhaar network be used to transfer subsidy to beneficiaries. Reforms in pricing, targeting and delivery of grain will lead to an annual saving of Rs. 30,000 crore, which should be used for rural infrastructure. Moving to direct transfer is to be welcomed, as there seems no other option to plug leakages and check corruption in the distribution of subsidies.
Source - Business Line
[Ed] Budget cues
Whether or not we are re-entering a period of current account surpluses, one thing is clear: the rupee and deficits aren’t posing the worries that they did not too long ago. The problem then encompassed the rupee’s external as well as “internal” purchasing power, thanks to double-digit inflation. The RBI was compelled to raise interest rates, on account of high domestic inflation as well as to prevent speculators from “shorting” the rupee. But today, with consumer price inflation easing to around 5 per cent and official forex reserves bolstered to thwart any speculative attacks on the rupee, the RBI has headroom to cut interest rates.
The above turnaround, of course, owes primarily to global crude prices. A nearly 60 per cent decline over the last eight months translates into annual forex savings of over $80 billion. Low oil prices are also the main driver for the disinflationary pressures currently gaining momentum. This virtuous combination — a strong rupee, balance of payments stability and low inflation — is an opportunity that the present government must exploit. The US president’s just-concluded visit, the IMF projecting India’s growth rates to overtake China’s in the next couple of years, a successful Vibrant Gujarat summit and macroeconomic and political stability have all helped significantly raise the country’s economic profile. The global investor community is once again looking at India as a place to do business in. The budget should reinforce this faith by redoubling the government’s commitment to growth, reforms, fiscal consolidation, and a stable and predictable tax regime.
Source - Indian Express
India appeals to DSB over import of U.S. farm products
“WTO Secretariat received today a notice by India announcing its decision to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the panel report in the case ‘India —— Measures concerning the importation of certain agricultural products’,” the WTO said on Monday.
India had in 2012 imposed some prohibitions with regard to importation of various agricultural products from the U.S. because of concerns related to Avian Influenza.
This import prohibition is maintained through India’s Avian Influenza (AI) measures, mainly, the Indian Livestock Importation Act, 1898.
The U.S. contended that India’s AI measures amounted to an import prohibition that was not based on the relevant international standard or on a scientific risk assessment.
Panel view
The dispute settlement panel (DSP) ruled that India’s AI measures were inconsistent with the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement because they were not based on the relevant international standards. India claimed that the panel committed several legal errors in its interpretation and application of numerous articles of the SPS agreement. — PTI
Source - The Hindu
IS threatens to kill hostages within 24 hours
Demands militant’s release; Tokyo ‘working with Amman’ to free the captives
The Islamic State jihadist group threatened on Tuesday to kill a Japanese journalist and a Jordanian pilot within 24 hours unless Amman frees a jailed woman militant.
A video released on jihadist websites shows a picture of Japanese hostage Kenji Goto holding a photograph of Jordanian pilot Maaz al-Kassasbeh.
A voiceover, purportedly by Mr. Goto, warns that Jordan is blocking the Japanese journalist’s release by failing to free Sajida al-Rishawi, a would-be suicide bomber on death row since 2006.
It follows a video released last week in which the group claimed to have beheaded another Japanese hostage, Haruna Yukawa, and said Mr. Goto would be killed next if Rishawi was not freed.
Japan said following the new threat that it was seeking help from Jordan.
“The government in this extremely difficult situation has been asking for assistance from the Jordanian government towards securing Goto’s early release,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga told reporters.
Moments after the new video appeared, Mr. Goto’s mother Junko Ishido said: “I think the government should do whatever it can do”.
“Kenji does not hold any animosity toward the Islamic State. He went to the Islamic State out of his extreme concern for Mr. Yukawa,” she told Japanese media.
Earlier Tokyo said it was working with Jordan to free both Mr. Goto and Mr. Kassasbeh.
Both countries are closely cooperating towards the return of each of them to their countries,” Deputy Foreign Minister Yasuhide Nakayama told reporters in Amman.
Jordan’s King Abdullah pledged full cooperation with Japan during a meeting with Mr. Nakayama to ensure Mr. Goto’s release, Tokyo said.
The new video says Goto and Kassasbeh will be killed within 24 hours if Rishawi is not freed, and urges the Japanese government to put pressure on Jordan.
There was no immediate comment from Jordan, a moderate Muslim nation that is one of Japan’s closest diplomatic allies in the Middle East.
On death row
Mr. Kassasbeh was captured by IS on December 24 after his F-16 jet crashed while on a mission against the jihadists over northern Syria.
Rishawi was sentenced to death by a Jordanian court in September 2006 in connection with triple hotel bomb attacks in Amman the previous year that killed 60 people.
IS apparently beheaded Yukawa, a Japanese contractor, last week after a 72-hour deadline for a $200 million ransom passed without payment. — AFP
The Islamic State jihadist group threatened on Tuesday to kill a Japanese journalist and a Jordanian pilot within 24 hours unless Amman frees a jailed woman militant.
A video released on jihadist websites shows a picture of Japanese hostage Kenji Goto holding a photograph of Jordanian pilot Maaz al-Kassasbeh.
A voiceover, purportedly by Mr. Goto, warns that Jordan is blocking the Japanese journalist’s release by failing to free Sajida al-Rishawi, a would-be suicide bomber on death row since 2006.
It follows a video released last week in which the group claimed to have beheaded another Japanese hostage, Haruna Yukawa, and said Mr. Goto would be killed next if Rishawi was not freed.
Japan said following the new threat that it was seeking help from Jordan.
“The government in this extremely difficult situation has been asking for assistance from the Jordanian government towards securing Goto’s early release,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga told reporters.
Moments after the new video appeared, Mr. Goto’s mother Junko Ishido said: “I think the government should do whatever it can do”.
“Kenji does not hold any animosity toward the Islamic State. He went to the Islamic State out of his extreme concern for Mr. Yukawa,” she told Japanese media.
Earlier Tokyo said it was working with Jordan to free both Mr. Goto and Mr. Kassasbeh.
Both countries are closely cooperating towards the return of each of them to their countries,” Deputy Foreign Minister Yasuhide Nakayama told reporters in Amman.
Jordan’s King Abdullah pledged full cooperation with Japan during a meeting with Mr. Nakayama to ensure Mr. Goto’s release, Tokyo said.
The new video says Goto and Kassasbeh will be killed within 24 hours if Rishawi is not freed, and urges the Japanese government to put pressure on Jordan.
There was no immediate comment from Jordan, a moderate Muslim nation that is one of Japan’s closest diplomatic allies in the Middle East.
On death row
Mr. Kassasbeh was captured by IS on December 24 after his F-16 jet crashed while on a mission against the jihadists over northern Syria.
Rishawi was sentenced to death by a Jordanian court in September 2006 in connection with triple hotel bomb attacks in Amman the previous year that killed 60 people.
IS apparently beheaded Yukawa, a Japanese contractor, last week after a 72-hour deadline for a $200 million ransom passed without payment. — AFP
Source - The Hindu
An empty structure is not a toilet: Supreme Court
Survey of school toilets in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana presents bleak picture.
Calling an empty shell of a room 'toilet' without providing users any of the required facilities does not make it a “toilet in reality”, the Supreme Court declared on Tuesday.
A Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant made the observation in a written order stressing the need for clean and safe toilets for girls in schools.
The court pointed to how authorities build a certain “structure”, christen it 'toilet' and then forget about it from their memory.
“It can be said without any fear of contradiction that a toilet in structure only is not a toilet in reality,” the Bench observed in its three-page order.
“Toilets meant for schools, which are co-educational and the girls' schools have to have such toilets which are clean and acceptable having proper facilities,” the order read.
The court passed the order while perusing a report submitted by its own committee, which conducted a survey of school toilets in two States – Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The report was scathing on the state of toilet facilities, especially for girl students.
This continues to be the state of affairs in both States despite an earlier direction from the apex court to frame schemes in this regard. The court's orders and this hearing was based on a petition filed by J.K. Raju in 2013, highlighting the plight of girl students in the two States.
“It has to be borne in mind by the authorities of the two States that clean and safe toilets also help in sustaining the health conditions of the students,” the Bench observed.
The court's order gains significance as the Prime Minister in his Independence Day speech had urged the importance of separate and clean toilets for girls. He had said that by next year, every school should have toilets for girls and boys.
The court ordered Secretary, School Education Department, of both States to be personally present in court on March 10, 2015. It further ordered the scheme to be framed and filed in the apex court within the next four weeks.
Calling an empty shell of a room 'toilet' without providing users any of the required facilities does not make it a “toilet in reality”, the Supreme Court declared on Tuesday.
A Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant made the observation in a written order stressing the need for clean and safe toilets for girls in schools.
The court pointed to how authorities build a certain “structure”, christen it 'toilet' and then forget about it from their memory.
“It can be said without any fear of contradiction that a toilet in structure only is not a toilet in reality,” the Bench observed in its three-page order.
“Toilets meant for schools, which are co-educational and the girls' schools have to have such toilets which are clean and acceptable having proper facilities,” the order read.
The court passed the order while perusing a report submitted by its own committee, which conducted a survey of school toilets in two States – Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The report was scathing on the state of toilet facilities, especially for girl students.
This continues to be the state of affairs in both States despite an earlier direction from the apex court to frame schemes in this regard. The court's orders and this hearing was based on a petition filed by J.K. Raju in 2013, highlighting the plight of girl students in the two States.
“It has to be borne in mind by the authorities of the two States that clean and safe toilets also help in sustaining the health conditions of the students,” the Bench observed.
The court's order gains significance as the Prime Minister in his Independence Day speech had urged the importance of separate and clean toilets for girls. He had said that by next year, every school should have toilets for girls and boys.
The court ordered Secretary, School Education Department, of both States to be personally present in court on March 10, 2015. It further ordered the scheme to be framed and filed in the apex court within the next four weeks.
Source - The Hindu
The story behind a cartoon
During the golden jubilee celebrations of Sri Jayendra Saraswati being anointed the Sankaracharya, several awards were presented in Chennai on March 31, 2004. The Sankaracharya of the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam had felicitated several eminent personalities, including R.K. Laxman. Mr. Laxman’s granddaughter, Mahalaxmi Laxman, had received the award on his behalf, and had presented Sankaracharya a cartoon showing the common man seeking his blessings.
The Hindu had carried the cartoon, along with a report on the felicitation programme, in its edition on April 1, 2004.
Paying rich tributes to the legendary cartoonist, Mr. Shankar recalled the story behind the cartoon. “When I went and met him in Pune to invite him to the function, he told me he would be unable to attend and that he would send his grand-daughter on his behalf,” Mr. Shankar recalled. “He said that Swamiji remembering him was a blessing in itself. And the fact that he would give him an award was a double blessing. Then he went on to ask me what he could give the Swamiji in return.”
When Mr. Shankar suggested that he draw a cartoon of the seer, Mr. Laxman, despite being unwell, agreed immediately.
K.A. Viswanathan, a functionary of the South Indian Education Society, framed the cartoon. “I took the sketch, blew it up, framed it and gave it to his daughter-in-law for presenting it to the seer in Chennai. Mr. Laxman also asked his daughter-in-law to speak to Mr. N. Ram of TheHindu on his behalf and asked me to go and meet him with a copy of this sketch in Chennai,” he said. The cartoon became an instant hit. “It reflected Laxman’s art of reciprocation. It conveyed how Laxman was not just a common man. Remembering his talent is a tribute we want to pay him today. Laxman can never be erased from our memories,” Mr. Shankar said.
Source - The Hindu
Wage code to replace all related laws
The government plans to introduce a “wage code,” that will replace Central laws pertaining to wage related matters and cover both the organised and the unorganised sectors.
Though the government had invited comments in July last year on the draft Minimum Wages (Amendment) Bill, 2013, which included setting a national minimum wage floor, the new “wage code” once finalised will subsume key laws, including the Minimum Wages Act 1948 and the proposed amendment.
“The wage code will set basic provisions related to payment of wages and bonuses. Once this is finalised, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, and the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, will no longer be in place. The aim is to reduce the number of laws employers have to comply with,” a senior government official said. The details of the code were still being worked out.
The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) in 2012 as well as the NDA government last year had proposed a statutory National Floor Level Minimum Wage (NFLMW) which will make it binding for all State governments to pay the minimum wages specified for various economic activities.
The National Minimum Wages Act, 1948, lays down minimum wages for 45 listed economic activities. But since labour is a subject in the concurrent list, States can decide minimum wages for more than 1,600 economic activities. Wages paid to workers is frequently less than the specified rates. The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 provides for equal wages for women and men workers for the same work.
The NFLMW was based on the 1991 recommendations of the National Commission on Rural Labour.
Though the government had invited comments in July last year on the draft Minimum Wages (Amendment) Bill, 2013, which included setting a national minimum wage floor, the new “wage code” once finalised will subsume key laws, including the Minimum Wages Act 1948 and the proposed amendment.
“The wage code will set basic provisions related to payment of wages and bonuses. Once this is finalised, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, and the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, will no longer be in place. The aim is to reduce the number of laws employers have to comply with,” a senior government official said. The details of the code were still being worked out.
The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) in 2012 as well as the NDA government last year had proposed a statutory National Floor Level Minimum Wage (NFLMW) which will make it binding for all State governments to pay the minimum wages specified for various economic activities.
The National Minimum Wages Act, 1948, lays down minimum wages for 45 listed economic activities. But since labour is a subject in the concurrent list, States can decide minimum wages for more than 1,600 economic activities. Wages paid to workers is frequently less than the specified rates. The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 provides for equal wages for women and men workers for the same work.
The NFLMW was based on the 1991 recommendations of the National Commission on Rural Labour.
Source - The Hindu
‘Missing words’ in Preamble spark row
Amid a row over the omission of the words “socialist, secular” in the image of the Preamble to the Constitution used in two Republic Day print advertisements issued on behalf of the government, the Information & Broadcasting Ministry on Tuesday said this was an “artistic depiction of an original historical document” and there was no mistake.
The advertisements — issued by the Ministry using a quotation of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the foreground — has a watermark of the original Preamble to the Constitution in the background stating: “We the People of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign democratic republic...”
The omission of the words “socialist, secular” — introduced through the 42nd Constitution Amendment Act in 1976 — triggered a controversy as it was seen as “mischievous” when the “secular character of the Indian democracy” stands “threatened by a right-wing government.”
Fire-fighting for the government, Union Minister of State for I&B Rajyavardhan Rathore said: “The controversy surrounding the advertisement is uncalled for. Photograph of the original Preamble was a way of honouring founding fathers of the Constitution.”
Tweeting an image of the original Preamble, he added that “incidentally, the same picture was used in official advertisements earlier also.”
However, an online petition initiated by India Resists, pointed out that “at a time when the people of India, and even the global community, have genuine apprehensions about the secular character of Indian democracy... this omission is utterly condemnable.”
Ministry officials maintained that no correction was required as no mistake was made. Director-General (Media & Communications) A.P. Frank Noronha told The Hindu : “An artistic depiction of an original historical document was used as a watermark to enhance the aesthetic value of the advertisement. The purpose of the advertisement was to highlight Republic Day.”
The advertisements — issued by the Ministry using a quotation of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the foreground — has a watermark of the original Preamble to the Constitution in the background stating: “We the People of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign democratic republic...”
The omission of the words “socialist, secular” — introduced through the 42nd Constitution Amendment Act in 1976 — triggered a controversy as it was seen as “mischievous” when the “secular character of the Indian democracy” stands “threatened by a right-wing government.”
Fire-fighting for the government, Union Minister of State for I&B Rajyavardhan Rathore said: “The controversy surrounding the advertisement is uncalled for. Photograph of the original Preamble was a way of honouring founding fathers of the Constitution.”
Tweeting an image of the original Preamble, he added that “incidentally, the same picture was used in official advertisements earlier also.”
However, an online petition initiated by India Resists, pointed out that “at a time when the people of India, and even the global community, have genuine apprehensions about the secular character of Indian democracy... this omission is utterly condemnable.”
Ministry officials maintained that no correction was required as no mistake was made. Director-General (Media & Communications) A.P. Frank Noronha told The Hindu : “An artistic depiction of an original historical document was used as a watermark to enhance the aesthetic value of the advertisement. The purpose of the advertisement was to highlight Republic Day.”
Source- The Hindu
Centre to launch services sector push on April 23
India’s strengths to be showcased
After launching the “Make in India” initiative aimed at the manufacturing industry, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is set to initiate a big push for the services sector in April.
Mr. Modi will inaugurate a global exhibition on services on April 23 to showcase India’s strength in the sector and provide a platform to the industry to explore opportunities, Commerce and Industry Minister Nirmala Sitharaman told presspersons here on Tuesday.
“Services must grow alongside manufacturing as the services sector contributes over 50 per cent to the country’s economic growth.”
Over 40 countries are expected to participate in the three-day exhibition. Besides IT, big opportunities exist in tourism, wellness, yoga, healthcare, education, logistics, media and entertainment, R&D, space and hospitality, she said.
India’s rank in the global exports of services improved from the 11th in 2009 to the sixth in 2013. Still, there is tremendous scope as India’s share in the global services trade is only 3 per cent, compared with 4.6 per cent of China, Commerce Secretary Rajeev Kher said.
Vital role
The services sector has an important role to play in the success of “Make in India,” he said. “Unless we are competitive in services, we will not be competitive in merchandise.”
India ran a net surplus of $73 billion in services trade during 2013-14 as exports exceeded imports. The surplus in services helped provide for some part of the trade deficit in merchandise of $138 billion.
Over 40 countries to take part in three-day global exhibition
After launching the “Make in India” initiative aimed at the manufacturing industry, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is set to initiate a big push for the services sector in April.
Mr. Modi will inaugurate a global exhibition on services on April 23 to showcase India’s strength in the sector and provide a platform to the industry to explore opportunities, Commerce and Industry Minister Nirmala Sitharaman told presspersons here on Tuesday.
“Services must grow alongside manufacturing as the services sector contributes over 50 per cent to the country’s economic growth.”
Over 40 countries are expected to participate in the three-day exhibition. Besides IT, big opportunities exist in tourism, wellness, yoga, healthcare, education, logistics, media and entertainment, R&D, space and hospitality, she said.
India’s rank in the global exports of services improved from the 11th in 2009 to the sixth in 2013. Still, there is tremendous scope as India’s share in the global services trade is only 3 per cent, compared with 4.6 per cent of China, Commerce Secretary Rajeev Kher said.
Vital role
The services sector has an important role to play in the success of “Make in India,” he said. “Unless we are competitive in services, we will not be competitive in merchandise.”
India ran a net surplus of $73 billion in services trade during 2013-14 as exports exceeded imports. The surplus in services helped provide for some part of the trade deficit in merchandise of $138 billion.
Over 40 countries to take part in three-day global exhibition
Source - The Hindu
Pak. reserves right to protect its interests: Sartaj Aziz
Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s National Security Adviser Sartaj Aziz said in a statement on Tuesday that Islamabad opposed elements in the Indo-U.S. agreements including India’s entry to the Nuclear Suppliers Group, terrorism cooperation as well as U.S. endorsement for India in the U.N. Security Council.
On the issue of the NSG membership, Mr. Aziz said, “Pakistan is opposed to yet another country-specific exemption from NSG rules to grant membership to India,” adding this would “undermine the credibility of NSG and weaken the non-proliferation regime.”
Pakistan’s position was at odds with China’s statement of conditional support a day ago. “We believe that such [an] inclusion should be conducive to the integrity and effectiveness of the regime and decision should be made on consensus. We notice India’s commitment to relevant issues,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying had said at a media briefing.
Veiled threat
Mr. Aziz also issued a veiled threat on the operationalisation of the nuclear deal, saying that the move on the basis of “political and economic expediencies” would have a “detrimental impact on deterrence stability in South Asia”, adding that “Pakistan reserves the right to safeguard its national security interests.”
On the joint statement declaration on terrorism, calling the Indo-U.S. partnership a defining one to counter terrorism in the 21st century, including a call to Pakistan to bring “perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks on November 2008” to justice, the Pakistani NSA said they would “reject any insinuation or aspersion over its commitment to fight terrorism.”
In his statement, Mr. Aziz seemed to mirror the language of the joint statement by saying “Pakistan reiterates its call on India to bring the planners and perpetrators of the February 2007 Samjhauta Express terrorist attack to justice.”
U.N. Council seat
Pakistan also opposed Mr. Obama’s statement on supporting a reformed United Nations Security Council with India as a member, criticising what it claimed is India’s record on human rights.
Pakistan’s government has been under criticism internally for its failure to have President Obama visit Pakistan along with his visit to India this year. Mr. Obama is only the second U.S. President (after Jimmy Carter) not to travel to India and Pakistan together.
There was no immediate response from the Ministry of External Affairs to the Pakistani statement.
On the issue of the NSG membership, Mr. Aziz said, “Pakistan is opposed to yet another country-specific exemption from NSG rules to grant membership to India,” adding this would “undermine the credibility of NSG and weaken the non-proliferation regime.”
Pakistan’s position was at odds with China’s statement of conditional support a day ago. “We believe that such [an] inclusion should be conducive to the integrity and effectiveness of the regime and decision should be made on consensus. We notice India’s commitment to relevant issues,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying had said at a media briefing.
Veiled threat
Mr. Aziz also issued a veiled threat on the operationalisation of the nuclear deal, saying that the move on the basis of “political and economic expediencies” would have a “detrimental impact on deterrence stability in South Asia”, adding that “Pakistan reserves the right to safeguard its national security interests.”
On the joint statement declaration on terrorism, calling the Indo-U.S. partnership a defining one to counter terrorism in the 21st century, including a call to Pakistan to bring “perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks on November 2008” to justice, the Pakistani NSA said they would “reject any insinuation or aspersion over its commitment to fight terrorism.”
In his statement, Mr. Aziz seemed to mirror the language of the joint statement by saying “Pakistan reiterates its call on India to bring the planners and perpetrators of the February 2007 Samjhauta Express terrorist attack to justice.”
U.N. Council seat
Pakistan also opposed Mr. Obama’s statement on supporting a reformed United Nations Security Council with India as a member, criticising what it claimed is India’s record on human rights.
Pakistan’s government has been under criticism internally for its failure to have President Obama visit Pakistan along with his visit to India this year. Mr. Obama is only the second U.S. President (after Jimmy Carter) not to travel to India and Pakistan together.
There was no immediate response from the Ministry of External Affairs to the Pakistani statement.
Source - The Hindu
Fog hangs over nuclear 'breakthrough'
U.S. nuclear suppliers have neither been informed of the details of the “breakthrough understanding” achieved in the India-U.S. civil nuclear agreement nor has a date been set to brief them on how the publicly funded insurance pool will satisfy the vendors on their concerns over Section 46 of the Indian Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act.
Experts close to the discussions, who spoke to The Hindu on condition of anonymity, said that even if the $244 million proposed for the pool were to be used to indemnify suppliers against claims under Section 17(b) of the liability law, they “don’t see how a memorandum of law could supersede the statute.”
In prior remarks, U.S. Ambassador to India Richard Verma was quoted as saying that the breakthrough understanding achieved during discussions between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi over the weekend could operate “through a memorandum of law within the Indian system.”
This would be a necessary step to give U.S. nuclear suppliers confidence that, firstly, the insurance pool would help them meet the obligations, implied by Section 17(b) in the event of a nuclear accident, of “strict, no-fault liability” and victims’ right to recover damages from the supplier if the accident was caused by defective equipment or services.
Second, with Indian officials firmly backing away from any suggestion that the language of the liability law could be changed to accommodate U.S. nuclear suppliers’ concerns, experts noted that an effort to “read down” the meaning of Section 46, which gives victims the right to tort remedies regardless of whether they received compensation under no-fault liability, may be required.
However, doubt still hangs over the question of whether, at some point in time, any assurances given by the Indian side to U.S. suppliers in the near term would have to be followed up with a “legislative undertaking,” as Mr. Verma mentioned.
Ambiguity on this matter stems from the fact that typically it is only the Indian Parliament that enacts statutes and it is either Parliament or courts that are empowered to interpret them.
Source - The Hindu
Securing a future for ‘Digital India’
New Delhi should not offer open-ended commitments to buy U.S. services without a forensic analysis of what they would mean for domestic constituents
With the India-U.S. Working Group on Information and Communication Technologies (WG-ICT) meeting in Washington D.C. a week ago, the Internet is finally at the front and centre of the National Democratic Alliance government’s foreign policy. The WG-ICT was set up in 2005, following Dr. Manmohan Singh’s visit to the U.S. If its meetings were hitherto held under the umbrella of Indo-U.S. economic dialogue, the WG-ICT’s future work will be dominated by the requirements of the ‘Digital India’ programme. In the coming months, the group’s deliberations are expected to yield results on some of the key components of the programme — digital infrastructure (to support the National Optic Fibre Network), an ‘Internet of Things’ (IoT) regime (essential to building smart cities), and foreign ICT investment (in line with the ‘Make in India’ policy). The WG-ICT agenda is also likely to receive sustained attention from the Prime Minister’s Office, which has invested enormous political capital in the Digital India initiative. This political imperative, however, must be sensitive to global developments as New Delhi prepares to negotiate a host of technology-related agreements with the West.
A welcome decision
The NDA government’s decision to engage the WG-ICT is welcome. On areas like climate change and international trade, the U.S. has often used the bilateral route to circumvent multilateral regimes. On the digital front, however, the international community is yet to generate legal instruments on e-commerce, cybersecurity and Internet governance. This provides wiggle room for both countries to draw their red lines and even offer a model that can be emulated in a regional or multilateral setting.
The WG-ICT, however, should not become a vehicle to nudge India into negotiating the draft text of the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), a breakaway treaty that has sought to create consensus where none could be found during the Doha round of talks at the World Trade Organization. TISA negotiations — comprising a bloc of 28 countries and led by the U.S. — began three years ago under a veil of secrecy. In late 2014, a draft of TISA provisions relating to online services was leaked to the public. The leaked provisions revealed what the U.S. views as foreign policy deliverables on the digital front, which Indian negotiators would do well to take into account as they head to WG-ICT meetings. Draft TISA provisions require state parties not to impose obligations on online service providers to maintain a “commercial presence” locally. TISA signatories would also be prohibited from asking Internet companies to maintain servers within their borders. Governments can neither ask online services to prefer locally produced hardware over foreign manufacturers nor promote domestic content at the cost of other applications. The draft agreement also discourages domestic laws mandating technology or intellectual property transfer to local companies. Some TISA provisions further the case for uninterrupted flow of information across networks. On the whole, however, they would deal a blow to policies like ‘Make in India,’ which can only be sustained through some preferential treatment to India’s underdeveloped electronic sector. Given that exports of digital services have outgrown those of every other commodity in the U.S., it is not surprising that Secretary of State John Kerry expressed his concerns about the ‘Make in India’ policy at the Vibrant Gujarat summit earlier this month.
Even if India is not an active interlocutor in TISA negotiations, the underlying message from the U.S. and EU is hard to miss: commercial cyberspace is better left unregulated. As it prepares to draft new digital policies and calibrate existing ones, India’s negotiators will likely face resistance from their Western counterparts in forums like the WG-ICT.
For instance, the Ministry of Home Affairs has been holding consultations on national information security guidelines, spurred to action by the Edward Snowden revelations of U.S. snooping on foreign governments. These guidelines purportedly deal with measures like encryption and digital authorisation. On the other hand, draft TISA provisions push countries to let transacting parties “mutually determine the appropriate [electronic] authentication methods,” undermining the government’s role in fostering consumer confidence. India is also building its own certification labs that test electronic equipment. Indigenous testing, it is hoped, will trigger greater R&D in electronics manufacturing, but its effects will be waylaid by an agreement that reduces the scope for regulating imported equipment.
Just as critical would be WG-ICT deliberations on India’s IoT programme. IoT refers to a digital ecosystem where the needs of consumers are seamlessly recognised by Internet-connected devices around them, enabling the fast and automated delivery of services. The Modi government’s vaunted objective of building “smart cities” is contingent on an effective IoT policy.
Such a system, however, relies on extensive data collected from citizens — vehicle records, dietary habits, or even consumption patterns — placing a premium on privacy and information security. Moreover, an IoT system needs sustained collaboration between the domestic private and public sectors. In October 2014, the Department of Electronics and IT put out a draft IoT policy that acknowledged these concerns. Foreign corporations will be keen to contribute to the “smart cities” project — the Indian IoT industry is estimated to be worth $15 billion by 2020. But before the WG-ICT can negotiate the terms of operation for U.S. technology giants in India’s IoT market, domestic measures that account for data privacy and Intellectual Property Rights of local and foreign manufacturers must be in place.
Internet governance
Internet governance is another field where New Delhi must get its house in order ahead of the IANA transition process. With the contract between the U.S. and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers set to expire in September 2015, India’s views on global Internet governance will doubtless be solicited during WG-ICT talks. India’s Internet economy is not on par with the U.S. but a bilateral forum like the WG-ICT helps level the playing field for its negotiators. New Delhi should not offer open-ended commitments to buy U.S. services without a forensic analysis of what they would mean for domestic constituents: the technical community, businesses, the public sector and end users of the Internet. If the Narendra Modi government intends to weave digital concerns into its core foreign policy agenda, its negotiating position has to be supported by sound domestic policies. Heading into bilateral talks without such a technical or legal framework would neither bode well for the Digital India initiative’s goals or for India’s fledgling Internet economy.
(Arun Mohan Sukumar is senior fellow, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi.)
With the India-U.S. Working Group on Information and Communication Technologies (WG-ICT) meeting in Washington D.C. a week ago, the Internet is finally at the front and centre of the National Democratic Alliance government’s foreign policy. The WG-ICT was set up in 2005, following Dr. Manmohan Singh’s visit to the U.S. If its meetings were hitherto held under the umbrella of Indo-U.S. economic dialogue, the WG-ICT’s future work will be dominated by the requirements of the ‘Digital India’ programme. In the coming months, the group’s deliberations are expected to yield results on some of the key components of the programme — digital infrastructure (to support the National Optic Fibre Network), an ‘Internet of Things’ (IoT) regime (essential to building smart cities), and foreign ICT investment (in line with the ‘Make in India’ policy). The WG-ICT agenda is also likely to receive sustained attention from the Prime Minister’s Office, which has invested enormous political capital in the Digital India initiative. This political imperative, however, must be sensitive to global developments as New Delhi prepares to negotiate a host of technology-related agreements with the West.
A welcome decision
The NDA government’s decision to engage the WG-ICT is welcome. On areas like climate change and international trade, the U.S. has often used the bilateral route to circumvent multilateral regimes. On the digital front, however, the international community is yet to generate legal instruments on e-commerce, cybersecurity and Internet governance. This provides wiggle room for both countries to draw their red lines and even offer a model that can be emulated in a regional or multilateral setting.
The WG-ICT, however, should not become a vehicle to nudge India into negotiating the draft text of the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), a breakaway treaty that has sought to create consensus where none could be found during the Doha round of talks at the World Trade Organization. TISA negotiations — comprising a bloc of 28 countries and led by the U.S. — began three years ago under a veil of secrecy. In late 2014, a draft of TISA provisions relating to online services was leaked to the public. The leaked provisions revealed what the U.S. views as foreign policy deliverables on the digital front, which Indian negotiators would do well to take into account as they head to WG-ICT meetings. Draft TISA provisions require state parties not to impose obligations on online service providers to maintain a “commercial presence” locally. TISA signatories would also be prohibited from asking Internet companies to maintain servers within their borders. Governments can neither ask online services to prefer locally produced hardware over foreign manufacturers nor promote domestic content at the cost of other applications. The draft agreement also discourages domestic laws mandating technology or intellectual property transfer to local companies. Some TISA provisions further the case for uninterrupted flow of information across networks. On the whole, however, they would deal a blow to policies like ‘Make in India,’ which can only be sustained through some preferential treatment to India’s underdeveloped electronic sector. Given that exports of digital services have outgrown those of every other commodity in the U.S., it is not surprising that Secretary of State John Kerry expressed his concerns about the ‘Make in India’ policy at the Vibrant Gujarat summit earlier this month.
Even if India is not an active interlocutor in TISA negotiations, the underlying message from the U.S. and EU is hard to miss: commercial cyberspace is better left unregulated. As it prepares to draft new digital policies and calibrate existing ones, India’s negotiators will likely face resistance from their Western counterparts in forums like the WG-ICT.
For instance, the Ministry of Home Affairs has been holding consultations on national information security guidelines, spurred to action by the Edward Snowden revelations of U.S. snooping on foreign governments. These guidelines purportedly deal with measures like encryption and digital authorisation. On the other hand, draft TISA provisions push countries to let transacting parties “mutually determine the appropriate [electronic] authentication methods,” undermining the government’s role in fostering consumer confidence. India is also building its own certification labs that test electronic equipment. Indigenous testing, it is hoped, will trigger greater R&D in electronics manufacturing, but its effects will be waylaid by an agreement that reduces the scope for regulating imported equipment.
Just as critical would be WG-ICT deliberations on India’s IoT programme. IoT refers to a digital ecosystem where the needs of consumers are seamlessly recognised by Internet-connected devices around them, enabling the fast and automated delivery of services. The Modi government’s vaunted objective of building “smart cities” is contingent on an effective IoT policy.
Such a system, however, relies on extensive data collected from citizens — vehicle records, dietary habits, or even consumption patterns — placing a premium on privacy and information security. Moreover, an IoT system needs sustained collaboration between the domestic private and public sectors. In October 2014, the Department of Electronics and IT put out a draft IoT policy that acknowledged these concerns. Foreign corporations will be keen to contribute to the “smart cities” project — the Indian IoT industry is estimated to be worth $15 billion by 2020. But before the WG-ICT can negotiate the terms of operation for U.S. technology giants in India’s IoT market, domestic measures that account for data privacy and Intellectual Property Rights of local and foreign manufacturers must be in place.
Internet governance
Internet governance is another field where New Delhi must get its house in order ahead of the IANA transition process. With the contract between the U.S. and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers set to expire in September 2015, India’s views on global Internet governance will doubtless be solicited during WG-ICT talks. India’s Internet economy is not on par with the U.S. but a bilateral forum like the WG-ICT helps level the playing field for its negotiators. New Delhi should not offer open-ended commitments to buy U.S. services without a forensic analysis of what they would mean for domestic constituents: the technical community, businesses, the public sector and end users of the Internet. If the Narendra Modi government intends to weave digital concerns into its core foreign policy agenda, its negotiating position has to be supported by sound domestic policies. Heading into bilateral talks without such a technical or legal framework would neither bode well for the Digital India initiative’s goals or for India’s fledgling Internet economy.
(Arun Mohan Sukumar is senior fellow, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi.)
Source - The Hindu
[Ed] After the nuclear step, the big leap
For the new Modi-Obama vision to succeed, India would need a more agile management of its international engagement on the economic and political sides considering the fact that the two leaders have agreed to elevate their strategic dialogue to include strategy and commerce
It is a measure of how important the India-United States civil nuclear agreement was to the bilateral relationship that even Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said that it constitutes the “centrepiece” of the strategic partnership between the two great democracies. However, the U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to India this weekend was not about that “centrepiece” but about the entire mantle.
Tying up the loose ends of the Indian nuclear liability law was about completing unfinished business. It was also about regaining U.S. trust. After all, the George Bush administration helped legitimise India’s status as a nuclear weapons power and expected, in exchange, at least some of the business that would then get generated. The liability law that India then enacted was viewed as an act of bad faith. The trust that successive Prime Ministers, from P.V. Narasimha Rao onwards, injected into the relationship was wasted away by this one act of Indian doublespeak.
Political doublespeak
To return the relationship to where it was in 2008, when the U.S. secured the approval of the Nuclear Suppliers Group for India’s nuclear programme, it was necessary to clear the air on the liability law. In short, the nuclear stuff that hogged the headlines all through the weekend was just the ribbon that had to be cut for Mr. Obama and Mr. Modi to then move on. Move on they did. The real outcome of the visit is captured in the statements on their bilateral Strategic Vision and the Declaration of Friendship.
What the entire nuclear deal episode captures, however, is the price we pay for our political doublespeak. As Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh would often say that a political party’s view on policy should not be judged by what it says when in Opposition, but by what it does when in government. So, even though it was the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), under the leadership of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, that took the “first steps” and the “next steps” towards a strategic partnership with the U.S., the same BJP opposed the India-U.S. civil nuclear energy agreement under the leadership of Lal Krishna Advani, when he was Leader of the Opposition.
Ironically, it is Sushma Swaraj who, in 2010, reportedly picked up the phone and called the CPI(M)’s Sitaram Yechury, striking an alliance with the Left to demand changes to the original nuclear liability law, who has had to now help find a way out of the impasse she helped create.
But then, the Advani BJP’s objection to the nuclear deal was not based on genuine concerns about strategic autonomy and the future of the nuclear programme. When Dr. Singh managed to win over Mr. Vajpayee’s National Security Advisor, the late Brajesh Mishra, and the leadership of the Department of Atomic Energy, the Advani BJP’s game became clear. It was in fact seeking to oust the Manmohan Singh government, not really block the nuclear deal.
Back on track
Given that the BJP in office today is not the Advani BJP, but the Narendra Modi BJP and given that Mr. Modi was never an enthusiastic supporter of the Advani group’s ambition to seize power, he would have had no problem endorsing the deal that Dr. Singh struck and getting on with business. That is precisely what he has done. In six quick months he has cleared the cobwebs and revived what seemed to have become a moribund relationship during Dr. Singh’s second term.
The weakening of Dr. Singh’s prime ministership also coincided with domestic distractions for the U.S. President. The post-2008 economic crisis not only forced Mr. Obama to cosy up to China, but his Afghanistan strategy took him closer to Pakistan. India felt abandoned. It took the decisive victory of Mr. Modi, in May 2014, and a new reassessment of a post-Modi India by Mr. Obama, for the deal to be back on track.
Mr. Modi has understood the strategic significance of the nuclear deal; that it was not just about building nuclear power plants but, as he put it so eloquently on Saturday, the “centrepiece” of a strategic partnership. The wayward course of the nuclear deal only underscores the importance of strong domestic political leadership for success on the external front. A ‘strong’ Dr. Singh clinched the deal in 2008, a weakened one failed to deliver on it. A ‘strong’ successor has now completed the project.
The new ‘mantle’
The new ‘mantle’ is now defined by the joint statement issued by Mr. Obama and Mr. Modi, which has to be read within the wider framework of bilateral relations defined by the Declaration of Friendship and the Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region. While the media, quite understandably, remained focussed on the “centrepiece,” a new mantle has now been put in place defined by these Vision and Friendship statements.
The vision defining the new partnership captures the geopolitical view that the key to India’s rise as a global player is “inclusive economic development” at home. It is also in India’s interest, as well as that of the U.S., to establish a rules-based system of global economic governance and a rules-based security architecture.
Critics of the U.S.-India partnership, and there would be many in both countries, tend to assess the new understanding within the paradigm of outdated Cold War thinking. India-baiters in the U.S. would chastise Mr. Obama for giving India too much strategic space with no assurance of any alliance being offered in exchange. Critics of the U.S. in India will charge Mr. Modi with bartering away India’s strategic autonomy and its “independent foreign policy.”
Both would be wrong. The reality is that both Mr. Obama and Mr. Modi have come to terms with the reality of the new world order, in which they see their partnership as strengthening a global economic and security architecture that would benefit both. In that sense, the three documents issued by the two leaders in New Delhi offer a realistic assessment of the existing power equation between the two interlocutors, on the one hand, and between them and other major powers, like Russia and China, on the other.
Time for hard work
Going forward, the U.S. and India will work more closely together but will also be able to offer each other a wider margin for individual manoeuvre. Thus, for example, the U.S. may not be averse to India’s present level of engagement of Russia and China, just as India would be more understanding of U.S. relations with China and Pakistan. This new way of approaching the bilateral relationship within a larger global context would enable the two leaders to avoid the “zero-sum-game” trap in the regional context.
All this calls for a much more mature handling of Indian foreign policy and of India’s many strategic partnerships. Mr. Modi has demonstrated that he has the wit and wisdom to pull it off — being friendly with Vladimir Putin even as he hugs Barack Obama. But it is not an easy act to sustain, especially when difficult forks are reached and a choice has to be made one way or another. The art of diplomacy lies in avoiding such dilemmas.
For the new Modi-Obama vision to succeed, India would need a much more alert and agile management of its international engagement on the economic and political side, specially considering the fact that the two leaders have agreed to elevate their strategic dialogue to a strategic and commercial dialogue.
This would require much greater inter-ministerial coordination at the bilateral, regional and global levels. India cannot continue with the contradiction of the past wherein one ministry would be seeking favours from a country while another ministry would be poking it in the eye or cocking a snook.
As Superman’s uncle tells him when he discovers the newly acquired powers of his young nephew, with great power comes great responsibility. One can extend that argument and suggest that in fact the quest for great power entails even greater responsibility. Once a nation has arrived at a new equilibrium of power, it can afford to make mistakes and get away. But the journey to that new status is fraught and the path is replete with slippery slopes.
Once the celebration of success of a summit gone well is over, the time for careful hard work and sustained leadership begins.
(Sanjaya Baru is Director for Geo-economics and Strategy, International Institute for Strategic Studies, and Honorary Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi.)
It is a measure of how important the India-United States civil nuclear agreement was to the bilateral relationship that even Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said that it constitutes the “centrepiece” of the strategic partnership between the two great democracies. However, the U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to India this weekend was not about that “centrepiece” but about the entire mantle.
Tying up the loose ends of the Indian nuclear liability law was about completing unfinished business. It was also about regaining U.S. trust. After all, the George Bush administration helped legitimise India’s status as a nuclear weapons power and expected, in exchange, at least some of the business that would then get generated. The liability law that India then enacted was viewed as an act of bad faith. The trust that successive Prime Ministers, from P.V. Narasimha Rao onwards, injected into the relationship was wasted away by this one act of Indian doublespeak.
Political doublespeak
To return the relationship to where it was in 2008, when the U.S. secured the approval of the Nuclear Suppliers Group for India’s nuclear programme, it was necessary to clear the air on the liability law. In short, the nuclear stuff that hogged the headlines all through the weekend was just the ribbon that had to be cut for Mr. Obama and Mr. Modi to then move on. Move on they did. The real outcome of the visit is captured in the statements on their bilateral Strategic Vision and the Declaration of Friendship.
What the entire nuclear deal episode captures, however, is the price we pay for our political doublespeak. As Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh would often say that a political party’s view on policy should not be judged by what it says when in Opposition, but by what it does when in government. So, even though it was the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), under the leadership of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, that took the “first steps” and the “next steps” towards a strategic partnership with the U.S., the same BJP opposed the India-U.S. civil nuclear energy agreement under the leadership of Lal Krishna Advani, when he was Leader of the Opposition.
Ironically, it is Sushma Swaraj who, in 2010, reportedly picked up the phone and called the CPI(M)’s Sitaram Yechury, striking an alliance with the Left to demand changes to the original nuclear liability law, who has had to now help find a way out of the impasse she helped create.
But then, the Advani BJP’s objection to the nuclear deal was not based on genuine concerns about strategic autonomy and the future of the nuclear programme. When Dr. Singh managed to win over Mr. Vajpayee’s National Security Advisor, the late Brajesh Mishra, and the leadership of the Department of Atomic Energy, the Advani BJP’s game became clear. It was in fact seeking to oust the Manmohan Singh government, not really block the nuclear deal.
Back on track
Given that the BJP in office today is not the Advani BJP, but the Narendra Modi BJP and given that Mr. Modi was never an enthusiastic supporter of the Advani group’s ambition to seize power, he would have had no problem endorsing the deal that Dr. Singh struck and getting on with business. That is precisely what he has done. In six quick months he has cleared the cobwebs and revived what seemed to have become a moribund relationship during Dr. Singh’s second term.
The weakening of Dr. Singh’s prime ministership also coincided with domestic distractions for the U.S. President. The post-2008 economic crisis not only forced Mr. Obama to cosy up to China, but his Afghanistan strategy took him closer to Pakistan. India felt abandoned. It took the decisive victory of Mr. Modi, in May 2014, and a new reassessment of a post-Modi India by Mr. Obama, for the deal to be back on track.
Mr. Modi has understood the strategic significance of the nuclear deal; that it was not just about building nuclear power plants but, as he put it so eloquently on Saturday, the “centrepiece” of a strategic partnership. The wayward course of the nuclear deal only underscores the importance of strong domestic political leadership for success on the external front. A ‘strong’ Dr. Singh clinched the deal in 2008, a weakened one failed to deliver on it. A ‘strong’ successor has now completed the project.
The new ‘mantle’
The new ‘mantle’ is now defined by the joint statement issued by Mr. Obama and Mr. Modi, which has to be read within the wider framework of bilateral relations defined by the Declaration of Friendship and the Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region. While the media, quite understandably, remained focussed on the “centrepiece,” a new mantle has now been put in place defined by these Vision and Friendship statements.
The vision defining the new partnership captures the geopolitical view that the key to India’s rise as a global player is “inclusive economic development” at home. It is also in India’s interest, as well as that of the U.S., to establish a rules-based system of global economic governance and a rules-based security architecture.
Critics of the U.S.-India partnership, and there would be many in both countries, tend to assess the new understanding within the paradigm of outdated Cold War thinking. India-baiters in the U.S. would chastise Mr. Obama for giving India too much strategic space with no assurance of any alliance being offered in exchange. Critics of the U.S. in India will charge Mr. Modi with bartering away India’s strategic autonomy and its “independent foreign policy.”
Both would be wrong. The reality is that both Mr. Obama and Mr. Modi have come to terms with the reality of the new world order, in which they see their partnership as strengthening a global economic and security architecture that would benefit both. In that sense, the three documents issued by the two leaders in New Delhi offer a realistic assessment of the existing power equation between the two interlocutors, on the one hand, and between them and other major powers, like Russia and China, on the other.
Time for hard work
Going forward, the U.S. and India will work more closely together but will also be able to offer each other a wider margin for individual manoeuvre. Thus, for example, the U.S. may not be averse to India’s present level of engagement of Russia and China, just as India would be more understanding of U.S. relations with China and Pakistan. This new way of approaching the bilateral relationship within a larger global context would enable the two leaders to avoid the “zero-sum-game” trap in the regional context.
All this calls for a much more mature handling of Indian foreign policy and of India’s many strategic partnerships. Mr. Modi has demonstrated that he has the wit and wisdom to pull it off — being friendly with Vladimir Putin even as he hugs Barack Obama. But it is not an easy act to sustain, especially when difficult forks are reached and a choice has to be made one way or another. The art of diplomacy lies in avoiding such dilemmas.
For the new Modi-Obama vision to succeed, India would need a much more alert and agile management of its international engagement on the economic and political side, specially considering the fact that the two leaders have agreed to elevate their strategic dialogue to a strategic and commercial dialogue.
This would require much greater inter-ministerial coordination at the bilateral, regional and global levels. India cannot continue with the contradiction of the past wherein one ministry would be seeking favours from a country while another ministry would be poking it in the eye or cocking a snook.
As Superman’s uncle tells him when he discovers the newly acquired powers of his young nephew, with great power comes great responsibility. One can extend that argument and suggest that in fact the quest for great power entails even greater responsibility. Once a nation has arrived at a new equilibrium of power, it can afford to make mistakes and get away. But the journey to that new status is fraught and the path is replete with slippery slopes.
Once the celebration of success of a summit gone well is over, the time for careful hard work and sustained leadership begins.
(Sanjaya Baru is Director for Geo-economics and Strategy, International Institute for Strategic Studies, and Honorary Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi.)
Source - The Hindu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)